Of all the groups melting like snowflakes in the sun over Trump immigration policy, which of them do not employ as many or more of the new immigration policies, in their own lives, in their homes, and in their place of work?
 
For the Catholics wailing and gnashing their teeth, how many undocumented and un-vetted people make their way into the Vatican?  Will you be welcomed into the few “public” areas (much less the private ones) if you “scale the walls”, or will you be arrested?  How many visitors are allowed to overstay their visit by days, weeks, or years?  How many are allowed to wander around, unaccounted for?
 
Can you can just wander into the Apple, Google, Facebook, or Microsoft campuses, without permission and identification and an acknowledged purpose, and stay as long as you please?  Can you do this in the city halls, state houses, and governor’s offices in sanctuary cities and states?
 
How many of these groups allow persons unknown to them to freely wander in and out of their homes and stay as long as they want, help themselves to whatever resources (including bank accounts) the house has to offer?  And then demand you pay for their education and “welfare”? 
 
And if the unauthorized “guests” happen to have a child while in your house or business, would these groups support giving that child constitutionally protected rights to their house, business, and property, for the rest of the childs’ lives.
 
How many of these groups would not demand enforcement of laws and restrict access if people wandered around their homes and businesses to the tune of 12-20 million unauthorized “guests”?
 
Don’t be a hypocrite – either support removal of criminals (aka undocumented aliens) or open up your homes and business and resources to all of them, without proper vetting, for as long as they choose to stay. 
 
The vast majority of opponents of illegal immigration fully support the American dream, the idea of a nation of immigrants, a melting pot, the right of anyone to play “who wants to be a millionaire”.  Support the rule of law - if you start the game by breaking the law, why should anyone follow any laws along the way?
 
We won’t even detail here the hypocrisy with which Mexico vigorously defends its southern border while criticizing us for attempting to do the same.
 
And finally, what about the hypocrisy of all the trauma over the Trump immigration ban, but not a word is heard about Obama’s out-the-door ban on Cuban immigrants?

In December of 2014 the state of Wisconsin officially requested that an area of Lake Michigan roughly from Mequon to Two Rivers (up to 1260 square miles) be designated the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary. The federal Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) announced in October 2015 its intent to “designate a new national marine sanctuary to help conserve nationally-significant shipwrecks and related maritime heritage resources.”























 




See http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin for details.
 
Claims of value for Wisconsin are, as always, wondrous: enhance heritage tourism, foster education and research partnerships, and enhance economic development. Reportedly this has broad public support from citizens, involved coastal cities, and stakeholders alike.
 
Some questions not found on the federal website:

• Hasn't Wisconsin already passed law protecting these historic sites? Why isn't that protection sufficient?
• Is it true that under marine sanctuary protection, even dropping anchor near a shipwreck can result in hefty fines, even though no damage occurred?
• Is it also true that accidental fuel spills within the designated area can result in hefty fines?
• What effect would this designation have on commercial and recreational fishing in the area, which extends roughly 20 miles out from the shore?
• Is there any end to the federal governments hunger for control over more and more of our land and resources? If there is such an end, define it.
• Given that the country is already $20 trillion in debt, is this designation sufficiently urgent to justify action at this time?
• If this has such broad support, why have none of us heard anything about this during the past two years of activity?
• How much input will citizens of Wisconsin have should the NOAA decide in the future to expand the sanctuary?

 
NOAA will hold four public meetings in March, with March 31 as the deadline for comments.
Scheduled meetings are as follows:

As reprehensible as all the presidential candidates may be, this election is about one thing, and one thing only: the Supreme Court justices. 

The next president will nominate as many as four Supreme Court justices.  If four liberal justices are added to the court, America as we know it is over. 

Hyperbole? 

• ​What will be left of your 2nd amendment rights to defend yourself? 
• What will be left of your 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion? 
• What shreds of "states rights" will be left? 
• What constraints at all will there be on the Federal government? What limits will there be on the EPA? The Department of Education? What limits will there be on spying by the NSA and FBI and other "3 letter" agencies you've never heard of?
• What will curtail illegal presidential "agreements" (i.e. TREATIES) not ratified by the Senate, or overreaching Executive Orders?

​All these issues are ultimately decided by the Supreme Court...by Justices who in many cases do not even believe in the Constitution, or what it stands for.

​Even worse, what happens if the Republicans do not retain a majority in the Senate and ultra liberal justices are given a fast-pass path to the court?

​Before you sit out the election or vote for the queen of corruption, consider the total realm of consequences.