Government governing.....

I agree with Inia's post on all of the issues that lie within the IRS, as well as several other government agencies.  The Internal Revenue Service, of all people, should be the ones that are compliant the most out of all U.S. citizens.  How can they expect for the "average Joe" that works maybe a full time job, has a mortgage to pay and family to raise as well as plan for a decent retirement keep up one hundred percent of his or her taxes whenever their own employees do not do such.  Especially with the employees that have discipline issues.  There is no logical reasoning as to why anyone with back taxes that works at the IRS or for any government agency for that matter, get any type of annual compensation bonus.  The employees that have discipline issues are definitely being mislead by being awarded with such merits and/or awards.  It sounds like to me that whoever is in charge of these employees is not competent to effectively do their job or else the employees with such discipline issues would not be getting awarded with such bonuses.

A similar situation has occurred with an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) employee that was caught watching anywhere from two to six hours of porn since 2010 while on company time on a company computer.  What happened to this individual you ask?  Well he still has his job and is still getting paid.  This employee pretty much got a slap on the wrist, if that.  The immediate supervisors of this employee personally told members of Congress that they are not doing anything about this issue.  This employee is getting paid 120K dollars a year and receiving performance awards, yes I said PERFORMANCE awards.  Don't you just love how our government is leading by such a superior example.

Response - Judge Russia Not...Unless You Want to be Judged, Western World

I have to agree to disagree to Political Nonsense The Ukraine is a sovereign country and has been since 1991. You don't just invade a sovereign country and take it over, or even get it "annexed" into your country, especially if that country has not committed any type of military action toward you or your allies. If the people of Crimea really wanted to be a part of Russia then they need to move onto Russia soil. 
You are right in respect to Obama and the majority of the U.S. citizens not knowing the culture of eastern Europeans, however that does not play a large role into this when there are INTERNATIONAL LAWS, in which the "laws" have been "understood" or "recognized," by other countries abroad. We do not have to understand their way of thinking, nor do they have to understand ours. As long as we respect one another and have "agreed" on these "International laws," it should be well understood that you do not take action as Putin has.
As much as I disagree with Obama on a LOT of things he says, I do agree with him about Putin being upset about the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin wants it back, and always has. If anyone is stirring up Cold War anxieties it is Russia, not the U.S. We were not the ones to invade a country with tens of thousands of armed military personal, take control of Airports and Military bases, and then ask the people, "Hey, what country do you want to live in?" It does not work like that w/out resistance from other countries, especially the U.S. as we have been established as a "World Leader" since the end of WWI. If the U.S. did not get involved with this at all, then that would be ridiculous at best, and I am 100% against Unnecessary military action. If the U.S. "let it be" as you previously stated, any/all countries at that, then who the hell is going to stop Putin when he sees (which he already has w/Crimea) that not a single country is going to do anything about it. What if he gets to England and starts a war with them along the same lines as they did with Crimea. Is the U.S. just supposed to set here a twiddle our thumbs while one of our main allies are getting killed over this guy with a war rage? Its international checks and balances. However you look at this situation, Putin has committed an act of war on the Ukraine.
The U.S. did not "take over' or "annex" Libya, we took military intervention to aid anti-Gaddafi rebels with air strikes against the Libyan Army. Also, according to a 2012 poll conducted by Gallup, 54% of Libyans approve of U.S. leadership, compared to only 22% and 19% respective approval for China and Russia's, and 75% of Libyans say they approved of NATO's military intervention in the civil war.
Afghanistan, really? September 11, 2001. Thousands of American murdered at home, from terrorists abroad. Al-Queda. Osama Bin Laden. Taliban. Enough said.
Im not suggesting here that borders are "set in stone" and can not be moved, however, it needs to be done as civil as possible. The last thing that Russia is doing is acting in a civil manner. Putin currently has tens of thousands of troops on the borders of eastern Ukraine, he obviously is not done yet after seeing what other countries have NOT done about him taking over Crimea by breaking international law in doing so. If he does not stop what he is doing, then it will bring on a much larger issue in the very near future. Sanctions are always just the beginning.

Land of the Fake Red Lines, and the Home of the Empty Threats

It seems that the President of the United States has had an issue keeping his word on, well, pretty much every damn thing he says.  From his signature Healthcare law to military action. 

We have all heard the famous line with his healthcare law “If you like your plan, you can keep it,” he said the same thing about our doctors too.  Here is a video with President Obama stating so, Keep Your Plan.  Years later in 2014 he admits in an interview with WebMD that some people will have to change plans and/or doctors in a manner to save money.  Here is a video with President Obama admitting people will have to change doctors, Change Doctors. 

This is just showing the beginning of his lie spectrum.  Now I am going to get into what is really hurting our Country’s reputation.

When Syrian President Bashar Assad spoke of the use of chemical weapons on his own people, President Obama stated that if he did so, it would cross a “red line for us” and might trigger a U.S. military response. You can review a timeline of the Syrian controversy here Red Line Timeline.  As we have all seen, nothing was done militarily by the United States even after Assad had used chemical weapons on his citizens, including women and children.

President Obama has said so many things that he has not come thru on, issues that involved both foreign and domestic people.  The President not following through on the Syrian President as he said he would even after a verified chemical attack, show great weakness in his leadership and on the United States as a country.  The world laughs at the U.S. now, we do not have any respect left for us.

President Putin of Russia has realized how meaningless that President Obama’s red lines, warnings, and threats of military action are.  Whenever Putin invaded Crimea, it was a test to see if anyone in the world would do anything about it.  Other than a few sanctions and frozen assets, nothing has been done.  Putin is not worried about either of these and Russia is self-efficient enough to support itself for a good while.

There are currently tens of thousands of Russian troops bordering eastern Ukraine, and I am betting that Putin will move into eastern Ukraine and take it over as he did Crimea. Putin has an end game in his mind and is definitely not worried about any type of military intervention from the U.S.  It looks like to me that Putin is going after his Soviet Union and rebuilding the Russian empire.

The United States is a world power and a world leader; at least we used to be.  We grew an empire in the late 19^th to early 20^th century, and with that empire came an understood respect.  Most people and countries did not like and respect us because we were nice.  Respect comes from fear and understanding boundaries.  Several countries found that out the hard way. Today, countries are calling our leaders’ bluff and wiping out what respect we have left.  If this keeps happening, it won’t take long for a country to try our limits and move in on us.  According to history, a World War is about due.

The moral of this blog is that our country is not being lead by a strong leader.  We are becoming the person that no one believes anything that they say because they never do as they say that they would.  We have fought hard for what we have, and loved ones have did while doing so.  It has also taken hundreds of years to get to where we are.  When people see that red, white, and blue flying high in the sky, they should get a feeling of a strong, bold, and uniform country that will do whatever necessary to protect its land and citizens.

Obama and Foreign Policy

On March 7^th, 2014, Reihan Salam wrote an article in National Review Online titled “The Agenda.”  In speaking to the American citizens, Salam asks if the Crimea crisis has anything to do with President Obama. 

While the author reviews some of President Obama’s interactions with foreign altercations within the last decade, he claims that Obama does not hold his ground very strongly, nor does the President portray clear, solid, and confident decisions when it comes to foreign affairs.  The author writes, “Though the president came out in favor of an armed intervention after (contested) allegations of the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against opposition forces, he seemed ambivalent about the idea, and he abandoned it relatively quickly.” 

Salam also leans toward the idea that Obama is an antiwar politician, despite what Obama says in the following.  “In a 2002 address, Obama argued that to oppose the Iraq War was not to be “anti-war” as such, but rather to be opposed to “a dumb war … a rash war.”  More of the authors evidence of Obama being an antiwar politician includes the facts that the President opposed the Iraq War, was eager to free the United Stated from its involvement in the new Iraqi state, being keen to place a firm time limit on the presence of United States military forces in Afghanistan, he has been willing to negotiate directly with the Iranian government without actively consulting United States allies in the Arabian Gulf, as well as supporting an armed intervention during the Libya crisis only after the French and British had already intervened.

Obama is more concentrated on domestic issue rather than foreign policy, and indeed we have plenty of domestic issues at hand.  I’m not suggesting that this is a bad thing, however, if foreign nations become unstable and do not balance themselves out in a timely manner, it will effect other nations and U.S. allies as well, in turn, directly effecting the United States, and if a world power (United States) does not act as a world leader, someone will step up to the plate and down we move on the hierarchy. 

One can only hope for peace among all nations for so long, if there are no positive changes then the leader must regulate accordingly.

I do believe that the Crimea crisis involves the President’s foreign policy and the United States as a whole, especially with Russia, at a minimum, breaking international laws.  I agree with attempting to defuse the situation diplomatically before utilizing military force as we have up to this point, however, it looks like Vladimir Putin has a different end game in mind. 

I agree with the author on the account of Obama not holding his ground very strongly, or portraying clear, solid, and confident decisions when it comes to foreign affairs.  I find the author to be credible, he used factual statements when talking on theses points, and when mentioning anything of speculation on his part, he states it so.

Now thats Micro Segmentation.......straight from our elected officials.

On February 10, 2014, The Wall Street Journal released an Op-Ed by Ajit Pai about how the government is attempting to push the Federal Communications Commission into newsrooms across America.  Ajit Pai is a commissioner for the FCC, therefore I would say his statements on this topic are pretty credible, and is telling the readers of America what is about to come and adding his opinion to the situation.  The FCC (which is a government agency), controls the airwaves, and they are attempting to survey what citizens "need to know," then regulate what can be aired on both television and radio to ensure that the citizens are ONLY getting the media that THEY believe is critical for us to see and/or hear.

"The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry."  (The Wall Street Journal)

Business competition is just that, plain and simple, competition.  If one executive looks at the media from a different angle than the other guy trying to get into the business, then that is probably why the other guy is still trying.  This concept could be placed on any number of businesses because that is how business operates.

However, if this is really an honest statement from the FCC, then what does interviewing station owners, news anchors, and directors about their "news philosophy," and how which stories are chosen to be covered on the air have to do with blocking the pathway to the communications industry for small businesses?  This statement sounds like a very poor excuse for attempting to place a virtual Government-parental-control on the nations televisions and radio stations.

Mr. Pai is making an argument against the FCC stating that he does not believe that the Federal Government should be governing what citizens should watch.  I have to proudly agree with him on this.  If I want to watch a news story about something that happened almost years ago on September 11, 2012 because I believe that it is still relevant, then I should be able to do so.  If the FCC had anything to do with it, that story, along with many others, would not see the light of day or the dark of night under the current administration.

This is a very important issue.  If this measure is enacted, all of our lives will be directly affected by it.  Some of the issues that we really care about would essentially be blocked by the government, or in this case, big brother.

There is a 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution that used to mean something and be respected, two of those rights are freedom of speech and freedom of press. That should cover the legal end of this debate, the other, personally, I do not need and will not have anyone telling me what I NEED to know and what I don't.  This is The United States of America.  This should not even be given time on the House floor.

It's A Bird, It's A Plane, Wait.......Is It The NSA?

On January 24, 2014, Fox News released an article about the Pentagon planning to deploy two large blimp like aircraft around ten thousand feet above Washington, D.C.  These are the same aircraft that have been used by the U.S. military in the Middle East as well as along the United States and Mexico border for surveillance purposes.  These aircraft are equipped with military grade, high altitude surveillance systems that can detect low flying objects, such as missiles or drones, up to 340 miles away.  The Pentagon’s reasoning for placing them above the U.S. Capital is strictly for security purposes in the event that any enemy missile or aircraft begin to approach the capital.  These aircraft have the ability to carry powerful surveillance systems capable of tracking people and vehicles up to 140 miles away.  The U.S. Army did not rule out the idea of mounting these camera systems on the aircraft.

Would this bother you if the government placed these same aircraft above our city?  Would you feel that the government would be violating your 4^th amendment right, especially after not ruling out the option of placing the surveillance system that is capable of tracking people when this is supposed to be used for “flying objects?”  

Some things such as this article do not get noticed to a lot of the public and might go unnoticed for some time.  One of the main reasons for that is that modern American citizens are not politically engaged enough to see such articles, much less any political topic.

I believe that this is a very important topic because it is leaning on, if not crossing, Americans 4^th amendment right.  We are in a time where we have the ability to track and record information such as phone calls, text messages, emails, and much more electronically through today’s technology.  The NSA (National Security Agency) claims that all attempts to monitor and record such data have been used solely for national security purposes such as against terror attacks.  I love America and I happily pay my taxes and want to live in a safe place.  With that being said, some privacy will have to be given to the government in order for them to do their jobs.  It is risk versus reward.  However, I do believe that there have been plenty of sketchy scenarios regarding the NSA and other government bodies with regards to their “national security” card they like to play so often.  If the government is going to go down this road, which it may need to in order to protect our land, then they need to get some sort of technology law in place with regards to the 4^th amendment.  As of right now, they are stomping all over it, not only with the blimp style aircraft, but with plenty of other operations that they have ongoing as we type our blogs.

4^th Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.