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.

Issue 608 Free Range Kids June 9, 2015

So there is a segment of parents who wish to teach their children responsibility.  To do this they allow their children independent action.  What do I mean by this?  Read on to find out.

Free Range Children:  The idea is simple.  Parents let their kids walk to school alone, or in a group with other children.  Or they may allow their kids to go to the park by themselves if the park is down the block.  Advocates say that it allows these children to be taught responsibility to themselves and that it boosts self-confidence.  Basically, as they do not have the crutch of a parent to protect them all the time, they gain self-awareness, and develop psychologically in a way that enables them to protect themselves and also perform independent actions.   As a result, the advocates say that these children are less likely to be targeted by say a bully, or are better able to adapt to a situation on the fly to protect against say an adult.  

Counter argument:  There are people who disagree with this idea (obviously).  They fear the horror stories of the child being kidnaped.  Halloween fears of razors in apples, or something bad happening at the convenience store.  Basically it is fear of the unknown that can harm their children.  And this is understandable, the kids are not adults.  Children can panic, but that may be what initially happens if they are allowed to venture out on their own in the first few weeks.  Over time, the children will become empowered, self-aware and thus less likely to panic in a situation as they will have confidence.  Also, nothing says that a parent has not discussed self-defense, buddy systems, or avoiding criminals.  As such, it really should be up to the parents to decide how much autonomy a child has and at what age.

Conclusion:  Obviously allowing your kids to go off wherever and whenever they want is a bad idea.  But setting limits and allowing them to stop off at the store on the way home to pick up milk or allowing them to go down to the park around the corner is not a bad thing.  Ground rules will be set, defenses and what to do and when will be discussed, but in no way is the child ever truly alone.  I myself was allowed to walk home from my elementary school three blocks away when I was seven years old.  But that was because my parents discussed it, and had friends along the established route I would take home every day to ensure my safety.  As such, I was never actually alone.  I am not a parent, I do not have the same worries yet that a parent would, but this time alone did shape me and made me a better person for it.  So I ask parents who are reading this, look into the idea and see if it is right for your children.

Issue 607 Gift shops in Churches June 8, 2015

So, I was in a Church in the city for my young cousins christening and I noticed that in the back of the Church was a gift shop.  I was very, to say the least displeased.  So allow me to discuss with you all why Churches should not have gift shops.

Why they should not have gift shops:  My reasoning is as follows.  It to me is like monetizing faith.  You are playing to a certain degree on naive members of the faith based community to buy goods distributed by the church.  But this is like buying salvation from the olden times such as Europe's Renaissance period.  We generally realize that faith, or salvation cannot be bought, but it disturbed me that even during the service, there were people going into the gift shop to buy stuff.  It just seemed very, very wrong to me.  Needless to say I held my tongue for it was a special event for family, but I am expressing my opinion now since the celebration is over.  I feel that no matter how great the economic need, a church should not have a gift shop in its back area.  Additionally, it should not be selling goods during a mass.  To me, this is just irreverent.

Conclusion:  Yes, I know that churches are losing parishioners, and that they need the revenue to stay open.  But could they at least put it in the church's basement and sell goods there.  My home church has always kept the shops either in the basement or in the parking lot, but they were ready to sell once mass ended, not during.  Maybe, the church is drifting away from faith, or maybe they are simply just that desperate. Whatever their reason, unless it is a special occasion with family, I will not attend mass in a church that feels it is ok to sell trinkets during a mass or that has a gift shop in the back.

Issue 606 Non-violent Radical Militant June 5, 2015

Have you heard of a Non-violent Radical Militant?  I did not until I heard Glenn Beck talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Here is what I learned.

Non-violent Radical Militant:   It was the basis of Dr. King's marches.  In other words his organization style to bring people together to correct societal wrongs.  Basically, it would use an organization style similar to what a militant would use.  It would be radical, but for Dr. King, this would mean placing people, values, love of our fellow man, Justice and Freedom all first and foremost.  And finally and most importantly, be non-violent.  These together formed the basis behind the marches themselves.  But how is this applicable today?

Applying King's organization:  In this case it would be based around organizing to fix societal wrongs like Dr. King and his followers did in the civil rights movement.  For instance, say a man is arrested by police for child neglect, but that man brings his kid to the park every day, ensures the child is fed, and basically, the child is healthy.  There is obviously something wrong with that law, because there is nothing wrong mentally or physically with the child.  As such, people would organize into non-violent militias, to march and place pressure on lawmakers to change that law so that an innocent man never goes to jail like that again.  Basically, we must move when change is needed.  We do not stand aside if something is wrong or needs to change.  This is how we apply it to our everyday.

Conclusion:  There is many things that need to be changed.  Laws that punish the innocent, laws that make good people into criminals, laws that make governments tyrannical, laws that solidify power in the few, all these are things that must be changed.  Yes, change is slow, and it will be difficult, but it must be done.  We can do it if we follow Dr. King's methods.  So now we just need a coalition of the willing to push forward with the changes that are needed.

Issue 605 Legalize Drugs: stop the raids June 4, 2015

There are 80,000 raids approximately per year by law enforcement.  Somewhere around 40,000 are done by federal law enforcement last year.  Much of these raids are conducted to go after drug paraphernalia.  But are we wasting our money?  And are the non-economic costs even greater?  Let us discuss.

The heart break:  The cases where raids are botched are rising.  Numerous stories can be told of where the wrong house has been raided.  In fact the house of a Mayor was raided when it was supposed to be his neighbors.  The Mayor was quoted saying that if he attempted to go for his gun to defend himself, he would be dead.   There was another incident where a husband thought the raiders were burglars and held his gun with the safety on in an attempt to intimidate the intruders while he had his wife hiding in the closet.  In this case, the man was shot 72 times by police.  Another time, a girl was shot while she was sleeping on the couch, and meanwhile the police held the farther on the ground as he cried out asking why they had shot his daughter.  It was apparently the wrong apartment being raided.  Additionally, in a different incident, parents asked the police not to go into a room where their sleeping baby slept, but the police instead threw a flash bang grenade into the room which in turn burned the baby severely.  As you can see, these incidents are not isolated.  These raids continue yearly with little to no drugs actually seized.  

What can be done:  Many libertarians are starting to think that even if we cannot legalize all drugs (or at least the least harmful), that drug laws and similar should be handled by the State governments.  In short, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), along with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should be abolished in favor of each State making their own separate and distinct laws regarding food and drugs.  While it may sound chaotic, it will eliminate the federal government from a function it was not Constitutionally allowed to do, and it means States like California, Colorado and similar will not have to worry about the feds coming in and arresting their citizens for something that is legally allowed in their States.

Conclusion:  While I respect police and what they do to protect us, it is not the police who dictate law.  Instead it is the law makers who have the police enforce and perform such acts.  Essentially, the police are scapegoats, and victims in this drug war as well.  So the only solution I feel is right is to end the drug war once and for all.