RAND: With the Death Toll Rising is Gaza, is There Any Hope For Peace?

Source: RAND-

Source:RAND

Here is one of the few times that I've ever agreed with Senator Lindsay Graham on anything. As long as Hamas is part of any Palestinian government there will never be peace between Israel and Palestine. Because Israel will always feel the need and rightfully so to occupy at least parts of Palestine especially Gaza in order to make Israel as secure as possible. So if you want peace between Israel and Palestine, you need to get Hamas out of the picture as part of any government coalition and treat them like the terrorists that they are.

I don't claim to be an expert on Israel and Palestine because I'm not. But I believe I have a short-term solution in how to end the conflict there. You make the West Bank an independent country from Israel which would be Palestine or the early days on an Independent State of Palestine with the West Bank Palestinian government in complete control there of the governing there. Including security, armed forces, foreign relations, their own currency there.

Then Israel working together with Palestine and perhaps in coalition of NATO they takeout Hamas in Gaza so Hamas is no longer able to control Gaza in any way. And once Hamas is out of picture Israel and Palestine can once again talk about the final solution and territorial rights of both countries with the West Bank and Gaza now under complete governing control of the Independent State of Palestine. With Hamas out of the picture as part of any governing coalition.
Al Jazeera: Gaza Death Doll Continues To Rise

CBS News: Video: See it Now: Edward R. Murrow on Senator Joe McCarthy: No Fear From 1954

This was not commentary on Edward R. Murrow's part, but Ed Murrow accurately describing the dangerous actions of Senator Joe McCarthy who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communists in Government. Not the exact title, but close enough and what Murrow was doing was explaining how dangerous this type of fascism on the Senator's part was to our American values of Freedom of Assembly and Speech. That Americans shouldn't be judged by who we associate with, or what we think, but by how live our lives as Americans.

American Thinker: Barry Goldwater: The Birth of Modern Conservatism

Source:American Thinker

I agree with Bruce Walker that Barry Goldwater represents the birth of modern conservatism and that he and Bill Buckley are probably the fathers of modern conservatism. Similar to how I believe Wendell Willkie and Jack Kennedy to me are the fathers of modern liberalism which is the topic for another post. But perhaps where I disagree with Bruce Walker is what it exactly means to be a Conservative. That it is not about conserving a way of life and telling Americans through government force even "that this is how we live and this is they way you should live to".

Individual freedom which so-called Conservatives and real Conservatives along with Libertarians talk about all the time is exactly that. The individual freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not have government down their back regulating how they live their own lives. We are not talking about individual collectivism and the nanny state imposing regulations in how Americans should live their own lives. Barry Goldwater was a true individualist because he actually did believe in individual freedom.

The post I wrote yesterday about Traditional Values Conservatives is not the modern classical conservative movement that was fathered by Barry Goldwater and a few others. The Traditional Values Coalition is truly a collectivist movement at least when it comes to society and culture and how Americans should live their own lives. What Barry Goldwater and his followers believed was that Americans should have individual freedom both economic and personal the right for people to make their own decisions about their lives. And he was against both the welfare state and the nanny state  and wasn't political allies with the Christian Right that later emerged in the Republican Party.

And had the modern Republican Party took the Goldwater route in building their new national party instead of the Christian Right route they would be much further along today politically. Because that is where Americans are now believers in individualism that Americans should be free to live their own lives as long as they aren't hurting innocent people. As you see with the supporters of Ron Paul and Rand Paul where they both get so much of their support from young Americans.

The National Jacob Heilbrunn Interviewing Senator Tim Kaine: Reforming the Relationship of Congress & the President When it comes to Use of Military Force

The National Interest: Jacob Heilbrunn Interviewing Senator Tim Kaine

This might be or might not be common knowledge at least for Americans who live outside of the Washington Beltway and don't follow American politics and current affairs closely, but the United States hasn't officially declared war since World War II. Which essentially means every military conflict that America has been involved in since where we our using our own military force has been unconstitutional. One of the reasons why the War Powers Act was created I believe in 1973 was that so future American use of force would at the very least be legal. The Vietnam War had a lot to do with that.

I believe part of the problem is that we don't have a real definition of war and war conflict. I think most Americans understand what war is, but we don't have an official definition of war. America was clearly involved in the Libyan Civil War that I supported in 2011 with our non fly zone to protect the Libyan rebels and people from their own government, but officially and perhaps legally we weren't at war. The War in Iraq was obviously a war and the same thing with our involvements in Kosovo in the late 1990s. But the President didn't seek permission from Congress to go to war.

Congress did pass a Congressional resolution that granted President George H.W. Bush permission to go to war with Iraq in the early 1990s to get the Hussein Regime out of Kuwait. And Congress granted President George W. Bush permission to use military force against Iraq in 2002 which led to the War in Iraq. But the President in both cases didn't ask Congress to declare war which is required under the U.S. Constitution and Congress didn't declare war in either case.

The War Powers Act has served it's purpose when it comes to the President of the United States. To give that person the flexibility to respond to military crisis's around the world, or when America is actually attacked either at home or abroad. But it is overdone and is leaving Congress almost powerless to even conduct oversight of these operations and has left Americans who end up having to pay for these military operations out of the loop as far as what is being done with their money. Because the President can essentially declare war and apparently not even have to tell anyone. With Congress left ninety days later with an up and down question of whether or not to support the troops or not.

Senator Tim Kaine makes a good point about why the Congress that he's a member of is so unpopular. And part of that is because the House and Senate duck tough questions so they don't have to take clear stances on the issues that can hurt them in the next election. And foreign affairs and national security is a perfect example of that. So I agree with him at the very least it is time for Congress to reform the War Powers Act if not repeal it.

What I would like to do is create a War Power Act for the 21st Century that would include both the President of the United States and the National Security Council, but Congress as well. And part of that would be a Congressional National Security Council that would include the House Speaker, House Majority Leader, House Minority Leader and their deputy, the Senate Leader and their deputy, the Senate Minority Leader and their deputy. Along with the chairman and ranking member of the Congressional national security committees. House and Senate Armed Services, House Foreign Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations, House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

The President would first have to consult with the Congressional National Security Council before proposing to Congress about using military force. And give them the briefing and intelligence on what they see and what they want to do and how they would go about trying to accomplish it. The CNSC would have access to the same intelligence and briefings that the President, Vice President and National Security Council gets. And once that is done the CNSC would way in on what they think about what the President wants to have permission to use military force for and give the President an idea about how much support they would get in Congress for authorization for use of military force.

After briefing the CNSC the President either way whether the CNSC approves his request for military force or not could ask Congress to approve it or not. And Congress would have a window to approve or disapprove the authorization or not. But no longer would the President just be able to use military force without consulting Congress even the leaders and national security leaders. With Congress weighing in ninety days later. With the exception of when America is actually attacked either at home or abroad then the ninety day exception would still be in place.

Constitution Daily: Lyle Denniston: 'The Constitution Outside The Courts: The U.S. Sentencing Commission'

From Constitution Daily

Making punishment fit the crime should be an obvious statement if it isn't, but if you look at our criminal justice system that of course is not always the case. We have thousands if not more people doing five years or more for simple drug possession and in a lot of times that is their first offense. Look at the War on Drugs where we have thousands of people doing long sentences again for drug possession, or selling small amounts of marijuana and other illegal narcotics. Doing long sentences for selling things that people want to buy, have and use.

And anyone still wondering why we have two-million or more people in prison in America? I sure as hell am not and by the way we have the largest prison population in the developed world. And we are supposed to be this beacon of freedom and great free society this liberal democracy that everyone else wants to be. It is hard to make the case that we are those great things when we have so many people in prison that do not represent major if any threats to society and are doing time in a lot of cases for what they did to themselves. Or providing services that others wanted from them.

I'm not a fan of illegal narcotics including marijuana even though I do support marijuana legalization. I'm not a fan of gambling or prostitution. But just because I don't like these activities doesn't mean I want to arrest people who choose to engage in them. There are much better more cost effective ways to dealing with activities that come with high risks including tobacco, junk food and soft drinks than arresting people and locking them up for engaging in those activities. It is called regulation to make sure non-adults aren't involved in them and making sure that adults who are involved in them know what they are getting into.

And I'm referring to gambling and prostitution mostly. But with lets dangerous products that people choose to use like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, soft drinks and junk food instead of expanding the War on Drugs which is what some nanny statists on the progressive Left want to do. Again regulate them so people know exactly what they are consuming and tax them for it so Americans who choose to live healthy don't get stuck with the health care bills of people who choose not to live healthy.

But that is just one way to cut the prison population and create that free society and liberal democracy that a lot of Americans on the Left and Right do want. Another way would be to say "prison and jail are not always the answers and they aren't always the first answers either". When we are talking about low-level offenses and instead look at halfway houses, community housing, community service, probational release where offenders aren't free or in incarcerated, but living in a halfway house type environment as they are also working so they can pay their rent outside of the home. And getting treated for why they are there in the first place.

We put in policies like this and we'll have all of the jail and prison space needed for real hardcore criminals that need to be in prison. Violent offenders and organize criminals, but also white collar criminals who represent a serious threat to the economy and Americans economic wellbeing. Instead of having so many overcrowded prisons in America full of not only people that we have to have in prison, but with offenders who do not need to be there.

Foreign Policy: Opinion- Tom Ricks: Want a Better U.S. Military? First Make it Smaller: Why America Can't Police the World

Source: Foreign Policy-

Source:Foreign Policy

If you truly believe in a strong American military and that it is essential for not only America to be safe, but for us to play our part in seeing that the rest of world has a shot at living in peace and you are not part of the anti-military far-left, or anti-military libertarian-right, or the America police the world Neoconservative Right, then you believe there are and has to be limits to what we put our military and our service people through in seeing that we accomplish those goals of a secure America and a safer world.

Theoretically any country that controls it's own currency which is most of the world outside of the European Union can borrow and print money indefinitely to finance their military and other governmental operations. Well until their currency is so weak that it becomes essentially worthless. Borrowing money is just that and when you run up debt you have to pay that back even if it is a little bit at a time. Even if your national government doesn't pay the debt back that debt gets passed down to its taxpayers in the form of higher interest rates. Everything that government does has costs including the military.

And based on this when countries figure out their national budgets every year they have to look at what they need to finance. The money available to finance those operations including the military and what they can afford to spend on those public investments. The military is always part of any national budget and the key word being budget. Even the United States has to budget it's military and we simply can't afford to police the world anymore based on previous debt we've already run up and the current shape of our military.

Which means other countries especially developed countries have to play their part in securing their own national defense. And I'm thinking of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea to use as examples. Which means American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the national defense for people who aren't willing to pay for their own national defense. And I'm thinking of Europe especially, but Japan is another big one. And what we should be telling those countries is that "we still want to be your allies and work with you and even help you be able to defend yourself like with training and equipment. But those things aren't free and you are going to have to compensate us for those resources".

We should get our military out of Europe and Japan and even Saudi Arabia and Korea and perhaps have a fleet of ships in the water nearby in case there are some new developments and threats that emerge in those countries. That no one could see coming that would pay us to do for them. But America has its own problems and we need to be rebuilding America and getting our own economic and fiscal houses in order and demanding that countries that can afford to pay for their own national defense do exactly that.
Hill Center: Tom Ricks- U.S. Military Leadership in Decline

The Nation: Bryce Covert: We're Arresting Poor Mothers For Our Own Failures

The Nation: Opinion: Bryce Covert: We're Arresting Poor Mothers For Our Own Failures

I actually agree with Bryce Covert that if we are going require Welfare mothers (for lack of a better term) single mothers on Welfare to work which is what I believe, than we as taxpayers should not only pay for their education so they can finish their education and get a good job, but also subsidize their childcare at least in the short-term so their kids are looked after. While their mom's are either in school, going to job interviews, or working.

Which is why I'm against cutting money for public assistance in order to pay down the debt and deficit. The debt and deficit are serious issues that have to be addressed especially in the long-term and we shouldn't be adding to either in the short-term. But cutting public assistance to pay down debt is not the way to go. You don't cut people who can't survive without your help and put into horrible situations where they may decide to make desperate decisions in order to comply with their Welfare requirements.

I actually wrote a blog about expiring Food Assistance benefits last November as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act. You don't cut Food Assistance simply because more Americans need it. Or cut public housing because more Americans need it. Or cut Medicaid because more Americans need it. Or any other type of public assistance simply because more Americans need it. There are better more cost-effective ways to reform those programs that doesn't require hurting people who need that assistance.

Yes require people on public assistance especially Welfare to work so they don't get the attitude that they don't have to work in order to take care of themselves. Unless they are disabled, but do it in a humane cost-effective way that benefits the country as a whole economically especially them and their kids. By providing them with financial assistance to finish their education so they can get themselves a good job. But also childcare so someone is looking after their kids while they are in school, in job interviews, or are working.