Issue 653 Private Hostage Rescue August 11, 2015

So, can hostage rescue be privatized?  That is the question.  Let us discuss.

Private Hero’s:  There are many former special ops, and even police who want to do good in the world.  As such, many typically either retire quietly or find new jobs or attempt to get back into the action via the intelligence services, support roles for returning military, or joining a mercenary outfit.  But their skills are wasted and sometimes police move too slowly.  So can these men and women who are no longer in uniform be allowed to use their training to rescue people in hostage situations?  Should we be able to pay them to rescue a family member, or a child from a sex slave trafficker?  Well, so long as they are licensed it is feasible.  I mean, they allow for mercenaries, and these people are professionals who are still able to serve and protect.  As far as I know, they would need to be tested to see their capabilities, get a background check, and test for psychological issues to determine if they are fit to serve as a hostage rescue member.  As such, once tested a team can be put together to save hostages.  I don't just mean in the United States either, but globally.  In Africa, Pirates have a number hostages, but countries cannot move in on short notice, or there are issues just crossing a boarder.  These former soldiers can move in silently, or move with plausible deniability to get those hostages back.  I think it is a concept that could work if governments would allow for it to happen.

Conclusion:  As I said, they would need to be tested first to see if they are even capable of performing hostage rescue in the first place.  The standards will have to be very strict, and they would need to demonstrate that they are capable of extracting the hostage safely with said training and equipment.  So they would need access to military and police training facilities or one of their own that the military or police would wish to train in themselves for them to prove themselves and show their skills.  This would mean mercenary outfits who perform body guard and escort duty would be allowed an additional role (though only personnel who qualify).  Obviously this is not for the faint of heart, and the inherent risks are high, but I would rather more people capable of rescuing people in dire straits than less.

Issue 652 Not the Government's Business August 10, 2015

Is it the government's business to know who we love? Is it their business to know what we eat?  I say no.  Here is my list of things the government should stay out of.

Get out of my Business "G"-man:  My list:

1) Education:  What a child learns is up to the parents.  Sure they can send their kids to school, but that is their decision, in the same way it is their decision to homeschool their child or give them a religious education.  As such, any form of education is allowable including religious.  So long as the kids grow up healthy, and are able to fend for themselves, there is no reason for the government to be involved.

2) The Bedroom: For years the government has poked its nose into people's business in the confines of the home to strike at gays, and other people for their "sexual practices" or fetishes.  But that has got nothing to do with the government if the adults involved are consenting.  

3) Marriage:  Love is not something a government bureaucrats can license.  As such, you do not need a marriage license to be married in the first place.  So cut the crap and stay out of people’s love life government.

4) Medicine:  With Obama Care, all of our medical data is capable of being looked at.  They decide what is covered and what is not when government is involved.  And the insurance companies use that to their advantage.  We are blocked from buying health care across State lines, and even across country borders.  Where is our freedom to buy into the health services we want, and get the medicine covered that we need?  That’s right, the government is blocking the way, so they again need to butt out.

5) Food: So it is now some dummies job in government to protect us from too much salt in our diet.  It’s their "job" to tell us not to drink sugary drinks?  I can understand if you are on welfare for that is not your money but the governments, but telling everyone else they can't have a soda of a certain size, or add a little extra salt.  Give me a break.  We should be able to eat whatever we want, so butt out government.

6) Drugs:  Umm, the drug war?  Yea, we lost.  It eats up money and makes people into criminals. On top of that, some of those drugs if researched can lead to cures and drugs with less side effects.  Also, let us not forget prescription drugs.  If you do not have a prescription, you cannot get (potentially) the medicine that you need.  So we should be able to buy any Rx that we want as well, but government does not want that for some reason.  They do not want you asking the pharmacist if they can use other medicines without permission.  They do not want doctors to prescribe what they don't want you taking thanks to the FDA and their rules and regs on how long drugs can be on the market, and which ones can be sold.  But last I checked, it is our health in jeopardy.  Our wallets that pay.  It is our decision on what to do with our bodies, so government, get out of my darn way.

Conclusion:  As you can tell, the government interferes a lot.  Sure some of these you may disagree with, but unless you are hurting someone else, is it our business to worry about others?  The answer is no, whether we like it or not.  But it is something we must live with.  So at the very least, on the ones we agree on, let's kick the government to the curb.

Issue 651 Gender specific August 7, 2015

Today we are going to talk about some of the impacts of the gay marriage ruling.  In particular, the fact is our laws are not gender neutral and thus not in line with the ruling.  Let us begin.

We are going to be gender neutral:  Sex is now going to be defined by genders.  Why you ask?  Well, the reasoning is because when the Supreme Court passed the ruling changing the definition of marriage, it eliminated the two sole sexes that government uses in laws (man and woman).  Now the government has to operate under the definitions of gay, lesbian and more.  This is in part because there are no gender neutral laws in the federal or even many State governments.  You see it is easy to list man and woman and the roles associated with them like father and mother, but once you include two fathers, or any other unique combination, you face the problem of listing them all so that they can be included in the new definition of marriage and all the laws that benefit people in that arrangement.  From there it has a ripple effect on all the other laws in government and thus laws protecting just men, or just women are no longer adequate as they are not capable of legally protecting gays, lesbians etc.  So all laws must be re-written and even laws that define parents to children come into question.  

Likewise, this impacts the definition of a child for originally a child belonged solely to a father and a mother.  Now the child can have two fathers or two mothers, or even a different gender entirely.  It also opens up issues on sex discrimination.  With gender becoming synonymous with sex, schools and sports teams can't discriminate by having separate teams for men and women as there is now other genders to consider.  Codes of conduct at schools and businesses also are gender specific and are not neutral.  So they will need to be re-written or else they open themselves up to a lawsuit.  Also, this expands hate crimes as well to include people who support traditional marriage.  Already some have lost their job merely because they support traditional marriage and thus are considered hateful because of it.  For instance, a Firefighter lost his job because he was a minister of his church that believed in traditional marriage, and a Navy Chaplain of Seal Team Six lost his when he was asked about sex outside of marriage.  You can see now why the laws need to be changed as it makes people look like haters for expressing their religious beliefs on marriage.  Thankfully in the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote to protect religious liberty, but this must be acted on for it to actually protect people with religious views or else my mere association with my Catholic Church can cause me to potentially lose my job.  Needless to say that this is a mess.

Conclusion:  There are literally 82 recognized genders by the federal government, and that also includes pedophiles.  Also, there are already some vindictive members of the gay community that are targeting churches to either forcefully make them marry gays or shut them down, and celebrities and radio hosts over their views of marriage to remove them from the spot light.  Thankfully most members of the gay community are not like this, but we have to move fast.  Issues will continue to crop up from this ruling that shakes the foundations of our very legal system and our religious protection rights.  But this is also an opportunity.  While the Supreme Court should have made it no one’s business on who can marry whom and eliminated all marriage benefits as they do not need to exist, it opened the door to other things.  The ruling can be used to justify people carrying guns, and medical marijuana across State borders.  It gives us the opportunity to replace bad laws with good ones, and even just out right remove bad laws altogether.  It will allow us to have a conversation on religious liberty and rights, in addition to free speech.  As such, I can say without a doubt, that while our troubles are far from over due to this ruling, the opportunities and the benefits from it are numerous.

Issue 650 Rand Paul's Tax plan August 6, 2015

So about a week or two ago, Rand Paul, Senator of Kentucky announced his tax plan as he is running for President.  Here are some of the details on it to help you decide if he is worth your vote.

His Tax plan: Rand Paul's tax plan is a flat tax.  As such, he will implement a 14.5% flat tax on everyone (and for families it will still be the same rate but they must be making a combined income of $50,000 a year to qualify for the unified rate).  Business will also have the same rate as individuals, but will be all encompassing (so investments and other forms of income are included) but will maintain the usual deductions. 

This means however, that the payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare will vanish as we as individuals will only pay one tax instead of several as the system is set up now.  However, these will instead be contributed to by a portion of the amount you pay in taxes.  In this instance, before the money reaches the treasury, a percentage of the taxes you just paid will go toward your Social Security account and your Medicare.  So the programs themselves are safe.

According to reports, this will lead to a loss of $1 trillion dollars in revenue for the federal government over ten years, but will be offset by cuts to government and it being streamlined.  This plan also will result in an increase in GDP (gross domestic product) by 10% in the same ten year time frame.  This means that business will expand and more jobs with 1.4 million new jobs estimated to be created as a result of this tax plan.

Conclusion:  And there you have it.  The bare bones tax plan of Rand Paul.  Flat taxes are easier to pay as all you do is calculate the total income you made that year and take 14.5% out to pay the government.  You do not need a single accountant for this math can be done by yourself in at minimum ten minutes.  Business wise, it makes the country very competitive with respect to taxes and thus makes the country an attractive place for foreign businesses to move to.  So overall, simpler taxes, and better business climate make this plan a winner.

Issue 649 Smoking age 21! August 5, 2015

Hawaii has raised the smoking age to 21.  It is the first State to do so in the United States.  But is that new restriction going to do anything?

Age restrictions:  This is a lesser form of prohibition.  An age limit will not solve anything at all in fact.  Just like with alcohol being limited to age 21, it will create a market for young people who want to try it simply because it is being denied to them.  Also, this will not stop young people from smoking as they will ask their parents, their older friends or even strangers to buy it for them.  In essence, this does nothing to stop people from smoking in the same way it does nothing to stop people under a certain age from drinking.  Also, you are limiting the activities of an adult.  18 is the recognized age by which you can vote in the United States and thus the age by law you are considered an adult.  So, what is the point of limiting the age to 21 if the goal is to reduce the number of kids getting their hands on cigarettes?  None is the answer.  You cannot ban cigarettes for you create a black market, and you can't raise taxes on it indefinitely, so you lengthen the amount of time before an individual can buy it on their own.  If anything, they can limit the places where it can be sold such as the same places where they are allowed to sell medical marijuana.  That is right, Hawaii is a "Pot" State, yet they limit cigarettes.  Seems silly doesn't.  

Conclusion:  Sorry Hawaii, this writer, who works in a pharmacy, is the son of a corrections officer, and has a family filled with doctors, nurses and even more police and military personnel and has access to all their knowledge thinks that this will do nothing beneficial for your State.  You are being self-serving if you think that this will save anyone from smoking a cigarette in any way shape or form.  If you really want to protect people from addiction or abuse, then copy Europe and their drug policies that legalize everything and switch the war on drugs to a policy of treating addiction.  Cigarettes are a mere casualty in this silly escapade to protect the health of people, when the only people capable of protecting one's health are the individual people themselves.  I get it, you want to protect people from firsthand and secondhand smoke.  However, I am the son of a smoker, and I have asthma.  And guess what?  The asthma I have does not react to cigarette smoke.  It is a sensitivity to particles that make asthma act up (so if you're not sensitive to that airborne particle, then you are fine).  Also, while I understand the health risks of the possibilities of cancer, it does not mean that that person will get cancer, and we even have a new vaccine in testing that can prevent lung cancer too.  So all the arguments are mute.  Cut the crap and let people smoke whatever they want to smoke.

Issue 648 Forgiveness August 4, 2015

What does it mean to forgive?  The Children who lost their mom to the Charleston Church shooter forgave the murderer the very next day.  How were they able to do that?  Let us discuss.

Its faith:  The children of the slain mom had faith.  Their mother taught them the word of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ.  As such, they have been taught how to forgive and to forgive.  Essentially turning the other cheek.  But the sheer level of faith, and the mental fortitude to even say that they forgive the murderer is something that is perhaps beyond many of us.  For faith alone is not the sole driver of why they could say it, irrespective if they meant it personally or not.  Perhaps it was because that is what their mother expected them to do because of how she raised them.  Or maybe they sought to set an example to others.  I really do not know.  But needless to say, the fact that they can forgive a murderer who killed one of their own family is amazing.

Conclusion:  Faith seems to be the primary driver that allowed these children to forgive the murderer.  But can we who do not have as much faith do the same?  Possibly.  I think it also comes from courage fueled by faith.  However, I am not that forgiving despite my faith.  But this is because my faith was taught to me through my parents who have a strong sense of justice and righteousness.  As such, compassion for a murderer or other criminals is small to say the least.  I know my Dad would be the first one to lynch the murderer too (after the trial of course).  So while I can say I am more forgiving than my dad, I cannot do what these Kids did.  So can you forgive someone who murdered your family?  That is a question to ponder.

Issue 647 Criminals and Infamy August 3, 2015

Are we giving criminals like mass murderers too much credit?  By this I mean, should we show their faces on the television screen so that they become famous for such heinous acts?  Let us discuss.

Let us think:  Criminals are unique.  They prey upon others for some sort of personal gain.  But some do it for something more than personal gain. They want to become a legend.  For instance, the South Carolina Charleston Church shooter left a person alive so that they could tell others what happened before he attempted suicide.  It does not matter that his gun was illegal, that his motivations were race based as he was anti-black, and that he was a druggie.  He wanted to be famous.  This monster wanted to live on in the news media.  But he was arrested, and he lives to stand trial.  But that still makes him famous as people want to know why.  The news covered his background, his history and his ideology.  He was everywhere.  And you know what, he is not the only famous murderer/criminal.  The Barefoot bandit never killed anyone, but his escapes were to say the least very impressive.  Former mob members had movies made of their lives, and even con artists did too.  Silly isn't it.  A criminal can be more successful by doing something outrageous like murder, than they would at regular everyday life.

Conclusion:  So what should we do?  Simple, all trials and those involved should be secrete as much as possible.  Or at the very least, the perpetrator should only become known if they are looking for them in a man hunt, or once captured as soon as the trial is over.  In between, there is no reason to see the face of the suspect, know their name, or anything.  Let the story of the event calm down and then perhaps let the information out.  We do not want these fiends famous for dastardly deeds, but save secrecy, I do not have a solution.