Gun control is the first step to controlling the people.

So here now, I’d like to talk about something a bit more controversial to some, but a bit more personal to me. Gun Control. Unfortunately, most of the folks that will read this sit on the same side of the fence as I do, so I won’t get the feedback I’d like to see from the other side of the fence. But this is something I feel very strongly about, so I’m going to write about it anyways.

Let me start by telling you, I’ve been around guns my entire life. Before I ever touched one, my father did a good job if engraining certain beliefs about guns into my head. Aside from the obvious and glaring safety basics, one of the first things I learned about guns is that they are a tool, no different from any other tool. Improperly used or handled, they can be dangerous or deadly to both the operator as well as those around him. One argument I hear frequently is that guns are not like other tools, because they are more deadly, to which I can only respond, a steak knife through the eye, a circular saw through the femoral artery or a climbing rope wound around the neck all are just as deadly as a 9mm to the chest, arguably, all of the above could even be more deadly, depending on circumstances.

That the primary use of a gun is to destroy life is without question. I won’t argue the point, like some pro-gun folks will, that a guns primary use as a line of defense is deterrence. Hogwash. I’ve got nothing to hide, and no reason to lie or deceive. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold, with the primary purpose being to cause death. Sure, there are LOTS of folks who use them strictly for pleasure, a day at the range, or even a day shooting bottles in the woods. There are also many people who use them for competitions, 3 gun, USPSA, NRA long rifle, there are numerous tournaments and competitions for firearms. But these are secondary. The primary and original purpose was and is, to cause death, and to avoid that and dance around it, only hurts the pro-gun movement, and does nothing to further it.

There are so many reasons to be anti gun control, that it’s difficult to know exactly where to begin, so I’ve decided to start with history. Since the dawn of time, since groups of cavemen went to war by throwing rocks at one another, man has had three primary uses for any weapon he has developed. First, to provide food. Second, to defend against attackers. Third, to be the attacker, and take that which other people have claimed for themselves. And almost as long as these tenets have been in place, those in power have sought to disarm those they rule over in order to provide security for their rule. Even before firearms, there are numerous examples or a tyrannical ruling body seeking to disarm, or keep unarmed, a populace that was unhappy with their rule. This is the reason that so many weapons we see today in the Asian derived martial arts are transformed versions of what were once farming implements.

In more modern times, we have examples like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot to look at. I’m not going to be your history teacher, if you want specifics, you should look each of them up and how they relate to gun control. But one thing they had in common is that all of them used one form or another of gun control to disarm a civilian populace in order to solidify their reign. Lenin said “one man with a gun can control 100 without a gun” and it’s true. And so, the one surefire, foolproof way to prevent our government from sliding into a more tyrannical rule is to remain an armed and aware populace. Currently the US is most well-armed civilian population on the planet. This isn’t even close. There is no real “second place” in a comparison of this sort and the US would be in first second and third if there was. We have guns, lots of them, and the government knows it, and every other government knows it as well. If it weren’t for the fact that our civilian population has more small arms than our military, I’m convinced that “taxation without representation” would be far more rampant than it already is (and that’s saying a lot…)

Our forefathers were no fools. There is a reason they wrote the second amendment to include the right to bear arms. Corrupt men unopposed only become more corrupt. An armed population provides a counterpoint that is undeniable and always present.

As much as I hate to take sides on the liberals vs conservatives debate (one is as evil as the other if you ask me) The liberals want to tell you what to do. It is their belief that they, and only they, should decide what is best for you, your kids, and the general populace. They want to take what you have, and give it to the less fortunate. They want to protect you from yourself and from your neighbors. They want to put you in a safe little bubble over which they have total control so that you can lead a full and rich life exactly as they define it. The one thing stopping them is guns. So, while they whittle away at all your other rights a little at a time. While they try to tell you what you can and can not hear on the radio or what is or is not acceptable for you to display on your lawn, they are always, and always have been, trying to take your guns away. Realistically, such an undertaking is massive. Insane. Though hard to determine positively, it is widely accepted that there are roughly 9 guns for every 10 people in the US, man woman and child. That’s over 300 million LEGAL guns in this country. Taking them all away is a ridiculous undertaking to even attempt, so don’t worry, the US government isn’t going to show up at your house looking to take away your legally owned guns any time soon, to think they will is silliness, the logistics are just too staggering to understand. But, they can do their best to convince people that don’t have one, not to buy one. They can get a handful to give the one they have up or to turn it in to a police department for destruction. They can create legislation that makes you hop skip and jump through so many hoops to get one, that only the most determined would ever buy one. They can create tarrifs and regulations that make it so expensive to produce or import them, that the  cost makes it prohibitive for most people. And by doing these things, they can, slowly, whittle away at the number of armed citizens in the US. You don’t have to disarm an entire populace to control it, just enough of them to be an insignificant threat. So remember that when the debate comes up, and don’t let your congressman or senator pass any laws that inhibit your ability to become or remain, an armed citizen.

Of course, the sportsmen’s debate also comes up every time I talk about gun control. People will say they provide food for their families with their hunting rifles or shotguns. Silly argument, because then they’ll just want your handguns. Just? I don’t think so. Personally, my handguns are for the protection of my family. A hunting rifle is a piss poor substitute in this situation. It’s dangerous to be wielding indoors, in hallways and doorways. Its rounds will easily penetrate the human body at indoor ranges (typically 7yds maximum) and continue right on through any walls in the immediate vicinity to endanger the lives of anyone on the other side of said walls. So to those who would defend gun rights by claiming they should be able to keep their rifles for hunting. Shut up. You’re not helping anyone, not even yourselves.

The other side of the sportsmens debate is nothing short of laughable. Semi-automatics, ie “black guns”. You can’t take them away, I hunt with them. OK. What do you hunt? Varmints? Reasonable. Understandable. But a .22 or even better, a .17hmr is a much cheaper and just as effective solution to any varmint problem. So do you hunt large game? Shame on you. I’m not a newcomer to ballistics and bullet makeup and penetration. Hunting anything larger than say, a coyote, with a .223 is irresponsible. The difference in energy imparted between a 308 and a .223 at 200 yards is no joke. I’m not saying the .223 isn’t deadly, but it’s much less of a sure thing when compared to a 308 a 30-06 or any other purpose designed hunting cartridge, and the bigger your game gets, the more and more this holds true. I believe you should be allowed to own an AR-15, an SKS or any one of a dozen semi-automatic rifles classified by the government as “assault rifles” (nice propaganda that there) But I don’t hide behind some BS like, “my ar-15 is my hunting rifle”. First, if you want to just hunt, buy a Remington 30-06, scope it and go hunt. It’s cheaper than an AR-15 and has a dozen different purpose designed cartridges to meet your hunting needs. If you want to own an AR-15 for plinking, varmint clearing or just because you believe it is your right to do so, then just say so. I’m with you, I believe you have the right to own one too, but again, not being straight forward doesn’t do anyone any good.

The one argument that is inevitable, is the number of gun related deaths in the US on a yearly basis. Liberals will simply tell you the numbers, which I’ll admit are high, and then say “there, that’s why we need stricter gun control laws”, this is inevitably the first thing a liberal will try in order to convince you that gun control is a good thing. To the uninformed, seeing those numbers can be convincing all on their own. Which is why I recommend you inform yourself. Of the guns deaths each year in the US, 97% are related to use of an illegal firearm. The guns criminals use were obtained illegally in the first place, and thinking that taking guns away from legally armed citizens will prevent gun deaths caused by illegally owned and obtained guns is just plain asinine. It’s like thinking that declawing the lions you have in captivity will prevent the lions in the wild from killing more gazelle. It’s just ridiculous to even consider as a possibility, yet somehow, they think this is a valid argument. Also, the fact remains that cancer kills FAR more people in the US every year than guns. If they put half the effort into curing cancer that they’ve put into trying to disarm legally armed citizens, we might be just a hair closer to a cure or a better way to fight it, prevent it, or slow it down.

What about the accidental deaths they’ll say, what about the innocent children that die each year? It’s true, innocent children die every year due to gun related accidents. These deaths are a tragedy, but an avoidable one. First, the parents are responsible. You can call me a cold hearted bastard. You can cry about how your so-and-so’s son/nephew/cousin died in an accident involving a firearm in the home. I’ll simply tell you this, the gun owner was at fault, not the gun. When I was a child, my parents didn’t hide the guns away and make them a mystery I was determined to investigate. Instead, my father would break them down, and clean them in my presence. He’d explain each part, and what it did, show me how the gun came apart and went back together. He’d explain how the gun worked, and what the bullet did, and of course, how dangerous it was if improperly used. He displayed them in a gun cabinet in the open (locked, but visible behind glass doors). He basically removed all the mystery and fascination from them, thereby removing my natural childs curiosity. Kids that die in an accident know as much about guns as they’ve learned from TV. Mom and/or dad keep the gun in a drawer or in a closet, hidden away, and never talk about it. When a child stumbles across it, their natural curiosity kicks in and bad things happen, because these same uninformed people don’t keep the gun in a safe, or they don’t use a cable lock on it, and they leave it where a curious child can find it. That makes them negligent, it makes them responsible, and in my opinion, it makes them criminal. I have loaded guns in my home. My children have all seen them, they know about them, they know how they work, and they know what they can do if improperly handled. Education, of the owner and the child, is the simplest solution to avoiding accidental gun deaths in the home.

Don’t get me started on gun shows, waiting periods and the NRA. These things all irk me to no end. The NRA does a lot of good for gun rights, the pour tens of millions of dollars into lobbying in favor of gun rights, and they’re probably the only reason the liberals haven’t managed to take away our 2^nd amendment rights. But those people are insane. Or they’re genius. They approach gun rights the same way PETA approaches animal rights, with an extremism and a twistedness that is spectacular. Personally, as a gun owner, I feel that the NRA, while helping me in Washington, does nothing to help my case in the eyes of the general populace. Charlton Heston for example, was a quack. Ted Nugent is headed down the same road. I believe in our second amendment rights, but those are two individuals are not representative of the average American gun owner.

Waiting periods? Why do so many pro-gun activists have a problem with a waiting period? I just don’t understand. If I decide I want a gun, whether it be a long gun, or a handgun, I’m not going to make that decision the same day that I “need” the gun. There are only three reasons I could fathom for needing a firearm NOW instead of tomorrow or a few days from now. First – I have been invited to go hunting with my buddies, and they’re leaving today for the weekend. Well, if you don’t have a hunting rifle already, then you’re obviously not a hunter, which means you need to sit your ass down in a hunter safety course before you go anywhere anyhow. I don’t want you in the woods with me until you’ve been to one, and most states require it now anyhow, so while we wait for you to attend, that is a perfect time for you to not complain about a waiting period. Second – my life is in danger, and I need to protect myself. Some, not all, but some, states actually have a provision for this. If you can prove imminent danger to you or your family, they will waive the waiting period, and provide a temporary permit for the weapon. Once the period passes, you are still required to go through the normal processes for firearms owernership. Third – I intend to commit a crime, and I need a gun for my *insert violent crime here*. Great, thanks for sharing, go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, and don’t forget to give bubba a kiss on your way in.

And last, of course, gun shows. I love a good gun show. I love the deals that can be had. And I hate that nut jobs can buy guns here and do so without having to go through almost any of the normal hoops. First, this last is only true in certain states now. I’ll tell you, how they handle it here in NC is how it should work everywhere. The vendors can now do instant background checks right at the counters, so if you’re purchasing a long gun, you don’t have to wait long at all before you can take home your shiny new purchase and start practicing on milk jugs and watermelons. But here, if you want to buy a handgun, you go to the sheriff, you fill out a form, and they process that form and provide you with a single “purchase permit” that you can hang on to for 3 years, or you can run out and buy a gun the same day you get the permit. Receiving the permit takes a few days, my wife got hers after 4 days, I got mine after a week (hey, what’s THAT all about!?!) So if you have such a permit, you can purchase a handgun at the gun shows here and be on your merry way. Gun shows always have schedules out in advance, so it’s really not difficult to plan ahead and get your permit before the show dates. People who “legally” purchase a handgun on one of the states that makes it so easy, then use that gun to harm someone else, only help make things more difficult for the rest of us. If you’re a law abiding citizen that purchases guns at gun shows who is against some of the gun show legislation out there, you need to ask yourself why you’re so against it if you’ll still be able to purchase, and if it help keeps the guns out of criminal hands (which in the end gives liberals less excuses to try and take them out of my hands and yours) isn’t for the better in the end?

In short, I’m a firm believer in my second amendment rights, I also believe in the right to carry concealed WITH the proper permit (law abiding citizens should never have a problem with proper licensing for handguns). Liberals can say what they want, but at heart, criminals are cowards, and if they know my house occupied by a gun owner, they’re going to move along to a home they consider a safer target. By the same standard, if more people were armed, legally, there would be less targets for crime, and if more criminals were shot in the course of a crime by a legally armed citizen, there’s a good chance, more would be criminals might think twice about changing their career paths. But, take guns away from the people who own them legally and use them responsibly, and not only does the government feel less inhibited, but the criminals feel less threatened, because they’ve still got their illegally obtained guns, and with no fear of retribution, they’ll put them to use even more frequently than they do now.

Its time we made some changes around here.

In my last post, the question was offered “is there a non-violent way to turn things around”. I was going to respond, and realized, this is a good question for a post all its own. This is a question that deserves an honest answer, but before I do, since I’m not a fan of being hauled off in the night, let me point something out to anyone who may at any point, ever, read this post

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

With that noted, I’ll point out that the enemies of our nation are mine as well, so I’ve obviously no desire to give them aid nor comfort. I’ll also note that I’m not levying anything against anyone, I’m just stating my opinion. Exercising my 1^st amendment rights, as it were.

So, do I believe it is too late to save our country from the corruption of our current political system without violence? That’s not an easy question to give a straightforward answer to. The answer of any politician, naturally, would be something like “of course. If the people vote the right folks into office, we can institute change in the way our system works and get our country back on track.”

That politician neglects to tell you that the only people who have the power to make the necessary changes to our government are the very same people who share responsibility for it being this way in the first place, and the chances that they’d ever vote for the required changes are, well, nil. The logical response then, would be, lets vote in the right people who would indeed be willing to enact those changes. Again, a stumbling block. The only people who would be willing to make the drastic changes necessary moving forth, are not career politicians, they would be citizens whose primary concern is the country, not their wallet. So how do we get those people into office? You don’t. In most states, getting on the ballot as a senator or a congressman is difficult at best, expensive, time consuming and nigh impossible at worst. The average citizen does not have the necessary resources, whether it be time, money or manpower (some states require a massive number of signatures to get on the ballot, and getting those signatures takes a lot of manpower) to get on the ballot in the first place. Then, do they have the money to run a campaign so people even know who the heck they’re voting for? Not likely, nor likely they have the time either. If they lose, they’d still need to maintain their job, which means they can’t exactly quit and hit the campaign trail.

Next problem, let’s say you manage to find a way to get on the ballot, and you find a way to run a sufficient campaign to get elected. Now you’ve got to do it (guessing here) about 240 more times. The House has 435  members, and I’m sure not 100% of them are scum of the earth corrupt politicians. I figure if you could put a large enough number of “real people” in Congress, say about 200, the real good guys would come out of hiding and help make the needed changes happen, same for the senate, I estimate maybe 40 votes needed to convince another 26 to lend their votes.

Can this be done? Realistically. Not without some very deep pockets lending a hand. If somehow, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates got on board and started funding campaigns, sure, you could find the districts with the worst of the worst *cough*BarneyFrank*cough* and replace them with middle class folks who know the score and are willing to fight to change the country.

But otherwise, in short, no. Without violence, we are doomed to continue down our current path of corrupt politics and bloated bureaucracy with little to no change that has any real effect on the majority of citizens. We are the modern Rome, in every sense of the meaning. The past decade has proved that our president is near powerless. All the real power lies in the Senate and the House. The Supreme Court wields a fair amount of power, but even though the president makes the appointments, the Senate can disapprove of any given appointee. The presidents last real power is the veto (which can STILL be overruled), which if you ask me, isn’t used nearly enough with some of the crazy shit our Senate and House pull off. He also has the “executive order” which I suppose can create some smaller changes without a fight in the Congress.

So, when the day for change finally comes, I do not believe it can happen without violence. But, I do believe it can happen without total chaos ensuing. Before such an uprising should ever occur, a few things would need to be in place BEFORE hand, in order to assure a smooth transition with minimal negative impact on the people.

1.      A new constitution would need to be drawn up beforehand. Some of the things that need to be changed exist in the very heart of our original constitution. A good draft would remain true to the basics of the original, but would be altered to include term limitations on both branches of the Congress, as well as elimination of the Electoral College. In addition, provisions would need to be made to more strongly assure enforcement of some of the regulations imposed in the original which are more or less ignored in present day, for example, Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution includes the following line:

a.      No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.  – This is huge IMHO. Notice it states INHABITANT, not “resident” (residence merely you maintain a residence in the state in question, and pay your state taxes to that state). Common sense dictates this means you need to physically be within the state that elects you, most likely, to help you better understand the residents of that state, and their particular needs as they relate to, and can be impacted by, your position in Congress. This also prevents congress from becoming tighter knit with each other than with their own constituents, which eventually creates the system of internal corruption we see today. Almost no Representatives or Senators (section 3 makes the same statement in reference to Senators) spend a majority of time in their own home states, most instead residing in DC or the surrounding suburbs.

2.      The original Bill of Rights should be included in the new Constitution, with minor wording changes to make undeniably clear for all time, the intent of each article. With the Bill of Rights being part of the initial constitution instead of a series of initial amendments, they would be basically become untouchable by later amendments (and the wording of said constitution would make this clear). Clarifying and SIMPLE language would mean no more arguments over something as simple as a comma, as we frequently see with the second amendment and our right to keep and bear arms. And no more debating "intent" as we see with several other early amendments.

3.      Amendments to the constitution would require not only a vote from the Senate and House, but also a review by the Supreme Court to determine if it infringes on any other rights prior to being passed. Wording should e clear and simple to avoid any and all confusion in the future over the intent of the writers. They should also address only a single subject per amendment, and be limited in size so as not to make reading and understanding them impossible for the general populace. The intent being, that any high school graduate with a basic knowledge or reading, be able to read each amendment in it's entirety and udnerstand his or her rights without having to consult a lawyer. The constitution would also make arrangements for each state to have a Federal Court panel that would review the constitutionality of all laws passed at the state level (CA, MA, NYC % Chicago gun laws anyone? Shall not be infringed? These states/city’s stomp all over the 2nd amendment rights, they don’t just infringe on them) In order to prevent abuses at the state level at a later time.

4.      A Declaration would need to be drawn up to clarify all grievances against our current government. I wouldn’t refer to it though as a “declaration of independence”. I don’t think anyone is seeking separation or independence from the United States. I think the purpose would be a removal of the current government, to be replaced with a new government properly restricted from infringing on the rights of the people, and indeed, designed specifically with the intent to PROTECT those rights by contrast. However, I  believe the original document is, quite literally, the most important document ever written, and would certainly make for a good base, for the  general points that it makes.

5.      Provisions (most likely in the constitution?) need to be made allowing for complete and total transparency of all government actions. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but our government has, at times, acted with a level of secrecy that indicated it had something to hide from the people of the united states, which undermines the very meaning of the statement “of the people,  by the people, for the people” Sometimes I believe this secrecy was intended to “protect” the general populace from the fact that occasionally bad things have to be done for good to prevail in the end. In these modern times, I do not believe this is necessary, and in fact, I believe much of this behavior, regardless of intent, has bred a certain level of distrust between the people and the government, hence why conspiracy theories run rampant. In my own humble opinion, I think there should be a reporter present with the president at ALL times during which he is conducting state business. There should be no “secret meetings”. This reporter should be under the confines of  a specially written NDA that prevents disclosure of any military operations that would endanger the lives of any US citizen until such mission had been completed, but only until then. Names of any service members involved in such operations would be restricted, but only the names (to prevent any potential terrorist retribution against an individual) Violation of said NDA would be considered treason, period. Cameras should be installed in every Congressional office, and similar reporters assigned to various committees, and agencies. This accomplishes several things. It lets people know how their elected officials are carrying out the business they elected them to take care of, and it helps create responsibility and accountability. It’s sad to say, but human nature is such, that without transparency, without threat of being punished for ones actions, a person is most likely to do whatever benefits himself the most rather than whatever benefits those around him (there are, obviously, exceptions to this, but do you want to take the chance that every official you elect is that exception?) I also believe that at their core, most people have it in them to do the right thing, and when confronted and forced into making a choice “publically” most will do so.

6.      With the technology we have today, I’d like to see a system that involves all constitutional amendments going up for a vote by the people once passed through the House and Senate and not Vetoed by the President or Supreme Court (see above). Remember, our government was designed in the late 1700’s. In those times, It could take days, and sometimes weeks to travel between one’s home state and the capital. So it was extremely prohibitive to put literally anything to a national vote. Instead, most votes were at the state level, and the representatives did literally that, represent. Now, though, we can have, with a very small margin of error, a vote of millions, nationwide, and get a tally by the next morning. Our old system worked in an old world. We no longer live in that world, and we shouldn’t hold on to customs and methods which can be made better if adapted to a modern world.

7.      Restrictions would need to be in place on moneys spent on political campaigns, the middle class makes up the vast majority of this country, yet we have literally no representation in Washington, because the costs of a campaign just to get into office fall well outside the range of the middle class. Also, lobbying efforts, and “special interests” would need to be addressed, as would the fact that we have a senate or house committee for everything under the sun. Bureaucracy needs to be severely curbed, and this would be a good place to start.

8.      Government regulations should be minimalized. True capitalism should be allowed. If someone creates a monopoly in a free market system, they’ve obviously managed to do so because they are providing a service or product that a majority of persons either need or want. If they abuse that, then the free market system would dictate that the best answer is for someone else to offer a more attractive option. A perfect example of how this truly does, and can work, especially in today’s high speed information age, is the recent debit card fees proposed at BoA. It was government regulation in the first place that caused the fee to be suggested for implementation. But it was a public reaction and backlash that prevented it. Less regulation and more free market = more consumer power. Similarly, the FCC serves as an excellent resource to prevent two radio stations from transmitting on the same frequency in the same area. In this regard, their purpose is clear, and necessary. But, infringing on the 1^st amendment is not. If a radio station wants to have potty mouthed DJ’s on all day long, let them. If people want to listen, that is their choice, the channel can be changed. If you don’t want your kids to hear it, THEN DON’T PUT THE STATION ON. If no one listens to the station, they won’t get advertising revenues, and they’ll go under. Simple as that. But there’s no reason your prudishness should prevent me from listening to smut if I want to, especially if you have the option not to listen. As a last note, government bailouts of any private sector business should be irreversibly forbidden. We might have suffered a depression if the banks had failed recently, instead we’re “only” going through a recession, but it’s one without any current light at the end of the tunnel, and now we might end up in a depression anyhow depending on what happens with the greeks and the European union. Instead, the banks should have been allowed to fail, and that bailout money should have been pumped into the economy to help things get back on an even keel.

9.      ALL levels of government require accountability. Nowadays, someone abuses the power given to him by the people, and he resigns and it just goes away, or he just “denies these horrific allegations that have been made against me” pays someone off, and it goes away (usually to not return until several elections later at the worst possible moment). Either way, there are no consequences for abusing the trust of the people. There NEEDS to be punishment. Without threat of retribution, people have little incentive to do the right thing unless it is in their best interest. This kind of goes along with section 5 above.

10.   Compensation for government service needs to be severely curbed. For the last several decades, congressional pay has far outstripped our national inflation, while everyone else’s earnings have not. When the country isn’t doing well, they vote themselves a raise (really!?! In what other job, ever, other than owning your own company, do you get to give yourself a raise without the permission of the people that PAY YOU!?!?) My suggestion is that both senators and representatives be paid based on the average salary of the US Citizen, to include those unemployed as earning 0 instead of what they pull in on unemployment. You want a good economy and low unemployment? Pay the House and Senate based on those factors, and you can be damned sure they’ll be working in your best interest when it comes to anything job or economy related. Also, the Senate and House have the best health care in the world, because they gave it to themselves (while conveniently excluding themselves from Obama care…. Wow... just, wow…) Not only that, but they get those benefits, and full pay retirement benefits for LIFE even if they only serve one term. I would suggest that with term limitations, should also come an elimination of any possible retirement pay from Senate or House service, instead, payments can be made into a 401K or IRA just like everyone else, and if you don’t have one already, one can be started for you for that purpose. As for health care, I believe ALL, as in each and every one, of federal government employees should receive the same health care. Yes, that includes our soldiers. This would have one of three possible results. First option, Senators and Representatives would get Tri Care and go through the awesomeness that our military families have to deal with, co pays and all. Second option, the entire military gets the same insanely awesome and totally free health care benefits currently given to our Senators and Representatives. Third option, a middle ground is found, and federal employees, military included, are provided health care not unlike what the average American already receives, this is what I would think to be most likely and the most reasonable option.

That’s just the basis for a beginning, if anyone ever were to wipe the slate clean, and start fresh with a new government. This only addresses the core of our government, and not so much the rest of the mind boggling morass that is the United States of Bureaucracy. And of course, these are just my opinions on how to change some of the things that have caused us to get where we are.

Foreign Aid - Or, the hand that feeds is feeding the wrong people.

In the past 70 years or so, the United States has managed to create an atmosphere, globally and locally, of entitlement. The worst part is, we’ve managed to create such an atmosphere, while still remaining the “bad guy” in the eyes of far too many. I won’t get into state and federal entitlement programs in this post, that’s a completely separate post altogether. Instead I wanted to talk about US foreign policy, foreign aid (i.e. the global bribery program) and how it needs to be changed in such a dramatic way, that it would never happen without total government overhaul.

The debate about foreign aid, typically between conservatives and liberals, tends to go something like this. The liberals will tell you we give too little, that compared to GDP (which is indeed the standard benchmark for comparison of foreign aid) the US fails to come close to helping the less fortunate nearly as much as other countries. Measured purely based on government provided aid to foreign countries, this is undisputable. What the conservatives will tell you is that when foreign aid is looked at strictly as a number, and GDP is left out of the equation, the US far outstrips the rest of the developed world in aid provided to foreign government. When looked at strictly as a number, this is also undisputable.

In addition, there are two other things to look at, that the politicians and spin doctors always fail to talk about. The first is non-government aid. This includes private aid from corporate and individual sources. When included in the figures, for all countries, private aid pushes the US ahead of all other countries when compared to GDP. So while other countries kick and scream saying we are selfish and don’t give, they could argue their case in reference to our government, but the citizens, the people, of the US prove to be the most giving on the planet. In addition to private aid, non-government aid can also (debatably) include what is called remittance i.e. the money given by US immigrants to their families living outside the US. Political scholars will tell you this does not count as it is just family helping family. Economic scholars will tell you it does indeed count, because this money is earned here in the US, and then leaves our economy, to be circulated in another. I happen to agree with the latter, because if the money isn’t helping our economy, but it’s helping someone elses, it’s a form of aid to that country.

The second factor, brought up by anyone who looks at the numbers, and always glossed over by anyone who makes the numbers, is where the money goes. Because military aid is counted in the overall number, Afghanistan and Iraq are, obviously, the top recipients of us foreign aid currently. But if we look beyond that, the top 5 recipients are: Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan and “Palestine” (i.e. Gaza and the West Bank).  Of those, only Sudan can well and truly be considered a third world country, a developing nation. Palestine isn’t even really a country. And the other three are blatantly developed nations, 2 of them are nuclear powers! This isn’t foreign aid, I prefer to call it foreign bribery. The nations in question have at some point, all been a threat to global peace. Three of them amongst themselves. And what do we get for our money? Egypt is peaceful, no doubt, and if anything the muslims in the region are right when they say the (pre-revolution) government is more or less owned by the US. Israel does, in my opinion, show great restraint in not completely decimating some of it’s neighbors which knowingly harbor terrorists that constantly attack Israel. The Palestinians on the other hand… who are we giving the money to in the first place? These people can’t even come to a conclusive decision on who’s running the show, and whoever is running things, is doing a terrible job, as it is a literal breeding ground for terrorists. Pakistan still rattles its sabers at India, there are still border clashes, the Kashmir region is still in dispute, and to top it off, they harbor al qaeda and Taliban terrorists within their borders. Sudan is a good recipient, but their infrastructure and leadership is in such shambles, that the aid rarely reaches the people who truly need it.

Also troubling, is the fact that Jordan (again, peace keeping bribe money), Colombia (war on drugs money, that’s going well, isn’t it?) and Russia are on the list of top 20 recipients. I’m baffled by Russia… they are definitely not a third world country, and still remain a world power after the breakup of the USSR (for those under 30, the USSR is the old nemesis of the US during the cold war, for 40 years it was the second most dominant nation on the planet militarily, and was purported to have a nuclear arsenal as extensive as the US, when the USSR was dissolved in 1991, the Russian Federation is the country that assumed the powers and responsibilities of the USSR on a global scale, including their seat on the UN Security council, it was later discovered their nuclear power had been grossly overestimated, though still considerable).

The remaining countries on the list are primarily developing nations in South America and Africa well deserving of a little assistance. Unfortunately, as multiple organizations have tried to point out over the years, while private assistance (volunteer services, doctors without borders, missionaries etc) is usually given directly to those in need, US government assistance (and that of other governments as well), in the form of cash, food, building materials, or elsewise, rarely reaches those that need it, and what does, is greatly diminished by the extravagant costs involved in getting the aid into the right hands.

I think it’s time for a drastic change. Let me toss out some statistics real quick here (yes, I’m aware of Mark Twains quote “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics” but sometimes, seeing the raw numbers helps draw a picture when used properly instead of to twist the truth. In the US, currently 10% of the population live below the poverty line, and 10% of those are homeless. Approximately 14.7% of the US does not receive enough food. Yet we export literally billions of tons of food products to foreign countries and provide them with billions of dollars in aid.

Currently, internally provided aid is a morass of red tape and discombobulated laws. So I suggest the following. First, I would recommend a cessation of all foreign aid. If Egypt, Israel, Pakistan & Russia can’t behave themselves on threat alone, then a demonstration of seriousness should be in order. We’ve become the parents who threaten but never follow through, instead we toss the children a few bucks to insure halfhearted good behavior. A good spanking is in order to prove the threat is not idle. As for Colombia, well, I’ll talk about the war on drugs another time, but I’d suggest something similar, i.e., “we’re not giving you any more money, get your shit together and stop the export of cocaine, or we’re going to set your country on fire” That should do it. This would free up approximately 37 billion dollars.

OMG YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD WHAT ABOUT ALL THE STARVING CHILDREN IN *insert poor country of your choice here*

Sadly, the aid our government provides to countries that actually need it does little to no good because it rarely gets into the right hands. In more “stable” countries, it winds up in the hands of corrupt government officials who use the aid in whatever form it may be (food, materials, medicine, cash) to increase their own powerbase, and as everyone knows, you increase your powerbase through the rich and powerful, not by giving to the poor and hungry (well, at least right up until the poor and hungry take up arms and shove a mouthful of cake down your gullet just prior to removing your head, but that lesson NEVER seems to take hold no matter how many time the scenario has played out over the centuries). In less stable countries, the aid ends up in the hands of some lowlife warlord who uses it to provide for his own private army, which are more often than not the whole reason people need aid in the first place!

So I say let that we take that 37 billion dollars a year, in addition to all the money we currently spend on entitlement programs (again, trying to restrain myself, I’ll dish out a whole boatload of thoughts on that another time) and use it to create real change.

First, we need stability. Which means housing. And I don’t mean government housing projects like the ones we already have all over the US that breed crime like rotten meat breeds maggots. This is THE perfect time. There are homes all over the US that sit empty, no one is getting any money for them, the banks can’t process them fast enough. You want true economic stimulation? Buy the homes from the banks, or from the families that are about to foreclose on the house, at a fair, but low per dollar cost. Tis puts money back into the economy. Now move families in trouble into the homes. They don’t own it, but maybe a rent to own plan with restrictions can be put into play. Now the kids are (hopefully) in a better neighborhood, and instead of being surrounded by a ghetto and the crime that goes with it, they get the benefit of less violent, less crime oriented upbringing. Of course, I wouldn’t just start handing out homes without stipulations.

Second, we need re-education. Employment numbers would be used to determine the most “in need” industry in the area, and mom and/or dad would be re-educated to function in that industry. Once training is complete, you go to work or you lose the home, no more benefits. You don’t want to work, well, your kids are taken away, your name is blacklisted, and you’re booted back on the street, with help never to be offered again. Seems harsh, but if my tax dollars are paying for it, I don’t see the point in a whole lot of “extra chances”.

The system perpetuates itself. The children, given a better education and raised in a home with working parents instead of parents who collect every dime from every program they can, would be far more likely to have some self-worth, and a desire to contribute themselves. It wouldn’t make an overnight difference, hell, it would take years just to get a program like this going properly. But that’s the problem, in this day and age, everyone wants the quick fix, the now. No one is patient enough to let a new way work itself out.

Once we work out our own internal problems, then I would suggest finding a way to provide REAL support to third world countries that helps them develop, rather than throwing food and money at them and hoping things will just work out. We’ve been doing that for years, and I’m still seeing the same starving in Africa commercials now that I was seeing in the 80’s, so it ain’t working.

I honestly don’t consider this to be some wild new idea. It seems like logical common sense to me, “help yourself, so that you might better help others”. And while this post might not be as revolutionary as some might expect, the truth is, that a system like this can never be implemented in the current state of our bureaucracy. Without a total government overhaul, something like this is just a pipe dream.