Friday, January 27, 2012
An American Culture?
Multiculturalism prevails.
Our culture is sliced up into many pieces; so much so that the common elements are very few. Consider the following slices and dices:
Rich man/ poorman
Democrat/Republican
liberal/conservative
liberal/progressive
educated/uneducated
White collar/blue collar
Religious/non-religious
Christian/non-Christian
Patriot/non-patriot
elite/non-elite
Givers/takers
ethical/unethical
Moral/immoral
Cultural snob/cultural boor
Pro-America/Anti-America
Intelligent/unintelligent
Strong/weak
Gifted/ungifted
upstanding citizen/criminal
Caucasian/non-Caucasian
American heritage/foreign heritage
Skilled/unskilled
Heterosexual/homosexual
Native American indians/settlers
Joiners/Loners
And, all shades in between.
We are a multicultural hodge-podge living our separate very uniquely human lives, and many, many different lifestyles, but held together socially by six or so very strong beliefs: The value of strength in numbers; the rule of law; the joys of our freedoms; the best place to raise our children; the opportunities for betterment, and the love of this country. There must be more…
All of our diverse cultural components contribute to a peculiar synthesis one might call an “American Culture,” but if examined closely, it quickly dissolves into some or even all of its constituent parts, and even harkens back to quite different historical origins.
Our culture is sliced up into many pieces; so much so that the common elements are very few. Consider the following slices and dices:
Rich man/ poorman
Democrat/Republican
liberal/conservative
liberal/progressive
educated/uneducated
White collar/blue collar
Religious/non-religious
Christian/non-Christian
Patriot/non-patriot
elite/non-elite
Givers/takers
ethical/unethical
Moral/immoral
Cultural snob/cultural boor
Pro-America/Anti-America
Intelligent/unintelligent
Strong/weak
Gifted/ungifted
upstanding citizen/criminal
Caucasian/non-Caucasian
American heritage/foreign heritage
Skilled/unskilled
Heterosexual/homosexual
Native American indians/settlers
Joiners/Loners
And, all shades in between.
We are a multicultural hodge-podge living our separate very uniquely human lives, and many, many different lifestyles, but held together socially by six or so very strong beliefs: The value of strength in numbers; the rule of law; the joys of our freedoms; the best place to raise our children; the opportunities for betterment, and the love of this country. There must be more…
All of our diverse cultural components contribute to a peculiar synthesis one might call an “American Culture,” but if examined closely, it quickly dissolves into some or even all of its constituent parts, and even harkens back to quite different historical origins.
Labels: American Culture
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Use of Guns
Myths About Guns Need Clarifying
Facts about guns can be slanted and fudged to make a political point. Here are some hard facts that the gun control addicts usually ignore quite deliberately.
The number of reported defensive uses of firearms to police in the US during 2009 was in an estimated range from 760,000 to 3,600,000. Sources: LA Times, Gallup, Peter Hart Research, John R. Lott, Richard Poe, author, “The Seven Myths of Gun Control”. Further, FBI crime statistics for 2009 show that:
Violent crimes Total: 1,318,198
Property Crimes Total: 9.320,971 (a ratio of about 1 to 10)
Using this ratio of Violent Crimes to Property Crimes of approximately 1 to 10, this strongly implies that the number of saves from violent crimes by victim firearm use ranges from about 76,000 to 300,000!
This is a sensational statistic that clearly shows the advantages of using firearms for defense.
The crime categories of murder, rape, armed robberies, and aggravated assault are where the most heinous crimes are found, around 15,000 per year for murders and rapes alone, thus given the chance to prevent or halt such crimes surely ranks gun use at the top of the possible immediate reactions. The police, of course, are 5 to 15 minutes away from the crime scene at best, and taking the time to call 911 immediately could mean the difference between life and death. Citizens should therefore be trained, ready and willing to cope with crime long before the police can arrive.
Given the ratio of murder and rape cases to armed robberies and aggravated assault cases to be again about 1 to 10 from the FBI statistics on these subsets of violence (not included here for economy), this implies that on the order of 10,000 murders or rapes would be prevented each year, and a potential for 130,000+ serious injuries to be avoided were all citizens to be armed and ready. (This number can only include those rapes that are reported, of course, so it is a very conservative estimate. )
Suicide accounts for roughly half of all gun deaths in the nation, or about 18,000 per year, out of about 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. The question here is whether the troubled person would resort to other means than a gun should guns be unavailable?
There are many other means to commit suicide, including: self-hanging; poisoning; overdose of drugs; bleeding to death from wrist cuts; jumping from a very high place; stepping in front of a speeding vehicle, crashing your car at 90 mph; and on and on. If the will to die is really strong, the person will find a way. I find it rather difficult to blame the possession and use of a gun for the purpose of suicide as the fault of the availability guns in general, as opposed to blaming the individual in trouble and possibly the lack of help for him. It is also true that banning handguns is not a fully satisfactory solution for the suicide statistic. A rifle or shotgun will serve just as well.
Given that the person is unalterably committed to taking his life, possibly the most efficient means is a gun, as the other methods are much more likely to result in non-fatal, but with terrible, life-debilitating injuries to be coped with by an already seriously troubled individual. This is hard for Christians and others to accept, including myself, but it is true.
I am not counting the property crimes at all here, but the halting of thefts does have a measurable and salutary effect on the quality of life of potential victims. While any deaths are to be greatly regretted, that only about 680 accidental firearm deaths occurred in 2009 out of the well over 200,000,000 firearms then in the nation, with about 60,000,000 registered gun owners (source: NRA), shows the extremely low risks of gun ownership and use for self-defense by citizens.
Myths About Guns Need Clarifying
Facts about guns can be slanted and fudged to make a political point. Here are some hard facts that the gun control addicts usually ignore quite deliberately.
The number of reported defensive uses of firearms to police in the US during 2009 was in an estimated range from 760,000 to 3,600,000. Sources: LA Times, Gallup, Peter Hart Research, John R. Lott, Richard Poe, author, “The Seven Myths of Gun Control”. Further, FBI crime statistics for 2009 show that:
Violent crimes Total: 1,318,198
Property Crimes Total: 9.320,971 (a ratio of about 1 to 10)
Using this ratio of Violent Crimes to Property Crimes of approximately 1 to 10, this strongly implies that the number of saves from violent crimes by victim firearm use ranges from about 76,000 to 300,000!
This is a sensational statistic that clearly shows the advantages of using firearms for defense.
The crime categories of murder, rape, armed robberies, and aggravated assault are where the most heinous crimes are found, around 15,000 per year for murders and rapes alone, thus given the chance to prevent or halt such crimes surely ranks gun use at the top of the possible immediate reactions. The police, of course, are 5 to 15 minutes away from the crime scene at best, and taking the time to call 911 immediately could mean the difference between life and death. Citizens should therefore be trained, ready and willing to cope with crime long before the police can arrive.
Given the ratio of murder and rape cases to armed robberies and aggravated assault cases to be again about 1 to 10 from the FBI statistics on these subsets of violence (not included here for economy), this implies that on the order of 10,000 murders or rapes would be prevented each year, and a potential for 130,000+ serious injuries to be avoided were all citizens to be armed and ready. (This number can only include those rapes that are reported, of course, so it is a very conservative estimate. )
Suicide accounts for roughly half of all gun deaths in the nation, or about 18,000 per year, out of about 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. The question here is whether the troubled person would resort to other means than a gun should guns be unavailable?
There are many other means to commit suicide, including: self-hanging; poisoning; overdose of drugs; bleeding to death from wrist cuts; jumping from a very high place; stepping in front of a speeding vehicle, crashing your car at 90 mph; and on and on. If the will to die is really strong, the person will find a way. I find it rather difficult to blame the possession and use of a gun for the purpose of suicide as the fault of the availability guns in general, as opposed to blaming the individual in trouble and possibly the lack of help for him. It is also true that banning handguns is not a fully satisfactory solution for the suicide statistic. A rifle or shotgun will serve just as well.
Given that the person is unalterably committed to taking his life, possibly the most efficient means is a gun, as the other methods are much more likely to result in non-fatal, but with terrible, life-debilitating injuries to be coped with by an already seriously troubled individual. This is hard for Christians and others to accept, including myself, but it is true.
I am not counting the property crimes at all here, but the halting of thefts does have a measurable and salutary effect on the quality of life of potential victims. While any deaths are to be greatly regretted, that only about 680 accidental firearm deaths occurred in 2009 out of the well over 200,000,000 firearms then in the nation, with about 60,000,000 registered gun owners (source: NRA), shows the extremely low risks of gun ownership and use for self-defense by citizens.
Labels: Guns
Friday, January 20, 2012
Gingrich as President? Part 1
An Historian?
There is a question in all of this that intrigues me. How long does it take a creative mind to understand what history is all about from a methodological and a love of the discipline viewpoint, and perhaps from a specific slice of history point of view? To follow that line, how long might it take for someone to weary of being immersed in the purely academic world as opposed to the present and potentially dynamic future of himself and our society outside of the academic world? A few years, perhaps, for a smart and ego-driven person?
I can agree that for Gingrich to tout his credentials as an historian too heavily is not appropriate, as they are weak from an academic point of view.
Perhaps he has felt more at home in or near government for these many years where there are enough problems surfacing daily to satisfy his cerebral popcorn mind. I have worked around many of these types of people, have been managed by some, and tried to manage quite a few. They were often disruptive of the team by their very nature and ego, but the key problem was always to sift out the really worthwhile ideas they come up with from the rest of the noise, and to exploit them properly.
They seemed to me to be able to look at problems from a new and different perspective, and to be able to work out the first order of both their inherent worth and their difficulties somewhat fearlessly. It was always left to others, however, to dig deeper to find the second order difficulties in their ideas, and often the second order goodnesses too. That is what the team around such a person is challenged to do, and it is irritating to some in the extreme, but the results are the measure of success, such as the Contract With America.
My own opinion is that the three aspects cited take differing times: methodology can be learned rather rapidly, say inside of several years; from a love of the discipline point of view, another number of years, perhaps as much as six; and from a specific slice of history view, it is a career that has no definite end. It most certainly takes much time if several languages are important to learn, for example, rather than relying solely upon translations.
I suggest that Mr.Gingrich easily comprehended the methodologies involved in a short time, became disappointed in the discipline, seeing a long road ahead to tenure and a reasonably good income, and therefore decided fairly soon not to spend the rest of his life wallowing in a special chunk of history, especially if the chunk he was attracted to was filled with highly competitive academics already.
One might say that he was a participant in the creation of a period of history within the US Congress from 1979 to 1998, which would fit his direct experience with more recent historical trends there in considerable detail. That doesn’t qualify him as an historian of the academic kind, however.
An Historian?
There is a question in all of this that intrigues me. How long does it take a creative mind to understand what history is all about from a methodological and a love of the discipline viewpoint, and perhaps from a specific slice of history point of view? To follow that line, how long might it take for someone to weary of being immersed in the purely academic world as opposed to the present and potentially dynamic future of himself and our society outside of the academic world? A few years, perhaps, for a smart and ego-driven person?
I can agree that for Gingrich to tout his credentials as an historian too heavily is not appropriate, as they are weak from an academic point of view.
Perhaps he has felt more at home in or near government for these many years where there are enough problems surfacing daily to satisfy his cerebral popcorn mind. I have worked around many of these types of people, have been managed by some, and tried to manage quite a few. They were often disruptive of the team by their very nature and ego, but the key problem was always to sift out the really worthwhile ideas they come up with from the rest of the noise, and to exploit them properly.
They seemed to me to be able to look at problems from a new and different perspective, and to be able to work out the first order of both their inherent worth and their difficulties somewhat fearlessly. It was always left to others, however, to dig deeper to find the second order difficulties in their ideas, and often the second order goodnesses too. That is what the team around such a person is challenged to do, and it is irritating to some in the extreme, but the results are the measure of success, such as the Contract With America.
My own opinion is that the three aspects cited take differing times: methodology can be learned rather rapidly, say inside of several years; from a love of the discipline point of view, another number of years, perhaps as much as six; and from a specific slice of history view, it is a career that has no definite end. It most certainly takes much time if several languages are important to learn, for example, rather than relying solely upon translations.
I suggest that Mr.Gingrich easily comprehended the methodologies involved in a short time, became disappointed in the discipline, seeing a long road ahead to tenure and a reasonably good income, and therefore decided fairly soon not to spend the rest of his life wallowing in a special chunk of history, especially if the chunk he was attracted to was filled with highly competitive academics already.
One might say that he was a participant in the creation of a period of history within the US Congress from 1979 to 1998, which would fit his direct experience with more recent historical trends there in considerable detail. That doesn’t qualify him as an historian of the academic kind, however.
Labels: Gingrich
Jobs!
We cannot solve the jobs situation in isolation
If you seem to think that spending, deficits, debt, taxes, regulation overload, poor environmental decisions, outsourcing jobs, and entitlements, especially health, are unrelated to the job situation, you are wrong. They most definitely are related.
It is folly to try to fix one of those in grand and glorious isolation to the others. This current administration gets a fail grade in long-term Macro-Economics 101, and in letting small businesses grow, instead of over-regulating them and creating uncertainty by overspending on new legislation with long-term spending commitments, and refusing to authorize job-producing private sector programs that would increase employment. That is where the jobs are (or were)–small businesses. Playing the richman-poorman card is shortsighted political gamesmanship that is laughable!
Furthermore, the recent pogo stick policies of an all democratic congress and presidency of propping up the economy artificially is unsustainable, as we will see in a year or two. We are almost “all in” as it were, and what happens when we cannot print more money? We default, and no one lends us money, stifling businesses and hence jobs. What happens if the US Dollar is dethroned from its current posture? We could not print money and use it then. What happens if we do print lots more? Heavy Inflation, which is on the way now. Then what happens to jobs? They go west.
The problem is that virtually no politician wants to see our real situation for what it is, and then take the steps needed to fix it across the board, least of all Obama! Just about every step he takes, or wants to take, worsens the problem, except for his truly token efforts to move right on some issues.
We cannot solve the jobs situation in isolation
If you seem to think that spending, deficits, debt, taxes, regulation overload, poor environmental decisions, outsourcing jobs, and entitlements, especially health, are unrelated to the job situation, you are wrong. They most definitely are related.
It is folly to try to fix one of those in grand and glorious isolation to the others. This current administration gets a fail grade in long-term Macro-Economics 101, and in letting small businesses grow, instead of over-regulating them and creating uncertainty by overspending on new legislation with long-term spending commitments, and refusing to authorize job-producing private sector programs that would increase employment. That is where the jobs are (or were)–small businesses. Playing the richman-poorman card is shortsighted political gamesmanship that is laughable!
Furthermore, the recent pogo stick policies of an all democratic congress and presidency of propping up the economy artificially is unsustainable, as we will see in a year or two. We are almost “all in” as it were, and what happens when we cannot print more money? We default, and no one lends us money, stifling businesses and hence jobs. What happens if the US Dollar is dethroned from its current posture? We could not print money and use it then. What happens if we do print lots more? Heavy Inflation, which is on the way now. Then what happens to jobs? They go west.
The problem is that virtually no politician wants to see our real situation for what it is, and then take the steps needed to fix it across the board, least of all Obama! Just about every step he takes, or wants to take, worsens the problem, except for his truly token efforts to move right on some issues.
Labels: Economy, Jobs, Money Matters, Obama
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions in Perspective
Iran will be attacked soon, and the logic of it is compelling
1. The purpose of their nuclear program is several fold: 1) It provides them with protection against nuclear threats from without; 2) It provides them with the technology to generate electrical power; 3) It give them the ability to threaten the total existence of Israel; 4) it gives them the button to push to annihilate Israel or any enemy in range within a matter of minutes should they so desire; and 5) It allows them to give nuclear weapons away to terrorist groups that might use them against the US.
2. Iran has a considerable armed force that is capable of overrunning any of their adjacent nations, and, coupled with Syria, they could conceivably conquer Iraq, and then attack Israel. Their forces have been augmented by Russian weapons systems for years. They are not far from having nuclear warheads for their long range missiles.
3. Israel’s nuclear weapons capability deters Iran from a frontal assault on Israel, just as they hope to have a nuclear deterrent against an Israeli attack.
4. Iran has considerable support from Syria, their strongest ally, and from both Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as terrorist cells in strategic nations, including the US. Recent events in Egypt have raised the possibility of their support against Israel, the common enemy of all Islam. Even Turkey, which has been a NATO ally of ours for many years, now has an Islamic government that is hostile to Israel. All of Israel’s neighbors have been armed by Iran with very large numbers of missile systems that have been used often against Israel in random attacks.
5. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has bombastically threatened Israel with being wiped off the map with Iran’s nuclear weapons. From a practical standpoint, these threats can be laid to political posturing with no actual threat, or they can be considered to be real once Iran has the bombs to do it, either themselves, or by using a terrorist group to carry it out.
6. At the moment, there would be a nuclear standoff should Iran succeed in making a nuclear weapon, since Israel has the warheads and missiles to retaliate effectively. This would mimic the MAD posture of the US and the USSR that lasted for 60 years.
7. The strategic breakthrough that the development of nuclear EMP weapons brings to the situation is the possibility of immobilizing the armed forces of any nation by one or more air bursts that send high power pulses to the ground that disable electrical and electronics devices and vehicles, all types of missiles and communications of the nation attacked. It is fairly certain that Israel has such weaponry in their arsenal now, and probable that Iran is well on the way to having them. The advantage of such EMP weapons is that they do little or no harm to people but devastating harm to military equipment of all sorts.
8. The threat to Israel is therefore twofold: 1) an EMP attack by Iran that immobilizes their armed forces, thus negating the threat of nuclear or air force retaliation by Israel, followed by; 2) a nuclear bomb attack that destroys their centers of population and industry.
9. The situation from an Israeli point of view then, is that they face total annihilation once Iran acquires the nuclear weaponry suitable to the job, and their own retaliatory capability would be useless, thus completely negating the MAD posture.
10. Israel, then, is preparing to attack Iran once they determine that the “red line” they have established has been crossed by Iran. They must get the first blow in, in order to execute their plan to destroy Iran’s military systems and equipment before Iran does it to them. The Israeli Army, Air Force and Navy are fully capable of destroying Iran’s forces, once they have achieved the shutdown of literally all of Iran’s military hardware, especially their air defenses and missiles that heavily depend upon electronics to operate, including the long range missies of Iran’s developing nuclear retaliatory force. This shutdown can be repeated if needed, as some military equipment may survive or be reactivated after the first attack. The rate of repair is not easy to predict but it would likely be many days of downtime.
11. It cannot be stressed often enough that Israelis are totally fearful of Iran if they acquire the bomb, and they see it as a matter of Israel’s national survival. It is all the more acute when all of the facts about EMP attack are laid out in detail. Thus, resorting to their nuclear EMP capabilities is both logical and necessary for their survival.
12 From this brief summary, it is not hard to predict that Israel will attack Iran soon, perhaps in a matter of months from now in 2012, or almost certainly in 2013.
Iran will be attacked soon, and the logic of it is compelling
1. The purpose of their nuclear program is several fold: 1) It provides them with protection against nuclear threats from without; 2) It provides them with the technology to generate electrical power; 3) It give them the ability to threaten the total existence of Israel; 4) it gives them the button to push to annihilate Israel or any enemy in range within a matter of minutes should they so desire; and 5) It allows them to give nuclear weapons away to terrorist groups that might use them against the US.
2. Iran has a considerable armed force that is capable of overrunning any of their adjacent nations, and, coupled with Syria, they could conceivably conquer Iraq, and then attack Israel. Their forces have been augmented by Russian weapons systems for years. They are not far from having nuclear warheads for their long range missiles.
3. Israel’s nuclear weapons capability deters Iran from a frontal assault on Israel, just as they hope to have a nuclear deterrent against an Israeli attack.
4. Iran has considerable support from Syria, their strongest ally, and from both Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as terrorist cells in strategic nations, including the US. Recent events in Egypt have raised the possibility of their support against Israel, the common enemy of all Islam. Even Turkey, which has been a NATO ally of ours for many years, now has an Islamic government that is hostile to Israel. All of Israel’s neighbors have been armed by Iran with very large numbers of missile systems that have been used often against Israel in random attacks.
5. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has bombastically threatened Israel with being wiped off the map with Iran’s nuclear weapons. From a practical standpoint, these threats can be laid to political posturing with no actual threat, or they can be considered to be real once Iran has the bombs to do it, either themselves, or by using a terrorist group to carry it out.
6. At the moment, there would be a nuclear standoff should Iran succeed in making a nuclear weapon, since Israel has the warheads and missiles to retaliate effectively. This would mimic the MAD posture of the US and the USSR that lasted for 60 years.
7. The strategic breakthrough that the development of nuclear EMP weapons brings to the situation is the possibility of immobilizing the armed forces of any nation by one or more air bursts that send high power pulses to the ground that disable electrical and electronics devices and vehicles, all types of missiles and communications of the nation attacked. It is fairly certain that Israel has such weaponry in their arsenal now, and probable that Iran is well on the way to having them. The advantage of such EMP weapons is that they do little or no harm to people but devastating harm to military equipment of all sorts.
8. The threat to Israel is therefore twofold: 1) an EMP attack by Iran that immobilizes their armed forces, thus negating the threat of nuclear or air force retaliation by Israel, followed by; 2) a nuclear bomb attack that destroys their centers of population and industry.
9. The situation from an Israeli point of view then, is that they face total annihilation once Iran acquires the nuclear weaponry suitable to the job, and their own retaliatory capability would be useless, thus completely negating the MAD posture.
10. Israel, then, is preparing to attack Iran once they determine that the “red line” they have established has been crossed by Iran. They must get the first blow in, in order to execute their plan to destroy Iran’s military systems and equipment before Iran does it to them. The Israeli Army, Air Force and Navy are fully capable of destroying Iran’s forces, once they have achieved the shutdown of literally all of Iran’s military hardware, especially their air defenses and missiles that heavily depend upon electronics to operate, including the long range missies of Iran’s developing nuclear retaliatory force. This shutdown can be repeated if needed, as some military equipment may survive or be reactivated after the first attack. The rate of repair is not easy to predict but it would likely be many days of downtime.
11. It cannot be stressed often enough that Israelis are totally fearful of Iran if they acquire the bomb, and they see it as a matter of Israel’s national survival. It is all the more acute when all of the facts about EMP attack are laid out in detail. Thus, resorting to their nuclear EMP capabilities is both logical and necessary for their survival.
12 From this brief summary, it is not hard to predict that Israel will attack Iran soon, perhaps in a matter of months from now in 2012, or almost certainly in 2013.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
2012 Subjects and Issues
Here is my guide to issues of concern for the year 2012. Both positive and negative aspects should be treated in this election year, since Obama is standing for reelection with a huge impact on many of the items listed.
Issues List
Taxes
Job Creation
Free Markets
Regulation Sanity
Secularization
Defense Policies and Posture
Defense Programs
Fighter Programs
Drone Programs
Shipbuilding Programs
Socialism
Communism
Same Sex Marriage
Independence
Abortion
Universal Health
Universal College
Curricula
Media Bias
Judicial Activism
Minimum Wage
Mexican Border
Illegals
Death Penalty
American Exceptionalism
Morals
Bailouts
Government by Fiat
Economy
Election and other Promises
Lies of the Administration
Experience Factor
Islam and Muslims
Redistribution of Wealth
Unions in Government
Intelligence Community
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
Coast Guard
CINCs
Space Programs
Space Policy
NASA
Nuclear Fusion
Agriculture
Commerce and Labor
Interior
FBI
State
Health and Human Services
Education
DEA
Infrastructure
State Governments
Major City Governments
Major County Governments
Dept of Energy
Housing and Urban Dev.
Transportation
Veteran’s Affairs
Justice
Energy Policy in General
Oil Policy
Coal Policy
Natural Gas Policy
Solar Policy
Wind Power Policy
Wave Power Policy
Science Policy in General
AGW Policy
Religions and Religious Policy
GWOT/GWOI Policy
Constitution Preservation or Change
National Debt
Government Size and Complexity
Political Correctness and Multicultural Diversity
Arctic Policy
Antarctic Policy
Law of the Sea Policy
United Nations Policies
NATO Policy
Clean Air Policy
EPA Policy in General
HSA Policies
Treasury Policies
Federal Reserve Policies
Investment Policies
Government Subsidies in General
Obama White House Czars
Obama Vacation Costs
Obama Lies
Nuclear Power Policy
Nuclear Weapons Policy
Nuclear Proliferation Policy
Foreign Policies in General
“stans
E. Europe
Mid-Africa
S.E. Asia
S. America
Foreign Aid
Israel Policy*
Iraqi Policy
Iranian Policy*
Saudi Arabian Policy
Syrian Policy
Afghanistan Policy
Chinese Policy*
Lebanese Policy
N. Korea Policy*
UK Policy*
French Policy*
German Policy
Italian Policy
Spanish Policy
Danish Policy
Norwegian Policy
Finnish Policy
Rumanian Policy
Chech. Policy
Hungarian Policy
Albanian Policy
Palestinian Policy
Russian Policy*
Ukrainian Policy
Libyan Policy
Moroccan Policy
Tunisian Policy
Algerian Policy
Chad Policy
Niger Policy
Nigerian Policy
Japanese Policy
Indonesian Policy
Australian Policy
Malaysian Policy
Philippines Policy
Indian Policy*
Pakistani an Policy*
Kenya Policy
Zimbabwe Policy
South African Policy
Brazilian Policy
Ecuadorian Policy
Peruvian Policy
Nicaraguan Policy
Panamanian Policy
Costa Rican Policy
Guatemalan Policy
Argentinean Policy
Venezuelan Policy
Mexican Policy
Canadian Policy
Egyptian Policy
Somalia Policy
Issues List
Taxes
Job Creation
Free Markets
Regulation Sanity
Secularization
Defense Policies and Posture
Defense Programs
Fighter Programs
Drone Programs
Shipbuilding Programs
Socialism
Communism
Same Sex Marriage
Independence
Abortion
Universal Health
Universal College
Curricula
Media Bias
Judicial Activism
Minimum Wage
Mexican Border
Illegals
Death Penalty
American Exceptionalism
Morals
Bailouts
Government by Fiat
Economy
Election and other Promises
Lies of the Administration
Experience Factor
Islam and Muslims
Redistribution of Wealth
Unions in Government
Intelligence Community
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
Coast Guard
CINCs
Space Programs
Space Policy
NASA
Nuclear Fusion
Agriculture
Commerce and Labor
Interior
FBI
State
Health and Human Services
Education
DEA
Infrastructure
State Governments
Major City Governments
Major County Governments
Dept of Energy
Housing and Urban Dev.
Transportation
Veteran’s Affairs
Justice
Energy Policy in General
Oil Policy
Coal Policy
Natural Gas Policy
Solar Policy
Wind Power Policy
Wave Power Policy
Science Policy in General
AGW Policy
Religions and Religious Policy
GWOT/GWOI Policy
Constitution Preservation or Change
National Debt
Government Size and Complexity
Political Correctness and Multicultural Diversity
Arctic Policy
Antarctic Policy
Law of the Sea Policy
United Nations Policies
NATO Policy
Clean Air Policy
EPA Policy in General
HSA Policies
Treasury Policies
Federal Reserve Policies
Investment Policies
Government Subsidies in General
Obama White House Czars
Obama Vacation Costs
Obama Lies
Nuclear Power Policy
Nuclear Weapons Policy
Nuclear Proliferation Policy
Foreign Policies in General
“stans
E. Europe
Mid-Africa
S.E. Asia
S. America
Foreign Aid
Israel Policy*
Iraqi Policy
Iranian Policy*
Saudi Arabian Policy
Syrian Policy
Afghanistan Policy
Chinese Policy*
Lebanese Policy
N. Korea Policy*
UK Policy*
French Policy*
German Policy
Italian Policy
Spanish Policy
Danish Policy
Norwegian Policy
Finnish Policy
Rumanian Policy
Chech. Policy
Hungarian Policy
Albanian Policy
Palestinian Policy
Russian Policy*
Ukrainian Policy
Libyan Policy
Moroccan Policy
Tunisian Policy
Algerian Policy
Chad Policy
Niger Policy
Nigerian Policy
Japanese Policy
Indonesian Policy
Australian Policy
Malaysian Policy
Philippines Policy
Indian Policy*
Pakistani an Policy*
Kenya Policy
Zimbabwe Policy
South African Policy
Brazilian Policy
Ecuadorian Policy
Peruvian Policy
Nicaraguan Policy
Panamanian Policy
Costa Rican Policy
Guatemalan Policy
Argentinean Policy
Venezuelan Policy
Mexican Policy
Canadian Policy
Egyptian Policy
Somalia Policy
