Obama's Syria Dilemma

Foreign policy is a tricky thing; as a multitude of strategies decided by the state to protect U.S. interests and achieve international relationship goals, foreign policy falls under the umbrella of public policy. So any failure in regards to foreign policy can be interpreted as a reflection of, or an indication of, the government's current weakness, which is never a good thing. President Barack Obama has a rather interesting history of foreign policy in this regard. Although, while nowhere near as checkered a history as George W. Bush's foreign policy, Obama has done some rather unfortunate self-infliction in the Middle East, namely in Syria. 

In March 2012, the president stated, in regards to the escalating standoff between Israel and Iran, that it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire a working nuclear device. He drew a red line to this threat of Iranian nuclear power saying that, "As president of the United States, I don't bluff". I mention this because in August of the same year, Obama made a similar commitment in regards to the Syrian Civil War, that the Syrian use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line" for the United States, and that it would be a mistake for President Bashar al-Assad to cross it. Well, now credible information from many reliable sources, both within and without the intelligence community, has informed us that Assad has deployed sarin gas against his own people; the line has been crossed. Unfortunately for Obama, defending the line means that the U.S. would have to deploy military assets into Syria, something that the commander-in-chief wants to stay clear of, and for good reason.

Now, the president is faced with an unpleasant dilemma: either take direct action against Syria, which he promised he would veer from, or undermine U.S. credibility and the credibility of his administration. This will have and effect on the other red line quote on Iran and is going to require that Obama consider a few possibilities; who will take the U.S. seriously on it's vow to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, especially Iran, if the president goes back on his word against Syria? On the other hand, any move he makes on Iran will require cooperation from Russia and China, cooperation we wouldn't get if we got into a war with Syria, and vice versa.

It is unfortunate that a president that promised to get us out of two bad wars now has to deal with the possibility of starting a new one. He can't do nothing, otherwise Assad would be encouraged to use more chemical weapons and it would send a signal to America's allies and enemies that we are a nation of back-sliders. However, he can't just commit to Syria; billions of dollars in costs, possible ground deployment of troops, and definite casualties would invite unwanted comparisons to the Bush administration by his own party and constituents. I don't envy the position he's in, but hopefully four years of residing in the presidency has taught him a few things about how to effectively deal with these foreign policy issues. I didn't like his policy agenda that much in his first term, but that doesn't automatically mean that he's destined to be a failure in the second. I watch the unfolding events with both skepticism and optimism, hoping that he finds some sort of middle ground on how to proceed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/26/obama_syria_dilemma?page=0,0

Bureaucracy - How Big Can it Get?

Referred to half the time as the fourth branch, the U.S. bureaucracy is despised by the vast majority of Americans. In all truth, our bureaucracy is essential to our modern society. There are claims that it isn't constitutional due to the fact that members of the bureaucracy are not elected, but the president is given constitutional power to put those people there. But there are other complaints about bureaucracy that have more of a motivation.

March 23, 2005 explosion at BP oil refinery in Texas City that resulted in 17 deaths and over 170 injuries.

There have assertions that bureaucracy stagnates growth and innovation, but this is necessary to insure that the same innovation and growth doesn't spiral out of control and into a catastrophe as it often does. Take BP for example; in the late 1990s, they moved from a government-managed rule-bound entity into a slim, more productive company. They disregarded the checks and balances placed on them in favor of a profit-motivated management style. This culminated in the 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery which killed over a dozen people and injured more than a hundred more, as well as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Well explosion that became known as the Gulf Oil Spill. BP was so eager to move away from the checks and balances that slowed growth in their operations that they didn't stop to consider which of those checks and balances should have stayed implemented. This is a perfect example of what happens when bureaucratic oversight is rejected entirely.

These issues with our current bureaucracy do not bother me. What does bother me is the question of

What do you make of all that red tape? He seems to really have his hands tied.

efficiency: how big should our bureaucracy be allowed to get before it becomes inefficient? It is my understanding that the larger a government or section of the government grows, it becomes harder to maintain efficiency and keep track of new developments. A good example of this is education in our public school systems. It is my understanding that U.S. public schools are becoming more inefficient in how it gets resources to where they need to go and how it encourages student initiative and growth, specifically in the inner cities. I can attest to that as someone who has progressed through quite a few schools in the past ten years and has noticed the deterioration. Bureaucratic systems, policies and practices that have built up over the past few decades have led to fewer resources being allocated to the classroom and it has prevented teachers from getting the support they need to address individual student needs. Teachers, students, parents, and taxpayers alike are all feeling frustrated and disheartened.

A chart detailing (left) the rate of public school employment of faculty compared to student enrollment and (right) the rate of federal spending in public education against reading, science, and math scores.

There are many examples of bureaucracy getting in the way of student advancement and learning: 1) Waste, fraud and abuse of district resources resulting in taxpayer dollars meant for education ending outside of education itself; 2) The bar for learning and advancement has been lowered in certain states which puts those students at a disadvantage when applying for a job; 3) School boards focus on micromanaging, adult in-fighting, and complying with existing policies and procedures rather than on solving these systematic problems to create environments that support teachers and students and lead to academic achievement. The list goes on and on, and even though no one i particular is to blame it is clear that education bureaucracy needs to be overhauled.

'Nuff said.

Bureaucracy has both benefits and disadvantages which I have become very aware of over the past few years and have accepted. Unfortunately, we are at a cross-roads in our current political system with two sides who are moving further and further away to opposite extremes where very few people are willing to acknowledge both sides of the coin. You have the Democrat party focusing mostly on the positive aspects of bureaucracy and the Republican party focusing mostly on the negatives; nothing ever gets done because neither side will acknowledge both aspects of the situation we are currently in. Bureaucracy is necessary to the large, complicated, and rapidly-changing society we live in, but it also needs improvement in order for it to work more efficiently.

American Drones Flying Over America... Why?

Family of Teledyne Ryan targets and RPVs

Drones, or the official name of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which I will use every now and then, are becoming a common talking point in our political climate lately. Last year, it was reported by several news outlets that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was in possession of drones (UAVs) similar in design to those that were being used against terrorists overseas, albeit without the guns. Not only did they have UAVs but they were flying them over local farms in Nebraska and Iowa to spy one them and monitor any violations of the Clean Water Act, which is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. Everyone was wondering why the government would be flying drones over our own airspace to simply spy on farmers.

We still don't know why drones were permitted to fly over farms, but the discussions still rage on today. On March 6, 2013, the House of Representatives voted to require the Department of Defense (DoD) to release information of whether UAVs were indeed being used to conduct surveillance on American citizens. The bill, rising out of the Appropriations committee, calls for newly appointed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to disclose what "policies and procedures" are in place "governing the use" of home-based UAVs. This bill comes off the back of Senator Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster where he raised the profile of the drone misuse issue.

Predator drone firing Missile

According to a recent statement made by Senator Lindsey Graham, over 4,700 people have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia over the course of "America's secretive drone war". Further research conducted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that somewhere between 474 and 881 civilians have been killed by the same drone strikes. Concerns about drone strikes have risen sharply over the last 3 years for this very reason as Americans wonder if the flying bombers could ever be used at home. In fact, it reached an all-time high when President Obama released a memo where he gives himself the authority to kill an American citizen, overseas or or at home, who is in imminent threat of committing  a terrorist attack against the United States, an act which was recently confirmed by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Giving one man, even the President, the power to rain hellfire down on one of his own people under even "extraordinary circumstances" is a dangerous notion and the people have a right to be afraid. How do the President or Congress decide what encompasses an "extraordinary circumstance" and would these rare instances condone the risk of killing bystanders in the strike's radius? These questions have to be asked, otherwise we're placing blind trust in our leaders to do the right thing. Even more dangerous when those leaders possess one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man.

Media Bias... To the Left

We've all heard the stories about media bias in our national news media, all the accusations thrown back and forth about who it favors. Well I'm telling you right now which direction it slants in: the left. People might not want to believe that our news is influenced by a bunch of people who support government agendas and messaging, some people don't even know it's happening, but there have been a multitude of examples over the years where the many outlets of the liberal media have the same message in regards to a certain topic. They protect accused high-profile democrats and liberal groups and individuals even when they are at fault, usually by attacking whoever gave the accusations by slandering them and humiliating them.

Photo from a peaceful Tea Party rally (left) championing regulated government and a photo from a radical Occupy protest (right) demanding government handouts and entitlements.

One example I have of blatant liberal media bias is the Fall 2011 coverage of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Many news outlets were praising the movement calling them organized and peaceful; even president Obama gave his support for the movement, saying that he "emphasizes with their frustration". In the following weeks, while Fox News, bloggers, and other outlets were receiving and broadcasting reports of pollution, defecation, rape, even a few fatalities within the confines of the Occupy camps, networks like ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC, and CNN said nothing of the crimes. They were too busy lording Occupy Wall Street over the conservative Tea Party Movement who they have referred to several times as full of racist, extremist, hate-mongers at best, and domestic terrorists at worst despite the fact that they hold peaceful and silent protests never having once been reported for so much as littering. This is only one example of the liberal media choosing to ignore certain stories while focusing so heavily on the ones that they themselves have fabricated.

There are other examples that have popped up over the years, but none shine so bright as the election of 2012. Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney, and guess who the media sided with, no need to say it out loud. All throughout the election the mainstream media hounded Governor Romney either supporting or failing to denounce many allegations against him: humiliating a gay kid in high school by cutting his hair; putting his dog on the roof of his car during a family vacation; even claims that he contributed to a woman's death-by-cancer. While CNN debunked the last one, CBS and NBC failed to even report it. And then there were the debates, specifically the moderators of said debates, all of whom happened to be democrats. Candy Crowley from CNN, during the debate at Hofstra University, made a false statement in support of Obama's claims that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror, which he actually called a spontaneous demonstration. Crowley even admitted afterwards that Romney had it right; so she basically lied to cover Obama. ABC’s Martha Raddatz did something very similar in the vice presidential debate, injecting herself into the conversation against Paul Ryan in support of Joe Biden. The moderator's job is to "moderate" these debates and remain impartial; instead both these women interrupted the Republican nominee several times during both their debates giving more time for their Democrat counterparts to speak. If this isn't a naked display of downright support and bias then I don't know what is.

Since 2008, I've heard a lot of what the news media has had to say about Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party, and many people that I look up to. I considered what they said, then looked it up for myself only to discover that some of it wasn't accurate, some of it even false. Face it people, liberals own so much of the national news. This is why conservative moderators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have such huge followings, often larger than even the TV networks, despite being a radio talk show. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that the media is trying to destroy those guys as well. The truth is people just don't trust what they see and hear on the news as much as they used to. Thank goodness for the internet. Relying absolutely on certain people for all your news is dangerous, and I wouldn't suggest that anyone believe me without looking all this up for yourself.

Tea Party Hijacking/Saving the Republican Party

No doubt everyone knows about the rise of the Tea Party and their influence in today's political world. They seemed to come out of nowhere and gave the Republican party a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections. Their beliefs are rooted deep in traditional, conservative principles that capture the hearts of many Americans. Which is why the Republican party is currently having its house divided between the two.


I wouldn't say that the Tea Party is a third party that seeks to disrupt the traditional two-party system of politics. From my understanding, the Republican party has been divided into two wings: the Republican establishment and the Republican conservatives, which the Tea Party stems from. One of the Tea Party's stated goals is to convert and re-brand the Republican party which they believe has drifted away from conservative ideals and has become more government heavy. They stated that the 2012 election was lost, not just the presidency but the Senate as well, because the Republican establishment hand-picked candidates that did not fully embrace the grass-roots, limited-government principles that the Tea Party wields, and I am tempted to agree. Obama and Romney were complete opposites from my perspective, but to the average undecided or independent there wasn't enough of an immediate distinction between them and the election was viewed as choosing the lesser of two evils. The Tea Party offers a more distinctive choice that they believe fully distinguishes the ideological, economical, and social differences between Democrats and the Republicans.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/tea-party-leader-gop-establishment-big-loser/?page=all

Again, the Tea Party's influence is still strong and they have people in office for 2016 that are staunchly conservative and well-respected. In fact, two of these people gave their rebuttals to Obama's State of the Union Address last week: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Rubio gave the Republican rebuttal and Paul gave the one for the Tea Party; the fact that the Tea Party has a big enough base to justify a second rebuttal is telling. Rubio and Paul had a very similar rebuttals in regards to the president as well as immigration, the difference being that Paul spread the guilt out to the Republican establishment as well as the Democrats.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-obama-speech-paul-idUSBRE91C0BR20130213

While many people are quick to believe that the Tea Party is dead now that the election is over, I can guarantee you that they aren't going anywhere. I believe that their influence will continue to rise and the Republican establishment will eventually lean back towards conservative values, especially if they want to actually have a chance of winning big in 2016.

The Hidden Truths About Obamacare - Things they Don't Want You to Know

This is actually the first time I've brought up the Obamacare issue in its entirety and I want to share this information with you, whoever is listening, because I genuinely care about how you see this insanely complicated political world. There are things about Obamacare that you don't know that you have to look for to truly comprehend what a leviathan it is.





According to the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme court decision, religious institutions have the right to control their internal affairs, that includes healthcare coverage of their employees. Obamacare violates that decision, refusing to exempt religious institutions - including Catholic churches, schools, and hospitals.

http://www.communityofliberty.org/article/how-obamacare-infringes-on-religious-liberty/

What I'm more concerned about are the costs of Obamacare. You can't opt out of this thing, meaning that you have to pay for it. The news reports estimate the total cost of Obamacare would be around $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. The cheapest plan will cost the average American family $20,000, that's around $4,000 more than what most families pay now which is contrary to Obama's statements that it would reduce family premiums by $2,500 a year.

http://moneymorning.com/2013/02/11/the-real-cost-of-obamacare/

There's also the matter of all the taxes that come along with Obamacare: the Investment Income Surtax, the Tanning Tax, Individual Mandate Tax, Medicare Payroll Tax Hike, and others. Not to mention all of the hidden taxes that they won't tell you: the Medical Device Tax, the Insurer Tax, the Pharmaceutical Companies Tax, the Cadillac Tax, and the States Subsidies for Medicaid.

http://moneymorning.com/2012/08/05/warning-hidden-obamacare-taxes-will-cost-you-more-than-you-think/





The Obamacare regulations are somewhere between 961 pages and 2000 pages and no one has read through it in its entirety. If you think you know what's in this so-called "law" then you haven't researched it as extensively as my parents, role models, and I have.

Please respond to this if you see this, and please ask me questions about this, because the last thing I want is for people to immediately accept this kind of stuff as truth. That would be scary.

Gun Control: The Solution that's Worse Than the Cure

UPDATE: According to recent reports, non-military sectors of the federal government have been stockpiling millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition (2 billion to be precise). Ironic isn't it, that the government would be hoarding the guns and ammo while preaching to us that people should not be allowed to own them. This indicates indicating that our own government is preparing for either marshal law or large scale civil unrest. I believe they are preparing for the economic collapse that they started, because when economies collapse wide-spread violence is inevitable.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/feds-buying-enough-bullets-for-24-year-war-radio-host-warns-dhs-preparing-for-prolonged-riots-in-u-s-2569522.html

__________________________________________________________________________________

Today I'm going to talk about something that I have been yelling at myself in the mirror for over a year now: gun control. I hear so many people talk about how we should control guns and that out country would be so much safer if we either restricted access to guns or banned them outright. As much as a sympathize with the victims and families of the victims of violent gun crimes who feel that they need to do something about this, I can't in good faith just sit by and not explain the whole situation. The fact of the matter is that guns are just tools, one of hundreds of different tools, that were made by men for the purpose of killing or defending each other. Getting rid of them would only be a temporary solution or, in my opinion, no solution at all.

 

Since we're on the topic of polls and typology, I thought I might include a little statistic about the public's opinions on gun control. While it is true that a large majority of people who respond to polls believe that there should be stronger restrictions on guns, this opinion has been dwindling as of lately. According to this NewsBusters article I found, CNN's polls, dated back to January, have been showing a drop in support over the previous month for a ban on semi-automatic guns and high-capacity ammo clips as well as a drop in support for background checks on newly registered gun owners. While some of you reading this might think this is bad, I think it's great and here's why; the only people that these bans and requirements would affect are the LAW-ABIDING citizens who AREN'T the ones who commit murders. These measures WOULDN'T affect the criminals, mentally ill, and mass murderers who are ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW or have no comprehension of it.

These people, black of heart and mind as they are, will commit crimes regardless of what weapon is denied to them and will always continue to commit gun-crimes because they will always find them. How do I know this? Well, Harvard conduct a study on violent crimes in European nations that had low numbers of gun-ownership and nations that had high gun-ownership. According the results of their study, they discovered that the nations with low levels of gun ownership (Holland, Sweden, Denmark, etc.) had some of the highest murder rates in Europe, while nations like Norway that had high levels of gun ownership also had the lowest murder rates. To be clear, these are not the rates of gun-related crime but rather the rates of overall crime. Just to prove my point, the study also showed Russia as having a murder rate 4X that of the U.S. and 20X that of Norway despite having virtually destroyed the notion of gun-ownership there. Needless to say, where gun ownership is low death by stabbing, strangling, and beating is high.

These are statistics that anti-gun activists fail to take notice of when they spew out their inconsistent arguments. In my personal, mostly-unbiased opinion, I believe that these gun control activists don't care about any other kind of murder except those committed with guns because they are so committed to whitewashing the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. And with that, let me leave you with an interview between the gun-control obsessed CNN host, Piers Morgan, and the rock star/pro gun enthusiast, Ted Nugent. Ted Nugent brings up all the arguments I have used here. Guns are not the problem, people. It's the lack of security in this country. The good news is that more and more people are waking up to this and it won't be long before this arguments starts heading in the right direction.