Issue 615 The Orange Ribbon June 18, 2015

I was listening to the Glenn Beck Radio program when he took a call from a woman named Nancy of South Carolina.  She had an idea.  Let us discuss.

The idea:  Nancy had heard Glenn talking about the current massacres over in Syria, and other parts of the Middle East by ISIS/ISIL.  She said she felt like she could do nothing about this and wanted to at least try to bring awareness to not just the persecuted Jews, but the Christians and others throughout the world.  As such, she proposed an Orange Ribbon to represent all the persecuted people throughout the world and the biblical figure Daniel who was persecuted, but saved through prayer.  I personally believe that that this is a great idea.  A visual representation of people who wish to stop persecution that can be used to show solidarity.

Conclusion:  This is a great idea.  Though people may not like the fact that it represents in part a Biblical figure.  However, Beck seems to have evolved this idea into his recent "Never Again is Now" campaign to raise awareness of persecution, and to have the American people remember that racial discrimination, violence against others here in the States, and then abroad should never happen again. So let us show our support for the victims and to speak for those who fear to speak.

#NeverAgainisNow

Issue 614 Not about the Resume June 17, 2015

Presidents have come and gone.  But great Presidents or bad Presidents are not defined by their past job experience.  Here are examples.

Don't focus on the Resume:  Let us compare some Presidents.   President Grant was an amazing general in the Civil war, but he failed as a President because people were not able to rally behind him.  He could not negotiate politically with both friend and foes in government.  As such, power shifted to the Congress when it came to political authority.  Additionally, Grant suffered from depression and his drinking undermined his leadership ability.

President Carter is considered one of the worst Presidents in United States history.  He failed at rescuing the American Hostages in Iran, he made poor economic choices that left the country in a recession and overall was as ineffective as President Grant.  However, his pre-Presidential experience is impressive.  He was a scientist, a farmer, and a graduate of the United States Naval academy.

President Obama, our current President has none of President Carter's pre-President experience.  President Obama was a community organizer which served him well in his election campaigns, but he for a reason I cannot fathom, apply it to working with the other members of government.  Also, he and Carter are using the exact same foreign policy scheme which resulted in disaster for President Carter.  For those who do not know, Carter and Obama's foreign policy revolves around giving gifts and concessions to other countries to appeal to neutral and enemy nations so that they see the United States as not a threat.  Also, the policy revolves around the United States depreciating itself and reducing its power in the hopes that other countries will fill the power vacuum and create a world where nations are a little more equal (this of course is naive because once power is taken, it is never returned without cost).

Conclusion: What does this all mean?  As you can see, each of these Presidents have very different backgrounds and skill sets.  However, this means nothing in respect to leadership qualities. And their application of those qualities.  As such, with the potential candidates warming up for the upcoming Presidential election, we must look less at past experiences and more at their ability to work with others, and their ability to apply their leadership skills.

Issue 613 Crocodile Policy June 16, 2015

A Crocodile Policy is a policy of appeasement.  A way to avoid war.  Why is it called a crocodile policy and what wars we are avoiding though?  Let us discuss.

What is a Crocodile Policy:  Its name comes from the idea that we are feeding the crocodile with the expectation that they will eat us last.  In a real world example, Neville Chamberlain in his appeasement of Nazi Germany so as to avoid war would be called a form of crocodile policy.  Ways this policy form is used is by ignoring actions of another government, placating the hostile government by giving them greater concessions and gifts in trade deals.  It may even constitute speaking in favor, or defending the hostile government’s actions or their excuses for their actions.  Basically any action taken that ignores, placates or supports a hostile nations actions to protect your own from war or hostilities as long as possible at the expense of the peace of the nations or peoples around you.

Modern Examples:  One example could be the United States and Russia.  When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States just yelled, and moved troops around.  However, Russia saw this as toothless as President Obama does not want to be responsible for bring the United States into yet another war, especially one where nuclear weapons may potentially come into play.  

Another example is Iran.  Iran wants to continue its nuclear program, but that program could spiral into a nuclear weapons program (which to an extent it already is).  But President Obama and other world policy makers are looking the other way or making deals with a potentially lethal foe.  Remember, the power in Iran is centered on its religious rulers, not its President whom the United States is dealing with.  As such, any deals made without the consent of the Mullahs (who want non-Muslims dead) will result in nothing but a one sided deal.

Conclusion:  So this is a crocodile policy.  A policy of appeasement, placation, and inaction.  Basically, the policy type that gave us World War II.

Issue 612 To advance disease research June 15, 2015

Disease research is being stifled by government to an extent.  Because of this, cures we may have gotten are not able to be accessed.  Here is what can be done to correct this problem.

Solutions:  

1) Combining research: Both animal and human diseases are studied separately.  However, animal diseases can mutate to affect not just people but a single mutation can make it affect multiple species.  Therefore cures for animal diseases can potentially cure people, and vice versa.  So by combining the research we can make gains in fighting cancer, the flu, and similar health problems we all face.

2) Unlimited volunteer testing:  Human testing is very restrictive in the United States and thus cures take longer to come to market.  However, this can be resolved by the government allowing for terminally ill people to volunteer to take untested medications.   The reason why this is restricted is due to the government wanting to protect people, however some people are willing to take a risk to cure a deadly disease like Pancreatic Cancer as they know they are dying and want at least a shot at curing themselves.

3) Allow testing on Illegal drugs: This final one is the most likely to come to pass.  Marijuana is being experimented with on the State level in the United States to aid in combating seizures, cancers and more.  However, the Federal government frowns on this due to it being illegal at the Federal level.  But if all illegal substances could be used as part of medical research, then potentially we can open up the market for cures, treatments and therapies that did not exist before.  As such, Cocaine, meth, and others should be explored in the same way they once did on chemical weapons like mustard gas to cure cancers.  

Conclusion:  At the moment, these are the three ways to advance disease research.  Humans and animals studied together, let people who are dying/terminally ill risk their lives for a cure, and let colleges, laboratories and the like test illegal drugs and chemicals to see if a poison can be turned into a viable treatment.  We can do so much more if we just get rid of some restrictions and rules in the healthcare system.  It is time to free up the system.

Issue 611 How much Religion June 12, 2015

Rand Paul, the Kentucky Senator who is running for President said that religion can be part of government (not vice versa).  But what I want to ask is how much?

How much Religion in Government:  I personally believe that government and religion does have a degree of separation. That religion should not dictate policy with respect to a faith based institution ever telling the government what to do, nor the government telling a faith based institution what to do.  But I do believe that people should be able to express their faith freely.  It is fine if you personally want to use your faith, your Bible Study and similar to guide your decisions as that is all a personal relationship with God and your faith.  I have zero problems with a politician doing that.  I would also say, that Masses, and other religious gatherings should be allowed in government buildings including Congress, but no group should be denied access.  This also means allowing government personnel to have a cross hanging on the wall of their office, or other religious/religious holiday items be displayed on their person, or on their desks/offices (this is currently not allowed in some government institutions which violates the first amendment).  Beyond this, I see no other room for religion in government.  I find no way that I can see where it can fit in save expression, and personally guiding someone in their actions.

Conclusion:  I have no idea how much religion Rand Paul wants back into government.  Do not get me wrong, I believe he would make a fine President, but this needs to be clarified before we/if we let him into the White House.

Issue 610 Sacred Cows June 11, 2015

The following is based on a conversation between Penn Jillette and Glenn Beck.  A sacred cow is a term used to describe a policy, or part of government that people are unwilling to change or remove due to backlash, favoritism or popularity.  However, if you are serious about cutting government you must be willing to cut your own favorite institutions within the government.  In this case Penn Jillette said pick your top three government programs and institutions and if you can willingly remove your favorites then you can cut any and all parts of government.  Basically, it is proof to yourself that you actually want smaller government, and that you personally are able to achieve it.  I, my readers took up this challenge.

The First Cut:  The Military is one of my sacred cows.  I come from a family that has at least one member having served or is currently serving in every branch of service.  But if I am serious, then I need to be willing to cut parts of the military.  For my cuts, the Air Force and Navy will be fused together, along with any and all cyber security institutions run by the government.  My reasoning is that the Constitution says we can have a Navy and an Army, it makes no mention of anything else.  So the Navy in this case will take care of all roles that relate to dominance on the battlefield.  These include air, space, oceans, beneath the oceans, cyber warfare, and intelligence.  By placing all these together (as each shares overlapping intelligence gathering roles, resupply roles amongst others) we streamline the military and its bloated bureaucracy.  This also means the NSA, and other intelligence agencies will be fused together as well.  As such, this new Navy will be organized into separate corps each specializing in its roll, but working together.

The Second Cut:  In this case, my next cut is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  It has for years since its creation under Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt aided in keeping our food safe and in some cases fighting the drug war.  However, it is due to the drug war, its restrictions on new medical technology, and it inefficiency that I am now willing to drop the hammer on this institution.  States already have laws regarding drugs (legal and illegal), and food which led me to my overall conclusion that this agency no longer has a purpose despite all the good it has done or could still do.  In fact there is no reason to doubt Sweden's, or England's drug and food agencies if they deem them safe which each State can copy or even use to see if something is safe for us.  So each State can make its own drug policies and liberate the system, or they can even work together to keep policies harmonized throughout the country without any federal input.

The Final Cut:  This was harder for me.  The top two were easier because I have done research on making things more efficient in the military and that the FDA could be replaced easily by existing institutions.  However, this last one I feel is more difficult.  The last cut is the State Department.  Originally part of the War Department (which became the department of defense) it became independent with the idea of maintaining relations between countries. It has since spawned many branches and has helped maintain relations with other countries.  However, all of its many components and overlapping agencies has become bulky, and they have been in the past been responsible for international incidents (the latest of which is the Benghazi terror attack).  It is my belief that if the State department wants to play spy, then it should be eaten (along with the other agencies it overlaps with) into the Central Intelligence Agency.  By doing so, the intelligence gathered within diplomatic circles will be more readily accessible, and at the same time could be shared with allies, friends, non-aligned and allies of convenience more readily.  Also, with the knowledge being acquired and distributed, diplomats will have a leg up on negotiations and also aid in maintaining balances of trade, and other varieties of political, economic and military relations.  I would need to do more research to justify this, or look for another viable alternative.

Conclusion:  These are my sacred cows I would cut and or modify.  Yes, I know that they can be deemed controversial, but if I am not willing to cut these, then what good am I to the people of the United States if I should ever be in the position to make the changes necessary/needed to protect and uplift our nation.

Issue 609 If Business Come Back June 10, 2015

I was watching the news one day and they said something interesting.  That if all the overseas businesses came back, that it may cause hyperinflation and thus crash the economy.  Here is a summary as to why they said this.

If they return:  At current, the United States has high inflation with its money.  This means we are printing more money and thus the value of the dollar itself has decreased.  This is due to the same supply and demand principles but this time in relation to money.  Businesses overseas do not bring money back to the United States so as to avoid taxation.  As such, that money is removed from the United States economy and thus does not contribute to inflation of our dollar.  Basically, country borders add a degree of separation and thus keep our dollar’s value up artificially.  However, people want these businesses brought home so that we in the country can benefit from the jobs that will be created.  As such, the businesses will bring all that money they stored overseas back with them, and this will flood the United States with massive amounts of currency.  The problem there is that all that money coming back.  It will result in hyperinflation as so much money will be returning to within U.S. borders and its economy that the value of the dollar will plummet due to the large supply and thus a loaf of bread could be worth $100 or more.  In short, we may be burning money just to stay worm like in the great depression.

Conclusion:  In truth, we only want businesses to come back if the businesses can make a profit.  Right now they profit because it is cheaper to make goods overseas.  But the real issue is inflation and the policies that contribute to that.  As such, the Federal Reserve would have to set up a method of raising the dollar’s value on a one to one scale as each business comes back one by one.  In short, a long and lengthy process will need to occur to avoid an economic depression.  This problem can be avoided, but it will cause economic issues and thus harm businesses already here in the United States.  So businesses coming back from overseas may not be worth it after all.