Trump Pushes On!

In an online post I came across, the writer described President Donald Trump as “inept.” This man sounds like a puppet of the Democratic Party, using its manifesto of, “repeat a lie enough times,” and it will be believed.

If Trump is inept, how would Einstein be regarded – dumb ? Trump has an IQ of 156, giving him the highest IQ of any living president. He exemplifies persistence and leadership. He is reasonable, just, and energetic. You will not see him kneeling before the King of Saudi Arabia, but you will see him hand a bill to Mexico’s Enrique Peña Nietol for the burden his “citizens” have put on our education and health care systems.

Trump is a passionate patriotic America who upholds our values. He will not act as  if America is perfect, however he will not see America as a failure, as did our former President.

Democrats have tried to disrupt him at every turn, dragging on his appointments, accusing him of everything from a sleeper agent to a sell-out politician to the Russians. Over 90 percent of the press despises him. Countless degrading articles defaming him have been published over the past several months without a positive outlook on his leadership capabilities involving trade, economics, and jobs.  For example, Ford retaining and creating 7,000 jobs made the United Auto Workers union ecstatic.  Also, companies relocating or staying in the U.S. is just one more example of his business acumen serving him and our citizens well.

My question to that author is how can an incompetent or inept person be a successful business trail blazer, win an election where the media was against him, garner over 300 electoral votes, turn Democratic voters into Republican voters, and take the majority of counties in the United States?

The author of the condescending article cites the U.S. Constitution as the base of his argument against President Trump, but unfortunately grossly misunderstands the document and the intention of our Founding Fathers.

Let me illustrate multiple points.

No. 1: That “The Wall” will be built, the executive order is signed and bids are coming in.

No. 2: Trump got a 90-day period to vet refugees from the same list of countries the Obama administration chose.

No. 3: He is not against immigration, only those who enter the country illegally, and wants to deport criminals and gang members.

No. 4: Many generals, admirals, diplomats and scholars have praised him for his military competence and logistical skills.

No. 5: Trade has been one-sided in favor of our trading partners; the days of wine and roses are over for them.

No. 6: He is a fierce supporter of the Constitution, especially of the First, Second and Fifth Amendments, whereas Democrats wish to change many of them, especially the First and Second.

The writer’s last sentence praised the Constitution, believing it will save us from President Trump while Democrats and President Obama want to do away with it.

I say to all, this is nonsense. Go Trump, Go.

 

 

sources

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/26/what-trump-has-done-his-first-100-days-office/

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/04/29/the-10-best-things-about-trumps-first-100-days-in-office-n2320022

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/every-terrifying-thing-that-donald-trump-has-done.html

Advertisements

U.S. Foreign Policy Part 2 – Russia in the US Elections

I was recently scrolling through the television channels and came across The Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone. After watching these I became intrigued. My curiosity was drawn to two facts – i) Vladimir Putin has denied his country’s involvement with the US Presidential Elections and ii) how the media has blown this way out of proportion.

 

Putin has repeatedly justified a country’s right to meddle in the US elections.  For example, when he said, “Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes.” These kind of quotes lead me to believe he wants to create the illusion that it is alright to fight America, without admitting to it directly. I believe Putin is a nationalist and as such wants to see a new and improved Soviet-style government in as many countries as possible. By this I mean he dislikes the West’s long-time expansion of power.  In my opinion, his opposition to this is based on a belief that he doesn’t like regular people having political power. He wants a government that gives the people what they NEED and not what they WANT. This allows for him and his inner circle to stay in power while having a stable nation.

 

There have been many investigations and accusations that Russia somehow “hacked” our election. However,  I would like to rely on the definition of term “hacked” used by the Trump Administration, rather than the one used by the Press. I do believe that the Russia government downloaded DNC data, analyzed voting patterns, and sought to gain political advantages over their US counter-parts. However, I do believe there were no changes, alterations, or manipulations of any vote.

 

When 17 US agencies state that Russia “hacked” our election, I grow worried. I am concerned because to my knowledge they are misleading the American people. Many senior officials have testified Russia did not influence any vote. So why is this conversation continuing ? We have some members of the press that are now getting fired for reckless and care-free accusations that have no merit. As the American people who keep these news organizations in business, if we see this kind of irresponsible behavior, we simply must stop reading and stop subscribing to media outlets who continue these practices. These reporters write articles based on one anonymous source and claim it to be 100% factual. I would like to know if these “sources” aren’t just low-ranking office interns seeking attention.

Lastly, I would be curious to see the reaction if the US were ever accused of interfering with elections in countries such as China or Japan. If the US did what Russia has done there would be a very different scenario. First off, I believe the foreign government would stop diplomatic communications with America (which the US has not done to Russia). Then, they would have an independent review of materials that were compromised, rather than merely assigning a special council to launch an unfocused investigation into leading political rivals as has been the case in the United States. Finally, because they have more conviction than our politicians, China or Japan would likely instigate trade sanctions and tariffs creating economic hardship on the United States. Said another way, all these points demonstrate my belief in how poorly the United States is presently handling this situation. We have let the press have a field day through unchecked and reckless reporting. Instead, we have chosen to investigate our Commander in Chief and his administration, but not the country – Russia – who actually compromised our systems by accessing our records.

All in all, I believe Russia gained access to records regarding our elections but did not change any vote. I also believe Putin has been using shaky justification to defend his country’s cyber intrusion into vital US data bases, and finally that the US has poorly handled this situation and turned it into an embarrassment. So I leave you with this question – “Because we are now a worldwide laughing stock, did Putin actually succeed with his objective ?”

.

 

 

 

U.S. Foreign Policy Part 1 – North Korea and Global Presence

With the death of Otto Warmbier, relations have been at an all time low between the U.S. and North Korea. President Trump has called the incident, “failure of diplomacy,”  and he’s right. Otto Warmbier allegedly took down a propaganda poster and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and hard labor. Regardless whether or not he committed the “crime”,  he should never have spent a night in a North Korean prison! The Obama administration failed to bring him home, which eventually led to his physical deterioration and death.

 

However, this is not the only failed part of our relations with North Korea. The US repeatedly  says that we are applying sanctions and other punishments to this horrendous regime, but it doesn’t seem to have any affect on them. I’m not sure if Kim Jung Un is somehow making under ground deals with foreign entities or if these “sanctions” are Chinese global propaganda. But, it seems clear to me that this strategy is not working. The regime keeps building more of a military arsenal with an unknown amount of nukes and other deadly devices. It is unclear if they can be stopped.

 

I believe that too many countries aren’t worried about this nuclear buildup, especially the US. For instance in the  50’s, 60’s, and 70’s it seemed that the US had a much more dominant foreign presence. Even though operations and wars failed like the Bay of Pigs and The Vietnam War, the US was still actively engaging in global issues. Although some would say that these times were a mistake because it resulted in the escalation of the Cold War and the eventual Defcon 2 alert,  I believe that this was  a very necessary and positive experience that we have forgotten the benefit of. It set boundaries for where ICBM’s (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) could and could not be placed. It exemplified how taxing communism and dictators could be. It also, spawned a generation of people who understood the importance of being American.

 

In recent years we have forgotten a lot of these lessons which has lead to our failure in diplomacy. We as Americans have been negligent to the almost invasive policies of NATO, where we have 150,000 US personal serving overseas and missile silo’s in dozens of countries. We need to understand that invading a country like North Korea is not a bad thing if they are truly acting out of control. Yet, we cannot and should not let our military get to the point where we have a monopoly all over the world. It is indeed a delicate balancing act.

 

Is It possible to have a Compromise on Gun Control?

All over the country Americans argue over gun control. Sayings like, “Guns kill” and “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” get thrown around all the time,. However, I do believe their is a compromise available.

My View on the Magazine Issue

While the constitution is followed,  the federal government will not be able to take away your guns. But they have the right to regulate weaponry. There is no conceivable reason that an ordinary citizen needs a magazine with over 10 rounds. My family has 10 weapons and we go hunting, clay shooting, and target shooting multiple times a year and our highest magazine is 8 rounds. Hell, my dad has shot a moose with a 5 round mag. The point I am making here is it is alright to have powerful guns, but there is no reason for guns with high compact magazines.

My View on the Automatic Weapon Issue

In Texas, where I live, If you register an automatic rifle, like an AK-47, with the NFA (National Firearms Act) any civilian can buy and obtain one. I only have one simple question, Why? Why is it necessary to own an automatic weapon? I take Ronald Regan’s quote to heart, “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense, but I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” Unless you have a legitimate reason to carry the gun,  then I believe that if you want an automatic weapon you must not only register it with the NFA, but you must submit an legitimate reason to own the gun and have this reason approved. This will ensure that only folks with legitimate intentions will be able to legally own automatic weapons.

My View on theFast and Furious Scandal

The job of government agencies is to protect out nation and our citizens. The line between protection and negligence was obviously crossed in this situation. We should expect that governmental agencies bend the laws or sometimes even break them in the interest of national security,  however, when they do this and their failures ultimately lead to the death of  Americans, this is a serious issue. In the Fast and Furious case, the ATF gave AK-47s to Mexican cartels in order to track them and bring down the cartels. This tactic has worked in the past with drugs and money, however it had never been done with guns. The differentiating factor that lead to this operation being unsuccessful was that the guns were never tracked and no cartels were ever brought down because of this operation. As you can see this operation was a failure and the death of at least one border patrol agent may have been prevented.  But one thing is sure. we need the people in the government who were involved in this catastrophe to be brought to justice!

All in all, I believe that our political parties need to work  together and to understand that with ever changing technologies- we need ever changing policies and regulations of our government and its citizens.

 

My View on The American Education System and How to Fix It

Schools are designed to teach America’s youth and develop us into functioning members of society. Yet, when we graduate, we know that the mitochondria is the power house of the cell, but we do not how to apply for loans, how to save money on taxes, or other practical skills. In this passion-inspired post I will focus on three main points, i.) how our school lunch program needs to be improved, ii.) why developing brains cells is important, but is being done the wrong way, and iii) why required classes are limiting our knowledge and potential.

At my school, if you go to lunch and pick out a pizza, water, cookie, and yogurt you will be set back $7.50. This sounds quite over the top for a school lunch and here’s why; kids in affluent families must pay more for their food than other kids on reduced or free lunches because they need to make up the money to pay for those programs. If prices reflected the school’s actual cost, the school would have to cover their losses on free or reduced programs by taking money from their Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding. In doing this they would reduce the money allocated for such things as new supplies and teachers salaries, which are expenses they cannot raise with bonds paid for by the taxpayers. So the school is stuck with over-charging kids who can afford lunch to make up deficits caused by free or reduced programs. After thinking about this for awhile I came up with a solution; privatize the lunch programs!

My Idea is as follows:

  1. Schools will first have to come up with how many kids will be on free or reduced lunches and find out how much money in profit they will need to keep these programs running.
  2. In a school with, for example, five lines in the cafeteria, set aside three of those lines to local and chain food providers who act as private concessionaires, and use the remaining two to sell food to free or reduced program members only.  Let the private vendors charge the students directly and lease the lines from the school.
  3. Use the calculation from step one and determine your lease charges with the vendors and you will have successfully fixed school lunch forever!

This is my idea on how to fix the school lunch epidemic. It will provide less expensive (and tastier) food to paying students while at the same time stimulating local businesses and paying for free and reduced lunch programs.

Math is a very essential basic skill all humans must learn to be successful in life. However, the method in which math is taught in our high schools is ridiculous. We are taught to remember formulas and have specific steps to solve problems. This doesn’t help us. According to a study by University of Georgia, what we need to succeed is, “to find solutions to problems without assistance”. They also said that “independent thinking builds neurons 3x faster than any other exercise”. In other words, we need more thought-based learning of math rather than simply memorizing formulas, and then apply them to real world situations.  If we have curriculums designed to meet these kinds of criteria instead of what we have now, our future generations will be more self sufficient and be able to come up with new solutions to problems.

Lastly, in modern education we have required core classes. This is a horrid idea! In today’s schools we have to take a certain amount of classes to graduate and are left with little remaining room to take unique classes. In high school we take four years of math, science, and English, and three years of history. Yet, we only have half a year of economics and government. This is where we fail! Kids coming out of school know more about photosynthesis than how a bill becomes law. Now don’t get me wrong. If you want to pursue science, that is a great idea but for the vast majority of students it is un-beneficial and pointless. Through middle school we already learned all of the basics of science, math, history, and english. Instead we need longer economics and government classes that explain such things as taxes, our social security system and how we elect our representatives. If we had classes similar to these and others, like different types of journalism and business classes along with health and construction classes, our economy would be thriving with kids who identify their passions early on and have the knowledge to successfully expose them. Doing this would eliminate the current problem of students having trouble finding jobs after college and would bolster the American working force as one of the best in the world. If we simply throw out required classes and let students choose what they want, we will have an entire new American. A great, self-sufficient America.

All in all, if we as Americans fight to improve our lunch programs, teach problem solving the right way, and be done with required classes we will have a bright future filled with possibility.

 

Patrick Englehart

The Paris Accords Withdraw

This is the post excerpt.

First lets start off with what we know by definition. An accord defined by Oxford is, an official agreement. A treaty is defined by Oxford as a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.  In the context of The American Constitution,  a treaty is an agreement proposed by the President to the senate, the senate then votes on the treaty and if two thirds of the senate vote in favor of it, it is an official treaty. The Paris Accords or Paris Agreements are not a treaty. They were never ratified by our senate. Instead, they were agreed upon by an executive order issued by Former President Barak Obama.

UnknownUnknown-1

This is what the Agreement meant to the United states, but there is also the matter of what was in the Accords and what it obligated or didn’t obligate nations to do. The Accords are not at all enforceable; they are non-binding, they have no punishment for failure to meet standards and have no legal authority in the United States because it was only ratified by 147 out of 197 countries who signed it, and by no surprise it was never brought before the US senate, therefor making it non binding.  The Accords never outlined any specific actions countries are to take. The Accords only listed goals like keeping greenhouse emissions down, pursuing efforts to limit temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2025, and keep global temperature “well below” 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. They also had monetary “requirements” like “climate financing” and the Green Climate Fund. “Climate Financing” encourages countries who are contributing the most to the accords, like the United States, to pay countries who can not or do not contribute as much. This could mean that the US pays China, who is not pushed to meet all of the energy reduction policies as the US is, to help them lower their CO2 emissions (as if China needed any monetary help). The Green Climate Fund is the money behind the Accords, this is where all of the nations payments go towards. The Green Climate fund or GCF is worth approximately 2.2 billion USD and the US has payed 1 billion USD or around 45.5% of the ENTIRE fund’s worth.

Now getting back to Thursdays events, current President Donald Trump said in a briefing that The United States will back out of the Paris Climate Accords. Not to copy him but let’s back up a bit, the US must stay in the Accords for 3 years and as of now 1 year has passed leaving 2 more. Also, it will take approximately 1 year to formally withdraw and exit. That is if everything is done “by the books”. However, I am betting that because POTUS is not a “by the books” kind of guy, he will stop paying and ignore what the US has already said they would put forth and simply go along business as usual until the US can formally leave. A political move I find intriguing and gutsy.

All of that is good and well, yet I do have some problems with the way all of this has been handled. President Trump said that the US is withdrawing from the Paris Accords, instead President Trump should have said that he wants to renegotiate the deal.  In doing this, the US could have withheld payments like every other country in the Accords until we can get a better deal done, one that makes all countries pay fairly. I believe that President Trump should have been able to get this done, after all he knows The Art Of The Deal. Also, saying that would have been beneficial in three ways. First,  it would NOT have given reason for people to attack him saying he is anti-environment and a global warming skeptic. Second, despite the media attention Trump said, “I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.” Mr. Trump is obviously open to stopping climate change, but in his speech he should have hit harder on that so more of the American people know what he is willing to do. Lastly, President Trump listed off some statistics that were done by the EPA.  These stats say that the US will loose 3.3 trillion USD in GDP by 2040 and that 2.7 million jobs will be cut.  He also mentioned that some industries could be reduce by 84% if the accords stayed in place. Although, he forgot to mention new industries emerging in the clean energy business and added jobs in solar and renewable energies.

Overall, I believe that this was a very difficult decision for the President to make, even though I think it could have been handled better and easier, it was ultimately the right decision

Patrick Englehart