I'm sure you've heard by now that former Senator Rick Santorum suspended his campaign for president, clearing the way for the remaining candidates to have an opportunity to pick up additional delegates. His three-year-old daughter Bella is battling a life threatening illness called Trisomy 18. She was hospitalized on Friday in Virginia, and Santorum was by her side the entire time.
I tip my hat to Senator Santorum. Despite everything he's sacrificed in his campaign - time, money, and family - he ultimately sees his responsibility as a father first. I wish the Senator good luck with any future endeavors and send my best wishes to his daughter, Bella.
So now the question is: How will this affect the Republican primary? Will Mitt Romney, who at this point is clearly the front-runner and will inevitably get the nomination, continue his dominance or will Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich find ways to spoil the former Massachusetts Governor's hopes in his second attempt for President?
Personally, I would like to see Ron Paul gain a majority, if not all, of Rick Santorum's delegates. He actually has a vision for this country, and its not just regurgitated talking points that most politicians resort to when they have no idea what they are talking about. As for Newt Gingrich, I just don't trust him. Sure, I agree with some of his views regarding economics. But overall, I think he would be dangerous, especially in the area of foreign policy.
Mitt Romney... where do I begin? This guy doesn't have any principles. He supports whatever the general public supports. He's a flip-flopper. First, he's pro-choice, then he's pro-life. First he says he "doesn't line up with the NRA", then when running for president as a Republican, he's been a life-long member. You name it, he's probably flipped on it. He's not consistent with his views, therefore, there's reason to believe he won't be consistent as president.
Also, Romney gives off this smug-rich-guy vibe. He doesn't seem like the common, everyday person. To be fair, most politicians don't. But there's just something about him that bothers me. Maybe it's his arrogance (does anyone else sense this?), or maybe it's the smug grin on his face that says, "You people are suckers."
I see Rick Santorum's dropping out as a domino effect which will ultimately lead to a Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama showdown in the general election.
Like I said earlier, I would like to see Ron Paul give Romney a run for his money. However, I don't see this as reality. As much as I would love a Ron Paul presidency, it'll never happen. It's no secret Ron Paul is not a friend of the banks and corporations that live off of the Federal Reserve system.
If Romney gets the nod -- he most likely will -- then I will either write in Ron Paul, or vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who in many regards, is similar to Ron Paul. He shares the same views for foreign policy as well as the principles behind economic and personal freedom.
It's going to be an interesting next few weeks in the Republican primary. Will Gingrich or Paul drop because they can't compete with Romney financially, or will both candidates surge and give Romney a bitter fight to the end?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
To Run or Not to Run...
When I first enrolled into college, I had an idea of what I wanted to do. I wanted to run for office, touting a political science degree to do so. However, after some time, I changed my major to journalism. Politics is a cut-throat business -- yes, a business. Politicians are now making a living being a "public servant", unlike the days during the Founding Fathers when representatives made a living outside of government. Most were farmers or small business owners who would usually return to their respective occupations after one or two terms. My, how things have changed!
Politics is also rarely personal. The media monitors your every move, waiting for you to make a mistake so they have another newsworthy scandal to boost their ratings. Political opponents will also exploit your emotions by citing attacks against your family. I didn't want to put my wife and kids through that ordeal. It was not a price I was willing to pay.
So, what better profession than journalism? I can still follow politics, do what I love (write), and try to make a difference with ideas. I find it enjoying, hence the reason for this blog. Sometimes, though, I feel like I'm wasting my time because no one is reading it. For that reason (also my doubt about the strength of my writing ability) have made me reconsider the option of running for public office. I won't abandon my responsibility as a student. I will finish school; get my degree. But in the meantime, I could actually contribute to society by serving as a state representative.
Right now, I feel inadequate as a provider. I've been unemployed for quite some time (going on two years?). I was permanently "laid off" due to poor financial management by the owner of my previous employer. Since then, I've had my resume posted in the Michigan Talent Bank, but no one has come knocking for my services. As a Marine Corps veteran with tons of experience in the administrative field, it pisses me off that I'm not qualified to serve as an office assistant in some rinky-dink RV/outdoor store. And applying for a position within the federal government is more hassle than what it's worth.
Luckily, my going to school generates an income from the VA. I get paid enough to cover the rent, while my wife's job covers the rest of the bills, groceries, and other miscellaneous expenses. Also, I draw disability from the VA, but its only enough for minor expenses.
Anyways, sorry to complain about my life. I didn't intend to, but I felt this would help explain why my wanting to be a state representative makes me feel like I'm actually doing something; like the work I do is appreciated.
However, as much as I would like to, I cannot run for office. The following points will elaborate as to why:
1) I don't have the money. Everyone knows it takes money to win a campaign. Usually the more you have, the better chance of victory.
2) I don't have the time. Campaigning will pretty much be my full-time job. I would have to attend fundraisers, town hall meetings and rallies. It would require cutting into my studying time. Worst of all, it would force Carmen to adjust her schedule. If she can't, I certainly don't have the time to drag my children along. My oldest has school to attend.
3) I don't have any legitimate experience. What's on my resume? Marine Corps veteran... worked for the collection industry... currently unemployed. The only political experience I have is volunteering for Congressman Justin Amash, who at that time was running to replace long-time 3rd district representative, Vern Ehlers. Other than that, nothing.
4) Because of #3, I don't think I can muster enough support. My youth and inexperience is a turn-off for likely voters. Ronald Reagan proved this theory to be true. In his re-election campaign in 1984, after Walter Mondale accused him of being too old to make sound decisions as president, he reframed the argument against his opponent's "youth and inexperience". It worked.
5) My political positions will alienate many voters. I am not really a Republican, and I'm definitely not a Democrat. However, I do hold some liberal views on certain issues, while holding very conservative views on others. I think this balance is attractive, yet from what I watch, read, and hear, this is not the case. Most either want all-liberal candidates or all-conservative candidates.
Those five "excuses" are prohibiting me from running for office. I don't even know if I'm old enough at this point. I'm only 26. But that shouldn't restrict me from running. If 18 is considered adequate to defend this country, it should be old enough to run for office -- especially at the state level!
Maybe I'm getting in over my head. At this point, I'm thinking I should stick with journalism and stay away from the public arena for my family's sake, as well as mine.
What do you think? Could you ever see me running for office?
Politics is also rarely personal. The media monitors your every move, waiting for you to make a mistake so they have another newsworthy scandal to boost their ratings. Political opponents will also exploit your emotions by citing attacks against your family. I didn't want to put my wife and kids through that ordeal. It was not a price I was willing to pay.
So, what better profession than journalism? I can still follow politics, do what I love (write), and try to make a difference with ideas. I find it enjoying, hence the reason for this blog. Sometimes, though, I feel like I'm wasting my time because no one is reading it. For that reason (also my doubt about the strength of my writing ability) have made me reconsider the option of running for public office. I won't abandon my responsibility as a student. I will finish school; get my degree. But in the meantime, I could actually contribute to society by serving as a state representative.
Right now, I feel inadequate as a provider. I've been unemployed for quite some time (going on two years?). I was permanently "laid off" due to poor financial management by the owner of my previous employer. Since then, I've had my resume posted in the Michigan Talent Bank, but no one has come knocking for my services. As a Marine Corps veteran with tons of experience in the administrative field, it pisses me off that I'm not qualified to serve as an office assistant in some rinky-dink RV/outdoor store. And applying for a position within the federal government is more hassle than what it's worth.
Luckily, my going to school generates an income from the VA. I get paid enough to cover the rent, while my wife's job covers the rest of the bills, groceries, and other miscellaneous expenses. Also, I draw disability from the VA, but its only enough for minor expenses.
Anyways, sorry to complain about my life. I didn't intend to, but I felt this would help explain why my wanting to be a state representative makes me feel like I'm actually doing something; like the work I do is appreciated.
However, as much as I would like to, I cannot run for office. The following points will elaborate as to why:
1) I don't have the money. Everyone knows it takes money to win a campaign. Usually the more you have, the better chance of victory.
2) I don't have the time. Campaigning will pretty much be my full-time job. I would have to attend fundraisers, town hall meetings and rallies. It would require cutting into my studying time. Worst of all, it would force Carmen to adjust her schedule. If she can't, I certainly don't have the time to drag my children along. My oldest has school to attend.
3) I don't have any legitimate experience. What's on my resume? Marine Corps veteran... worked for the collection industry... currently unemployed. The only political experience I have is volunteering for Congressman Justin Amash, who at that time was running to replace long-time 3rd district representative, Vern Ehlers. Other than that, nothing.
4) Because of #3, I don't think I can muster enough support. My youth and inexperience is a turn-off for likely voters. Ronald Reagan proved this theory to be true. In his re-election campaign in 1984, after Walter Mondale accused him of being too old to make sound decisions as president, he reframed the argument against his opponent's "youth and inexperience". It worked.
5) My political positions will alienate many voters. I am not really a Republican, and I'm definitely not a Democrat. However, I do hold some liberal views on certain issues, while holding very conservative views on others. I think this balance is attractive, yet from what I watch, read, and hear, this is not the case. Most either want all-liberal candidates or all-conservative candidates.
Those five "excuses" are prohibiting me from running for office. I don't even know if I'm old enough at this point. I'm only 26. But that shouldn't restrict me from running. If 18 is considered adequate to defend this country, it should be old enough to run for office -- especially at the state level!
Maybe I'm getting in over my head. At this point, I'm thinking I should stick with journalism and stay away from the public arena for my family's sake, as well as mine.
What do you think? Could you ever see me running for office?
Saturday, April 7, 2012
A Modern Day Prohibition
I haven't had a legitimate reason to post in the past few days because the start of the baseball season diverted my attention away from politics. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Following politics can be draining, especially when you hear the same thing over... and over... and over again. In fact, I don't miss it. Not to say I won't be following it, but you might notice a decline in the frequency of my posts.
Since I have nothing better to do while I wait for the laundry to finish, I find this to be a great opportunity to discuss my current dissertation on the legalization of marijuana. This paper is due two weeks from tomorrow (Sunday) and is required to be eight to ten pages in length. Luckily, I have enough material to make a healthy case for it.
First off, I would like to squash the rumors that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug. Yes, people that have used harder drugs also smoked marijuana in the past, but they did not do these drugs because of marijuana. This is just a fallacy intended to maintain support for the government's unwinnable "war on drugs".
While it's on my mind, allow me to explain my opposition to the war on drugs. Having been a staunch supporter of it, I now oppose it on the grounds that the government is actually exercising a type of prohibition. Sure, they tell you that the war on drugs is intended to keep unhealthy and deadly drugs out of the hands of our kids. But studies have shown that more adults smoke weed than minors. Also, marijuana use by minors has significantly decreased since the 1970's due to an anti-marijuana awareness campaign, not the war on drugs.
So, like I stated above, the war on drugs is actually a form of prohibition -- one that costs billions of dollars a year to maintain. This is not only wasteful spending, but unintelligent as well. I mean, why spend billions to stop marijuana from flowing in and out of this country when 11 states have already legalized medicinal marijuana? The "medicinal" marijuana is pretty easy to get, too. Moving on. Look what happened with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. The intent was to restore the morality of society by trying to rid it of crime, corruption, lower taxes needed to support prisons and poorhouses, and to improve general health. Instead they got MORE crime (organized crime) and corruption, MORE taxes need to support prisons and poor houses, and the alcohol that was distributed was improperly brewed and contained dangerous chemical additives.
When we keep harmless substances, like marijuana, illegal, we're helping the drug cartels build their bank account. The modern-day drug cartels are similar to the organized crime syndicates of the 1920s. They are illegally distributing marijuana for profit. Also, the marijuana that is distributed is also improperly grown and enhanced using chemicals that are extremely unhealthy to the body, much like the beer brewed in the 1920s. Although re-legalizing alcohol didn't eradicate organized crime, the bootlegging business was finished. The same applies to marijuana and the drug cartels. If we legalize it, the smuggling of marijuana into our country will end, which then allows our government to focus on more harmful substances like cocaine and heroine.
Legalization also saves our government billions of dollars in taxpayer money in the prison industry. All of those who were convicted and are sitting in prison for simple possession charges will now be released. Taxpayer money will not be wasted housing and feeding these "criminals", although smoking marijuana is a victimless crime.
I've had others argue against legalization. I've been told that many individuals "will be driving around high all the time." Ha! People drive around drunk... what's the difference? And alcohol is legal! So are cigarettes, which bar warnings on their packs explaining the dangers of tobacco use. And that's what confuses me about the whole thing. Cigarettes, which contain rat poison and tar, are legal, yet marijuana -- which is unhealthy because of benevolent drug lords -- is not. If our government could regulate the growing of marijuana to ensure harmful chemicals aren't entering the body of its users, then legalizing it would make sense. Additionally, our government could also rake in extra revenue from marijuana sales. Cut billions of dollars of waste from the budget; bring billions in. It's a win-win.
If you still don't agree, then allow me to persuade you just once more. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. If you don't drink, you don't buy alcohol, correct? If you don't smoke, you don't buy cigarettes, correct? Well, that's the beauty about it: no one is forcing you to. Marijuana can be legal but it doesn't mean you have to smoke it. And just to be sure that our children aren't exposed to it, ban it from public places, or designate special "cafes" allowed for adults 18 years or older.
All this fuss about a "dangerous drug" like marijuana being legalized is not a big deal, since we already have "drugs" like alcohol and cigarettes, both of which cause can cause a physical dependence. Marijuana is psychological and much, much easier to quit.
Since I have nothing better to do while I wait for the laundry to finish, I find this to be a great opportunity to discuss my current dissertation on the legalization of marijuana. This paper is due two weeks from tomorrow (Sunday) and is required to be eight to ten pages in length. Luckily, I have enough material to make a healthy case for it.
First off, I would like to squash the rumors that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug. Yes, people that have used harder drugs also smoked marijuana in the past, but they did not do these drugs because of marijuana. This is just a fallacy intended to maintain support for the government's unwinnable "war on drugs".
While it's on my mind, allow me to explain my opposition to the war on drugs. Having been a staunch supporter of it, I now oppose it on the grounds that the government is actually exercising a type of prohibition. Sure, they tell you that the war on drugs is intended to keep unhealthy and deadly drugs out of the hands of our kids. But studies have shown that more adults smoke weed than minors. Also, marijuana use by minors has significantly decreased since the 1970's due to an anti-marijuana awareness campaign, not the war on drugs.
So, like I stated above, the war on drugs is actually a form of prohibition -- one that costs billions of dollars a year to maintain. This is not only wasteful spending, but unintelligent as well. I mean, why spend billions to stop marijuana from flowing in and out of this country when 11 states have already legalized medicinal marijuana? The "medicinal" marijuana is pretty easy to get, too. Moving on. Look what happened with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. The intent was to restore the morality of society by trying to rid it of crime, corruption, lower taxes needed to support prisons and poorhouses, and to improve general health. Instead they got MORE crime (organized crime) and corruption, MORE taxes need to support prisons and poor houses, and the alcohol that was distributed was improperly brewed and contained dangerous chemical additives.
When we keep harmless substances, like marijuana, illegal, we're helping the drug cartels build their bank account. The modern-day drug cartels are similar to the organized crime syndicates of the 1920s. They are illegally distributing marijuana for profit. Also, the marijuana that is distributed is also improperly grown and enhanced using chemicals that are extremely unhealthy to the body, much like the beer brewed in the 1920s. Although re-legalizing alcohol didn't eradicate organized crime, the bootlegging business was finished. The same applies to marijuana and the drug cartels. If we legalize it, the smuggling of marijuana into our country will end, which then allows our government to focus on more harmful substances like cocaine and heroine.
Legalization also saves our government billions of dollars in taxpayer money in the prison industry. All of those who were convicted and are sitting in prison for simple possession charges will now be released. Taxpayer money will not be wasted housing and feeding these "criminals", although smoking marijuana is a victimless crime.
I've had others argue against legalization. I've been told that many individuals "will be driving around high all the time." Ha! People drive around drunk... what's the difference? And alcohol is legal! So are cigarettes, which bar warnings on their packs explaining the dangers of tobacco use. And that's what confuses me about the whole thing. Cigarettes, which contain rat poison and tar, are legal, yet marijuana -- which is unhealthy because of benevolent drug lords -- is not. If our government could regulate the growing of marijuana to ensure harmful chemicals aren't entering the body of its users, then legalizing it would make sense. Additionally, our government could also rake in extra revenue from marijuana sales. Cut billions of dollars of waste from the budget; bring billions in. It's a win-win.
If you still don't agree, then allow me to persuade you just once more. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal. If you don't drink, you don't buy alcohol, correct? If you don't smoke, you don't buy cigarettes, correct? Well, that's the beauty about it: no one is forcing you to. Marijuana can be legal but it doesn't mean you have to smoke it. And just to be sure that our children aren't exposed to it, ban it from public places, or designate special "cafes" allowed for adults 18 years or older.
All this fuss about a "dangerous drug" like marijuana being legalized is not a big deal, since we already have "drugs" like alcohol and cigarettes, both of which cause can cause a physical dependence. Marijuana is psychological and much, much easier to quit.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
President Obama: You will uphold... or else!
For someone who, at one point, supposedly taught constitutional law, President Obama doesn't have a clue about the process of checks and balances. He criticized the Supreme Court yesterday saying that "unelected judges" have no authority to overturn laws that have been passed by Congress. Really, Mr. President? Are you sure?
I'm not sure what the Harvard Law School curriculum is, but I do know they teach the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. This case determined that the Supreme Court does have the power to review any laws passed by Congress to actuate its constitutionality. I wonder if the president attended class that day...
The case to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is politically significant for the president. The decision will have a direct impact on his re-election. It makes perfect sense that he is out defending his bill. He understands the importance. However, is antagonizing and insulting the Supreme Court the right way to do it?
Absolutely not.
In fact, this could affect the court's decision regarding the health care law. I mean, think logically for a second. Would you insult someone who literally had your political destiny in their hands? I sure wouldn't. But some think Obama is using intimidation and threats to get his way. Texas Republican Lamar Smith believes that "the President is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court and to that extent is trying to politicize the process."
This offended some in the judicial community. If it doesn't offend all, then something is wrong. But one judge in particular, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry E. Smith, took it personally.
He said that President Obama's statements "trouble a number of people who have read it somehow as a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review". Judge Smith was so disturbed by the comments, he felt it necessary to issue an assignment -- due tomorrow afternoon -- to the Justice Dept. that "makes specific reference to president's statement" and the official position of the attorney general regarding judicial review. The assignment is a three-page, single spaced memorandum.
I applaud Judge Smith for standing up to the challenge. The president needs a reminder of his limited constitutional power.
This administration's lust of power is starting to scare me. First, it's the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the president to declare martial law, arrest American citizens without a formal charge, and detain these same individuals without due process. Then, a bill is enacted into law (the name of the bill escapes me) that restricts citizens from protesting near or inside buildings which are occupied by anyone with secret-service protection. Now he's going to tell the Supreme Court that they will abide by actions of Congress -- a Democratic congress. In fact, when the health care law was passed, not a single House or Senate Republican voted for it. The overwhelming majority shoved this "law" down the American people's throats.
I hope the Supreme Court, in spite of the president's threats, vote unanimously to overturn the law. I know I'm asking for a long shot, but it's possible.
Yet I see this as a sign. President Obama is desparate; scared, his back against the wall. Otherwise he would have no need to make public remarks in an attempt to persuade voters the Supreme Court is wrong. If we had even a sliver of evidence that revealed the Supreme Court upholding the law, there would not be a firestorm in the media.
The president is in the wrong. His comments show a lack of respect for the structure of our government. It's apparent he wants as much power as possible. It gets me thinking that maybe the rumors are true - maybe President Obama is a communist. A bit unfair, I know. But revisiting history, every communist regime has controlled - and oppressed - large portions of their population by obtaining absolute power. It is my belief that President Obama's actions are beginning to broadcast his true intentions and his idea of "change" for this country.
REFERENCES:
Fox Nation. (April 3, 2012). Obama takes aim at Supreme Court, calls them 'unelected group of people'. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/02/obama-slams-activist-supreme-court-calls-them-unelected-group-people
Borchers, Callum. (April 4, 2012). Federal judge orders Justice Dept. to acknowledge courts' power. Retrieved from April 4, 2012 from http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/04/04/federal-judge-orders-justice-department-acknowledge-courts-power-after-president-obama-says-supreme-court-should-not-overturn-health-care-law/SWIxHnFAhE6LU9EtEU5t7M/story.html
I'm not sure what the Harvard Law School curriculum is, but I do know they teach the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. This case determined that the Supreme Court does have the power to review any laws passed by Congress to actuate its constitutionality. I wonder if the president attended class that day...
The case to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is politically significant for the president. The decision will have a direct impact on his re-election. It makes perfect sense that he is out defending his bill. He understands the importance. However, is antagonizing and insulting the Supreme Court the right way to do it?
Absolutely not.
In fact, this could affect the court's decision regarding the health care law. I mean, think logically for a second. Would you insult someone who literally had your political destiny in their hands? I sure wouldn't. But some think Obama is using intimidation and threats to get his way. Texas Republican Lamar Smith believes that "the President is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court and to that extent is trying to politicize the process."
This offended some in the judicial community. If it doesn't offend all, then something is wrong. But one judge in particular, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry E. Smith, took it personally.
He said that President Obama's statements "trouble a number of people who have read it somehow as a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review". Judge Smith was so disturbed by the comments, he felt it necessary to issue an assignment -- due tomorrow afternoon -- to the Justice Dept. that "makes specific reference to president's statement" and the official position of the attorney general regarding judicial review. The assignment is a three-page, single spaced memorandum.
I applaud Judge Smith for standing up to the challenge. The president needs a reminder of his limited constitutional power.
This administration's lust of power is starting to scare me. First, it's the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the president to declare martial law, arrest American citizens without a formal charge, and detain these same individuals without due process. Then, a bill is enacted into law (the name of the bill escapes me) that restricts citizens from protesting near or inside buildings which are occupied by anyone with secret-service protection. Now he's going to tell the Supreme Court that they will abide by actions of Congress -- a Democratic congress. In fact, when the health care law was passed, not a single House or Senate Republican voted for it. The overwhelming majority shoved this "law" down the American people's throats.
I hope the Supreme Court, in spite of the president's threats, vote unanimously to overturn the law. I know I'm asking for a long shot, but it's possible.
Yet I see this as a sign. President Obama is desparate; scared, his back against the wall. Otherwise he would have no need to make public remarks in an attempt to persuade voters the Supreme Court is wrong. If we had even a sliver of evidence that revealed the Supreme Court upholding the law, there would not be a firestorm in the media.
The president is in the wrong. His comments show a lack of respect for the structure of our government. It's apparent he wants as much power as possible. It gets me thinking that maybe the rumors are true - maybe President Obama is a communist. A bit unfair, I know. But revisiting history, every communist regime has controlled - and oppressed - large portions of their population by obtaining absolute power. It is my belief that President Obama's actions are beginning to broadcast his true intentions and his idea of "change" for this country.
REFERENCES:
Fox Nation. (April 3, 2012). Obama takes aim at Supreme Court, calls them 'unelected group of people'. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/02/obama-slams-activist-supreme-court-calls-them-unelected-group-people
Borchers, Callum. (April 4, 2012). Federal judge orders Justice Dept. to acknowledge courts' power. Retrieved from April 4, 2012 from http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/04/04/federal-judge-orders-justice-department-acknowledge-courts-power-after-president-obama-says-supreme-court-should-not-overturn-health-care-law/SWIxHnFAhE6LU9EtEU5t7M/story.html
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
If I were President....
I've been thinking. If I was the President of the United States, what policies would I put in place? What policies would I remove? Will I be a president that panders to the lowest common denominator in order to get votes for re-election, or will I stick to my principles? I guess we would find out if I ever had a chance to become president (which I can't by the way). So I got the crazy idea of blogging the policies I would enact if I were in occupying the Oval Office. This is intended to be fun, so don't take this too seriously or get offended.
1) Eliminate the Department of Education. Give control back to the states and local districts.
2) Increase security at the southern border; reform immigration laws. With reform, I intend to lower the cost of application for citizenship. Grant temporary VISAs as long as those requesting them do not have a criminal record. Avoid massive deportations, as it would require a large portion of government spending.
3) Repeal the Patriot Act and decrease funding for homeland security to reasonable levels.
4) Repeal Obamacare and return to very limited public health options. Limited funding of Medicare and Medicaid.
5) Overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide what to do about abortion.
6) Further expand some free trade agreements. End the embargo on Cuba.
7) Protect the 2nd Amendment. Enforce the indivual right to own firearms to include a national concealed carry law.
8) Protect our environment, but not through the EPA. Dismantle the EPA; use the free-market to solve environmental problems.
9) Reduce dependence on foreign oil by opening federal land for drilling. Also, invest in research for alternate energy sources.
10) Implement a signficant tax cut for all businesses.
11) Institute a low, flat income tax.
12) Require a balanced budget amendment, use savings to pay down the national debt. Only utilize deficit spending in dire emergencies.
13) Gradually phase out social security. The elderly and the disabled will continue to receive subsistence. Those nearing retirement age will have the option of continuing on SS, or opting out. The rest will be left to invest in their own retirement.
14) End all corporate welfare.
15) Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and leave the issue of marriage to the states.
16) End all affirmative action programs. These programs are pure discrimination.
17) Legalize and regulate marijuana much like alcohol and cigarettes.
18) Lower the drinking age to 18. If they are old enough to fight and die for our country, they are old enough for a beer.
19) Require semi-annual audits of the Federal Reserve Bank. If the Fed violates U.S. law, shut it down.
20) Require term limits for Congress. Four-terms as representative; two as Senator.
1) Withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
2) Bring home all U.S. troops from bases stationed overseas, and close the bases.
3) No military action will be used without a clear purpose and exit plan.
4) Resign as a member of the United Nations.
5) Maintain a strong military to ward off countries, such as Iran and North Korea.
6) Strengthen relations globally by diplomacy.
7) The U.S. will never go to war unless declared or war has been declared on us.
This is pretty much it. If I missed anything and would like to know my position on a certain issue, let me know. If you disagree with me on an issue, let me know. I would be more than happy to debate it with you. But keep in mind, this is just for fun. Don't get offended.
Also, what would you change if you could edit this list?
President Kuestner's domestic policy:
1) Eliminate the Department of Education. Give control back to the states and local districts.
2) Increase security at the southern border; reform immigration laws. With reform, I intend to lower the cost of application for citizenship. Grant temporary VISAs as long as those requesting them do not have a criminal record. Avoid massive deportations, as it would require a large portion of government spending.
3) Repeal the Patriot Act and decrease funding for homeland security to reasonable levels.
4) Repeal Obamacare and return to very limited public health options. Limited funding of Medicare and Medicaid.
5) Overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide what to do about abortion.
6) Further expand some free trade agreements. End the embargo on Cuba.
7) Protect the 2nd Amendment. Enforce the indivual right to own firearms to include a national concealed carry law.
8) Protect our environment, but not through the EPA. Dismantle the EPA; use the free-market to solve environmental problems.
9) Reduce dependence on foreign oil by opening federal land for drilling. Also, invest in research for alternate energy sources.
10) Implement a signficant tax cut for all businesses.
11) Institute a low, flat income tax.
12) Require a balanced budget amendment, use savings to pay down the national debt. Only utilize deficit spending in dire emergencies.
13) Gradually phase out social security. The elderly and the disabled will continue to receive subsistence. Those nearing retirement age will have the option of continuing on SS, or opting out. The rest will be left to invest in their own retirement.
14) End all corporate welfare.
15) Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and leave the issue of marriage to the states.
16) End all affirmative action programs. These programs are pure discrimination.
17) Legalize and regulate marijuana much like alcohol and cigarettes.
18) Lower the drinking age to 18. If they are old enough to fight and die for our country, they are old enough for a beer.
19) Require semi-annual audits of the Federal Reserve Bank. If the Fed violates U.S. law, shut it down.
20) Require term limits for Congress. Four-terms as representative; two as Senator.
President Kuestner's Foreign Policy
1) Withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
2) Bring home all U.S. troops from bases stationed overseas, and close the bases.
3) No military action will be used without a clear purpose and exit plan.
4) Resign as a member of the United Nations.
5) Maintain a strong military to ward off countries, such as Iran and North Korea.
6) Strengthen relations globally by diplomacy.
7) The U.S. will never go to war unless declared or war has been declared on us.
This is pretty much it. If I missed anything and would like to know my position on a certain issue, let me know. If you disagree with me on an issue, let me know. I would be more than happy to debate it with you. But keep in mind, this is just for fun. Don't get offended.
Also, what would you change if you could edit this list?
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Affirmative Action Does Not Prevent Racism -- It Is Racism
I just recently purchased a book by Bernard Goldberg -- an eight time Emmy award winner for his work at CBS & HBO, and winner of the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia Award (the most prestigious of all broadcast journalism awards) -- titled Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind And the Other Lost Its Nerve. Its a brilliant little piece of work considering I've only read half. Anyway, Mr. Goldberg tells his story of his transformation from being a liberal to becoming a conservative. He accurately and passionately describes the sheer stupidity, ignorance, and above all, intolerance of the modern-day "liberal". A significant topic he touches upon is race, and how the Left is extremely hypocritical when they stake their claim as protectors and harbingers of civil rights among racial minorities, yet they egregiously support racist programs such as affirmative action. Which brings me to my "op-ed", if you will.
I agree with many of Mr. Goldberg's views on certain issues, but none more so than affirmative action. Affirmative action got its start with the late President John F. Kennedy, who though it was necessary to break down the walls of discrimination by prohibiting employers from denying individuals employment based on their race, sex, religion, and age. I'm not entirely sure if sexual orientation was yet considered during that time. President Kennedy was correct for doing so, but his intention was taken out of context. Today, affirmative action is understood to level the playing field for minorities who've endured past discrimination. Never mind that affirmative action is discrimination in itself, it's a noble idea.
If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he would be in heavy opposition to this program. Consider the following words:
What bugs me though about the black community is their idolization of Dr. King (rightfully so), yet their complete disregard for the message he portrayed. When he says someone should be judged by the content of their character, that does not mean overwhelmingly support a federal program requiring employers and colleges to give extra points on applications and admissions based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Preferential quotas is blatant discrimination, no matter which way you look at it. For example, on one side you've got a black teenager who's dad is a doctor and mother is a lawyer, and on the other you have a white teenager who's dad is a mechanic and mother a waitress. Both apply to the same university. Despite the black teenager's background and financial status, he still gets extra points on his enrollment application simply because his skin is a different color other than white. It hardly seems fair to me.
Therefore, race/gender/sexual preference-based affirmative action, should be eliminated. An additional reason for termination is quotas also carry a limit. Black students can still be turned down because a college may have already met their quota for the month. Likewise with Asians, Hispanics, and many other ethnic backgrounds.
Once that happens, many on the Left are going to ask what can be done to help poor minorities in this country. That's not our concern. Reformation starts within the community, not from society. The black community has to change their own culture. They need strong leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, who are not only racist themselves, but shamefully overuse the race card to promote their own political or economic agenda.
Looking ahead, individuals need to stop blaming society for their problems. Martin Luther King didn't. He did something about it. He rallied people of all colors, ethnicities, religions behind a common purpose: to eradicate the influence of racism. The black community, the Hispanic community, hell, even the white community need to turn the finger of blame on themselves. Values are taught inside the home. If we as a nation ever plan on defeating racism, crime, teen pregnancies, and giving fathers a sense of responsibility, it's time we start teaching those values again.
I agree with many of Mr. Goldberg's views on certain issues, but none more so than affirmative action. Affirmative action got its start with the late President John F. Kennedy, who though it was necessary to break down the walls of discrimination by prohibiting employers from denying individuals employment based on their race, sex, religion, and age. I'm not entirely sure if sexual orientation was yet considered during that time. President Kennedy was correct for doing so, but his intention was taken out of context. Today, affirmative action is understood to level the playing field for minorities who've endured past discrimination. Never mind that affirmative action is discrimination in itself, it's a noble idea.
If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he would be in heavy opposition to this program. Consider the following words:
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. [...] I have a dream that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."As you all may know, this is from Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech" -- a message of particular importance to the black community.
What bugs me though about the black community is their idolization of Dr. King (rightfully so), yet their complete disregard for the message he portrayed. When he says someone should be judged by the content of their character, that does not mean overwhelmingly support a federal program requiring employers and colleges to give extra points on applications and admissions based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Preferential quotas is blatant discrimination, no matter which way you look at it. For example, on one side you've got a black teenager who's dad is a doctor and mother is a lawyer, and on the other you have a white teenager who's dad is a mechanic and mother a waitress. Both apply to the same university. Despite the black teenager's background and financial status, he still gets extra points on his enrollment application simply because his skin is a different color other than white. It hardly seems fair to me.
Therefore, race/gender/sexual preference-based affirmative action, should be eliminated. An additional reason for termination is quotas also carry a limit. Black students can still be turned down because a college may have already met their quota for the month. Likewise with Asians, Hispanics, and many other ethnic backgrounds.
Once that happens, many on the Left are going to ask what can be done to help poor minorities in this country. That's not our concern. Reformation starts within the community, not from society. The black community has to change their own culture. They need strong leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, who are not only racist themselves, but shamefully overuse the race card to promote their own political or economic agenda.
Looking ahead, individuals need to stop blaming society for their problems. Martin Luther King didn't. He did something about it. He rallied people of all colors, ethnicities, religions behind a common purpose: to eradicate the influence of racism. The black community, the Hispanic community, hell, even the white community need to turn the finger of blame on themselves. Values are taught inside the home. If we as a nation ever plan on defeating racism, crime, teen pregnancies, and giving fathers a sense of responsibility, it's time we start teaching those values again.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Man arrested for reading the Bible in public...justified, or bigotry?
In a very rare occasion, I watched the Fox News channel today. While doing so, I caught the report of the California man who was arrested in February of last year for reading the Bible out loud in public. The arresting officer charged him, as well as two others, for preaching to a "captive audience" -- an audience who is, as they claim, forced to listen because the individuals cannot leave an area.
Robert Tyler, the lawyer defending the man and his church, claims this is absolutely ridiculous. He feels that if the use of the captive audience argument holds ground, who's to say that they won't restrict public reading of the Bible in parks? Also, he mentioned the man was cited for "impeding an open business". However, the DMV was not open at the time.
Mark Mackey, the defendant, is a member of the Calvary Chapel Hemet, a local "evangelical" church which practices the public testimonials and Scripture reading to spread the message of the Gospel.
The prosecuting attorney, Dan Conaway, says the doctrine of "captive audience" does apply because he was "creating an intimidating situation for people who simply want to get their drivers licenses renewed" (Kennedy, 2012). Mr. Conaway believes that it's okay to preach in public, but not when the listeners can't leave.
He commented further: “He does not have the right to intimidate others and force them to listen and impede their ability to do normal business activities such as going to the DMV" (Kennedy).
Tyler argues there is much more than simple intimidation to constitute using the captive audience argument. He says there must be a threat, which in this case, reading the Bible is not threatening.
OK. Now that we have the general summary of story, allow me to put my spin on it.
First off, arguing in favor of the state of California, many may complain that this was "religious bigotry". But let me ask you this. Would any of you be intimidated/uncomfortable if someone had starting reading the Qu'ran out loud and preaching Islam? How about Buddhism? Worse yet, how about Satanism? Would any of you honestly let this person preach their message to you?
OK. I finally have that off of my chest. Now, arguing in favor of Mr. Mackey and his church, he was not harming anyone, and since the DMV was not open and the listeners were most likely waiting OUTSIDE... they were allowed to leave. Mr. Mackey doesn't come across as someone who would hold a gun to your head forcing his religious beliefs down your throat. On the contrary, he was simply reading. No one was coerced to accept, let alone listen, to his message. If people really were offended, they would have kindly asked him to stop. I'm sure he would've been more than happy to oblige.
My final opinion is this: Mark Mackey should not be charged with any sort of a crime. He did nothing wrong. No lives were threatened. On the other hand, I would advise him and others for future reference to carefully choose their spots. Not everyone is going to be nice. Not everyone is going to be peaceful or respectful. It's very likely that violence could erupt. And if there's a possibility of violence, a state, if not the federal government, can make it illegal to read any religious scripture in public, therefore re-categorizing it as "disturbing the peace" rather than preaching to a "captive audience".
Overall, we must be wary of restricting speech. Although it's our right as citizens, we have to make sure that our message will not incite violence against us or others. Let's use our freedom of speech responsibly.
References:
Kennedy, Dougals. Taking liberties: Arrested for reading the Bible? March 29, 2012. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/taking-liberties-arrested-for-reading-bible/
Robert Tyler, the lawyer defending the man and his church, claims this is absolutely ridiculous. He feels that if the use of the captive audience argument holds ground, who's to say that they won't restrict public reading of the Bible in parks? Also, he mentioned the man was cited for "impeding an open business". However, the DMV was not open at the time.
Mark Mackey, the defendant, is a member of the Calvary Chapel Hemet, a local "evangelical" church which practices the public testimonials and Scripture reading to spread the message of the Gospel.
The prosecuting attorney, Dan Conaway, says the doctrine of "captive audience" does apply because he was "creating an intimidating situation for people who simply want to get their drivers licenses renewed" (Kennedy, 2012). Mr. Conaway believes that it's okay to preach in public, but not when the listeners can't leave.
He commented further: “He does not have the right to intimidate others and force them to listen and impede their ability to do normal business activities such as going to the DMV" (Kennedy).
Tyler argues there is much more than simple intimidation to constitute using the captive audience argument. He says there must be a threat, which in this case, reading the Bible is not threatening.
OK. Now that we have the general summary of story, allow me to put my spin on it.
First off, arguing in favor of the state of California, many may complain that this was "religious bigotry". But let me ask you this. Would any of you be intimidated/uncomfortable if someone had starting reading the Qu'ran out loud and preaching Islam? How about Buddhism? Worse yet, how about Satanism? Would any of you honestly let this person preach their message to you?
OK. I finally have that off of my chest. Now, arguing in favor of Mr. Mackey and his church, he was not harming anyone, and since the DMV was not open and the listeners were most likely waiting OUTSIDE... they were allowed to leave. Mr. Mackey doesn't come across as someone who would hold a gun to your head forcing his religious beliefs down your throat. On the contrary, he was simply reading. No one was coerced to accept, let alone listen, to his message. If people really were offended, they would have kindly asked him to stop. I'm sure he would've been more than happy to oblige.
My final opinion is this: Mark Mackey should not be charged with any sort of a crime. He did nothing wrong. No lives were threatened. On the other hand, I would advise him and others for future reference to carefully choose their spots. Not everyone is going to be nice. Not everyone is going to be peaceful or respectful. It's very likely that violence could erupt. And if there's a possibility of violence, a state, if not the federal government, can make it illegal to read any religious scripture in public, therefore re-categorizing it as "disturbing the peace" rather than preaching to a "captive audience".
Overall, we must be wary of restricting speech. Although it's our right as citizens, we have to make sure that our message will not incite violence against us or others. Let's use our freedom of speech responsibly.
References:
Kennedy, Dougals. Taking liberties: Arrested for reading the Bible? March 29, 2012. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/taking-liberties-arrested-for-reading-bible/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)