Sunday, October 30, 2011

Israel ~ Should the US support them?


     Beside the ongoing war on terror, the U.S. must decide whether or not we should continue our support for what has been one of our closest allies. Israel has been a key player in our fight in the Middle East and is vital to our continued efforts. Currently, there is a great struggle in the Middle East between Israel and the radical Islamic terrorists that want to eliminate the Zionist culture. Even though our troops have sacrificed their lives to protect freedom, their efforts will never completely eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorists. However, once we remove our presence  from this turbulent area, the void will be filled with unrestrained turmoil. President Obama has been delegating political preposterous propositions towards removing support while there is absolutely no call for any such absurdity. As we have our troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama is trying to pull them out. Continually while our troops fight against terrorism, new threats emerge. Iran is quickly becoming a nuclear nation. Enforcing the need we have for an ally in the Middle East, we must keep a foothold in the region. But how do we support Israel and protect our troops' lives? There is only one answer. The United States, priding itself as the beacon of freedom, must make the decision to support Israel in their time of need.

     If we were to remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan while still supporting Israel, we would gain two things. Being that we have been one of the few nations to support Israel in their time of need, they would be the only one willing to return that support by helping the United States protect its interests in the Middle East. Protectively taking a non-aggressive stance, we would be able to strengthen our support of Israel and better combat the Iranian threat. Iran must be dealt with. By helping Israel, wanting our support in the first place, it will not only help us with the Iranian threat, but would still help us in the Middle East. While we would not be jeopardizing our troops' lives anymore, we would still have a strong ally in the Middle East we can use to keep the terrorist threat in check. This would allow us to keep an eye on the oil and not allow it to fall into the terrorists' hands. Being that our troops would no longer be in the area, Iran might not feel so threatened. The urgency for limitless nuclear power might not seem to be as immediate a need to them. If so, it would cause them to slow down the rate at which they are burning money in their nuclear firehouse. Also we would be able to support Israel in combating Iran’s nuclear program. Should Israel need to bomb Iran's power facilities, the U.S. would be better able to concentrate our supplies toward helping Israel achieve their goal.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

2012 Election ~ Most Electable Candidate

     Taking the spotlight in the news today is the Republican political debates. Some of the candidate’s abilities focus more on jobs while others focus on foreign policy. However, in order to beat President Obama, the American people are looking for a well-rounded person, which is someone who has skills in both foreign and domestic policy and can capture the attention of the American people. So, who would this candidate be? Who has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the general election and what are their strengths and weaknesses? Currently leading in the Zogby poll is Herman Cain, a native of Atlanta, Georgia. Herman Cain hasn’t had any experience in public office, but many argue that is a positive attribute in his favor. They say that he has not been corrupted by politics, but that inexperience could turn out to be a true weakness. So, one must examine the debate concerning Herman Cain and discern how his strengths and weaknesses compare to those of  President Obama by going through all of the hot button issues concerning the United States today.   
   
  The primary duty of the President of the United States is to protect our people. In fact, it is the principal duty of a limited federal government. The government must ensure that the United States  military and all security agencies are supported and equipped when they are asked to defend this country.  Herman Cain believes that our national security is  threatened by the war in the Middle East.  He believes that the Obama administration has politicized this issue and put our troops in harm's way.  Cain’s position on the specifics as to how he would handle these wars is still to be decided.  Many could argue that this is his greatest weakness because he hasn’t provided a direct plan. Conversely, one could argue that this is a sign of humility. He has stated that he does not have access to sensitive  information known only to the President and his advisors in order to come to a conclusion at this time. He has stated that he would seek and respect the advice of his generals and surround himself with knowledgeable advisors. However, he holds to the belief that we must support our allies. He brought up this point in an interview with Newsmax when he talked about the lack of U.S. support to Israel. He said that if he was president, he would strengthen our alliance with Israel and all of our allies. This is one stance that he has made very clear when it comes to  U.S. foreign policy. On the other hand, Obama has embraced our enemies and made excuses for America while he has snubbed our allies.  Foreign policy by this administration has been inexcusable. Recently, President Obama asked Israel to return to pre-1967 borders in order to appease Palestine. This action would have left Israel virtually defenseless in the Middle East.  Another example of this can be seen in the incident with General McChrystal. McChrystal asked the President for 60,000 troops so that the war could be ended in Afghanistan. The President waited for several months despite McChrystal’s continued urgent requests. Finally after four long months, the President sent only 40,000 troops instead of the 60,000 McChrystal needed. McChrystal finally publically spoke out against the President and Obama fired him. This is an example of Obama playing politics and compromising our national security. Another good example is the Fast and Furious program. In the Fast and Furious program, agents with the federal  ATF allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal buyers  hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders so they could be arrested.  Unfortunately, the ATF lost track of more than 2,000 weapons.  This program, however, has been a failure and these U.S. weapons have been used in crimes against our own border patrol guards. President Obama and his administration have tried to distance themselves from this program but more is being revealed daily about the involvement of the current administration.  A final example was one of the first actions Obama took in office. President Obama canceled the missile defense shield in Poland committed to Poland by the Bush administration in an effort to appease Russia. This defense shield was proven to be a very effective  means of defense for both the U.S. and Poland. After canceling this shield, Obama implemented his own plan for missile defense which not only wasted billions of dollars but has been an abysmal failure. Obama’s policy when it comes to our national security has been dismal at best. While our country is fighting two wars in the Middle East and a possible third in Libya, decreased national security exposes the U.S. to a dangerous world beyond our borders.
    
It is no secret that federal government spending is out of control. The U.S. government views American taxpayers as a bottomless piggybank for their wasteful programs and expansion of power. That is why Herman Cain takes the position that we the people will not tolerate it any longer. Government spending is the driving force to kill the economy. Of course, all of this is a direct attack on the strategy or lack thereof by President Obama. Because of the out of control spending, Obama’s performance rating has dropped to 42%. Since he has taken office, he has spent over three trillion dollars and plunged us into a debt of almost fifteen trillion dollars putting not only our generation but future generations into massive amounts of debt. His stimulus package has failed in the past and another stimulus package will only fail in the future.  Clearly, the American people are not fooled by his strategies and are disgusted by the actions of the Obama administration when it comes down to government spending, thus giving Herman Cain the advantage on this issue.
     
     America has long been a beacon of prosperity throughout the world. The American dream has been attained by those who were willing to think, work, and sacrifice to achieve it. The role of the federal government should be to encourage economic growth.  With the unemployment rate at 9.1% and climbing, the word on everyone's mind is “jobs.” Cain’s approach to getting jobs back into the economy centers around taxes. One phrase Cain has used before is that we must allow businesses to thrive, not just survive. He calls his plan the “999” plan. The plan proposes to lower the business flat tax, the individual flat tax, and the national sales tax all down to nine percent. In the process, it eliminates the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, the death tax, and ends double taxation on dividends. To replace the taxes he is removing, he proposes to implement a federal fair tax where everyone must pay his fair share and  lays out the steps of abolishing the IRS. One of the most important taxes that Cain proposes to suspend is taxes on repatriation profits in order to bring the jobs that were taken overseas back into America. Obama continually pushes to raise taxes on the wealthy and middle class who are the real job creators. This is why our unemployment rate has skyrocketed because the job creators are being taxed so heavily. In fact, since Obama took office we have lost 2.5 million jobs. President Obama has completely failed to bring out a plan of how he is going to get jobs back into the economy. This is an extremely bad sign for the President as the American people look to the President to be a leader. In fact, Cain even criticized Obama’s leadership skills saying that he must be a beacon for  the American people and so far he has failed at this mission.       
     
     America is an exceptional nation. We are also a prosperous nation because of our liberties and our free market system. That’s why people from all over the world want to come to America to create better lives for themselves and their families, because we are truly the land of opportunity.  That’s why more and more people pour across our borders illegally. Cain views illegal immigration as a direct attack on our nation’s structure where the respect for the law is downgraded.  He resents those who come to America only try to change America to be like the country they left. People coming across the border and being a potential threat due to their criminal record along with the anti-American ideas they bring with them is a barrier to our free market system. Cain runs on the belief that we must secure our borders to prevent any more terrorism that would threaten our country. On the flip side, the President has fought for the exact opposite. When Arizona tried to enforce the illegal immigration laws that already existed, the White House filed a law suit against the state of Arizona in an attempt to stand up for immigrants whether they came into our country legally or not. Obama knows that illegal aliens who are given amnesty will vote for him in the next election.  Along with this, the Obama administration has failed to deal with the increasing drug violence due to the lack of border security here in the United States. This is definitely a hindrance to the President’s chances of re-election versus Cain. 

    President Obama and the liberals in Congress have dismantled the free market health care system and replaced it with health care “deform.” They have passed measures that compromise the sacred patient-doctor relationship, eliminate patient choice, stick a bureaucrat in the examining room, ration care and do nothing to limit frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care. In all of these provisions, they made health care more expensive and less accessible for American families they claimed to protect.  Herman Cain believes that it’s time to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered, free market reform. He wants to institute legitimate tort reforms that let doctors practice medicine without fear of frivolous lawsuits. Additionally, loosening the restrictions on Health Savings Accounts would help to empower Americans to save and invest their own money to expand their options for health care. Obama’s plan for health care has infuriated the American people. It puts more strain on our economy, increases taxes, and will move jobs out of the US. Attacking Obama’s plan for health care is a good stance for any Republican candidate.

   Overall, Herman Cain seems to be the best choice of a candidate to go up against president Obama in a general election. Because the American people are so appalled by his repeated failures on national Security, government spending, job creation and the economy, illegal immigration and health care the American people want a new leader. What matters most is that the polls are beginning to show who the American people want as their new leader. Herman Cain has won the Illinois straw poll, the Florida straw poll, and the Zogby poll. He also just tied with Mitt Romney, who has been the front runner, in a CBS news poll for first place.  This is exactly why Herman Cain has the best chance to beat president Obama because the American people want him to be.  It’s not only that Cain is such a good candidate, but it’s that Obama has brought his own destruction down upon himself and that destruction comes in the form of a democratic election. The same kind of election that got him into office.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Afghanistan ~ Drugs and the Taliban

Afghanistan is a hot spot for the Taliban, it’s the reason we are currently in a war over there.  However, the main funding for the Taliban comes from the opium they grow in Afghanistan.  They sell these drugs to private groups and other terrorist organizations.  This money then goes to fund their battle against our troops.  Currently the United States government is pursuing the possibility of intervening and spraying down the areas that grow the drugs with a chemical to kill them.  They did this same thing to an extent in Columbia South America.  The fact that drugs are funding the Taliban is an undisputed fact and needs to be addressed; however, is this route the one we should be taking on the issue?  To answer this question we need to look at what happened when we did this before in Columbia.  When we did begin the eradication attempts on Columbia, things went smoothly for a time, until we started noticing the aftereffects.  Several things happened, firstly allot of the Columbian economy was based on the illegal trade of the narcotics.  When we started killing the drugs their economy began to tumble causing economic crisis.  Secondly the farmers of the drugs simply either replanted in another unknown hidden location, or they moved to a different country.  This caused the drug crisis to proliferate.  So, if we apply what we have seen in Columbia to Afghanistan, it’s clear that there must be another better option for conquering the Taliban and the drugs they grow.

NASA ~ Ending the Space Shuttle

The Obama administration has made recent significant efforts in the direction of ending the United States Space shuttle program.  This program is headed up by NASA, and cancelling it can have major impacts.  What the Obama administration is doing is ending our own space shuttle program and using the Russian program to take our astronauts into space if need be.  There are several impacts of this.  The first main one is we break the International Space Station Agreement.  Article 5 of the treaty requires the United States, represented by NASA, to work in the building of the space station until it’s completion in 2012.  With the last NASA space flight to be launched soon, we will not be able to uphold to agreement to complete the International Space Station.  This means we will be breaking article five of the treaty.  The second disadvantage is we lose our status as the world leader space aeronautics.  This means that either the Russians or the Chinese will take the lead in space.  If this happens we will become dependent on them for all of our exo-atmospheric travel.  If we wanted to launch a satellite or even improve one of our satellites they would know.  This means, that our own military intelligence relies upon the consent of the Chinese and Russians.    

Saturday, April 9, 2011

National Debt ~ Government Shutdown

The thing now on everyone's minds these days is the national debt.  How in the world is the United States supposed to fix this looming problem?  Holy U.S dollar Batman, how about a government shutdown?  This seems to be the answer on allot of people's minds now.  However, as every decision the government makes, there is always going to be major consequences.  What we need to do is weigh out the advantages and disadvantages.  If we do not have a government shutdown the national debt will continue to climb and an uncontrollable rate.  If we do continue on this path there will be no possibility to pay it back.  This forces us to do something now to fix the problem.  With a government shutdown we will have the time needed to at least stall the issue.  However, we can see another problem because of this.  If there is a government shutdown that means the the government no longer spends money.  At first glance this is good because we need to stop the out of control spending; however, that means that the government stops trading with foreign countries.  If this happens food and gas prices will continue to climb at a higher rate.  This causes economic damage.  Our economy can not handle anymore pressure.  A full government shutdown can have major economic consequences.  This means that we just avoided another new economic crisis by the Senate and House finally agreeing on a budget bill.  In the end we must do everything possible to avoid any other government shutdown in the future if any budget bill is possible.  

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Pakistan ~ Weapons safety

Pakistan is a bomb waiting to go off when it comes to nuclear security.  Pakistan is a nation with a nuclear arsenal and also an arsenal of terrorists.  The Pakistani government even has their own fair share of terrorists.  Abdul Qadeer Khan (picture right) was a nuclear scientist who had direct access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.  Upon investigation it was discovered he was running his own nuclear black market with stolen weapons.  Pakistan is a hot spot that the United States must secure for our own national security.  Not only can the terrorists get their hands on the bombs, but they can secure plans and resources to make bombs of their own.  The implications of terrorists making their own nuclear bombs can be devastating.  This is the purpose of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.  They work with nations around the world to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.  These are the guys that keep you safe at night.  The reason terrorists don’t have Pakistani uranium yet is all because of this program.  However, to do so the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program needs U.S support.  Currently the Obama administration is not taking the actions necessary to secure those weapons.  The Council on Foreign Relations agrees, saying, “The U.S. government has yet to make prevention the highest priority.”  So, what should we do to fix this problem?  The solution is to work with the Pakistani government secure the uranium and weapons facilities in their country.  Not only that, but seeing the problems within their own government we should work harder to investigate the nuclear black markets.  We cannot leave all of this up to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program or the Pakistani government.

Russia ~ Friend or Foe?

When you hear “Russia” you automatically think Cold War, nuclear weapons, and Communism.  However, are these really relevant anymore or has Russia changed its mindset?  Let’s take a look behind the Iron Curtain and see what Russia’s behavior has been on different issues.


Iran’s Nuclear Program:
Just about any major world superpower has a stance on the Iranian nuclear program, so let’s look at Russia’s.  So far the Obama administration has been unable to get Russia to budge on the issue.  Russia still drags their feet on Iranian sanctions.  Inaction is action and we can see by this that Russia does not want to turn its back on its friend.  However, this goes much deeper than this.  If you read Arms Deal you would realize that Russia is not only dragging its feet, but is kicking dirt in our eyes.  In 2007 Russia tried to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran to help them protect their nuclear program.  This action shows that not only is Russia not cooperating, but heading in an entirely different direction.


The People’s Mindset:
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the new nation of Russia took form with a little bit of western help.  Today they call themselves a “Democracy”, but as we all know Russia has one of the most corrupt governments in the world.  Communism relies upon communal corruption to stay alive.  The government lives off of the greed that drives it.  Although they can call themselves a democracy all they want, the fact still remains that they base themselves off of communism.  However, it goes much further than that.  Not only is the government turning communist, but the people are too.  We need to think about this for a second.  The people of Russia have lived in generations of Communism, it’s all they know.  We see the same with the former Soviet countries.  If it were not for western intervention Poland, Latvia, Ukraine, Czech Republic and others would all turn completely communist.  Communism is embedded in the people’s mindset, and without generations of democracy they will never change.


Russia’s Rejection of NATO:
Since the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Russia has shown bitter resentment towards the group.  In all of NATO’s attempts to cooperate with Russia they have been turned down cold.  Russia believes NATO is too expansionistic.  In February of 2010 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lovrov publically accused NATO of global ambitions and claimed they violate the U.N Charter. 


United States Trade:
The lack of substantial U.S – Russian trade has not helped relations much either.  Currently the largest export we have to Russia is poultry…I think that says enough.  But, with disagreements as large as the previous ones trade becomes a large factor.  If we do not have reasons to work things out (loss of trade) then things just don’t get done.  Trade equals more money and more money equals incentive to fix disagreements.  As long as trade remains the same with Russia, all of our “Reset” relation attempts will end in utter failure.