Ron Paul

The fourth candidate to be reviewed is Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has had a long career in both medicine and government, becoming famous for his policy of never compromising on his interpretations of the Constitution. While his extreme libertarian views have gained him a cult following over the years, this is the first election cycle where he has garnered more general support. He has been speaking and writing a ton (side note: he is the only candidate who has written a book that I have read) on the main issues, so let's cut to the chase.

#1: The Economy: This is perhaps his most famous issue, and it has many facets. First, he wants to audit and end the Federal Reserve, returning the power of the purse to Congress. Good so far. Then he wants to return the dollar to the gold standard. While this is the ideal state of any currency, the political feasibility of this action near nil. To be clear, his value is in the right place, but like so many of his views it has little support in Congress. In addition, it will be hard to convince an economically illiterate nation that we need a stronger dollar until they see effects like 1920's Germany. Truth is tough.

His tax policies are good, but have little chance of actually being put into place. I'm sure none of us would mind eliminating the income, death and capital gains tax. But the federal behemoth is not going to change overnight. The government is not going to take a 50% income reduction lying down, and we have to question the effects of a much smaller budget. When the sacred cows are lead to the slaughter house, will our aging, government-dependent population support defense spending or entitlement programs?

Finally, he refuses to allow Congress to pass an unbalanced budget. Given the mood Congress is currently in, playing chicken with their own policies, a super-majority would become a real threat. An irritable Executive combined with a pugnacious, stubborn Congress will not mix well. However noble the cause, compromise is almost universally necessary. A balanced budget is good, but not paying serviceman because of an impasse is immoral.

#2: Immigration: Here is where he will probably gain the most support. His tough no amnesty policy would deprive illegals of a way out while enforcing our laws. However, his plan to end birthright citizenship is odd, and wide open to corruption. Who will make the final decision on a child's citizenship? What criteria will be used? If two legal immigrants are in the country, does their child become a US citizen? It's pretty scary to think about the implications, when the government arbitrarily controls citizenship.

#3: National Security: Congressman Paul is often accused of having an isolationist defense policy. But the truth is that he has an isolationist defense policy. While approving a clear mission and definition of victory are key in any military campaign, so also is sending a clear message that America will not tolerate regimes that harbor our enemies. In addition, a policy of using force only when we have been attacked may be un-Constitutional. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it says, "[Congress has the duty] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; "Therefore the United States has the duty to enforce international law, but don't depend on Paul to agree to that. As to the rest of his policies in this area, little argument can be made against them.


#4: The Constitution: Unlike most presidential candidates, Ron Paul has read the Constitution. He can quote it at will, typically within the correct context. However, when someone knows the most about an issue than anyone else in the room, it can be tempting to say that their opinion is final. So while it may appear that he supports the founders ideals, let us not forget a certain sentence in the Declaration of Independence: "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." The pro-life community has taken this as grounds to repeal Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul has stated that abortion is an issue that states should decide, neglecting to make governmental protection of its citizens a national issue. An inconsistent position at best, a cowardly one at worst.


In conclusion, it can be safely said that Ron Paul is as opposite to Newt Gingrich as one can get in this race. While Newt will probably pass every program he wants, at the high cost of compromise, Paul will doubtlessly pass few of his aspirations, at the high cost of no compromise. Paul knows how the game is played, but prefers to read the rule book.

Newt Gingrich

Continuing with our series on Republican presidential candidates, it is Gingrich's turn to come under the microscope. If anyone is more qualified for the job of actually running the country, he has not been found yet. Holding a doctorate in European History from Tulane, he has been inside the beltway since 1978. Most famously, he authored the "Contract with America" in 1994, which put in place the first Republican majority in Congress since the Eisenhower administration. But how does he deal with our top issues?

#1: The Economy: Gingrich, who has spent most of his professional life in Washington, to great success, would seem an obvious candidate for providing real, tangible ideas for fixing the U.S. economy. However, when given the opportunity, he resorts to high-sounding vagaries that remind us of the Obama campaign in '08. He does provide us with a good view of his tax policy, though. He wants to eliminate both the capital gains and death taxes, while lowering the corporate income tax to 12.5%, while allowing 100% expensing of new equipment. In addition, he would like to "move towards" a flat tax.

While his tax policy makes good, conservative, sense, the other areas of his economic plans beg for specifics. For example, he wants to:

"Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches." 

Gee whiz, Newt, no one has ever thought of that. Bold leadership at its finest.

#2: Immigration: Gingrich has much to say on this issue, even going so far as to provide us with a ten step solution to solving our immigration problems. Most of these ideas are very good, and should prove beneficial, however, there is a level of arbitrariness given to some of these steps. For example, his sixth step states that the Department of Justice will start a 'citizen's review' to determine which illegals we should allow to stay and which should be deported. There are two problems with this: (1) He provides no system or policy that would determine who the illegals are. Does he recommend using his citizen's review on all 300 million residents of the US? (2) He provides no specific criteria to determine which illegals should stay. These issues, coupled with his ideal of solving the immigration problem at the personal level makes for a system that is ripe for corruption.

#3: National Security: His policies in this area promote a more unified approach to the War on Terror than has been put into action since 9/11. Most importantly, he has the guts to stand against the tide of political correctness that has impeded our security efforts. Just as Reagan realized that we must deal with Communism head on, Gingrich adopts this approach to radical Islam. For that we can praise him. However, America has many enemies, not the least of which is a large country between Russia and India. He basically ignores China's growing military capabilities, and therefore provides no solutions to confront them. If he truly believes that we should "know who we are as a country", perhaps he should spend more time explaining who we are as a country.

#4: The Constitution: While he supports many of the ideas of limited government, he has little to say about the actual founding document of our country. Like so many politicians of this day and age, he seems to purport the view that the Constitution is a tool to achieve his ideals, not something to think deeply about. Those who attach little significance to the ideas behind our country's founding are unlikely to employ those same ideas.

In conclusion, Newt Gingrich is defined by success. He is a Washington insider who knows how the game is played, and plays it well. There is no doubt that he will achieve many things if elected President. The problem conservative voters face is that of maintaining the principles behind his actions. While his bills may be passed, at what pragmatic cost will they come?

Herman Cain

The only minority candidate in the Republican field is Herman Cain. He rose from from humble beginnings, his father worked three jobs, to basically achieve the American Dream. He successfully climbed the corporate ladder, scuttled Hillarycare, and is now one of the front runners in the GOP primaries. But let's get to the issues:

#1: The Economy: This area of his campaign has attracted the most attention. With the 9-9-9 plan, a name obviously from the pizza industry, he plans on slaying the economic dragons that have plagued our country as of late. This plan would replace most taxes with a 9% business flat tax, a 9% individual flat tax, and a 9% national sales tax.

No plan this simple could possibly be without caveat, so he does us the favor of being honest about them. Around the country, Empowerment Zones would be set up. These would basically lower the tax rates for all involved. However, all of this smacks of an opportunity for favoritism. Nowhere does he commit to making these zones geographic. Since he was rather popular in the restaurant industry, being named CEO of the National Restaurant Association in 1996, we can assume a large amount of his financial support will come from that area. Could it be possibly conjectured that a Restaurant Empowerment Zone would be created?

#2: Immigration: It seems that the plan-maker in his staff worked overtime on economic issues, but forgot to give him anything specific to say on immigration. His main position seems to be enforcing current laws and securing our borders. And his commitment stops there. Does he support a border fence? Is he against the DREAM act? Does he even have a plan?

#3: National Security: While his website gives us little actual information, his remarks in several of the debates seem rather centrist. He is not inherently against Iran possessing a nuclear weapon, choosing rather to believe, in a rather Paul-esque fashion, that they would simply want it to matter on the international stage. Why should the opinions of a brutal police state matter at all? Does he recognize Iran's utter hypocrisy? Does he think that they would treat their nuclear weapons in a sane manner? Having a viable national defense institution can only go so far in a world with suitcase nukes.

#4: The Constitution: While those on top usually do their best to identify with their party, Cain has had little to say about the renewed interest in our nation's founding document. It is rather odd that a growing section of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, is completely ignored by him. Does he think that a long, hard look should be taken at the constitutionality of the federal government? Does he have any opinions on the ideas that went into creating it? We are quite simply left in the dark.

In conclusion, Herman Cain is an odd, but very smart candidate. While he can't seem to be bothered by most issues, he has taken one of them and made it his defining idea. He is your typical mainline conservative, but we are left to wonder if he has fully thought through what that means.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is a fairly unique GOP presidential candidate, in that she is obviously a woman. Other than that, she seems to want to conform to the new wave in the Republican Party. She is an ardent Tea Party supporter, perhaps the most dedicated out of the entire field. President Obama must have been thinking specifically about her when he quipped that middle Americans just "cling to their guns and religion." On that note, she seems to be the only truly evangelical Christian among the candidates.


Her Tea Party roots run deep. In high school she dated Thomas Jefferson AND John Adams. In college she was roommates with Sarah Palin. She drinks only Earl Grey. However, while claiming to really, really support the Founding Fathers, she has apparently found it necessary to add to their number when it is convenient per her "misspeaking" about to which generation John Quincy Adams belonged to. But let's get to the issues.


#1: The Economy:  From her website:


"I will lead the way in cutting spending, reducing taxes and deep-sixing our 3.8 million-word Internal Revenue Code so companies can invest again. As a first order of business, I will direct the elimination of counterproductive regulations, repeal Obamacare and stop cap-and-trade in its tracks so companies can operate again. And a Bachmann Administration will create the climate of sound currency and certainty employers needed to start hiring again."


In keeping with the Tea Party NUMBER ONE MAIN GOAL, she wants to repeal Obamacare first. In addition, she supports a down-sizing regulation and creating the "climate of sound currency". 


Sound currency is not a 'climate'. Speaking that way dangerously continues the philosophy that removed the gold and silver standards. To say that it is a climate implies that the government must constantly tinker with the economy, making sure everyone behaves. She includes another vaguely put point: "deep-sixing our 3.8 million-word Internal Revenue Code". That could mean almost anything.


#2: Immigration Reform: From the Orlando debate: 


"The federal government has failed the American people and has failed the states. It's reprehensible that Pres. Obama has sued Arizona for trying to protect the people in Arizona. That's wrong. As president, I would do what my job would demand of me. That's to uphold the sovereignty of the United States of America. To do that, I would build a fence on America's southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border. I think that's what we have to do, not only build it, but then also have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books with the ICE agents, with our border security. And here's the other thing I would do. I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children. That's a madness. End the madness for illegal aliens to come into the United States of America."


Apparently, she has not considered that approximately one half of our border with Mexico is along the Rio Grande. Building a fence here would be a foolish waist of funds, and it shows how little thought she has put into this issue.


In her defense, she does support upholding current immigration laws and not allowing taxpayer-funded benefits for illegals. Thus she basically supports what every other candidate except Rick Perry supports.


#3: National Security:


Her website's section on national security is mainly an attack on the current president. However, at the end of the section, she makes several claims that give us a picture of how she would run things. The point that jumps out the most is her last one, that she "will not rest until the war on terror is won." Unless she wants to go many, many years without sleep, she must come up with a more realistic, and specific solution. Does she support continuing the unpopular and expensive war in Afghanistan? Does she support expanding operations into Pakistan? Does she support increased military involvement in the Horn of Africa?


She also states that she will make sure America remains second-to-none in the military theater, while judiciously applying our forces. This is a noble goal, and she deserves to be praised for it. However, America is in a gigantic debt crisis. To do what sounds like increasing military spending is a dangerous thing thing, and not exactly something that Democrats will support.


#4: The Constitution:


No one has such a purported love for the Constitution than Bachmann. One is led to think that if the Constitution had not been written, she would just lay down and die. Which leads to a question: Does she fully understand the driving principles behind the Constitution? It is one thing to fully agree with every word in it, but yet another to know that it was, in fact, a compromise. While saying that she has a 'titanium spine', her claim to credibility is her undying support for one of history's most successful compromises.


It would be better if she spoke more about her position on the ideas from the opposing sides that built the document. Does she support a strong federal government? Or does she support strong state's rights?


In conclusion, Michele Bachmann seems to be a strong Tea Party favorite, but don't expect her to have broad appeal beyond that movement. She can't seem to come up with anything original to say, so we don't have many reasons to vote specifically for her.

An Overview of the Field

Over the next several weeks, months and/or years we plan on running a series of posts, each focusing on a particular Republican presidential candidate. Each one will be examined according to his or her elect-ability and stance on various issues. Hopefully, we will have completed this by the time the first primaries have rolled around and things start heating up.

The issues that are certainly going to dominate the election are:

-The economy, stupid
-Immigration
-National Security
-Overall constitutionality of the government

First, the economy. Not a whole lot needs to be said about this, obviously. However, it needs to be pointed out that government cannot create jobs, and those candidates claiming much experience in that area are going to find said experience next to useless. As has been said by some, government can merely create the conditions businesses to succeed. When candidates cite being able to run growing businesses, this means being able to adapt quickly to changing market conditions, keeping costs down and revenues high. Not a whole lot of this has to do with creating a business-friendly domestic economy. Sorry, Mitt.

Immigration reform has been badly needed for many years now. The nation is caught wondering what to do with tens of millions of illegals, most of whom mean no harm. Is it just to grant them all amnesty and basically undermine immigration law? Would it be better to deport all illegals, ripping apart families and wiping out a large part of the workforce? Let's hope this issue is decided more out of a concern for constitutionality than keeping votes.

National security will play a large role in the primaries, with battle lines being drawn quickly. Republicans need to find a solution that doesn't look like flip-flopping, since most of them supported both of the wars currently being waged at one time or another. If they decide to continue them, they need to prove they can win. If they choose to end them, they must prove they can continue to protect the country.

With the advent of the Tea Party, the national conversation about the Constitution has thankfully picked up speed. The goal should not be to elect whoever can make the most kitschy comments about the Founders and their great love for the Constitution. Rather, it should be focused on a radical reevaluation of the Federal Government, and how much of it should be dismantled and when.

Its shaping up to be an interesting race, guys, and we are really excited to further explore the field. Remember, the important thing is BTHO of BHO!

The Need For RoE In Cyberwarfare

In simpler times long ago, an act of war was easily defined as an incident of purposeful, and harmful, violence directed against one country from another. This made it rather easy to figure out if war was being made on you, or if you were making war on someone else. For example, the War of Jenkin's Ear. A Spanish boarding party cut off the ear of a British captain, and a 10 year war ensued in which 20,000 men were lost, and 407 ships destroyed.

Times have obviously changed a bit since then. Notably, computers and cyberspace have dramatically changed our lives. With the advent of cloud-computing, the internet has become an essential tool. Ever increasing in ubiquity, the internet now controls massive amounts of infrastructure, news outlets, and financial institutions. A feature of this new system is that most of the previously mentioned edifices are accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

The problem with this is that those who would do us harm are not barred from this access. Several times in all-too-recent history, governmental and commercial websites have been maliciously attacked by self-proclaimed "hacktivists", such as Anonymous, with the general agenda of bringing about an anarchistic landscape on the net. In addition to these groups, entire governments have become involved. Therein lie several big questions: What exactly constitutes an act of war in cyberspace? Is it the same as in the "real world"? What sort of retaliation, if any, is required or justifiable? To what extent should cyber-attacks influence international relations?

Consider this: Chinese commandos land in Seattle and burn down Amazon.com's headquarters. Obviously this is an act of aggression, and would be treated as a declaration of war. However, if Chinese hackers bring down Amazon.com's website, little is said about the matter. If American fighter jets and bombers destroyed an Iranian nuclear facility, it would obviously be an act of war. But if American and Israeli computer scientists devise the nastiest computer worm invented and launch it on an Iranian nuclear facility, no accusations are made.

Ourselves and our enemies have done more than cut off each other's ears, yet war has not broken out, and the perpetrators have gone unpunished. Thoughts, anyone?

They're Rioting in Africa

So... Anyone seen the news lately? It seems that violent protests have rocked the Old World. From Tunisia to Egypt to England to Syria, something is lighting both cars and people on fire.

The world is burning!

People are angry!

But why?


Well, it really depends on the particular situation. For example, in England, the unrest appears to be race-based. In Egypt, we can infer that the riots started out of a difference in governmental philosophical theories between the people and, well, the government.


But, which one of these is the best case-study? I would contend that Syria gets the prize for that. Here's why:

• A brutal government
• An angry populace
• Rising death tolls
• No physical international support
• Continuing violence over several months

You will probably notice that Syria is the only country that meets all of the above criteria. An uprising in these conditions is very hard to sustain, yet the Syrians are doing it. This requires extreme dedication to their cause, rivaled only by the IRA at the worst periods of The Troubles. They shouldn't be able to do this, but they are. Why?

Ain't no party like a Boston party!

Perhaps we can glean the answer to this mighty poser from a look at American history. It seems that in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers found themselves in precisely the same position.

When people do things that defy reason or safety, when they take risks without hope of survival, they are either insane or they are idealists. Then again, a lot of idealists are insane. But the American revolutionaries were fighting for something bigger than themselves, and worth dying for. That is, they were fighting to destroy an illegitimate government that stood against everything they believed in.

Sound familiar? The riots in Syria are the cries of freedom from the those oppressed by an illegitimate government. This is why these people continue to fight, even when it makes no sense to continue. America should take a strong stand for the Syrian people, and for liberty everywhere. If we ignore the people here, where they are fighting for a uniquely American cause, what exactly are we willing to fight for?

Philosophy and Science: Part Two

After taking a very long, unplanned, break from my blog, I see that I have left a series of posts dangling for all to see. Hopefully this post will finish it and I can begin writing things that have been growing in my mind.

It would seem that, given its importance in the foundation of our worldview, that we can apply religion wherever we want it, in any field of thought. While this is true to a certain extent, it is not inherently valid.

Consider the field of science. Can we take the Bible and make scientific hypotheses that can be tested and experimented upon? No. Science must be built upon human experience. While the principles that we discover from human experience were laid down by the Creator, they do not come from the Bible.

This was the main problem with the religious establishment during the period mentioned in the previous post. The Church is not supposed to make any pretensions upon Science. We derive philosophy from religion, and science from experience. The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific textbook.

Likewise, Science should not make any pretensions upon the Church. That is the main problem with the scientific establishment today. We cannot possibly derive life's purpose from the General Theory of Relativity. We cannot allow scientific data to decide what we believe about God.

Of course, our faith should never collide with valid science. The Creator of the Universe did not use erroneous principles when writing to His people.

The bottom line: When in doubt about philosophy, go back the Bible. When in doubt about science, go back to human experience. Make no attempt to confuse the two.

Philosophy and Science: Part One

     Throughout the history of the world, the dichotomy of philosophy and science has presented itself in several different ways, with each side trying to gain the apparent advantage in the population's minds. For example, consider the period between 1500 to 1900 A.D.

     This was a time of great conflict between (then) current and emerging paradigms. These paradigms were so exceedingly influential, that the effects of that conflict are still felt today. However, before I continue this discussion, I believe it would help to define what governs these two opposing sides.
   
     If one is to reasonably examine the foundations of one's philosophical ideals, they would probably be based off of one's accepted answer to basic questions about life such as:

• "What is man?"
• "What is God?"
• "What is the meaning of history?"

     Why? Because these questions describe the fundamental pillars of one's existence. If we know what something is, we can easily assume or determine the different facets of that subject's point of being in the world is.  But where do we obtain these answers?

     Most people would answer based off the different ideas presented to them while they were in early school, or by the age of seven as some have said. At this age, a child is too young to understand for themselves the intricacies of life, thus they end up having the "big picture" answers that typically come from their parents or teachers based off some kind of religious concept that sounds agreeable to them.

     And now we have arrived at the core issue of the governance of philosophy. Religion should be the sole determining factor of the way the world is viewed. The reason is that faith, specifically Christianity, is the only thing in the world that (1) never changes, and (2) can fully answer the questions above that lead to one's philosophy.

     In the next post, I will talk about what the limits of religion, and therefore philosophy, are. Also, room allowing, I will define what governs science, and why it matters.

The Civil War

Today being the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, I thought I'd write a few words.

First, some stats:

• The war accounted for about as many casualties as all other American wars combined
• It killed 10% of all Northern males aged 20-45
• It killed 30% of all Southern white males aged 18-40
• There were 620,000 total casualties for both sides

It is interesting to note that while the conflict lasted for four years in the 1860's, the main issue at stake had been the center of controversy since the very founding of the United States. This issue was undeniably state's rights. The question was, "To what extent can states govern themselves?" Now, obviously, the reason why this question was being asked was the legality of slavery in the South. While this institution was inherently immoral and should have been outlawed since the Constitution was ratified, it was not as the writers needed the support of important areas such as Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. Thus it continued to fester in the minds of the national populace.

We all know what happened in the war, and what became of slavery, but what of the central question? While wars are rarely good material for providing legal precedent, they unfortunately are often taken as such all too many times. Thus the apparent answer has become a federal government that increasingly defies any rights that individual states have, and seeks to merely include them as a way of organizing the Congress according to region. How does this impact us today? It means that there is rarely a level of intermediate control in the government that helps provide stability. For example, as I have said before on this blog, the Federal Reserve. Instead of localized depressions easily remedied by moving elsewhere, now everyone is punished by the actions of a few.

Thus we can conclude that the nation's solution to the slavery problem was the right outcome in the wrong way. In a society built on the foundation of the rule of law, it was, and is, unfortunate for such an issue to be resolved by such tragic means that have had so many consequences for the generations afterwards.

And to finish it all off, here is a music video of one of the best songs on the subject by Josh Turner.

Chain Emails

I hate chain emails. Loathe them. With an undying passion. They mainly come in two different forms:

1. Social
2. Patriotic/Spiritual

The social kind are exceedingly annoying. Why? Because they're completely pointless. The rationale seems to be that if you can't figure out really basic, obvious minutae about 20000 people on your contact list, you don't have any friends. And they all seem to be the same.

"Please respond to this email and forward it to 4 billion of your best friends. What is your middle name? What is your favorite color? What brand of shoes are you wearing, like, right now? How many people do you think will respond to this? Who do you think will respond? Who do you think will not respond? What is your favorite movie? HAVE YOU EVER CRIED? Are you in love? If so, send this email *twice* to that person. Key: If 20 people respond you are an ok friend, if 500 people respond you are an awesome friend, if 20000000 people respond you are a ^best^ friend!"

Then there are the patriotic/spiritual type. I abhor these, because they try to attach some kind of moral significance to it.

"I thought this was really good. It seems that President Bush, may his name be eternal, was in Paris, that denizen of sin paralleled only by the worst parts of Sodom. And the French foreign minister asked him why Americans were so evil. President Bush, may his name be eternal, said, "When God made Texas, where I'm from, He told us all to keep an eye out for the French. Fact is, we're not evil, and the only land we've ever asked for from you is to bury our dead." You could have heard a pin drop. FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW OR YOU'RE NOT A FRIEND OF JESUS OR AN AMERICAN. If you don't, the Californians will take over!"

Please, do the world a service. If you ever get another chain email, end the chain right there.

Another Essay

                The greatest, the single most important challenge my generation faces is reclaiming a constitutional base for our government. Without the Constitution, we have a government with boundless power and influence. This limit has been slowly bypassed over the past several decades, to the point at which the general opinion is that Congress should pass whatever laws it wants, and let the Supreme Court decide if they should have or not. Just from a practical standpoint, the fact is, the Supreme Court takes so few cases a year, it cannot handle the load that this philosophy places on it. From a moral standpoint, it is flat wrong. Our nation's lawmakers cannot ethically pass any law they want, when they are sworn to protect the Constitution. In addition, they have delegated matters that they should oversee to the executive branch with such agencies as the EPA, FCC, and DEA. These agencies make their own policy, and are not held accountable by anyone. The reason Congress is supposed to oversee these issues is because Congress is directly accountable to the public. Also, the president should not allow these agencies to come under his jurisdiction. The president is supposed to enforce the laws of the country, not the rules of unelected bureaucracies. The Constitution has been slowly eroded until it is nothing but a nicety, or a vague and misapplied excuse for a federal overreach. When language like, "We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it" is condoned by the people with regard to massive bills, it is obvious something needs to change. Without a Constitution in effect, there is tyranny.

An Essay

I thought this was a cool college application essay topic.

"You have just completed your 300 page autobiography. Please submit page 217."

                This was a period of great change in my life. I went from being a Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps to being an international diplomat and statesman. Instead of rising at five every morning and driving to the base, I would wake up at nine and go to the airport. Instead of planning military exercises and devising policy for my men, I would plan agreements between foreign countries and my own. Instead of always preparing for the next war, I was always preparing for the next election. Neither of these careers was easy, but that's not why I was born. It has always been one of my deepest desires to accomplish big things in my life, and I don't mean running 5k's to boost my self-esteem after watching my life pass by all too quickly. Whether it was leading thousands of Marines into battle or forging trade agreements with Germany, I wanted to make my life count for more than just my own satisfaction. And perhaps that is why throughout my career I never chose the easy way out. Maybe that's why never a thought about retirement ever entered my head. It's not that I was not planning ahead. It's that I was planning ahead for something most people don't. While other people make choices centered on when they could end their career, I was always planning on the next big thing. For a career spent serving others, it just seemed odd, foreign even, to say, "enough" when I still had so much energy, so much vitality left to offer. No, I would not, will not, quit until I die.

10 Elements of a Story Structure

     Every good story includes 10 main elements that make the story worth listening to, seeing, or reading.

1. A hero
2. A goal of the hero
3. A plan of the hero
4. An adversary
5. A flaw
6. An apparent defeat
7. A self-realization
8. A final confrontation
9. A resolution
10. A theme of life

     The funny thing about this is that The Good Story has all of the elements. We have our hero, Jesus Christ. His goal is to provide justice by absolving those who have sinned and repented. His plan is to become a living sacrifice that makes a way for us to enjoy that justice. His adversary is Satan. His flaw is that he is God (in that He then cannot live on Earth with sinful man). This was overcome by becoming man, while retaining his God nature. His apparent defeat was His death on the cross. His self-realization is leaving Hell, and destroying death's hold on us all. His story's resolution is rising from the dead. The theme of life should be the Christian's theme of life, that we are all originally condemned until we lay down our pride and actively acknowledge who Christ is and who we aren't.

     The other funny thing about these elements is that we realize that every good story has elements of The Good Story. People love stories, but they have to be good. Without any of these plot elements, the tale becomes boring or pointless. Nobody likes boring and pointless stories. They must stir the soul and be profitable to hear and analyze. But it is hard to find a story that is so good, that it holds the keys to Eternal Life. And what story displays each of these key ingredients perfectly? What story has a theme of life so applicable? What story has an adversary so deplorable? Christ's story.

Cornelius Ryan

Cornelius Ryan

     The man who's image you see above is Cornelius Ryan, as the caption says. He is probably in my top three or four favorite writers, and he achieves this place for three of his books, The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, and The Last Battle. These are historical books recounting the events of D-Day, Operation Market-Garden, and the final collapse of Nazi Germany respectively. The intriguing thing about all of his books is that he was actually there, on scene, for all of the events depicted. This enabled him to give not only a factual account, but also a more personal tone to all of his stories. I doubt anyone has been moved by a textbook description of Operation Market Garden, but to read eyewitness reports of the bravery and heroism exhibited by the Allied soldiers and be almost moved to tears, to know that you are reading about men who are far greater than you will ever be, and yet go unmentioned in most accounts of these events, is an amazing feeling.

     Most of you know that I am an avid WWII enthusiast who delightfully devoured 600 page books on the subject at the age of 10. I have studied, and re-studied most of the events, and can tell you the course of the war, from 1939 to 1945 by heart. Yet it took me years to discover these books. When they landed on my desk last summer, I was immediately interested. When I spent hours and hours and hours every day reading them, I was fascinated. By the time I finished the last one, I was obsessed. These are probably the best books I have read in a very, very long time. If you want touching, intense, and down-to-the-minute accurate battle accounts on an epic scale, I would highly recommend these.

A Very Bad Year

     It came to my attention today, while eating dinner at a friend's house, that 1913 was one of America's worst years. Ever. This was for three things:

1. Amendment XVII to the United States Constitution was ratified
2. Woodrow Wilson was elected
3. U.S. Federal Reserve was created

     Beginning with the first item on the list, this issue might appear a tad strange. As a refresher, the XVII amendment calls for the popular election U.S. senators. Why on earth is that a bad thing? Well, it effectively forced the states from any position in the federal government. You see, before 1913, the governors and legislatures of the individual states used to appoint federal senators, thus giving state governments some voice in the national government. Also, since the Senate is required to ratify or deny all foreign treaties, the states could control, in part, the nation's foreign policy. This created a political situation where the federal government was answerable not only to the people, but also the states. If there was a trend of congressmen who refused to listen to the people, at least they could rely on the senators, who could be recalled by the governors. Also, instead of acting as a strange extension of the House of Representatives, it empowered the Senate to act in the interests of the state government. This would have been useful in a few occasions, for example, when President Obama was shoving federal funds down everybody's throat, the Senate, with the governors behind them, could have said no. Instead, the political systems at work allowed this to happen.

     Second, Woodrow Wilson was elected. He was the president who not only suppressed anti-government voices during WWI, but also fathered the League of Nations. It was totally unconstitutional to jail government protesters, and remains a blight on his record in my view. Any time that the president disallows the most basic of civil rights, free speech, it shows serious and fundamental flaws in his governing philosophy and the state of the nation as a whole. In addition, he invented the notion of an international governing body in the mold of the U.N. Basically, without Wilson and his happily failed League of Nations, we would not have the national sovereignty defying, civil rights destroying United Nations. Surely his election will go down in history as one of the worst ever.

     Capping off this evil of evil years was the creation of the Federal Reserve. Basically, it institutionalized federal control of the economy. This goes against every free market principle ever. Allowing the government to control the value and distribution of a nation's currency may seem quite normal. However, its main purpose is to give the national government more power, which has no knowledge of satiation. Instead of having regionalized depressions and business busts created by speculation or other market forces, it extrapolated them across the entire country. This was first shown to be true in the Great Depression. Without the Federal Reserve, we would have been able to continue the stable economic policies of 19th century, the latter period of which is known as the "Gilded Age". There has not been a denoted "Gilded Age" since then.

    Thus we have seen that 1913 was one of the worst years ever. It proved to largely expand federal power, reduce national sovereignty, and destroy economic stability, the effects of which we are experiencing today.

Hello World!

I'm baaaaaaack! Check out the updated name. This blog will be posted on far more regularly than my last one, so ya'll will never lack for at least a daily post. Are you guys excited?