FDA and USDA Our Regulations are Costly and Risking Our Lives

Overlap of government organizations is nothing new, but it is causing us undue difficulties with food contamination. Combine this with knowledge that often foods which come from foreign nations often are contaminated and it is  creating a toxic food supply for our nation. The way we have divided the responsibility of inspecting our imported food may prevent us from fully resolving the issue.

Two government agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), share the majority of the responsibility of food safety inspection. The rules that determine which agency is responsible for which food can be complex, and sometimes it defies categorization altogether.

One good example of this is inspections of eggs. The FDA inspects shelled eggs, while the USDA is responsible for inspecting egg products, including liquid, frozen and dehydrated eggs. Further examples abound. The FDA regulates feed the chickens eat, but the laying facility falls under USDA regulation. Open-faced sandwiches under the USDA, while closed-face sandwiches are inspected by the FDA. The FDA is in charge of  regulating bagel dogs, while the USDA is in charge of corn dogs.

This may sound confusing; it’s because it is.

For example, an investigation into the Salmonella outbreak in Iowa eggs may be complicated by the fact that the USDA is responsible for the pile of manure next to the laying facility, but the FDA is accountable for the danger of the eggs themselves.

The USDA conducts continuous daily inspections of foods in its domain(especially meat), whereas FDA inspections have no regular schedule. The FDA is only more likely to inspect an installation after a tip about a possible food safety violation, so random inspections can occur up to 10 years apart or, in some cases, not at all. The reason they don’t inspect more is because they simply don’t have the funding to do so.

This becomes even more frustrating when it comes to food imports. While the USDA conducts inspections of all meat and poultry, the FDA is tasked with other items including most types of fish and shrimp. The FDA is only able to inspect 2% of all food imports into the U.S., leaving the vast majority uninspected.

Between 1998 and 2007, U.S. food imports grew from $41 billion to $78 billion per year. Now, about 85% of the seafood Americans eat comes from outside the country, and as much as 60% of U.S. fresh produce isimported.

TheAlabama Department of Agriculture tested 258 samples of catfish and a related species from China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia from 2002 to 2010. Forty-four percent of samples tested positive for an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia and tuberculosis. The FDA banned the same antibiotic for use in fish in 1997.

Foods turned away by the FDA have been found to contain illegal fungicides, antibiotics, and sometimes even fecal matter. 

With these side by side dual roles, the U.S. would be much better served by having one agency tasked with inspecting domestic food and another tasked with inspecting foreign food. Charging an inspection fee upon arrival, it could be added, would help pay for these services.

Eliminating duplicative roles in food inspection would save time and money and ensure that a greater percentage of our food is inspected to keep our food supply safe. It would make sure there is a standard operating procedure for inspecting all food and make sure that regular inspections occur on a timely basis. Investigations would be easier to conduct and regulations would be more streamlined. 

This would make it easier for corporations to know how to navigate the system, and encourage similar standards for all food. As newer technologies become available that increase the efficiency of testing , they can be introduced more quickly, ensuring even better methods of testing. It is easy to understand that it would be incredibly expensive to inspect 100% of imports, but 2% is unacceptable. 

We need to protect our food supply by enacting changes that both eliminate government waste and increase  the efficiency of food safety inspections.

Do Members of Congress Get their pay for life?

One thing we want to do is try to have an opportunity to answer some simple questions with our posts, today we will be starting a new series called political dummies, where we will use posts and videos to help people understand more clearly what is going on in the world. Sometimes we will even be fact checkers.

Today I wanted to start with a common misconception which keeps on getting brought up and reposted, but which is not true.

This claim is a classic in its own right. The urban legend checker Snopes.com says it has been circulating in various chain emails since at least 2000. Both claims seem to point to all members of Congress no matter how long they have served, including one term Representatives.

The claim means that rank-and-file members of the House of Representatives would receive full pay of $174,000 per year, for the rest of their lives, after serving as little as two years.

Nice work if you can get it. But members of Congress can't.

A report on "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress," prepared in November by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), outlines how pension benefits are to be calculated. Members of Congress are part of the federal retirement system, and as such they fall under the same rules.

The key provision: no member of Congress is eligible for any pension unless he or she has served in Congress(or other federal position) for at least five years. (Senators serve six-year terms; House members must seek reelection every two years.)

To collect, a congressman or senator must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of service, or be any age with 25 years of service.

Under the most recent pension program, adopted in 1984, the size of a pension is based on the highest three years of a member's salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7 percent for the first 20 years of service and 1.0 percent for subsequent years.

Here’s an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year. The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $172,443 [the average salary over the last three years] times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $172,443 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,250 per year.

A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,588 for six years of work. That's generous, but not close to full pay.

Federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full-pay retirement when they leave office. The report says, "By law, the starting amount of a member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary."

Under the formula, it would take 67 years of service to hit that limit. Considering the minimum age requirements for members of congress (30 for senator 25 for house), as well as it being very unlikely that members of Congress would be reelected enough times or not retire before that point this is unlikely.

So this meme saying that members of Congress can "receive full pay retirement after serving one term" is blatantly bogus. It's never full pay and the only one-term members who would be eligible for any pension would be senators.

TPP and Fast Track, Why Do They Matter?

As our economy continues to struggle, Congress has a new issue that lies before it, whether or not to approve fast track trade authority and eventually the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP). The TPP is a trade agreement with a dozen or so countries in the pacific region including, the U.S., Canada, Australia, Peru, New Zealand, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, and Japan. South Korea, Taiwan and China have additionally expressed interest in the partnership.

Source Wikipedia.org

Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority as it is also called, grants the President permission to make and sign any trade deal with another country. Once signed, it will then be sent to Congress, where they must vote on it with only an up/down vote. There would be no committee session on the agreements, no possibility of a filibuster or amendments, debates would be limited in length, and the bill would be required to be voted on within a 90 day period from the time it is introduced. 

Earlier this month a fast track bill was submitted to congress, and President Obama has made it known that he wants to use Fast Track Authority to sign two trade agreements that could have significant impact on the American economy and have lasting effects on the U.S. sovereignty.

 The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, would economically unite a dozen countries of the Pacific in vastly different states of development and who have radically different standards for worker rights, consumer safety and environmental protection.

Similar to previous free trade agreements such as NAFTA and KORUS, there is much dissatisfaction in some groups who see it as a corporate sellout, shipping jobs overseas while increasing imports of cheap goods to the U.S. Many opponents look at some of the included countries such as Japan as currency manipulators, and feel that the current fast track language does not protect against further manipulation, especially if China were to enter the agreement.

Those who are for the TPP say that it will open doors for the U.S. to modernize some of the third world countries included in the agreement. Additionally the U.S. would see some decreasing tariffs on goods to countries such as Japan.  

However much of how the TPP will impact the U.S. is unknown as this agreement has been kept away from the public eye, and even from our own members of congress. Meanwhile over 600 individuals — including industry lobbyists, corporate leaders, and government trade representatives have negotiated the TPP behind closed doors.

This becomes a problem as corporate lobbyists have access to the details, and have influence over the negotiation process, many members of Congress have been kept in the dark about even the basic details of this agreement. For several years they were not allowed access to any of the details of the agreement.

Only recently have members been granted limited access. To do so they must make a special appointment where they were only allowed to read sections of the agreement they specifically asked for; they were not allowed to take notes or discuss any of the details with anyone, not even their staff.

One member who has seen the text, Allen Grayson said about it "Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty," Grayson told the Huffington Post. "And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!"

Why is the TPP being kept such a secret? Only 5 of the 29 sections of the agreement deal with trade. Among the few details that have been leaked include vast changes to intellectual property, pharmaceutical laws, and internet neutrality. Two sections of the agreement have been leaked by Wikileaks, one dealing with intellectual property, and on the environment.

What has had some people up at arms is the intellectual property section, as some view this as a way to get SOPA into U.S. law. It does specifically grant the authority for governments to enforce Intellectual Property laws on internet service providers.

Additionally it would extend many of the copyright lengths including on pharmaceuticals. This is seen as a disadvantage to most people in the U.S. as it would extend the length of time before new medicines would be available in generic form, and could increase medical costs as well. 

While the environmental chapter would have no significant impact on current U.S. law, the fear is that there is no provisions to ensure that other countries are living up to the standard, some have even called it a "toothless PR exercise."

Included in the agreement are provisions designed to allow corporations to sue governments in international court, with no appeal process. This is a clear usurpation of constitutional authority.

It is believed by some that the current form of fast track  is unconstitutional, because it does not grant full ability for members of Congress the ability to have oversight over the negotiations. For those who are not familiar the constitution says this about treaties, congressional and executive authority etc. I will outline the following for you:

Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to set the terms of trade and specifies that all treaties must be with the advice and consent of the Senate. Meanwhile, the executive branch has constitutional authority to negotiate with foreign sovereigns on behalf of our nation.  The Founders established this clear check and balance to prevent the president from unilaterally negotiating with foreign nations and imposing trade policies that Congress would deem to be against the best interests of our nation.

Additionally Article VI Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

What this clearly states is that any treaty that would be signed, would therefore become the law of the land, binding on the U.S. additionally, while it puts the role of negotiator in the hands of the Executive, it must be under the direction of Congress. Additionally giving that much authority to unelected bureaucrats is dangerous, no matter who is in power.

Much more will be coming on fast track and the TPP, and it is vital that we are aware of it. Fast track as written should be significantly amended or replaced, with stronger protections put in place to ensure that the U.S. economy gains from this agreement, and is not damaged further by this trade agreement.

2014 Political thoughts

Christmas is over and gone, most of us are looking at making resolutions and a new year. As we look forward to a new year, 2014 has many issues on the horizon. As we mentioned before, Congress last year was one of the least effective in decades, it has many policy questions lying in front of it. Additionally we have midterm elections.
So here are some of the thing to look at come next year:

1. Austerity, deficit spending and the debt ceiling. We saw a government shutdown last year what will happen when the debt ceiling needs to be raised again come mid February. Our debt has already passed 17 trillion dollars, what is the plan moving forward?

2. Midterm elections, many think it's a given that the house will remain in Republican hands, but how many seats will change hands? The Senate is more of a toss-up and recent polling shows Democrats and republicans in a dead heat in polling.

3. Will immigration reform or gun control be addressed? These two hot button issues affect a large population of the United States, and most people think some form of reform is needed. What will happen though, especially as both sides remain sharply divided.

4. Will the economy have a better recovery next year and will it be substantial? Unemployment continues to lag, what will be done to turn things around? What will our leaders do to improve things?

5. The vast majority of Americans support minimum wage increases, but with the current gridlock in Washington, what will become of it? Should it be raised and what will the effect be? Will states and cities pass their own increases?

6. Foreign policy in Syria, Iran, North Korea and Cuba what will happen here? Will Iran and North Korea be forced to abandon their Nuclear policies, will Cuba and the U.S. warm in relations?

One thing is for sure, next year won't be a boring one in the political field. Be sure to follow these issues and more next year.

Have a Happy New Year!

The Jobless Recovery: What the Media Isn't Telling You

As I said before, often the mainstream media doesn't report the whole truth of what is going on in our country. While they may be aware that we are still coming out of a recession, the media reports that unemployment is around 7 percent nationwide. The truth is that our unemployment is closer to 23 percent according to government shadow statistics.

The 7 percent number makes things not sound as bad right? Well that's because it doesn't include people who have been out of work for more than a year, those in part-time positions who’d prefer full-time jobs and people who are so discouraged that they’ve stopped looking for work. This is the lie that the media is telling you.

What you haven’t heard is jobless claims unexpectedly went up 40,000 more than expected last week. Initial claims were at a seasonally adjusted 379,000 according to the Labor Department. That is the highest level since march and it was the second straight week that claims have risen.

Additionally, More than 4.4 million people received unemployment benefits in the week ended Nov. 30, the latest data available. That was 600,000 more than the previous week. The majority of recent college graduates cannot find work in their field, and many who are often are underemployed.

For those who are job hunting, many are ending up at temp agencies, hoping somehow to get enough money to pay next month's rent. But that'll be one more job added to payrolls next month, when that college grad starts temping for 9 dollars an hour.

To top it off, congress was the least productive it has been in decades, and is considered to be the worst ever according to a recent CNN poll. Between government shutdowns and debt ceiling debates it's clear that our leaders aren't focused on helping us.

So what has the media been focused on? Well let's see, Mega Millions, Duck Dynasty, Miley Cyrus, not to mention the whole Black/White  Santa scandal, all of which the CNN, MSNBC and FOX News have spent countless hours debating, discussing and picking apart every detail.

We need to wake up to what is going on in America, unemployment and underemployment are much higher than we are being told, and there must be further discussion on what can be done to solve these problems by the media and our leaders.

FEC Vastly Underfunded, Allowing Corporate Interests to Rule

It is no surprise to anyone that money is flooding into federal elections in the post-Citizens United era.  The surprise is how little of it is being regulated. The agency tasked with monitoring and regulating all elections is severely limited due to staff cuts and partisan bickering.

The commission over the past year has reached an all-time low in its ability to reach consensus, stalling action on dozens of rulemaking decisions, as well as audit and enforcement matters, some of which are years old.

Additionally, partisan bickering among the appointed commissioners has led to a drop in agency fines for political committees that break election rules. In 2006 the FEC assessed a total of more than $6.7 million in fines. By 2012, however due to the inefficiency of the agency, it collected less than $1 million in fines.

Despite dramatic increases in election spending sped up by key Supreme Court decisions, the agency’s funding has remained flat for five years and staffing levels have fallen to a 15-year low overall.

Analysts who are charged with scouring disclosure reports to ensure candidates and political action committees are complying with laws have a nearly quarter-million-page backlog. One of the aims of the agency was to have all non-presidential committee audits finished 10 months after the election. At 10 months only 27% had been completed.

The agency is also seriously out of date when it comes to online donations, where few regulations have been put into place. The FEC does not require donations under $200 to be reported.

This means that $1.8 million of the donations received by Obama in September of 2012 required no associated names or addresses because they were under the $200 limit. This lack of regulation could easily allow corporations and foreign donors to make donations illegally, threatening the credibility of our election system.

In election after election, record amounts of money continue to be spent on campaigns. Last year topped 6 billion dollars, more than half of which was spent on the presidential campaign.

With more money flowing into politics, issues such as partisan divides and low staffing affecting the FEC one thing is for sure: this is a recipe for disaster.

So why does this matter so much? In 2010 only 9 House challengers who spent under $1 million won their seats. Similarly, in most presidential elections the winner is the one who raises the most.

This type of system, an increasingly plutocratic one, leads to corruption, where our leaders do the bidding of those who fund their campaigns. While our nation was designed to be secured with a system of checks and balances, we are now being ruled by whoever writes the biggest check and has the biggest balance, and that is not what our founding fathers wanted. 

As we continue to allow special interests to rule through powerful lobbying our nation's foundation crumbles beneath our feet. We need to wake up and get involved in our government especially in our communities.

Embassy closings show the War on Terror is not over yet

Over the weekend U. S. embassies across the Middle East were closed due to security concerns. Today, the U.S. embassy in Yemen was evacuated and U.S. Citizens were told to leave the country due to an al-Qaeda threat.

In the last two weeks U.S. drones 4 times have targeted leaders of al-Qaeda in Yemen and it is believed that one of the dead  believed to be Saleh Jouti, a senior al-Qaeda member. Yesterday alone U.S. drone targeted a moving car in the  Marib province, killing four alleged al-Qaeda militants.

This comes as the State Department released a statement saying that the evacuations were due "“due to the continued potential for terrorist attacks.” After last year's terrorist attack on Benghazi it seems the administration is much more concerned with making sure that diplomatic staff in foreign countries receive adequate protection.

While it has long been known that there is a strong al-Qaeda presence in Yemen, it's strength has been growing and the potential for terrorist attacks seems more and more likely in the region due to the strong presence.

 “It’s very worrisome because al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is the most effective and threatening affiliate,” Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor told the Washington Post.

“So now the leader of the most consequential affiliate has an intimate command role in the overall organization. From Zawahiri’s point of view, there’s no better exemplar of the Qaeda brand than AQAP.”

While it is true that the core group of al-Qaeda was dispersed and diminished, it has slowly evolved in countries along the gulf and in North Africa, gaining support from governmental changes occurring due to the Arab spring and the continuing unrest in the region.

"We're witnessing another chapter of the terrorist threat and we'll be living with this for years to come,"  Juan Zarate, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who's now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington told USA Today.

The regional networks are adapting to new opportunities and continue to operate despite pressure put on them by the U.S. and others, Zarate said.

"They're also taking advantage of the political, security and geographic space they operate in. We don't control all aspects of that so it's unfair to blame U.S. policy entirely," he said.

The regional groups continue their activities supported by other radical Islamist groups in Algeria, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries in the region. Concern continues even within the U.S. of al-Qaeda affiliates perpetrating terrorist attacks in the U.S. after the Boston Bombing earlier this year.

As the U.S. and it's allies continue to put pressure on it seems clear that we are not done yet, and continued pressure needs to be applied. It seems clear though that the senior leadership continues to be affected by the drone strikes, but that even without some of the senior leadership, the group continues.

Within the U.S. and around the world the questions continue about surveillance programs. Which wonder about their effectiveness and necessity, but results seem to show that at least some of them are necessary.

If the War on Terror can be won, one thing seems clear to us now, it won't be over soon. The theater in which the war plays out may continue to change but the overall influence of Radical Islam continues throughout much of the middle east, and until something changes to diminish it's influence it seems clear that attacks will continue to occur.

Anthony Wiener: Are morals irrelevant in U.S. Politics?

Does what happens at home or away from the office matter in U.S. Politics anymore? After the second round of accusations against former Rep. Anthony Weiner we must wonder if they don't. He has since begun to fall behind in polling, but is still a major contender for Mayor of New York City. This same sexting scandal was thought to be so disgusting to the American public that he resigned from the House of  Representatives in 2011. Much seems to have changed since then . 

We shouldn't pretend that fidelity and morality are as high of priorities to the current generation as they were to our parents and grandparents. We are certainly living in an age where many people see morals as relative, rather than the moral absolutism of the past. If anything it seems that the winds are blowing against traditional morality today more than ever. 

We are far from the days of the Victorian era of high morality, but the question remains, shouldn't we require a higher standard of honesty and fidelity from our politicians when it comes to basic honesty and fidelity in marriage? Should a concern arise about the type of role models we put to our children through our political leaders if we elect men that lack credibility and any form of basic honesty or integrity.

John Adams said "(It) is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." Many of our founders believed that morals and honesty must be the foundation of our society. Though these men were not perfect, I would say that they were men of profound vision. Some of them were known to be less that perfect on this very topic, but they understood the need for virtue in society. 

So to what standard should our politicians be held? If adultery and lewd behavior is an acceptable fault then why not dishonesty in business, cheating on taxes or stealing? It seems the only thing that seems to matter in political contests is that the name is well enough known, that they have enough money and that they are popular enough. It seems that it has become the new norm to ignore all questions of integrity, but rather to focus on their popularity instead. I understand there are differences of opinion on morality and what moral values should be upheld, but when we are talking about marital vows that have been broken and continue to be broken. It is pretty easy to see the basic need for high moral values for our leaders when it comes to honesty, as they are dealing with large amounts of power and money. With special interest groups holding a great deal of power, how do we fight back against that when our leaders are immoral as well?

We need to encourage good men to stand up and accept the role of leadership ones who have integrity and who are not merely wealthy and popular. What it will take though, is the American people to wake up, become informed, and get involved. Voting is not the beginning and end of our civic duty. Honesty and integrity need to be renewed as basic values to Americans, starting in the home, where both parents teach those two values. It then continues in our school, where cheating isn't just discouraged but unthought of. If we continue this chain we can regain a great deal of the foundational values that our forefathers built this country upon, without it our foundation will crumble and be lost.

The Fourth of July: Why We Are Celebrating Today

British colonies had been established on the North American continent for well over a hundred years. The French and Indian war had shortly been brought to peace just a decade earlier. For about two decades however, legislation had been passed with continued hostility toward the American colonies, with a lack of representation continuing. The intolerable acts couple drove the colonies to act. With the Boston Tea Party coupled with the battles of Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill, the colonies had entered into pure state of rebellion. By summer it became clear that the crown was sending an expeditionary force to enforce it's will upon the colonies, and that this force would include foreign mercenaries known for their ruthlessness.

Congress had been meeting for months on the matter of independence. On June 11th it was decided that a committee to draft a resolution to declare independence should be formed. This committee was made up of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and a young Virginian named Thomas Jefferson. It was decided that Jefferson(the only member from the southern states) would be the member to write the initial draft. After revisions by the committee and by congress as a whole, the final document was voted on and accepted on July 4th, or the day we now refer to as Independence day. I wish now to quote from that document :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
With those words on that day we staked our claim to independence. However, it was not ours to be had by merely laying claim to it. Our independence was not easily won and I firmly believe it was only won by the assistance of heaven. Many men gave their lives for the hope of a future nation, and for the hope that with such a nation our natural rights would be ours to be had and not easily be taken from us. For generations we have looked back to that founding, as our assertion that there are certain rights that no government should usurp without due process of law. This declaration established our reasons for breaking allegiance to our mother country, and firmly rooted within our culture the idea that our freedoms should be held sacred. We as Americans have held their sacrifice as sacred within our hearts and we have honored them through the past two centuries.

Independence was won eventually, but it was not until another document was also written that our nation was on a firm foundation. Our constitution was enacted  to ensure that these rights and privileges would continue to be protected. It established law and justice in our country as well as ways for individual citizens to address their grievances through a representative republic.

 Although some see our constitution as limiting, I see it as both sacred and protecting. It established our country on a firm foundation of law and justice that has governed us well for over 200 years. Our path as a nation has not been the easiest, we have had times of prosperity and peace, and we have had times of depression and war. Overall though, we have shown that as we work together, not always agreeing but finding ways to compromise that we can accomplish great things. I do not believe that the days of our great accomplishments are past, and I still see America as a shining beacon on a hill.

As we celebrate our nation this Independence day let us not forget those who have sacrificed all to protect our nation and our freedoms. Let us remember them and honor them for their heroic sacrifice. Let us remember our founders and their great work. And let us look to the future with hope that the future years will continue to show that we live in a wonderful country of freedom and justice.

We are celebrating today because we have a great nation established on freedom and justice. So wave a flag, sing our national anthem and other patriotic songs, grill some hot dogs and watch some fireworks, but please remember why we are celebrating.

I Believe in America

As many of you who know me well are aware, I am a bit of a history geek. This passion has led me to study intensively the history and founding of our nation. I believe deeply that it is important to remember that throughout our history, we as a people are responsible for the leaders we elect. The election we are now preparing for could possibly be the most important we have ever had, for it is a battle for the soul of

America, or rather, it is a battle for what America will be.
I believe in our country, I believe in our proud heritage and I believe that America has the ability to continue to be a great nation. I believe we can be the best force for good in the world, and stand up for what is right and good. We can understand believe that with the right leadership we can get headed in the right direction. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we can be the shining light on the hill to the rest of the world.

As we consider leaders, we often seek ones with experience, with leadership qualities we admire, and with a good ability to communicate. Today I will focus on experience though. When we think about the United States of America, it is a very large and complex body, comparable to a very large ship. It has many varied moving parts, personnel that need leadership, and it needs direction and navigation both to move through the storms ahead, to reach the destination we seek that of an America that is the beacon of hope to the world.

America deserves a captain that is familiar with the ship, its parts, its personnel, and has a clear view of the greatness that America can achieve. That is where Mitt Romney comes in. His experience in such various roles, from businessman to governor has prepared him to be a great leader in America. He has weathered storms as captain of the 2002 Olympics. He has an intricate knowledge of the economy, and a clear view of where we need to go in our future.
Our current president, on the other hand has come into this office with little to no real experience and America has suffered. It is not his fault the economy was suffering when he came into office, but it is time that we realize, under Obama things have not improved as they should have. Why? The reason is because we have had a captain that hasn’t known how, where and when to lead. He relies on his advisors to lead, which has led to some of them being out of control and unaccountable. He has attacked business owners and business in general. FDR once said “the business of America is business.” It seems to me that our current president’s opinion is that the business of America is to attack business.

Financially Obama has increased our debt more than any president, and he has done it in less than 4 years. What has it accomplished? Are we safer than we were four years ago? Is our economy better off than it
was four years ago? No. Having a captain who doesn’t know how to turn the ship around has led to Americans suffering to survive. Attacking crucial mechanizms through over regulation, burdensome tax standards, devaluing our currency, allowing other countries to bully us on economic policies, and leaving future generations with a load of debt that seems insurmountable, does not strengthen america.
In simple terms, we can’t afford to spend four more years on a president who doesn’t understand how the economy works, who doesn’t appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit, and who doesn’t seem to have a  clear view of where America should be heading.

We need a captain, a leader, someone who has been storm tested and has a definite view of the destination. In the following posts I will outline both Barack Obama and Mitt Romneys views on certain issues, as well as their records, and the views of others as to their efficacy. I will show how if you believe in America, there really is only one choice for you.
I believe in America,

do you?


Some reading I encourage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/romneys-foreign-policy-the-opposite-of-obamas/2012/07/24/gJQAytNc6W_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-did-the-state-make-you-great/2012/07/19/gJQAbZOiwW_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-imperial-presidency-revisited/2012/07/05/gJQAR66PQW_story.html

The Battle for the Soul of America

As we begin to consider national elections this year we must begin by understanding ourselves and what we wish for our country. The majority of our country believes that we are not heading in the right direction. I believe that we must seek for wise leaders who have correct priorities in their actions as elected representatives. The question becomes what qualities should we look for to determine said wisdom?

Recently a friend of mine Kyle stated "If you really want to change the country for the better then fix the family and study the founders. And I don't even need to say study conservatism because once you study the founders then conservatism becomes the obvious choice. It is the perpetuation of everything the founders stood for - most importantly freedom and individual liberty." I believe that strong conservative values have been the foundation upon which our country has been built.

As a conservative at heart I do believe that conservative values that promote individual liberty and limited government are essential to a free society. Our country was founded on the belief that hard work, strong moral values, and faith in God were essential to our success and prosperity as a country. Through the last few years we have struggled in more than just economics. We have struggled for the soul of America. This struggle on whether we are going to stand by the same values we have held for many years or let them fall.
Values are essential and we must not compromise our values. Our founders had varying opinions of what a free society needed in terms of government, especially the national government. What set them most apart, and what we remember them most for was their ability to compromise, and by so doing bringing to pass action, which in turn has brought to pass a prosperous country of over two hundred and thirty years. We have come to an age however that it seems that individual thought clouds the capability of many of our elected officials from being able of acting in the best interest of the country as a whole. While I do not blame either party individually I do blame both for playing to the extremes of their parties. However there does need to be compromise on the issues where we can come together.
What we most need are leaders who will unite us and lead us rather than divide us and follow others. We need leaders who understand how to inspire us to action and to be more than we are. We also need leaders who will lead us into the future.
I encourage you to consider these as you decide on who to vote for this year, I especially encourage you to research each candidate including and most importantly your local officials, and make a decision according to your conscience and vote.

NLRB and the American Jobs Act

As Americans across the country have been suffering from high unemployment and low job creation, our nation's leaders have been charged with finding ways to create and keep more jobs within the U.S. 
Recently congress has been considering two different bills that could both affect job creation in the United States. the first of these is the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act which was passed by the house on Thursday. This bill is in response to the National Labor Relations Board's actions to prevent Boeing's production line for the new 787 Dreamliner, due to alleged misconduct with unions in Washington State. The bill would reign in the NLRB and prevent them from being able to tell a company to close or relocate a workplace.
Democrats argue that this bill would take away much of the real authority that the NLRB has and would eliminate any responsibility that Boeing would have for the said misdeeds and strangely claim that this would make it easier for a company to ship jobs overseas, which seems to be more of what the NLRB is currently doing, discouraging job growth in one state in order to protect workers in another.
While the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate commerce among the many states, I do not believe it should delegate so much authority to regulatory agencies in order to dictate where they can conduct their business. This is something that, if enacted will keep jobs in the U.S. and will make it easier for American companies.
The second thing with job creation is president Obama's 450+ billion dollar American Jobs Act. Which while it will produce some jobs or save some jobs if enacted, and work to improve the infrastructure with roads, etc. It does not do enough to fix the real problems and will increase taxes more than 467 billion dollars. The three things that need to be done are, reform the tax code to simplify it for American companies and individuals, reduce the business tax and regulations against American companies, and work to building our infrastructure including our digital infrastucture.
By doing these things and more, our government can help fuel job growth within the U.S. and continue to strengthen our economy as we recover from a recession.

Independence Day

As we near the day of our independence I wanted to take time to say a few words about our great nation. We live in a nation that was born of a desire to be free. Through representative democracy we have established a nation where the people rule, one of the first of it's kind. Through the blood and tears of men and women we established a nation where we could have all freedoms here including that we should be entitled to the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Through a Constitution and Bill of Rights which I believe to be divinely inspired we have insured more freedoms. Some of these include the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to due process, the right to bear arms, and the right from unlawful search and seizure.
Throughout the history of our nation we have sought for more freedom, including to free slaves, give equal rights of voting, housing, employment, and schooling to all of the people of our nation no matter their race, religion, birthplace, gender or sexual preference.
These freedoms have come at a dear price, from the graves of Gettysburg to the shores of Normandy, freedom has been our goal. We have been called on by many nations to stand in the face of tyranny and injustice and we have fought for those freedoms. The blood of our soldiers both past and present stands as a reminder that the freedoms we now enjoy come at a price.
We must remember as the battle rages on that our nation is a great one and that in order to maintain the liberty we now possess we must continue to make it great. We must remember the words of our former president, John F. Kennedy who said “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”
As we celebrate our day of independence tomorrow let us remember what has transpired to make this nation great, let us remember in our hearts the sacrifice of the men and women who have made it great. That we must be "one nation under God indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 
God Bless America

Death of Usama Bin Laden, War on Terror

On Sunday night (May 1st) we received news from the president of the United States that Usama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. military forces in a compound in Pakistan. To address a few concerns that some people have wondered about I decided to tribute this post to answering a few of these questions. The first, is he really dead? Although a very few people are doubting this, and a lack of a public burial/photos of the dead Bin Laden may promote some few doubtful people I have a few threads of thought that several professors I have discussed the issue with support concerning these issues. 1st as to the quick burial, although I have not studied it myself I am told that Islamic law declares that the burial must be done as quickly as possible, and we are told that every islamic rite was followed concerning his death. 2nd if he were brought to another country what country would he be buried in? Would we really want him buried in the U.S., and surely some major event would be sparked wherever he would have been buried. 3rd what benefit could there possibly be for lying? There would be no possible benefit other than a momentary spiking in poll numbers over a year before a presidential election, if Obama were wanting to use this as a lie to bump his numbers, why not wait until next year, when a momentary bump would actually help?
As for the second issue of why the pictures have not been released, I have two concerns. The first is that of proper respect for the dead, as some americans have little respect for other people's practices and surely would have defamed the photo within minutes of it's release, and therefore would enrage his followers and possibly others(ex. the Florida church who burned a Koran and the aftermath in Afghanistan).
The second issue i wanted to address is that of the War on terror. We must remember that this is not the end of the war on terror. While this was one step and one major leader of terrorism we must not stop in our efforts to end terrorism. I believe this begins with education, and an increased understanding of others cultures, customs, and belief systems. It begins with building bridging social capital(for more info see Putnam, Bowling Alone 2000). We must support our government and trust each other, because without trust we can not accomplish anything. United we stand, and divided we fall. This applies not only to our nation, but to the world. If we are to rise up from the dust and seize our potential we must learn to share ideas and work together, seek for ways to help build a stronger world for all. As we seek to rise out of the recession we have been in, we must look for ways to innovate and make changes that will increase our ability to make the world better, rather than to line our own pockets.
IN GOD WE TRUST

-Tim

President's Day thoughts

The last few days have been fairly unsettling to me. With the attacks made on things that are valued by the other party I have been a little disconcerted with the actions of our nations leaders. We have been promised change but instead what we get is the same continual bipartisanship that is dividing this country. More than ever we need to end the divisive actions, such as ending the defense of the DOMA, as well as the attack on state employee unions in several states. These actions show me blatantly what is wrong with our nation. We are continually becoming less trusting of each other, as well as our leaders. If we really want change as the American people we need to start changing things. We need to start working together, learning from each other and get involved in our communities. We need to meet our neighbors, and start developing the bridging social capital necessary to bring our nation together. So my President's day wish is that we return to a president from my parent's days who said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

Mubarak Steps Down, Democracy in Egypt

As was announced yesterday, President Hosni Mubarak has stepped down. The Egyptian Supreme Military Council has stepped in as a transitional government and has promised to oversee a democratic transition within the country. They have also pledged to continue the current treaties with other countries. This has been a concern because of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace accord.
Protesters still remain in Tahrir Square, demanding that Mubarak's cabinet, and the parliament step down. However, the military has not done this, but has maintained the idea that later this year democratic elections will take place.
The concern becomes more and more about who will run their country though, and what type of new regime will be in place. There seems to be no main leader for the protesters, and people continue to wonder who will run in the election. Since September is some distance off, there is time for a full election to take place, and for people to get a better look at any candidates that may come forward. We can all hope however that no extremist group gains power, and I do believe that is what the military is stepping in to avoid, some sort of power vacuum that would allow an extremist group to take power.
In an interview with General Wesley Clark on Fox News this morning, he stated that he felt that we would not see an extremist group such as the Muslim Brotherhood. He felt that because Egypt has a higher level of education, we would very likely see a very secular government, rather than an Islamic government.
Also with this, we will see how President Obama will react to the situation, especially as elections occur. The concern that I have mentioned is that an extremist group would take over as in Iran, which spelled out the demise of Jimmy Carter's political career with the Iran embassy fiasco. The best he could do is to encouraging the democratic forces between the military and civilian groups within Egypt.
Overall yesterday's changes I believe will be a step in the right direction for the middle east, and the world. With democratic elections forthcoming, I look forward to seeing what will happen in the next few months.

Thoughts on Healthcare, Necessary and Proper, Commerce Clause

    After reading a few articles this morning I thought I would comment on my thoughts about recent occurrences with regards to the recent vote to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act(A.C.A.) of last year. I will note that from the records, it failed 51-47(two senators did not vote) I am a strong supporter of the idea that if the people wish for laws to change that they should first seek to change it through the legislature, and if that fails, through electing leaders who will make the changes needed.
     The A.C.A. overall has been met mixed feelings by all. Statistics show that overall americans are not in favor of the act, and wish for it's repeal. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll 58% of americans want the healthcare bill repealed. The Washington Post has that a little smaller percentage at 50%. It has been noted by some, that some of those who responded also may be those who believe the bill did not go far enough. Among these would be people who wished for the public option, or further tort reform, the purchasing of insurance across state lines, etc., not just those who don't like the individual mandate or the law altogether. I like portions of the bill, like allowing people to not be turned down for previous conditions, as well as the portion that allows children up to the age of 26 to remain on their health insurance.
    With this being said, we now see that 26 states have filed suit, and with varying result in the Federal District courts, it seems this issue will come before the Supreme Court. The basic argument comes down to this: does the constitution support the idea that congress can mandate that people buy insurance? The commerce clause, which most believe to be the reasoning behind those supporting the A.C.A., states: "The Congress shall have Power....to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."(U.S. Constitution Art 1 Section 8) However, this is the first case of which I am aware of where an act of congress had mandated that people participate in commerce, namely buying health insurance. How can punishing inactivity be found within that clause. The concern comes that if this law is upheld, then congress will continue to push the authority that has been given to them.
    The other argument is that the power to enact this legislation comes within the necessary and proper clause, otherwise known as the elastic clause which reads: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." I personally do not see that this is a power that has been vested in the congress by the constitution, however, that will be up to the supreme court to ultimately decide.
    This case will determine a number of things, and will be the first major case to affect the understanding of the constitution under Chief Justice Roberts.  From what I have found it is possible for the court to strike down the mandate, and still keep the rest of the law.
click here to learn more about Judicial review.
click here for an interesting summary of the chief arguments
click here for info about Virginia's attempt to take the case to the supreme court.

Egypt Thoughts

Thinking over the last week's events I think it will be interesting to see how things will continue on within the middle eastern world. With Mubarak being ousted, and possibly others leaving as well, the question we must ask ourselves is one of what will be replacing this system? While I would agree that seeing the statistics in the BBC article posted below, we can see that Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and the other countries that are reported as having similar situations possibly coming within the next few days, all have problems that need redress, namely poverty, unemployment, etc. Now what replaces these systems is the great concern of all political theorists.
Often though I think we(the U.S.) tend to think we have the best system for everyone and that everyone should just adopt our system and everything would just work out. There are several flaws with this system of thought, while I do support the idea that the U.S. constitution is a divinely inspired document, and that it was the best system of government for our nations. I believe Great Britain's system is the best for them. There are some times in world history I believe that a monarchy was the best system for that nation.
I do not believe that we will see an extremist group take power. From some of the reporting I have read, many of the anti-government protesters in Tahrir Square are members of the middle class, educators, and businessmen, not an uneducated mob. They have been sophisticated protesters who had organized using Facebook and Twitter, who are not going to sit by while another dictator gains power. Egypt is not Iran, and I also do not believe that an Islamic state will take power.
So as time goes on I applaud the efforts of President Obama, for making up for a mistake he made over a year ago, when he sat by as a people pleading for change went on completely ignored in Iran. As Egypt is our ally it is much easier for the U.S. to step in. Even ousting an old friend of our nation, who has helped our efforts in the Middle East. But it was the right thing to do, to gain favor with whomever gains power.
My final thoughts are this, that I hope that those countries who have unrest will come to a peaceful, and democratic solution, and that whatever solution they come to, will be the best for that country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12204971
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020305184_2.html