On 8 October 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the second half of a two part bill called “The California Dream Act (AB 131),“ a law that would allow undocumented students, who, if they had been brought to the US before the age of 16, access to public financial aid if they met certain educational requirements[1]. These standards, the same to which American citizens are held, include GPA requirements and regular school attendance. They also provide grounds to the leftist argument that should aliens perform to or above the level of their legal counterparts, they should also be provided with taxpayer subsidized financial welfare. In this case, they mean grant money, scholarships and federal loans.

Jerry Brown was quick to reassure leftist/democratic, socialist and minority voters in California’s gubernatorial campaign that illegal children would not be punished for decisions that were, at their age, beyond their control. In fact, Brown’s ideology is indeed almost (The Fountainhead author Ayn Rand) Randian in nature, i.e. people cannot be born into obligation, and that upon their entrance into the world they should be void of social and state expectation. At least that’s how it all sounded to me. But please make no mistake, the implementation of AB 130/131, the so niftily called “Dream Act,” is a supercilious display of fiscal abuse by the Californian government.

AB 131 was quick to enter and leave the media scene. In fact, besides a small link on the homepage of MSNBC.com, I was surprised to find that both conservative and liberal news had left it relatively alone. Jerry Brown’s promotion of the legislature leaked quietly through the press, a smart move considering the potential outcry that would have been expected from right winged conservatives and Tea Partiers. With most attention fixated between the discovery of the bigoted name of Rick Perry’s former ranch and the surprise that an African American is slowly beginning to dominate the GOP race, it was an opportune time to push this through, even if Jerry Brown had done so unintentionally.

But I think unfortunately the aftershock of such a bill will be noticeable in the future, perhaps so far ahead that it will be difficult to blame the creator of the law and how to solve the impending brain-drain because of it (similar to how the country attributes some of its woes to Obama and some to George W., and how most have no clue how to fix it.)

It is generally accepted that most work best by the means of financial incentive. Such ideology is supported by paradigm shifts in immigration, like America’s 200 years of immigration, or the collapse of communistic governments (and yes, I’m aware that isn’t the sole reason do for the collapse of the Soviet Empire.) Liberals, especially in this case, fail to realize that by removing financial incentive to anyone, let alone students, it is to be expected that both the quality and quantity (in this case we are not speaking simply of “homework,” I’m talking about university research) of work being conducted in the state is expected to drop. That’s not the worst though. Individuals, or students in this case, not only will seek better financial opportunities (private funding though private universities), they could leave the state all together, resulting in a loss of man- and brainpower to a dominate California collegiate system.

Break it down: Let’s take myself as an example. If I were applying to earn a master’s degree in the state of California, I would view schools such as first class institutions Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford and USC as top choice and realistic options. I would need financial aid, however, and most students do (In fact, during my undergraduate years, I did not once hear of any student not needing tuition assistance). But upon finding out that potentially less money would be available to me, because it’s partially being diverted to others (regardless of to whom it’s going), I’d look to earn a higher degree at a place where I could get more funding. In lousy economic times such as these, people are going to go to who doles out the MOST. And for the school mentioned above, that means prospective candidates opting to attend either better private options, or out-of-state schools.

And so, the money that my law abiding, tax paying parents have been plugging into the system for over 28 years fails to reach the one personal they had hoped to benefit from it: ME. If I were someone with basic common sense, why would I then choose to live in a state where my tax paying dollars benefited people who didn’t contribute their fair share? I know this is an over generalized statement, but it is an accurate simplification of the problems that not only plague our nation, but the rest of the world (Think PIIGS). It is minor issues like these, which augment into serious social problems that generate rightwing creativity like the formation of The Tea Party, and ideas that inspired the Libertarian Party of the US in the 1970’s to deem it’s motto “TANSTAAFL,” or “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch[2].“ And people like me, hardworking, backbreaking citizens that would like to continue to make a life in the United States, want people to cover their part when it’s time to pay the check.

And they won’t. Which is why it’s to be expected that the elite of the state will take taxation laws like this bill into consideration when deciding where to go for higher education, or where to start a family so that their children can get all the financial help they can. It’s no wonder that the brain drain that once plagued countries like India and China, is now trending in reverse. Better public funding is beginning to exist in these nations.

It’s hard to make a moral argument against children, from whichever nation, who have been brought to this country. It’s even harder, however, after legislation like these, for citizens to see the point of feeding into a leaky system. And that’s significant right now for a declining nation. In a country in which the term “The American Dream“ became recognizable to the entire world for multiple centuries, it still is possible to rise to the top with just the shirt on your back. Just step on one of California’s many elite universities and look around. Millions have done it, and many more millions will. In the mean time, I’d just like to cover for my share of the tab.

[2] http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3/message/9701

With the GOP race rolling along with who seem to be the final contenders for the party’s nomination, it’s appropriate that now we discuss who would truly be the best. If you have been following my articles, along with watching the debates or researching candidates, it should be easy to find the parallel between my thoughts and a certain candidate’s positions. This candidate supports ending the Federal Reserve, ending the war on drugs, sound money, small government, individual freedom, and ending unjust wars. There are only two candidates who would fall under this category, one who I have been following since 2007, and another who I have recently found out about.

Given that there are technically two candidates who would accomplish these goals as president, I am here to lend my support to one at the moment, the one who I know most about. This candidate is no other than Texas congressman Ron Paul (if you are curious the other is Gary Johnson). I give Ron Paul my support for now instead of Gary Johnson due to his refreshingly consistent voting record coupled experience and knowledge. Not to mention his growing and unwavering support.

What separates Ron Paul from all the other candidates[1] is that he does not represent the status quo, hence panic commencement with the Jones’s. He wants to end the wars we have going on in the Middle East, as well as close our hundreds of bases around the world. Keep in mind that he does want to keep defense spending, and protect our borders. What many people frequently confuse about this position is they think Ron Paul is an isolationist. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist could not be further from the truth, he is a non-intervetionalist. In fact, he wants to end our trade embargos with nations such as Cuba and encourage free trade with all nations. Having a less aggressive foreign policy and ending entangling alliances will not bring enemies; in fact it will incubate friends. Wars and aggressive foreign policy are what lead to enemies.

Ron Paul also, and more importantly, consistently, has a refreshingly different view on monetary policy. He predicted the housing bubble would eventually burst years before 2008, and for about 20 years has been predicting the financial troubles we face today. No, he is not a prophet of any sort; rather he looks at the creation of the Fed and the ending of the gold standard. This move led to the United States Dollar being a fiat currency. Fiat currencies and Keynesian economic policies inevitably lead to overwhelming debt though inflating the dollar by printing more and more money and regulating markets, especially during economic downturns.

Paul’s solution to this problem is sound money, going back to a gold standard and having a truly free market system[2]. A system that doesn’t support government leaning corporatism, rather, the increasingly rare true form of capitalism. If you listen closely enough many of the other Republican candidates try to sound like Ron Paul by talking about the Fed’s failed policies. Do not be fooled, they do not see the real problems, but they do see it is a popular idea given the current economic conditions, and piggyback on it.

One might respond to Paul’s position by claiming that free market capitalism causes problems itself, and that being run by corporations who are only accountable to shareholders and board members would be worse for America. However, the opposite is true. Due to the fact that there are so many government regulations and bailouts, banks and corporations are practically encouraged to engage in risky businesses because they know they will be bailed out. In addition, in our system today big banks and corporations have extreme amounts of control on what goes on in Washington.

If we were to have a true free market society, a market controlled by supply and demand, it would be a lot stricter on what the corporations would be allowed to do. Banks would be allowed to fail, thus they would avoid risky behavior, which would protect the consumer. Rather than having giant bubbles due to credit expansion and artificially low interest rates, the market would eventually correct itself, and there would not be a giant mess like there is today. Moreover, if the government handles the economy in the same way they do today, there may be temporary relief, but that is just kicking the can down the road. Eventually, people will face the harsh truth, and the young people are waking up to this harsh reality.

It is no secret that young people love Ron Paul. They are the most enthusiastic and passionate about his message. The subject I believe Democrats and Republicans alike can agree with is individual freedom. The United States itself was founded on the principle of liberty and self-governance. He believes anyone should be able to do what he or she wants as long as they do not interfere with the rights of anyone else. Nor should the government stray from the confines of the Constitution. At the very least people should be able to opt out of government programs. If you are a religious conservative how would you feel if someone told you that you are not allowed to attend church, or talk to others about what you believe? Although others may disagree with your beliefs, you should still be able to practice them. If someone wants to destroy their body with drugs or alcohol, they should be allowed to as long as they do not harm anyone else. With individual liberty comes responsibility. When you are an adult, especially if you can go to war, you should be able to make decisions for yourself, not have a nanny state make decisions for you. One sector of society should not be able to force their beliefs upon another.

One of the most important issues regarding personal freedoms today revolves around the war on terror. Today, we are constantly reminded about the dangers of another terrorist attack. We are forced to disregard the Constitution while at the airport, and have the TSA search our bodies unlawfully. Be wary anytime when any government begins to take away the liberties of its own citizens. When elected president, one of the first things Ron Paul will do is end this dilapidation of our Constitution.

Given that you agree with all of the above, or at least most of what Ron Paul believes, you might respond by saying, “I would vote for him, but he is unelectable”. Well, first of all he has been elected to the United States congress 12 times. Secondly, would it be a bad thing to have someone who does not represent the status quo? I surely do not want anyone who has well rehearsed talking points with perfectly combed hair. Furthermore, if your reasoning for not voting for someone is because they are unelectable, then you probably have extremely weak principles and are easily manipulated by the media.

This brings me to my next point, the media. If you have not noticed, the media seems to treat Ron Paul as if he is a leper. In the 2008 presidential race he would not be invited to many of the debates, much like Gary Johnson today. It has taken years, but now Ron Paul is invited to the debates due to his ever-growing support. However, the media outlets are still shunning him. What is most upsetting are the numerous headlines that look something like this “Romney first, Bachman in third in latest poll”. But wait, who is in second? Oh yeah that would be Ron Paul. It is almost hard to fathom that they get away with something like this, or even think its acceptable. When looking at polls Ron Paul is the most consistent he is holding around a 9-13% (and growing) in almost any important poll while all of the other candidates’ support are always changing in poll percentages tremendously. I attribute these extreme movements to the media. The media seems to have an agenda to maintain the status quo and so they pick their “flavor of the week” so they make it seem like all the other candidates are tremendously different, when they all are pretty much the same. Not only his he ignored in news stories, but he is also ignored during the debates themselves. I have been watching practically every one, and time after time he will get the least amount of time to speak. What is funny is that Fox (I think) did the debate this year with people sending in YouTube questions and voting on who should get what question, and the candidate with the most votes to answer a question was none other than Ron Paul. Yet, he was not given equal time. In the most recent Bloomberg debate, Paul was definitely given the least number of questions, though he responded exceptionally well to all of them.

Clearly, the media and people in Washington are afraid of something that Ron Paul supports. What they are afraid of is real change. If you do not know much about Ron Paul right now, I encourage you to at least just look up some of his positions, listen to what he has to say. Even if you are not interested in politics, or think you do not have an effect on the outcome, just give it a chance. It may take a little while to completely understand what he has to say, especially in regards to economics, but it is truly eye opening and brilliant. Now is the time to turn this country around in the right direction and there is finally an opportunity to do it. If you believe in freedom, economic growth and prosperity, and are in question of our current foreign policy, then Ron Paul is your guy.

[1] All other candidates except for Gary Johnson.

[2] For further explanation of our current system and solutions Ron Paul advocates see my previous articles on Devaluation by Inflation and Failure of Fiat.

I understand political strategy. I get why debates with potential candidates regarding a possible presidency often are painted with broad strokes, rather than fine lines. Glossing over questions, generalizing to hit target demographics, flat out changing the subject. To a viewer it’s a frustrating move, but it’s clear to see how it’s beneficial for promising politicians to include everyone and everything using empty rhetoric, rather than dividing and angering by getting into the nitty-gritty.

That being said: I, as a voter in the Republican primaries, just need some clarification.

“Mr. Romney, just how exactly will the Church of Latter-Day-Saints influence your time in the Oval Office?”

Just like Petey, sitting across the lunch table after practice with Sunshine, blurted out: “You know it don’t [sic] matter. I just gotta know.”

Mr. Mitt Romney, I think you’re an intelligent human being who has some great leadership qualities. You run the stage like a stud, give off an educated, successful businessman-like vibe and seem like an all around nice guy. But I’m iffy. Iffy because you won’t talk about the elephant in the room.

You’re a Mormon.

Now, I well aware that giving definitive answers on such a touchy subject here in America could mean a potential death sentence for his campaign. One wrong word would kill donations faster than Texas corporal punishment, and send most of his followers running for the hills. But I argue that Romney is doing a disservice to the folks who are the “Republican Independents,” or those who are on the fence on whom to support in the upcoming primaries, due to the fact that they are skeptical in regards to how much power LDS could wield in the Oval Office.

A president’s religion has been a hot topic since the country was founded, and that’s a good thing. It makes sense. The whole “Separation between Church and State”. I’m glad we have it. But that little, abused statements doesn’t change the fact that we’ve had Roman Catholics in the Oval Office (see JFK), Quakers (Nixon and Hoover), Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Unitarians and the like. Most of the people that have sworn themselves to become the Commander and Chief of the United States of America have held some sort of spiritual philosophy and it can be assumed that it played a role, albeit perhaps a small one, at times in presiding over the country. Hell, we’ve even had a Dutch Reformed take the reigns (See Teddy Roosevelt.)

The point is Mr. Romney, is that you fail to quell the fears of potential voters like me should you continue to remain apprehensive about speaking about your church. I won’t jump the gun and say that the minute you open your mouth I’ll run for the hills. I promise. Your end of the bargain though is this: Present a quick, concise statement regarding how Mormonism makes an impact on your life and how it would affect the presidency, and then put the doubts to rest. Maybe through in a cool story about your time in France as a missionary, or BYU football or how The Church of Latter Day Saints didn’t allow Black members until the late 70’s. Well, on second though, don’t’ mention that. You’re good at leaving out minor, but important details. You’re a politician.

I’d love to go back in time and smack that smug look right off my face. Sitting in a lecture. Drinking at a local bar. Discussing the impending „revolution“ with my friends. I vividly remember all the times I said I was fed up with academia and ready to dive in the job market. Make the big bucks. Not live off my parents anymore. Lousy economy? Mountains of unemployment? Impending world depression? The end of the financial system as we know it? Screw all that. I was soon to be a graduate with a B.A. degree and felt it was my right as a member of an “elite” alumni association to barrel through any competition waiting in the lines of the local unemployment office and get that fat salary with benefits.

It didn’t take me earning an undergraduate degree to quickly learn that:

A. Entitlement doesn’t exist in the real world,

and B. Not too many people give a damn in often hearing the name “Berkeley.” (I look up at my newly hung diploma, sigh heavily, and continue with this post.)

This article isn’t a rant; it’s more of a remembrance, or a daydream (one I’ve been having fairly often). I don’t mean to churn out a 500 word piece of rhetoric simply to fill up cyberspace about how the world isn’t treating me fairly, complaining that nobody has yet to put a silver spoon in my mouth. It is to inform those still in school that they should be careful what they wish for. Or perhaps it’s an online written punishment, complete with the steps that I should have taken when I had the chance.

I don’t regret my time in school. I don’t regret what I studied and how I applied myself to academia. I do, however, regret not using my time in a university setting to better prepare myself for the real world.

I remember all the moments where people asked, “What do you do with a German degree?” I can think of the smart-ass look I must have had on my face as I gave my witty response and can see their, maybe feigned, look of surprise. The sad thing is, I now cannot remember how I answered.

Again, I do not harp on those who are spending their time wandering through the humanities like I did, painting a picturesque version of a world that, as it so lately seems, wants nothing to do with you when you decide to join it. And I can’t say I blame those who blatantly decide to skip becoming a member of society by signing up for 7 years of graduate school.

But I do wish I had taken more applicable courses to today’s problems in conjunction with my passion.

I imagine I’d be sitting a bit prettier had I ventured into a bit of Economics, gotten my feet wet with a tad of Business Administration, or whet my whistle with dabble of Computer Science. (But then again, how would I then have the skills to write such a fancy article?)

Hindsight is always 20/20. But having experience in one of those fields in combination with a degree in the humanities would perhaps be a better way of proving to a potential employer my grasp of the current state of economic affairs than what I had gotten out of an “Idiot’s Guide To” and “The Wall Street Journal.” That’s not to say I have something against those works, I just can’t exactly find the right way to tie them in with my resume.

So, I find myself consumed in my time, my discouragement, and the desire to write. I watch baseball by day, and aspire to become the next Hemingway by night. Unfortunately I’m not sure ESPN is looking to hire any more journalists to the editorial in the Baseball section. Nor do teachers need to add yet another book onto a class syllabus (Yeah, right). Sigh. What the hell was I thinking?

And such is a the life of a recent college graduate who constantly checks his phone and email for any callbacks regarding my “recent application.” I’m beginning to think my interest in the hundreds of companies I’ve scoured over the past four months isn’t really being “appreciated,” despite what all those automated emails told me.

But, alas, as an unemployed young man with all this free time I can finally set out to do all those things I wished to do in college, but just didn’t have the free time. I can finish that book I’ve started, I could travel the seven continents, and I could memorize the rosters of all the Phillies’ farm system. I could finally read those novels that have become dusty with neglect and do that “research” that was shelved until I could regain that extra brainpower.

Now I find myself consumed in the possibility of not only expanding upon my knowledge of German, but learning new languages, tying that in with some sociology, and that with immigrant populations in Europe, and that in combination with their religion and philosophies, and existentialism and my own beliefs in why we’re here. And I know that universities do employ people to explore such ideas and pay them to write papers on such topics. And well, I’m jobless.

Hello Graduate School.

As the tenth anniversary of September 11^th approaches, Americans and people all over the world are reminded of a day that changed the world. Not only were thousands of lives tragically lost, buildings destroyed, and the psyche of Americans changed forever, we had lost even more. In the wake of 9/11 came fear. Fear is an interesting and powerful emotion. With fear comes the loss of rationality. With the loss of rationality comes emotionally charged decision-making. In the days and years to follow this horrific day this is exactly what happened.

Naturally, one of the first things most people wanted know on 9/11, was, as George W. Bush put it in his recent interview on National Geographic, “who the hell would do this to America”. According to the official story, there were 19 hijackers, who were members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, took over the 4 flights with box cutters as weapons. They then managed to get past security, take over the commercial jetliners, fly them into selected targets, and 3 out of the 4 planes reached their targets. It was also said that they took flight lessons on small Cessna aircrafts and flight simulators to learn how to fly the commercial airliners into their targets. Further intelligence revealed that Osama bin Laden was the leader of this organization. With this information came many actions by the United States government that transformed the state of our nation today.

One thing the Bush administration decided to do, as we all know, was wage war with Afghanistan. The administration’s decision to wage war in Afghanistan was based on the idea that it harbored terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Although, I am all for finding those responsible for the attacks, there are a couple things the Bush administration failed to take into account when deciding to send thousands of Americans to and risk their lives. First, would it be better to just send in special forces to track down and kill those we know to be Al Qaeda? Second, why were we attacked? And finally, if we are attacking those countries that harbor terrorists, why attack only Afghanistan?

For the first question, if we are fighting a different kind of war where individual extremists are willing to go to any means necessary to kill Americans, it seems as though the practical way to fight these extremists would be to use intelligence and special forces to eliminate the threats. Sending in a whole army, and invading an entire nation is risky for multiple reasons. If they are targeting American lives and our government sends thousands upon thousands of soldiers on their soil, it is easier for them to target and kill Americans.

In fact, this was exactly what bin Laden wanted.

He wanted to put America into an economic mess, and to add to that it would be much easier for him to do so if American troops came to him. If we sent in Special Forces on individual, well informed missions; there would most likely be much less collateral damage and loss of innocent life. If we only sent in special forces, we would not have the mess we have today with having the war go on and on for years.

Rather, the information would be gathered, evidence taken into consideration, and act on that information accordingly. If the reason for attacking Afghanistan was because Afghanistan harbored terrorists, then why not invade and go to war with Saudi Arabia? It is well known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not to mention Osama bin Laden. But, this leads to my point; we cannot blame a country as a whole for the acts of individuals. Nor will invading a country change the fact that individuals want to attack our country.

The question, “why were we attacked”, is where many people fail to use reason rather than emotion to answer the question. The most widespread assumption given for the attacks was that the terrorists wanted to attack the United States because we were free. This is absurd on many different levels. If we were attacked because we are a free nation, and the terrorists hate us for that reason, and their only mission was to kill Americans in order to take away our freedom, then we would have to admit defeat. After 9/11 the Patriot Act was enacted. This Act took away more of American’s freedoms than what the terrorists did. In fact, if we believe that the terrorists attacked the United States to take away freedoms, then our own government helped the terrorists succeed by passing such an act. Here are a few of the things allowed under the patriot act:

• Sec. 206- Roving Wiretaps: under this act it is possible for the government to look into your cell phone, computer, whatever device even if you just come in contact with a suspect. This violates the freedom of association granted by our bill of rights.
• 213- Sneak and Peek Warrants- Allows authorities to search a home or business without immediate notification of the person of interest. This has been abused by authorities for the use in cases other than terrorism. Once again taking away more of our liberties and undermining the law of our land-the Constitution.

Although these are just a couple of examples from Patriot Act, this requires only a little bit research on your own and a brain to determine that your rights and liberties are being taken away by this Act.

Now, recall the last time you went to an airport, did you have to go through the body scanner, or if you refused you were forced to be pat-down by the TSA agent, or face a $11,000 fine and leave the airport? Well, it happened to me. I elected for the pat down, due to the fact that I was aware of the body scanners that emitted more radiation than they had previously thought (I read it in a news article that week), and that it was an extreme violation of my privacy. Yes, the pat down was also an invasion of my privacy, but at least I could attempt to educate the TSA agent on how he was taking away my civil liberties. When I told him that he was violating the 4^th amendment of the Constitution, he responded by saying “well, you know, these days people are trying to hurt us and, you know, there is that trade off between liberty and safety”. I had to laugh at this point because he obviously does not know what our founding fathers fought for, or why the Constitution was written in the first place.

One of the breaking points for the colonists that lead to the beginning of the revolutionary war was something known as the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was imposed on the colonists in 1765, and it gave the right to the British soldiers to enter any house without a warrant if the individual soldier believed that someone might have not paid for the stamps. So, when the Constitution was written, the founders made sure that searches by authorities needed to have good reason and a warrant from a judge. Now, when I was patted down I did nothing suspect or criminal (unless purchasing a plane ticket is criminal).

Although there was no reasonable suspicion or warrant present, I was still searched. Out of all of the places to search with a warrant, it was my most personal possession, my body. But, sadly, some will still say that we live in a different world, and such precautions are necessary. Furthermore, if one believes in that principle, then we need the TSA to pat us down before we go into a car, because someone might have a bomb in it, or might drive it into a pedestrian or a coffee shop. If there is a lightning outside, then there should be a law preventing everyone from leaving his or her home, because there is a greater chance being struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. Hopefully, at this point someone can realize how ridiculous these precautions are, and that if someone wants to kill himself and take others with him, then they will probably find a way.

As Ben Franklin put it, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

If the terrorists did not attack us because we were free, then they must have had another reason. In fact, there is a reason. Even the CIA has written about this reason, and further, the terrorists have admitted this reason as well. The reason for the 9/11 attacks is called blowback. While in order to explain the specific details requires a lengthy history lesson, it is essential to understand what blowback is. Blowback by definition is a retaliatory act. Due to our foreign policy, the CIA, and the United States in general has a big risk of facing blowback. Essentially, intelligence agencies and leaders of the country attempt to do things in the countries best interest at the time. Specifically, we helped the Afghans fight the Russians off, and we have put people in power in the Middle East to benefit us, and we also support Israel a bit to an extreme.

Rather than mind our own business and worry about self-defense, the United States tries to manipulate politics in the Middle East in the name of protecting our best interest. This however is very upsetting to those who actually live in the Middle East. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that we deserve to be attacked or anything of that nature. I am simply giving their reasons for attacking the United States, and refuting the idea that it was based on our freedom and freedom alone. Imagine that another country, say, Russia, had bases in the United States and patrolled the streets with their military and they told us what to do. I would imagine that you would be outraged by this foreign occupation. If we want to end the Terrorist threat to our nation, we have to reevaluate our foreign policy.

In addition, we need to elect people to office who are against policing the world and who are against playing political chess around the world. The best way to fight the fight is to defend our country by keeping our troops at home. With hundreds of bases over the world and multiple wars going on we are spreading our military too thin, we are giving the younger generations in those countries a reason to be angry with the United Sates. If you were to grow up with a foreign country invading your own, and you see how many innocent people die, I would guarantee you wouldn’t be too happy with that either.

Once again, I feel that people will take my point wrong, so I need to emphasize that I do not agree with terrorist tactics, I find it cowardly and repulsive. However, I believe we should think with reason and not emotion. Rather than just getting upset and bombing the living hell out of countries, causing billions of dollars in collateral damage and loss of innocent life, lots of thinking and research needs to be done. Since, in the U.S. the people have the power to elect their officials, it is about time we look for someone who understands these things, who thinks logically. Once you overlook the propaganda and the fear tactics, the choice wont be a difficult one. The next time you hear “they are going to kill us” or “they have the potential to kill, harm, hurt” think about it for yourself and do not get caught up in the hype. If you want to protect your freedom, then the best way is to never let them take it away. The only people that have the power to take your liberties are those who you give the power to.

235 years ago, the United States of America was created on the basis of protection of natural born rights including the insurance of the freedom of religion. Our fore fathers made a goal to create a nation where anybody from any walk of life could come and practice any religion one so desires without any intolerance, harm, or interference. They succeeded with this goal and established the Bill of Rights wherein the first amendment to the Constitution clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  It is our duty as citizens and rulers of this country to follow the rules our fore fathers put in place to keep us safe and to preserve a country in which any citizen can be free in all means of life, including choice of faith.

“Protecting the freedom to practice any religion hasn’t always been an easy task in our religiously prevalent society”

From the war of Independence to the Bill of Rights, the United States has continuously fought to keep the coveted precious freedoms, such as the freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and of the press. Protecting the freedom to practice any religion hasn’t always been an easy task in our religiously prevalent society.  The Tripoli Treaty approved by the US Senate on June 10, 1797 between the US and the Barbary States specifically states that the US is not a Christian nation. On September 12, 1960, President John F. Kennedy addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association with the following statement: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute”.  This strong statement from Kennedy’s declaration really stands out not only because of his historical popularity but because he was a Roman Catholic. On February 25, 2004 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that states cannot be required to extend scholarship aid to college students training to become members of the clergy.

Even in the past decade, we have still been running into disagreements regarding as to how far the government should be removed from church.  After years of defending and protecting this right, shouldn’t it be a “no-brainer”? While we should have no problem continuing to separate the State and the Church, it seems to me that we, in fact, still do.
In the past decade or so there have been several reoccurring issues.  One of them is the request of prayers in public schools.  In June of 1963, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional when an Abington Township Unitarian filed a case to end a 1949 Pennsylvania state law requiring mandatory devotional Bible reading in public schools statewide. Since then it has been made obvious that it is legally unconstitutional for a public school to conduct a denominational or nondenominational prayer or perform ceremonial readings from the Bible, whether it be in the classroom, at a football game, PTA meeting, or school assembly.  This became known as “The day God got kicked out of the schools”.

“It is time for our nation to realize that since 1948 our priorities have changed, and it is not necessarily an honorable significant contribution to add religion into a non denominational pledge of allegiance, when everyone does not believe in god”

This ruling was beneficial and is proactive in avoiding any possible conflicts between members of different religious groups occupying the same public schools, yet some still seem to be bothered. Even to this day, our own pledge of allegiance is in question.  The one ending line, “One nation, under god”, does not seem to sit well with many. This line was not even a part of the original pledge of allegiance. It was added in 1948 by Louis A. Bowman, who was given an award of Merit by the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution for his “significant contribution”.  It is time for our nation to realize that since 1948 our priorities have changed, and it is not necessarily an honorable significant contribution to add religion into a non denominational pledge of allegiance, when everyone does not believe in god.  So what to do?  Appease the religious by allowing prayer in schools and force religion onto the non-denominational?  Or respect the non-religious by refusing prayers in public schools and upset the church goers because they are not getting what they want out of the schools fueled by their tax payer money?

Another one of these issues is the teaching of evolution in public schools.  In every eighth-grade physical science class across the nation, the theory of evolution is embedded into the curriculum.  In Texas’s case, their course of study is a little different.  Unlike the other 49 states, they don’t teach the theory attributed to the well-known scientist and observer Charles Darwin as an accepted theory. They teach it as an idea amongst a few other theories – one of these other theories being creationism, otherwise known as Adam and Eve. The section 1.3 of the Texas Textbook Proclamation states, “each textbook must carry a statement on an introductory page that any material on evolution included in the book is clearly presented as theory rather than fact”.  Their defense is that evolution should be presented as one of many theories of the origination of mankind to “avoid limiting young people in their search for meanings of their human existence.”  Apparently middle-school students in the other 98% of the states don’t seem to question the genesis of their existence when presented with the widely accepted, yet dynamic, theory of Darwinism.  So why has Texas not been punished for this?  Does them being the biggest state in the nation make them immune to the basic laws?  In a way, yes.

Texas is the second largest buyer of textbooks and owns about 8% of all of the textbooks in the whole nation.  This is a large percentage, especially when it comes to revenue for a publishing company.  Since the lone star state has so much of an upper hand in the textbook industry, and has such a large budget to buy these books with, any publishing company will bend over backwards to meet their unique requirements.  Due to the supremacy clause, Texas could possibly be condemned for its actions, but the Supreme Court has not taken the time to leverage it’s power. Until then, students across the 1,150 school districts within Texas will have to deal with the Adam and Eve vs. Darwin approach.

Now let us ask ourselves this question.  Is everyone Christian?  Is everyone Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, or Hindu?  Is everyone an atheist, scientologist, or fundamentalist?  The answer is no.  No matter how much you want to pray before an English lecture in school, or how Cain and Able should be a part of your science homework, the only real solution is to take religion out completely.  Religion should be removed from schools, and most importantly from government but not because one person thinks it is wrong, or one person thinks it is right.

Religion is heterogeneous, diverse, changes from one belief to the next. That is why it is called faith, it is all about what one chooses to believe in and finds to be the truth.  One is not wrong, and one is not right.  However it is wrong to impose onto someone a belief that might not necessarily be their own.  Out of pure respect and courtesy to the fellow American citizens, we should take prayer out of public schools and leave god out of the textbooks.  Let us enable people to put faith into whatever they wish and not mingle with their preconceived certainties of the universe around them.

Religion and other belief systems give people hope. They give people something to believe in when there is so much uncertainty about the world.  So why meddle with someone’s personal divine expectations when the fore fathers made it so that anyone could believe in what they wanted to believe in? Why intevene with one’s personal divine expectations, ideologies, or aspirations, when the fore fathers aspired to give anyone a chance to believe in what they wanted to believe in? Implementing prayers in public schools could impede this liberty. We might not know much about the creator(s) of our universe, but one thing we do know is that the founders of this country specifically protected these personal freedoms to make us feel safe and happy.  Let us not impose onto others a belief that may not be theirs.

If one wants to learn about God, one should go to Sunday school or bible camp instead of impressing it onto every child during a second period science class.  Let us start now by setting an example for our children and the next generation by fixing our actions. We should stop actions such as Rick Perry’s campaign prayer circles, or well-known female presidential nominee’s Bachman and Associates anti-gay religious firm seeking to heal homosexuals through God and scripture readings.  Yes, the first amendment does protect the freedom of speech and religious practice, thus in theory allowing these Republican candidates to do whatever they please. However we should acknowledge that there is no real need to mix the father, the son, and the holy ghost with Washington.  Why take away a trusted idea from someone when something to believe in is so hard to come by these days? Like our four fathers suggested 224 years ago, Church and State is better left clearly out of each others way.

Political behavior derives from the institutional design of governments.  At one end of the spectrum lies the total concentration of power in one institution, most often in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship. The opposite end of the spectrum represents direct democracy and decision by unanimity – the ultimate devolution of policy-making power, yet one in which the risk of indecision and legislative
stalemate is increased.  Most modern governments fall somewhere in between.  Thus, although the recent debt-ceiling crisis has been widely attributed to party politics, perhaps more consideration should be given to the underlying determinants of American political behavior.  In particular, we can analyse how institutional design influences the political stalemate.

Both Democrats and Republicans can be criticized for their handling of the debt crisis. Boehner & Company prioritized electoral advantage over the well-being of the national economy.  Yet Barack Obama, equally at fault, lacked the political bite to facilitate cooperation and avoid a last-minute deal.  Collectively, the executive and legislature approved a weak extension of the debt ceiling that can only be described as a legislative failure.  But why has cooperation become so difficult in the American political system? The answer, in part, can be traced back to institutional design and democratic legitimacy.

The successful creation and implementation of public policy in any governmental system is dependent upon the number of ‘veto players’ involved.  The expression is a game-theory terminology created by Professor George Tsebelis and refers to any political actor that may reject the passage of new legislation.  The United States, as a classic federal democracy, encourages the creation of many veto players in order to create a system of checks and balances between the various branches of government.  The main actors are the President (who can veto bills proposed by the legislative branch), the Supreme Court (which may rule legislation unconstitutional) the House of Representatives and the Senate (both of which must approve legislation).

Such institutional design, unlike a classic parliamentary system in which the legislature and executive are merged, increases the number of entities that must cooperate in order to create public policy. This, in itself, is an impediment to cooperation: the more people involved in a decision, the harder it becomes to agree.  Great Britain, on the contrary, centralizes power and thus decreases the number of veto players involved in the legislative process.  The Prime Minister is internally selected from the Government in power, which hold a majority in the House of Commons and thus easily creates public policy (much to the dismay of the party in opposition).* In a comparative context, federal presidential democracies are less conducive to the creation of legislation.

“America’s institutional founders created three equal branches in order to prevent monarchic or aristocratic ruling. Yet such division of power also divides responsibility. “

But how do veto players in the United States derive their authority? This is an important question to consider, as one must first question why such institutions are able to directly affect public policy before understanding how they interact in the policy-making process.  The President and both chambers of the Legislature are all considered democratically legitimate because they secure their power from elections.  Proponents of greater executive power often cite that the President is the only politician elected by the entirety of the country.  This conveniently ignores, however, that collectively, the House of Representatives and Senate do as well (and often by greater margins).  Such paradox is, of course, a direct objective of legislative design.  America’s institutional founders created three equal branches in order to prevent monarchic or aristocratic ruling.  Yet such division of power also divides responsibility.  The checks and balances of the United States encourage a greater number of veto players, thereby making cooperation more difficult and dissolving any one entity from taking full responsibility for the creation and implementation of public policy. The President can (and now does) blame trivial party politics in the Legislative branch for the poor quality of legislation.  Vice-versa, a presidential veto can be portrayed by the Legislature as an impediment to the public will.  Finally, yet perhaps somewhat more removed from the direct legislative process, a Supreme Court decision can be blamed for the inability of American government to create new law.

Power and responsibility in institutional design generally rise and fall together.  The decentralization of power via the creation of multiple veto players in the United States has also decentralized legislative responsibility.  Hence, the never-ending screaming match continues.  At the end of the day, who is accountable for the quality of public policy in the United States?  Theoretically, nobody – victory has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.

“At the end of the day, who is accountable for the quality of public policy in the United States?”

A secondary consequence of American institutional design is that the practical challenges of widespread cooperation encourage more ‘back-room dealings’ and non-transparent negotiations between parties.  In a divided congress, the championed ideological dogmas of both Democrats and Republicans are inevitably sacrificed in order to pass legislation.  This, of course, has its benefits – cooperation should reduce any one entity from gaining too much power.  Yet on the flip side, as was grossly apparent during the debate on the budget deficit, the need for cooperation can be easily manipulated by either party for political points and electoral advantage.  Such manipulation threatens the creation of quality legislation and in turn undermines the economic and political stability of the country.

In this, the decision by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the United States’ credit rating is justified.  While the economic statistics appear arguable, there is no question that the polarized attitudes within congress reduce the reliability of our government to pay its debts.  But perhaps in a wider context, the institutional design of the United States does so regardless of the political climate.  The party-politics of any country is simply a reflection of political behaviour. And in the United States, such behaviour derives from an institutional structure that decentralizes responsibility by creating a high number of veto players, simultaneously making cooperation, and thus the successful creation of public policy, far more difficult.

*In British Parliament, a coalition Government, formed from the merger of two or more parties, can also gain control of the House of Commons.  Additionally, in the event that no party holds a majority and no coalition merger can be agreed upon, a minority Government can be approved.

In July 2011 alone, the current white house administration added over 9.5 billion (U.S.) dollars in regulations as defined by the United States Senate Budget Committee. Our representative government is not the efficient machine we all dream of with serfs living debt/war free in utopia and 100% agreement on all issues.  Though it is interesting to point out that in July the administration proposed 229 NEW regulations and finalized approval 379.  Does anyone feel better about 608 new regulations is the question to ask, because these regulations did not allow for congressional approval so there is merit in an unconstitutional claim made of these new laws.

Regulations imposed by a means that has qualitative arguments as to its constitutionality are nothing new.  They have been a large part of ineffective politicians who hold the highest offices throughout our country. Whether they are Governors, Presidents or even non-cabinet members who have budgets larger than 200 countries.  These such individuals would prefer to pen their theoretical restrictions and not have to put on their sales hat and pitch it to 535 members of congress, rather, have their thought enacted as law. If and when they are tested in the courts as to the constitutionality of their idea/law they will not only demagogue the issue and use rhetorical devices as appeal to population using a public policy poll to reinforce their bastardization of a cogent legal argument.

The fallacy of government regulations is: who regulates the government?   It’s understood we have the people’s house where every two years we can use limited versions of the 1st amendment to have our voices heard, however if your local militia, neighborhood watch, police, national guard, or military worked every two years, where would we be as a free society?

Enron was a great debacle that was not “uncovered” by government regulators until after 99% of the “immoral” acts had taken place, however there were thousands of Certified Financial Planners that chose not to buy the stock for their clients portfolios and even prior to 2000 there were widespread articles written warning the public and employees about owing shares in this company.  74 Billion (US) dollars were attributed to shareholder fraud and 64 Billion (US) dollars were attributed to what Enron owed its creditors. Federal prisons, hefty fines and an 80 Billion (US) dollars were absconded to set up a fund to pay back some of the lost funds.

We taxpayers are not the bumbling, moronic troglodytes that do not understand “complex” derivatives so that we need the government’s help.  A derivative is a financial instrument whose value depends on underlying variables.  Does this political class not realize that a Happy meal quantified is a form of a derivative, IF the FDA didn’t make it illegal to sell any food product which you owned.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still offering a “homepath loan” which allows for ONLY 3% of the purchase amount as a down payment.  Weren’t these the very “dodgy” loans that were created through a quasi private/public partnership with Freddie/Fannie, HUD, FHA and a few others in the name of providing social and economic justice?  The large issue is the word “guaranteed” mortgages. In any other investment property, insurance excluded, it is a federal offense to use the term “guarantee,” but Fannie/Freddie and the FHA use it with the backing of the federal government.  These organizations are publicly traded on the NYSE.

There is no stopping the government; they have given HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF (US) DOLLARS to Fannie and Freddie to continue their business practices without having a revenue generating business model.  In a recent op-ed detailing a “bailout” for the Federal Housing Authority, there was a mention that Fannie and Freddie are out of the “subprime” mortgage world.  The issue with “subprime” loans not being written is that they are being written today under the term “Alt-A.”   If you have a 660 FICO score Fannie Mae will sell you one of the homes they “own.”  You would need only 3% as a down payment and Fannie Mae, can give you up to 6% toward your closing costs. 3.5% of which can be used to buy Whirlpool appliances (a GE product-GE paid $0 in taxes for 2010 and outsourced 15,000 jobs and their CEO is a direct appointment of the current president to help create a vast employment macro-model.) If you have a 580 FICO score, Fannie Mae will still do business with you- they would just like you to provide for 20% down payment on the purchase of your primary residence.

Since 1998 the debate has been centralized around how much money was actually caused by the practices that were an integral part of the current market correction.

One cost we can look at is Medicare. There is a common figure of 100 Billion (US) dollars in annual fraud through the Medicare program. Over the next 10 years, we as Americans are going to accept 1 Trillion (US) dollars in national debt JUST to cover Medicare fraud.

Who regulates the government?  Should we just sit and wait every two years in the hopes that we the people can elect enough representatives who will not allow for another 200 Billion (US) dollars being handed away in their term fraudulently?  The original tea party, comprised of minutemen and militias with ages ranging 16-60, converged on Boston’s harbor to make the English aware that the New Americans were not going to stand for taxation without representation. It is incumbent upon each of us citizens to declare that these types of erroneous spending measures will not be accepted any longer.  As Americans we have inalienably rights and with these rights comes scrutiny as well as a strong responsibility to be engaged with a civic minded mentality.

We must remind our representatives that they are the servants; they act as though we are their involuntary servants. (Involuntary servitude is a legal and constitutional noun for a person, or in this instance, representative, laboring against that citizen’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker’s financial needs.)

The previous is merely an intimation that Americans, when allowed to succeed will and if they are controlled via regulations that impede the daily mental growth of our population, then we collectively will fail.  We must have oversight of our government; it exists to mandate and regulate our lives via taxation and then spends our money with no regard for any of the rules of the laws which they bestow upon the citizens.

Here is a little thought experiment. Imagine you are sitting at home on a Friday night, after long weeks worth of work. All of the sudden your door bursts open and ten men with guns come in and ask for 40% of you weeks earnings. As you go to your safe and hand them your money they tell you, we will give this money to the poor neighborhood to make it better. How would you react to this? If you give them the 40% of your earnings, they leave you unharmed and give the money to the poor. Is this theft? Of course it is theft! Taking away property from another with force is theft.

Now, imagine April comes around and you are debating whether or not to pay your taxes. Two things are likely to persuade you to pay them. First, you may think that you are being a “good” American by paying your share of taxes. The other reason you may pay your taxes is because you are afraid of getting in trouble, possibly thrown in prison for not paying your taxes. Ignoring the first reason, the second reason someone may pay his or her taxes is based on brute force. This type of person fears the government will find out about this tax evasion, and thus this person is willing to give up his or her property to avoid being punished. If you think about it, this is the same reason one would give away his or her money to the robbers who forcibly demand 40% of the weekly income to give to the poor. Because the government has the guns and power, the citizens cower in fear and are forced to give away a portion of their hard earned income. If you are living in a place where a government intimidates its own citizen into paying taxes, you are surely not living in a truly free country. But even worse than being taxed while you know it, and as you write your check to the government or see your paycheck lower than you thought it should be, is when you are being taxed without knowing it. This is essentially what is going on at this very moment.

Today, we find ourselves in a dilemma. Unless you have been under a rock for the past couple months one of the main issues plaguing Washington, and the United States as a whole is the “debt ceiling”. I have no doubt that in time, the debt ceiling will be raised. Rather what bothers me is the ignorance and circus act that is going on within Washington and the media. It seems as if Democrats and Republicans are on complete opposite sides of the table arguing over major differences in how to deal with the debt ceiling. Yet, if you look closely into what cuts the Republicans want to make compared the Democrats, it is not but a mere fraction of the spending they are disagreeing over.

Another problem is that both keep pointing fingers at each other, this will not solve anything. However, most in Washington agree that if we do not raise the debt ceiling it is going to be the end of the world because the United States will default and be unable to meet its financial obligations. For one, they should have thought about this a long time ago, and second they should have realized that procrastinating is the last thing you should do in a situation like this. For now, nothing can be changed and so we have to play with the hand we have been dealt. So, the fear is that the United States will default, but we are already defaulting. As I have mentioned before, in my article about the failure of fiat currency, and I will continue to emphatically emphasize, the Federal Reserve continues to buy the US debt and print more money, devaluing the US dollar and causing prices to rise. This inflation of the dollar is why more stable currencies, such as the Swiss Franc, and precious metals, like gold and silver are doing so well relative to the US dollar.

One thing I found quite amusing and extremely frightening was the other week when Ron Paul questioned Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke asking if gold was money. In response Bernanke responded with a resounding “no”. This is quite comical considering that I had taken a money and banking class taught by a Vice President of the Federal Reserve in Dallas and one of the first things we learned was that gold is indeed money. Not to mention the fact that helicopter Ben wrote principles of economics book that even states that gold is money. Once again, look back at my other article about the failure of fait and you will find that thousands of years ago the Byzantines and Romans used gold and silver coins as their respective currencies. Having said that, I do believe that Bernanke knows that gold is money, he just simply could not answer with a “yes” or people would seriously begin to loose faith in the US dollar. Nonetheless, he is still another rich banker who lies in order to save himself at the expense of the American people.

But I digress. The best way to solve the debt ceiling problem for now is to not raise it at all. How will increasing the amount of debt we can take in help, especially with the current proposals not making much progress to a stable budget? It will not help. Eventually we will be bankrupt, and the economy will become weaker. This should be a wake up call to all Americans. We need a solution that will help. We need to end the unnecessary and invasive government programs. We need to end our extreme militarism. Cutting military spending around the world would help significantly. As I have mentioned above, we are already defaulting and the American people are paying for this through the devaluation of the dollar and the rise in prices. Washington needs to be more serious about solving this debt problem. Being able to take in more debt will not help. We need to stop spending money and whether or not either party likes it, they both need to cut spending on programs and government agencies they want to be fully funded.

This is not about whether the Democrat or Republican parties will win in this battle. Nor should it be turned into a game that is drawn out until the very end so that someone will have to take the blame. What everyone needs to realize is that we need to reevaluate the idea that it is acceptable to spend so much money on government programs and other types of spending. This goes much farther than cutting some funding here and cutting some funding there. What needs to be debated is what government should be. For example, they should ask, should we have hundreds military bases all around the world? Should we keep bombing and invading countries without a declaration of war, or when we cannot afford to do so? Should we have a welfare state? Is it fair that the young people will put money into Social Security, but receive no Social Security benefits when they are retried? These are questions that would lead to serious changes in Washington, not Obama’s idea of “change”. If we never have such a debate, we will have to deal with big government no matter what party is in control in Washington. As long as there is big government, there will be extreme government spending, perpetual debt and less freedom for the individual citizens of the United States.

“I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared” –Thomas Jefferson

For years our country has complained about our two party system, but we continue to be self-satisfied in our efforts in dictating a change to party policy and agenda that we are disappointed in. It has been said that in our voting decisions all voters are broken down to a single issue. The one issue that pulls at our emotions and we will always hold steadfast in our decision. This leads to siding with a party that holds the closest belief to this issue. The issue may be broad topics such as the economy, civil issues, national defense to highly specific issues such as gay marriage, pensions or sales tax. This causes the voter to ask a very important question: Is my one issue worth the value of my vote of a party I may not completely agree with?

Many voters feel limited in their choice of affiliation with a political party. Certainly in this great nation we have an abundance of third parties. How many can you list that are notable? Five? Six? Maybe ten?! There are over 50 national parties  (this count does not include the horde of other state parties) with over 15 of them being founded in the past decade. Now with all these parties in existence how many can you name that have a great impact on policy, legislation and send representatives to office on a federal and state level? I would assume many of you answered two.

The fact of the matter is we live in a dichotomous nation with limited choice that leaves many of us frustrated and fumbling for all of our needs to be met in our representation. The bad news is third parties are not going to solve your problems, for those of you associated with a third party I would declare you are about as productive as the apathetic citizen. There has never been a successful third party in this nation, because all of the successful ones were no longer third parties. Our nation has molded these two parties of complacency and the political culture has been dead because of it.

There’s no excitement in our youth, no rallying of change (some may point to Obama, I would combat this with demagoguery and false promise) only mere illusions of such things. This is where the solution comes into play, 2008 did teach us something. The youth was the key to victory, in this case it they are also are key to change. Change in our political parties.

Political platforms are based on the party’s voting base. This base is established through polling, voter propensity, voter issues and a myriad of other measurements. The key is voter propensity, who votes and how often? More importantly, what do they care about? Let me explain something to the young socialists who aren’t happy with the way the Obama administration panned out or young libertarians who wonder why Ron Paul can’t catch a break. It is quite simple, the generations before us outnumber us at the polls. The number of citizens in this country from age 18 to 39 is 35% of the voting age population. Yet our ideas are not passed forward, the molds of the parties do not change.

For the candidates that do get involved in political parties they are forced to appease the view points of the platform or risk losing party endorsement, funding from the party on a state and/or federal level. The young people that work on the campaigns of our two parties are forced to push the agenda and do not have much of a choice for lack of representation within the party and seniority. This country was not founded on seniority, ask Great Britain.

The old guard will stand watch their ideals they hold so precious. To those Americans out there (especially the youth) who consider yourself “third party” “independent” “decline to state” or aren’t even registered, you better go out there, pick a side and start having some influence in this great nation of ours.