Issue 205 U.N.=Bad November 13, 2013

Yes the U.N., better known as the United Nations is bad. No, I am not saying this just because the United States provides over 40% of its budget, and that money can be better used to pay off the debt. There is a very practical reason for the U.N. being a bad place and us Americans abandoning it.

Dictators: What people may forget is that the U.N. is composed of a large body of countries. The problem with this is that a good portion of those countries are either dictatorships, or some other form of oppressive government (think Iran). As such, if the vote on an action ever goes to the general assembly (which is more for show) then America's interests and our allies would be out voted. On top of this, the Security Council is made up of the U.S., France, England, Russia, and China. The remaining members work on a rotational system. When voting on an actual action, China and Russia, who sell many goods to these dictatorships and oppressive governments, will vote against action that violates their interests. As such it is a bulwark against the Western Powers (Democracies) from taking action legally against these smaller, oppressive countries. So the U.N. does not represent democracy or peace for that matter. It is a place for smaller countries, dictatorships, and other oppressive regimes to siphon money from the richer governments in the world.

Corruption: If you thought dictators were bad, than feast your eyes on the fact that the U.N. is rife with corruption. No one really knows where all the money is going, but there have been cases of gun smuggling, drugs and prostitution. Non-governmental organizations have also infiltrated the U.N. to gather support for their own causes on the tax payers’ dime. We as Americans are giving money to a festive hive of scum and villainy. The only exception may be doctors without boarders, but that can be divorced from the U.N. and run separately if needed.

Treaties are law: One thing that many people do not know about is that treaties once singed are equivalent to the U.S. constitution. As such, if a treaty is signed in the U.N. the United States must abide by it. So when the gun ban treaty was signed, then the U.S. must abide by it. If a treaty on what is taught in our children's classrooms is signed, then we must abide by it. Of course, we may be one of the few countries that do as the dictators just don't care. As such, the only way to solve this is to have a constitutional amendment that makes it so that any treaty that violates our constitution is null and void, and that we can pick and choose which parts we wish to follow so long as it does not violate any U.S. law.

Conclusion: The United Nations was supposed to be a peace making body. It was to be a place for countries to gather to cooperate to make treaties and resolve disputes. But the fact is that it has failed. Just like with any man made system, the greed and corruption has taken hold and perverted it. So there are two solutions to this problem. Either we back out of the U.N. completely, or we force the dictators out.

Issue 204 Kill the debt November 12, 2013

We talked yesterday on how the national debt keeps increasing. But we haven't talked in a while on how to shrink that debt. So here are a few ideas.

Money sent overseas: The United States sends money to a number of foreign governments. This includes China, North Korea, Vietnam, and more. This money is used in an attempt to buy influence. It is the usual you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. One problem. The money we send to these countries does not buy influence at all. All the countries receiving it, save a few exceptions like Israel, do not vote our way in the United Nations, or side with us in international treaties. In other words, we are throwing millions of dollars away for no reason to countries that may even hate us. Further, we are giving money to China, and others whom we owe money to. But not a single penny of this additional money is used to pay off the debt. Instead, just like before, it is being used to try to gain political favors in that country. And like before, we end up throwing away that money. So the solution to solving this issue and shrinking the debt is to just stop giving money to countries with the sole exception to our allies where it counts.

Pork Barrel spending: We said this was one of the reasons for our growing national debt in yesterday’s issue, but what are we going to do about it. Well, there is only one way to decrease this problem and be rid of a majority of lobbyists at the same time. That solution is term limits. Cap the number of years a person may serve in the House of Representatives to 12 years. For additional protection, make it so that the terms of office can not be consecutive. Likewise, if we are not going to revert the Senate back to how it used to be, (a block against unfunded mandates on the States and the taking of their power) then they too should be limited to 12 years as a Senator. It will solve a majority of the overall problem.

Other spending: As you know, there is numerous instances of government overlap, special exceptions for members of congress and waste in every department and agency. So how do we solve this? For one, an amendment that forces all laws at the federal level to be applied to all citizens and non-citizens alike (including members of Congress). This means that Congress will have to think twice about making a law as it will also affect them (currently all federal employees and certain businesses and groups are exempted from Obama Care). Next we will need a "sun set" committee. This committee will look at all old spending and laws to see what is no longer needed. Once they find such spending, law or provision of a law, it will go to Congress for a vote to remove it on case by case bases. Also, this same sun set committee will review the budget for automatic spending and be able to block it from being voted on so that it may simply be defunded. Another step further would be a line item veto and a line reduction veto. These would enable the President to reduce or eliminate spending on a program when money is being allocated. Thankfully these vetos are specific to spending and each can be overturned by a traditional 2/3rds vote in Congress. This may allow horse trading but it is worth the savings.

Conclusion: There are a number of other solutions, from debt bonds, bans on certain forms of federal spending, consolidation of different departments, and even eliminating whole swaths of the federal bureaucracy itself. There are even proposals for constitutional amendments for balanced budgets. However, there are three things that will be most effective. One; all debts owed on that year are paid first before all spending is to occur. This insures that we pay our debts first and foremost. Two; limit the number of days Congress can meet to a specified number of days per year. This will limit what they vote on to things that are important first (this mimics Texas law which stipulates that there legislature can only meet once every 2 years). And finally three; a balanced budget amendment which restricts borrowing to a certain percentage of the federal governments yearly income. This will be done in such a way that it will severely curtail all forms of borrowing that would only make a bad situation worse. I do not use the stipulation that borrowing should be limited to a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) because the federal government makes that formula. So by limiting how much they can borrow based on how much they take in via our tax dollars helps to remove corruption. Of course, I would add fail safes, like if the federal government fails to pay off the debt for that year, or Congress breaks the law, then all spending and laws for that entire year will be rendered null and void. In short, none of them will count. This fail safe will insure that they do not break the law. We all have a lot of work to do, and it will be hard. Step one is term limits and deciding how that would look. Yes, we can do it, but we just have to continue pushing forward to make it there.

 

Issue 203 Spending what we don't have November 11, 2013

Yes, we are spending money we don't have. Whose money you ask? The tax payers’ money of course. But why and how are doing this?

Borrowing: The federal government continues to borrow hand over fist from other countries. So much so that it adds at least another trillion dollars per year onto our national debt. This is more than what the Bush administration added in its entire eight years in service to the country. Do not get me wrong, President Obama is trying to help the American people, but I believe he is doing it the wrong way. Especially as he is just adding onto the national debt which our future generations will have to deal with. That means my nieces and nephews; your children and even their own children will be left with a multi-trillion dollar debt burden.

Why do we borrow?: Unfortunately, the leadership of both parties wants to use that money for their own gain. 17% of the federal budget is considered pork barrel spending. That means it is wasteful and unneeded spending that can be done by the State and local governments or the private sector. Borrowed money is also used to pay for unfunded mandates. These are spending that have yet to occur because the federal government had run out of money for that year to pay for it. So once the money is freed up from other areas of the federal government, the project or spending will be paid for. Although, there is a problem with this. The project or need for that money may disappear by the time money is available. As such, the politicians use the borrowed money to acquire additional revenue to insure there pet project is paid for on time. But this is not just pet projects. It is also loans out to big corporations that do not need it, and bridges to no where. So, that 17% is actually a lot bigger than it actually appears.

Can we do something: One thing that we can do is force our local politicians to stop accepting federal money. We can do that through petitions and voting. If a large enough group of us speaks out, then we can change our situation at the local level. If said voice is strong enough we may be able to do the same at the State and Federal levels of government. But it will take time. Until then, we must pay close attention to the faults within government and embarrass the politicians into stopping their spending sprees. Of course, voting helps further by voting in people who will share your values when your current representative fails to represent the changes and thoughts in your overall community.

Conclusion: There is a lot of waste in the federal government, and it is growing. Politicians wrongly believe that the federal government can solve all the problems in the world and they bribe our loyalty through bad programs. It is time we change this. In fact we must change this soon as we will not be able to pay off the nations debts which will result in anarchy. The debt ceiling that is so often talked about limits how much debt the federal government is allowed to take on. Deficits are the debt tacked on to the national debt when we need to pay for something with money we do not have. As such, we need a way to cap the total debt permanently, and limiting spending to only what money the government acquires through taxes exclusively.

Issue 202 Rating schools November 8, 2013

An idea has been touted, that rating schools in their overall excellence is a good thing. Well, I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing either. So let’s debate the pros and cons.

Pros: What is good about rating schools is that you can compare and contrast amongst the schools in your area, and the country as a whole. It means you can clearly see which school is the best. You will know all the teachers are good by just looking at the rating the school gets. It will help you decide which area in the country you will want to move to if you should decide to raise a family.

Children who go to these high rated schools will be looked at more closely by colleges as they will have high expectations of these students. Businesses and foundations may see them as recruiting grounds for potential investments in the future of their companies and groups. Basically, the free market looks for only the best and the brightest and a school with a high rating stands out the most. As such, children associated with that school (the same way as adults are associated with their colleges) will gain a certain level of reputation in society.

Cons: For all that is good about a rating system it will cause a certain level of damage. Teachers looking for a job will seek out employment in these top schools rather than the lower tier schools. . Many of the poorer classes of society may be forced into these low tier schools and be left behind by neglect due to the focus on the higher rated schools. Overall, a lack of resources will also cause many of those in these lower rated schools to run away from that school. (While it can be a good thing under certain circumstances, it can be as equally as bad). These children will be looked at last, because they are in the lower tier schools. In fact, the lower rated schools may make the children, by sheer reputation, appear dull witted.

In addition, schools themselves may corrupt the overall academic achievement of their students to acquire a higher rating. There is such a thing as curving grades so as to bring up the score of all the lower performers. Thus, it manipulates the grade point average and the overall success of the students and their teachers. Other forms of corruption may also develop, such as schemes for cheating on tests, and bribery may also result.

Conclusion: Schools being rated should be a byproduct of the overall academic achievement of each individual student. As such, individual students should be rated and compared first and foremost. From there, the population can look at where these top performers come from to decide what schools would be best for their children. Also, parents should be able to rate the schools that their children attend or have attended so that other parents can view these ratings to help decide where to have their kids educated. In essence an "Angie's list" for schools. The government is not capable of properly monitoring and rating schools. It simply, I feel, is a waste of time and money. We can do it ourselves, for free through the internet and to a certain extent it has already begun. So go ahead and Google your schools. While no official rating system exists, there is at the very least an informal one on schools, and teachers.

Issue 201 Hate Crimes November 7, 2013

Hate crimes are terrible. They are done to people due to race, color, faith, physical trait and more. But are we degrading the overall crime. Is not assault an assault and a murder a murder?

Hate is a motivation: We have taken a motivation to harm another human being and turned it into a crime. Hate is a combination of thought and emotion. It is no more or less. Such hate is brought upon by societal circumstances, and is taught to the younger generations by their elders. As such, this is the reason hatred for Blacks, Jews, Christians, etc. still exists. Yes, every group has someone hating on them. And at some point in time, each group will make a victim out of the other group. It is an endless cycle.

Why make it a crime: This is only my opinion, but I believe that they made it a crime so that it would force hatred out of society. It co-insides with the idea of political correctness (developed by the early socialists to create a certain line of thought). I speculate that they made this a crime so that new generations of people would associate the very thought of hating another person as a crime. But, I do not believe that this has been successful. Hate overrides typical common sense reasoning. If a Jewish (or any person from a recognizable group) kid beats you every day all the way through high school, you will have a poor opinion of Jewish people. That is until someone who is Jewish (or a group of Jews) changes your mind with their own behavior toward you. But it will take time for the victim to think of the original perpetrator of their torment as an exception and not the norm. Unfortunately, fear plays a role in causing the victim who now hates Jews due to his torment to avoid members of the Jewish community. Propaganda feeds his/her fear to think that all Jews are bad. At the end all that is left is anger. By making it a crime to hate all you do is legitimize the hatred by recognizing it as the norm. You make it acceptable to a counter culture. Even then, the hatred will simply fall to the back ground and be talked about in secret. Those haters will no longer have an outlet to express themselves. As such they will seek out ways to express how they feel. This means evil acts like tormenting people, assaulting people and possibly committing murder.

The True crime: An assault is just that an assault. A murder is simply a murder. These are part of the obviously wrongful acts that mankind must not perpetuate against one another. Hate is simply a motivation and belongs in the realm of motive and opportunity. Punishing thought will never solve this issue. Giving greater punishments to those whose motivation is hatred for the crime will not stop the crime from occurring. Punish the deed, not the ramblings of fools.

Conclusion: If my opinion is correct, then they created the classification of hate crimes to make it so that society will view hatred as something evil. However, people already know this. There is also potential for abuse with crimes being elevated to hate crimes simply to get a person into a courtroom and even get a guilty verdict (depends on how each law is written). I see no reason as to why a murderer should get a lighter sentence than a person who murdered someone out of hate. They should be punished equally for with hate crimes, we are giving more value toward one victim over another. And I find that to be wrong.

Issue 200 Pure Democracy November 6, 2013

A pure democracy is where everyone participates. We as a people all vote for laws and actions to be carried out by government. The United States however is a Republic (a representative type of democracy). There is a reason for this which I will now make clear.

Mob Rule: The primary reason pure democracies fail is due to mob rule. In true democracies, the majority always wins regardless of the outcome of the action or its consequences. So a group can vote to install a bad law despite the wishes of the minority and even if that bad law would only serve to harm the country in the long run. Also, if the majority does not like the minority for any reason (skin color, faith, and ideology) they can make laws that could oppress that minority. Overall, having more people voting yes to a law or action does not mean it is what is best for the overall community.

Collapse: Once mob rule has taken hold, it becomes impossible to fix the problems that occur. Look at our own system with things like Social Security and Medicare. We as a Republic can barely discuss reform on those topics without being ostracized. Under mob rule, people will want to keep their benefits and what ever gives them an advantage in life. In essence, the population will vote to become free loaders. However, once this occurs, the vast wealth and resources vanish quickly. The result is a failed economy, no jobs, and a failed government. Once all is said and done, war will break out, and violence will be everywhere as everyone struggles to claim what they think is theirs. This is the absolute end to all nations that over extend on what they are capable of, total collapse.

The Founders Knew: Our founding members of government like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton all realized that man is self corrupting. They created this Republic in such a way where competing powers would seek to control each other, but could not as there where both checks and balances on each level of government (some of which have eroded today in modern times). By having these groups competing, it ensured that their ambitions would clash and a compromise would develop. But it also ensured that bad ideas would die on the vine first and foremost. In short, the founders applauded grid lock to the effect that it was encouraged (i.e. the filibuster in the Senate and for a brief time in the House of Representatives). We must thank them for saving us from mob rule.

Conclusion: Ideas for a pure electoral college or for referendums come out of the naive trust we have for our fellow man. But so long as people can be scammed out of their money or advertising can sell us what we do not need, then a pure democracy will be unattainable. It is a given that we would seek to get a free ride from the first presidential candidate that promises it. So say no to a pure democracy for despite the twisted system we have now, it is far better than the tyranny of the mob.

 

Issue 199 Pro-life alternative November 5, 2013

What if there was an alternative to abortion? Would that solve our countries problem of killing babies before they are born? As you can guess, I am pro-life and that I feel the pro-choice people are in the wrong. But I will not say they are pro-death even though that is what abortion is. So allow me to explain.

Why not pro-death: The reason I would not call people who support abortion rights pro-death is because that is not what they are thinking about. What they are thinking about is the lives of the mothers. Those moms, who wish to escape being a mother used to go to back ally doctors or even use coat hangers to try and be rid of an unwanted child. However, the results are widely considered disastrous. Many of those women where the abortion was performed poorly died. As such, people like my own mother support abortion only because it is the only alternative to these back ally abortions.

My proposal: In order to get people like my mother on the pro-life side (she would limit abortions to specific circumstances though) is to have an alternative to abortion. Currently, adoption is not enough as it is still asking for the mother to have her unwanted child. This is where I believe science should come in. Scientists should develop a way to transfer an unborn child, no matter the age, to another mother. Basically, a baby transplant. They are already able to transfer a fertilized embryo into a mother, so why can't they find a way to take one out. The procedure would have to be as simple and quick as a traditional abortion otherwise it will not catch on as an alternative like adoption services. But, there will be obstacles.

The Obstacles: This is all just my opinion, but the first thing to be overcome would have to be the ability to remove a fertilized embryo from a mother without killing the child. When the child is still developing at the early stages, then it may be a little easier to do, but like I said, it must be done without killing the child. We would also need a way to keep the child alive long enough to be transferred to the new mother. Finding a suitable mother would also be a challenge as some women will need to be primed prior so their bodies don't reject the child being implanted. The procedure would get more and more difficult based on the stages of development and even where in the uterus the child is developing. All these issues will need to be worked out. Thankfully, animal experimentation is prime and ready with lab rats who are willing to eat their own young (sucks to be a lab rat). From there it is all about funding the science and training enough doctors to make this type of procedure a viable alternative. So, from here it is about the money to even get started.

Conclusion: I do not want women who are desperate to have to go to some back ally doctor for an abortion. But I don't want dead children on their conscience either. So we need a new and viable alternative. Thus, my proposal for a baby transplant. Who knows if it will work or not, or if from the research we develop an artificial womb to place the baby in instead. Science may be the key to our pro-life answer to being pro-abortion.