Greatest Military Power in the World Should be Able to End Poverty in its own Country

The United States, is clearly the most dominant military power in the world, to which its tentacles, its influence, its imprint, its force is felt in virtually every country and virtually every nook of every area of the world.  The problem though with being the greatest military power in the world is that while that achievement may have its merits on certain levels, it is also a given that the power to kill, the power to destroy, the power to tear down, is in essence a negative power, a destructive power.  Consequently, destroying other country's infrastructure, their foodstuffs, their fuel, and their opportunity, is not the mark of a great nation, but is most definitely the mark of a nation that lacks the imagination, the wisdom, and the vision to effect real change at a mature and caring level. 

I have never appreciated the metaphor, that we need to "wage a war on poverty", because we are not now, nor have we ever been at war with poverty.  After all, you cannot eliminate poverty by shooting at it; instead, to eliminate poverty, you must create the conditions to bring prosperity and/or opportunity for all and to achieve that takes a concerted and a dedicated group effort with foresight.  Since, President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964, fifty years have passed, and yet poverty still exists in America.  In 1964, the trend line was clearly trending down and from a level of 19% in 1964; the poverty rate went down at an impressive rate to as low as 11.2% in 1974, whereas the poverty rate for 2013 as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau is currently at 14.5%, which means that in the last forty years, poverty has increased and not decreased in America.  Further, this translates to a total of 45.68 million Americans that live below the poverty line, this in a nation that is widely perceived to be the greatest nation the world has ever known and also the most prosperous. 

Perhaps there are those that believe that we will always have the poor amongst us, and that although our poverty rate appears to be great, that this is simply the nature of the game, or perhaps there are those that believe that America gives everyone an equal opportunity to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps and that therefore they should do so, or perhaps that the very definition of poverty is arbitrary, and simply those that we call "impoverished", really aren't lacking in much of anything that you need in order to survive, and to simply get over it, or better yet just get a job.  None of these criticisms are very fair, especially considering that America spends $840 billion dollars on military defense, whereas the last time that Congress declared war was in 1941!

The poverty rate in America is a modern day tragedy, completely unnecessary, take Taiwan (the Republic of China), for instance, this island nation of nearly 24 million peoples, has a poverty rate as estimated by the World Factbook, CIA, for 2010 of 1.16%, although it is estimated as of 2012 that their poverty rate has risen to 1.78%, as noted by bbc.com.  This is an incredible achievement for a country that as recently as 1950, had a per capita income of a mere $50 per year as reported by fee.org.  The United States would do well to study the characteristics of what makes a country prosper over such a short period of time and it would probably find that it is not from having a military that acts as if it is the world's policeman, but comes more from emphasizing and encouraging good morals, good ethics, hard work, dedication, fairness, sound education, rule of law, and a return to the grit and determination of all of the best of America.

Exploitation of Overseas Labor

America didn't become this great bastion of democratic virtue overnight, especially in regards to how labor, corporations, and government agencies conducted business with each other.  Even today, within our borders, there are illegal "sweatshops" in NYC, in LA, along with our imported and exploited migrant farm workers.  However, with a free press, publicity, legal teams, and a general concern for social justice, exploitation of labor workers within the USA is a constant battle to which labor at least has a voice and a chance for change, justice, and fairness.  Today, for much of America there are specific labor laws that are applicable which protect and enhance the working experience so that employees are compensated at an agreed upon wage, with working conditions that are civil and fair.

Fast forward to our modern-day world and the biggest corporations in the world are often multi-national conglomerates with branches and employees all over the globe.  Often these corporations have a choice as to where to conduct certain aspects of their business, whether here or overseas, to which the cost to create product, the availability and knowhow of labor, the cost of infrastructure, and tax considerations are all significant factors in the ultimate decision that is made.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that if the overall costs are significantly lower in a foreign land, that these firms will take their business and workload to those countries.  After all, they are greatly concerned with their profits, their gross margin, and often they have competitive considerations to attend to.

The fundamental question that must be asked, though, is does our duty to our fellow man, end at our borders or should our principles and our obligations be attached to our American-based corporation, so that consequently they are morally bound to uphold our standards throughout the world as representatives of this great nation.  It would seem that this question has already been answered, as the labor conditions in factories located in countries such as China are often shown to be appalling with excessive labor hours, the usage of dangerous chemicals and inhalation of chemical fumes, oppressive living conditions, under-age workers, and always an overriding demand to make things better, quicker, faster, smarter, and cheaper in order to fulfill not only the contract to the master contractor but to turn a profit for the Chinese factory and/or maintain or earn bonuses for the management and the ownership of said factory.

While big American conglomerates are quick to point out how much they have done to assure that their overseas factory conditions are fair and in compliance with their supplier responsibility programs, they often see only what they want to see, and ignore what they want or need to ignore.  After all, the bottom line for these massive multi-national companies is money, gross margin, profitability, quality, timeliness, and performance, consequently they will allow themselves to be "fooled" or hoodwinked by these factories, because it is perceived to be in their best interests to do so.

The exploitation of overseas labor will continue as long as it is the corporations themselves that police their own actions and their compliance.  Only with a truly independent, international, and/or government body or bodies interfacing with these multi-national companies will meaningful change commence as these corporations hold the upper hand by virtue of the fact that they dangle the allure of the carrot while their overseas factories wield the stick.

Are Corporations People?

The above question seems absurd, not even worthy of being considered, but when you have case law that has already decided this issue in the affirmative, indeed, at the level of our highest court; the question deserves more than a cursory dismissal.  To begin with, we must first answer the question as to what is a corporation.  While a corporation may be many different things, at its core, a corporation is a collection of individuals, or even especially in the instance of a limited liability corporation (LLC) a corporation can be just one individual.  Consequently, courts have ruled that corporations should be treated as people for certain legal issues. While the whole concept of corporations being people for certain legal purposes should be just a sideshow, virtually meaningless for most of us,  it has instead become a  highly-charged rallying pointbecause of the perceived unfairness of political financial contributions from corporations acting as individuals so as to circumvent donation limits as well as the end-around in regards to corporations complaining vehemently of being implicitly involved in terminating human life by being compelled to support and to finance a health care act that legalizes and permits such a termination.

In regards to political contributions, there has been historically a very high correlation between the amount of donations made to the success of the candidate(s) involved or to the ballot proposition proposed.  The Supreme Court Decision of 2010 essentially removed the previous limits and most of the restrictions that were imposed upon corporations for federal elections under the guise that the government may not suppress political speech at a federal level.  The problem with this type of judicial decision is that corporations have the money, strength, and resources to easily overwhelm and to dominate any one individual or virtually any conceivable group of individuals.   For instance, ExxonMobil had sales of nearly $500 billion in fiscal year 2013, a number that exceeds the GDP of all than about 25 countries in the world.  Further to this point, corporations by definition are setup to be perpetual continuing enterprises to wit that although they birth, they are never meantto die, so consequently their desires and their goals will never be satiated, making corporations not so much akin to a person, but more alike to modern-day Harpies.

As for corporations being able to have certain laws set aside that are meant to be applied equally to companies of the same size and type, such as the Affordable Care Act law, the recent decision to which corporations such as Hobby Lobby are able to deny certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds is reasoned incorrectly.  While I respect Hobby Lobby's position and believe it to be sincere, it is at the same time, no more valid than taking the position that a conscientious objector or similar should be able to set aside a certain portion of their taxes that would be paid to the U.S. Treasury, because on moral grounds that do not believe it is right o take another man's life under any circumstances and any monetary support that they would provide is unconscionable to them.

While I do recognize the validity of treating corporations as people for certain specific and limited reasons, this is a door that must be guarded diligently and effectively, because if not, this country, if it isn't already, will become a servant to the military-industrial complex as well as to other mega-conglomerates to which the typical individual will be essentially nothing more than a hired serf with some benefits.

America, a Christian Nation?

It is taken as a given by most religious Americans, that the United States of America is a Christian nation, founded by Christians, for Christians.  But is this really true?  There are plenty of secularists that believe that America is a secular nation, or if not secular, not a Christian nation and they point out that our Constitution, its' Bill of Rights, and our Declaration of Independence, mentions the words, "Jesus", "Christ", or "Christian," a grand total of zero times.  Still there are others that admit to the Christian or Judeo-Christian heritage of America while also recognizing America as being the birthplace of religious tolerance, and accommodating therefore of all religious thought and belief.

The most important document in American history is its Declaration of Independence, declaring our freedom from the political bands of Great Britain, and setting forth a new proposition, that it was self-evident that all men are created equal, a thought that was stunningly revolutionary at the time and the very basis of the foundation of this great republic.  Our Declaration of Independence, invokes the word of God, five separate times, as "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," "Creator,"  "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence."   Clearly, the Declaration of Independence recognizes that we are children of God, and brothers in arms by our equal creation.

The Constitution of the United States and its attendant Bill of Rights, invokes religious imagery or thought only three times.  It is in Article VI, to which it specifically states that "…no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office…" it also is seen in the signatory part of the Constitution with "… in the Year of our Lord…" and finally as written in our First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  Clearly, the Constitution is not a religious instrument, which isn't too surprising, since the primary purpose of our Constitution was to consolidate the thirteen states into a republic, with specific delegation of powers and structure created to allow the USA to ratify treaties, conduct commerce, and to defend our new nation.

Taking a close look at these founding documents, along with our Founding Fathers, it is clear that they saw America as a nation, under the Providence of one omnipotent God.  Further, America was gracious enough to recognize and to accommodate religious tolerance, so that initially each State had their own establishment of religion, such as Anglican, Congregational, or no one established religion.  For instance, the New Jersey State Constitution in 1776 stated: "That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any pretense whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform."

Consequently, for those that believe America was founded as a secular state, or somehow became upon the ratification of our Constitution a secular state, or would be more true to its roots if it became a secular state, they are fundamentally wrong and are clearly in error in judgment.  As for whether America is a Christian nation and/or a Godly nation, know this, from Luke 10:27, "… Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."  Further, from the Quran, Verse 9:129, "…. God is enough for me. There is no god but He…"  Also, Talmud Shabbat Folio 31A, "… What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor…"

Then remember, these great words, "… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…"  There you will find your answer.

America and its treatment of the Wretched Refuse

Has America ever lived up to its great inscription on the Statue of Liberty, to be a beacon of life and of hope to the masses of not only the world, but within its own borders?  Too often, America treats its poor, its disadvantaged, its ill-educated, its limited opportunity residents, its minorities, its people that have the wronglook, the wrong address, and the wrong family structure, as if poverty is a crime, rather than a symptom of a systemic wrong within the United States itself.  Rather than giving each American citizen a true and fair opportunity to pursue happiness and to breathe the fresh air of invigorating freedom, too often the educational institutions, the welfare structure, police and justice forces, close the door on those that are designated as undesirable, too much trouble, or considered to be worthless to the State apparatus.  It isn't right, it's indeed a disturbing disgrace to the very foundational principles of this great nation, and it isn't necessary.

The judgment against the poor, against children that come from impoverished circumstances, live on the wrong side of the tracks, with few of the traits and capabilities that make for good habits and good decisions, is started at a very young age.  America gives up on its youth, before they are even given a fair chance to be an integral part of society, to become responsible and good citizens, because within the bowels of the American mindset there is a consensus that it is just cheaper and more efficient to simply treat certain segments of the American population as if they were nuisances that needs to be put under lock and key, or constantly monitored, or legally drugged up to pacify them, and then removed from society at large.  The United States takes the basic position, that a certain and peculiar portion of our population must be essentially treated as if they didn't exist or were never born.

Unfortunately, for America, this wretched refuse which is cast aside, continues to teem upon our shore, year after year, generation after generation, which presupposes that America needs to take a careful and considerate look at its institution itself, in order to determine whether there is something within America that contributes to this unfortunate state of affairs.  The answer will be found, that America is a nation that quits on its troubled youth, that quits on those that have difficult and trying circumstances, and that at no point does America truly give a fair account of itself to those that only ask that they be given the same consideration as if there were the "chosen ones" rather than treated as misfits, and beneath the dignity of our compassion.

Countries can be judged on many different attributes and metrics, but in reality, there is only one standard that any country should have to give account to, and that is whether that country was a true brother and a fair steward of its resources and knowledge.  Far too often, America treats its poor, those of the wrong complexion or religion, or family circumstances, or general cleanliness, as if they were God forsaken, and consequently shuns them, when, in reality, it is America itself, haughty and full of hubris, that has turned its back on its Creator, and will find that upon its day of judgment, it will be found wanting and consequently tormented in a hell of its own making.

Why Salt Water?

Our earth is made up of nearly 71% water, which is absolutely wonderful, considering that the human body itself is approximately 65% water and that while man can live for two to three weeks and possibly even longer without food, he cannot live more than perhaps three to five days without drinkable water.  However, despite the fact that the earth is majority water, approximately 97% of all water on our planet is salt water and therefore undrinkable.  Further, the majority of our fresh water is retained in ice caps and glaciers, leaving humanity a paltry 1% of water that is readily available and drinkable, to serve all of humanity on earth.

The question that must be asked is why is the majority of our water, salty?  It isn't from our rain, which is for the most part, drinkable as is, and of immense importance for crops, animals, and agriculture.  Instead, our oceans are salty, because of the mineral salts that dissolve into the ocean from rocks and other mineral formations, as well as from gaseous substances that burst or leak through the earth's crust.  In our water cycle, the sun essentially heats water in our oceans, which basically then vaporizes or evaporates pure water from our seas, taking then these vapors up into the atmosphere, where eventually clouds are formed, and subsequently rain is released back onto our earth.   

The bottom line is that our oceans and seas are destined to remain salty, and by definition to remain undrinkable because the consumption of salt water, increases dehydration in your body, as your kidneys cannot excrete efficiently the excess salt brought into our bodies, and must have good fresh water instead in order for our bodies to function properly.  This then points to the extreme importance of drinkable water for humanity and for civilization in general.

It should come as no surprise, then, that mankind has for centuries worked diligently in trying to come up with solutions that will efficiently and effectively desalinized water.  The two main ways to accomplish desalinization is from either the distillation of the seawater or through reverse osmosis.  Distillation is the art of first boiling water to remove the impurities from the water and then condensing the steam back into what will now become purified or distilled water.  In regards to reverse osmosis, water is first forced through a semi-permeable membrane which effectively removes most of the impurities of the water, and subsequently creates drinkable water.

While a lot of progress has been made over the years in effectively desalinizing water, these processes require both time and energy to accomplish their objectives, to which the payback crossover point is not necessarily easily to determine.  That said, because of the great vitality of water to sustain life on our planet, efforts must be continued to be made to efficiently and to consistently provide good clean water to populations throughout our world.  Water is far too great of resource, to simply take for granted, because good clean water is a fundamental need to sustain life on this good earth, for one and for all.

What would our Founding Fathers Think about America Today?

America has a rich history, full of great giants of intellect, effectiveness, morality, courage, and brilliance.  This wonderful nation was forged by not only the blood, sweat, and tears of a country that rose up against its oppressor, but in doing so it stated for all posterity that we recognized the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that we have certain unalienable rights that come not from our government, but are endowed to us by our Creator, and further that it was the representatives of the good people of the American colonies, that declared to the Supreme Judge of the world that we ought to be free and independent states.  Many good people died on both sides of this conflict, so that these words would come to fruition.

Now, we are nearly 240 years removed from this Declaration of Independence, a mighty nation, with a national Constitution of long-standing respect and a prime example to other nations of our wisdom, and the masterful usage of checks and balances to augment and to protect the people of this illustrious nation.  While on the one hand our Founding Fathers if they were to magically re-appear today would be amazed at our growth, our power, our size, our diversity, and our accomplishments; they would on the other hand be appalled that this land founded on the principle that that this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, appears to be, in fact, a country controlled by averse judicial decisions, an all-powerful military-industrial complex, and the unseen machinations of political savants.

It would be stunning for the Founding Fathers to see how America has degenerated into a State that allows the Supreme Court and judiciaries to dictate to the people what is or isn't law, that by so doing, the people have ceased to be their own rulers and have had their votes effectively negated.  Additionally, the sheer breadth and length of the tentacles of our Government, of the Government apparatus proper to monitor, control, and to bully the American populace would be shocking to our Founding Fathers.  Further, the power to tax is the power to destroy, to see how our tax code is so invasive and as pervasive as it is today, corrupt and unfairly applied, that there is very little correlation between today's tax code and true representation would be of immense disappointment and concern to our Founding Fathers.

President Washington warned us against foreign entanglements, but Thomas Jefferson took it even further by stating, "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended."  How prescient was Jefferson, how true his words, and how we suffer under the yoke of our country that literally has a foothold in all regions of the world, to which, every year the United States, is in some battle with some foreign country or peoples, ignoring the Congressional imperative that only Congress has the power to declare war, but the United States has war, nevertheless.

The moral decay of our country would sadden our Founders, that recognized that our country's very foundation rested on a moral and religious people, to which, the supreme objective of the power brokers of America today, is to sunder religion from the State, so as to bring forth a secular nation, which receives its wisdom not from our Great Benefactor, but by flawed man, himself. 

Finally, while our Founding Fathers would have mixed feelings about America, today, they would, if alive today, never give in, never give up, and never yield to a country that wrongs itself by wronging its people and dishonors its divine destiny.

Victims' Rights

Because America incarcerates such a high percentage of its citizens for all sorts of crimes, somewhere lost in all that noise, is the ultimate consideration which is the victims' rights.  While one can make an argument, that justice is about following the legal code and the legal requirements of a given situation, the victim of said crime must also be taken into serious consideration.  You can make a very valid argument that it is the victim of a crime that should be of primary concern when it comes to real justice and an effort should be made to make this person whole again, and to lose track of the victim and his rights, is a fundamental mistake of legal justice.  Consequently, restorative justice is an area of law that should be studied extensively, and implemented in as many cases as practical.

For instance, if somebody robs your house of your material goods and the perpetrator is later caught, convicted, and sentenced to serve time in prison, what have you as a victim recovered from this?  The only real gain is perhaps a gain for society to which a robber has been put in jail, so as to not give him the opportunity to rob someone else.  But he hasn't paid back anyone for the goods that were stolen, further to incarcerate this man costs the taxpayer's money, and there are typically no conditions set forth to rehabilitate the man or even to understand what circumstances brought forth the crime in the first place.  None of this makes any real good sense, to have it as a policy that incarceration resolves issues is fundamentally flawed, as a far better resolution is something that helps to compensate the victim of the crime itself.

When the State makes a case against an alleged criminal, the victim and his rights must be taken into account, to which the victim should be afforded the opportunity to be an integral part of the prosecution's mindset and the construction of the case at hand.  Upon a conviction, or mediation, or plea bargain, the structure of the punishment, imprisonment, penalty, or whatever, should be looked at in such a manner that would best present the possibility of coming up with a resolution that would, in particular, satisfy the victim, while simultaneously being acceptable to the State, as well as a fair resolution for the convicted person, himself.  To accomplish these tasks in such a way as to give satisfaction and a sense of justice to all, would not be easy, but it is a necessary step in understanding that crimes that are committed by people against other people, should be resolved with those people in mind, and that the State should be facilitators of this action, rather than the State mandating this or that particular action based on its traditional treatment of this particular crime.

Having the attitude that the goal of our legal system is to "put the bad guys in jail" misses the entire point of justice to begin with.  Justice should seldom be about punishment or banishment, but should instead involve restitution, opportunity, testimony, and understanding.  The victim should not be subsumed by the State, as it is the collective victims that make up the State to begin with.  Instead, victims should be seen as to what they really are, individuals that have been denied their pursuit of happiness or worse, and consequently it is to the victim that some sort of collaborative justice should be made.

The largest Creditor Nation Controls the World

At the end of World War I, the power shift of the world was clearly in the United State's favor, to which the United States was the most powerful economic force in the world, destined to become also the world's largest creditor nation, which simple stated meant that in aggregate the financial assets held by the United States were substantially greater than its liabilities to debtor nations.  However, in the 1980s the United States crossed over from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation, and is currently the largest debtor nation in the world in aggregate and on a yearly continuing basis.  This means that foreign investments in the United States exceed the American investments abroad.  While in the short term this allows Americans to maintain their current standard of living, because we are being subsidized by foreign countries, in particular Japan and China, and their investment in us, over the long term, the debtor nation, no matter the size, must make good on their debts through greater productivity, frugality, or if they are unable to service their debt, than through outright default or the devaluation of its currency.

Despite its status as the world's largest debtor nation, the United States is able to currently have its cake and eat it too, because it remains the largest economic and the greatest strategic power in the world.  However, this power is very slowly and inexorably beginning to erode and while today there is essentially no nation, or series of nations, that can dictate the terms of our debt, make no mistake about it, creditors are serious about collecting their debt, on their terms, not on ours.  The debtor is always in thrall to the creditor, and any thinking to the degree, that the United States is too big to fail, too big to be dictated to, that the dollar is the de facto currency of the world by default and will forever remain that way, forgets that things change, and those that are not prepared to pony up to the table, will then find out sadly that the hand that they show down, is the losing hand, with all the attendant miseries of being a loser.

While America blithely goes about its business, as if nothing fundamental has changed, America's economic house has definitely changed and not for the better.  In essence, foreign creditors to America have claim to assets that they control or own and if America is unable to make good on their debts, Americans cede control of these various resources to the creditor nations.  Additionally, if America is unable to service its debts, than the dollar itself must become devalued, and America may also be put under financial restraints as dictated by creditor nations and the like. 

None of this is even necessary if America simply righted its ship, but it seems not to have the moral makeup or suasion to do so.  America wants to consume and purchase goods with perpetual IOUs to the world at large, without putting forth the labor to honestly earn its keep.  The history of the world demonstrates that no nation has survived without struggle, America clearly has lost its way, and if Americans truly believe that they can continue to live this way, which is essentially off of the backs of Japanese and Chinese labor, dark days are coming.

The Endless Battle between Church and State

In this world, there are some countries that are irreligious in totality, some that mandate a specific religion to the exclusion of all else, and some that have little or no religious restrictions.  Additionally, there are some countries that are run exclusively as a secular nation, to which the laws as given by the secular government rule all, there are other countries that are run as a theocracy to which religious law trumps all, and there are some countries that utilize common law as the moral and the foundational basis for their State law.

The United States was a country founded by peoples wishing to express their religious beliefs without interference by secular States or Government agencies.  That is why there is no establishment of religion in our 1st Amendment to our Constitution, thereby prohibiting the National Government from mandating one State religion to the exclusion of all else.  Additionally, our Declaration of Independence, made it clear that our rights came from our Creator, not by our Government or by our former King of England, but were embedded within us as human beings, and that consequently Governments are elected amongst us in order to protect and to secure these rights.

Unfortunately, today rather than the State working hand-in-glove with religious organizations, they are often on opposing sides.  This is contrary to the very foundational documents that rule this great nation and a great disservice to our citizens.  As time has marched on within America, people and the individual states, have ceded power and control or have had power and control wrested from them, so that the National Government as a whole "holds over" the people in general.  A country to which you are no longer able to have public displays of religious symbols on public property that no longer permits government-endorsed voluntary prayer at public schools and a government that negates our Constitution and Declaration of Independence by asserting that there should be a separation of

Church and State is a government that has overstepped its boundaries.

Before there was this massive State apparatus in America, there was the Church, people, and communities working together to better themselves.  For instance, education was led not by our National government, there was no free public education in early America, but was often led by the religious institutions in the community, or by the parents, with the recognition that education was important for the continuing progress of any great nation.  Today, it is the National Government for the most part that dictates to the individual States, school boards, and to the people, the roadway and rules of how our youth will be educated.

While the National Government ostensibly is in charge of our public education for the greater good, their purpose is also to propagandize today's youth to believe that the greatest good that any citizen of this country can produce is to serve their country willingly and without question.  This is a bastardization of the meaning of life, a rebuke to the Founding Fathers of this great land, and a grand disservice to all. Our National Government is quite clear that they recognize that a human soul cannot successfully serve both God and mammon, so their objective is to marginalize the Church and to make the State the quasi-church of America.

Consequently, in America today, the Church and the State are battling for the hearts and souls of Americans.  Should the Church, as we know it, become compromised or to lose this battle, America will fall, because a foundation built on human ego, greed, and deception, is a foundation built on sand, which will not stand through the tides of time.

No Kings or Queens in America

Our Declaration of Independence made it clear that it was the American desire to form a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, that we are thereby endowed with certain inalienable rights, to which the just powers of our government derived from the consent of the governed.  Our Declaration stated that King George had usurped and tyrannized the peoples of America, to which a list of facts were enumerated and submitted to the Supreme Judge of the world.

Today, it must be asked, has the Presidency of the United States become the very thing that we rebelled against?  Take, for instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, our only 4-term President, who except for ill health, may have continued to run and win elections even beyond the fourth term that he won in 1944.  Under FDR, far more power was centralized to the Federal Government and in particular, the Executive office, effectively taking sovereignty away from the States and the people as a whole, and instead introducing intrusive and massive bureaucracies to "help" wrest Americans from the Great Depression.  The FDR legacy is a National Government that has far more power, far more control and mandates far more rules than were even conceived of in generations pass.

Our executive branch, in particular the Presidency, since the time of FDR, has seen its power concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, for instance, we have the two-term President Eisenhower, to which his Vice-President eventually became the elected two-term President Richard Nixon.  President Kennedy was our youngest elected President before his life was cut short by an assassin's bullet; his younger brother had an excellent chance of becoming President before his life was too ended by an assassin in 1968, and later Ted Kennedy would try also to become President before falling short.  George H.W. Bush became President, later his son George W. Bush would be elected twice as President, and his younger brother Jeb Bush is considered a possible candidate for 2016.  Finally, William Clinton was a two-term President, and while his wife was unsuccessful in becoming the Democratic nominee in 2008, Hillary Clinton will probably run again for the Presidency in 2016.

At the time of our Declaration of Independence, there were numerous grievances listed against King George III, many of them sound quite familiar to us today such as:

                "He has erected a multitude of New Offices"

                "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the civil power"

                "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"

                "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

Long gone are the days that we were honored to have men such as George Washington, a man that refused to take the Executive office for life that refused to be king and that voluntarily resigned from both military power as well as Presidential power.  Washington made it clear that the Union of the States was necessary to provide us "greater security from external danger" and warned us to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

Unfortunately, these warnings have been ignored; the President easily gets around congressional restraints or congressional oversight, by simply enacting executive orders which are often inimical to the very principles of our Republic.  Additionally, the power and strength of our military has grown greater and greater to which the military-industrial complex has a vested interest in the President being all-powerful, which allows the military-industrial complex to concentrate all of their efforts, all of their guile, all of their nefarious influence, upon just one individual, who is effectively the Kingpin of their design.

Maturity, School, Gender, and Grades

Science has confirmed the obvious, that females mature quicker and at a much earlier age than males.  Females mature more rapidly than males not only biologically, but emotionally, as well as in their brain, to which the publication Cerebral Cortex published a study stating: “Previous studies have shown that the brain does a lot of re-organising during puberty, there is greater activity during this time…  Around 10 to 12 you start to see a lot of activity in the brains of girls as this pruning takes place, but it was between 15 to 20 for boys."  Female's superiority over males in school is demonstrated by their higher grades than males, to which the American Psychological Study states: "From elementary school through graduate school, females have a distinct advantage in grades."

While there isn't much that males can do to biologically mature faster than females, there are many things that can be evaluated and tried so as to give a better opportunity for males to mature earlier and more successfully at a younger age emotionally, which would probably be then reflected in more successful brain cortex development.   It is of critical importance, that efforts and studies be made to achieve this, because the fact that males mature emotionally more slowly and are graded lower in school than females, has serious repercussions for society in regards to male's future success in life or lack thereof, to which ultimately it is society as a whole that must pay up.

First off, there is absolutely no reason to take a fatalistic outlook in regards to this male maturity issue, because the objective is not necessarily that males should become equals to females in emotional maturity, but that instead that there should be an improvement from the current mindset and a better understanding of the development of males in our society.  It is important to recognize, that the efforts that we put forth today will pay dividends later, as by so doing we should see a decrease in violence, delinquency, drug dependency and the like.  All of these aforementioned behaviors are behaviors that demonstrate a lack of vision, a lack of control, a lack of caring, a lack of opportunity, and a lack of good character.

Males are not the same as females, and consequently to encourage right behavior from males, will often and logically take a different toolset than one used for females.  Probably the best way to develop maturity in males is to help them recognize that their decisions matter and to hold them therefore accountable for the decisions that they make, rightly or wrongly.  That is to say, it is important, that males are afforded the opportunity to be independent, to challenge themselves, to explore, to test, but at the end of the day, they must also be able to take responsibility for their actions and for their consequences, without equivocation or excuses.

The modern world has changed how children are developed and brought up in society.  In agrarian times, children had responsibilities and chores on behalf of their family at a very young age, and for those in the cities children were often apprenticed or indentured to others.  No doubt, children of those times matured at a very young age, or found themselves wards of the State or worse.  Times are better now, because the good and sound education of a child's mind is the foundation that society needs in order to better itself and to create good citizens.  It is therefore our responsibility to do our part to help develop our children's minds and maturity so that in this acquired wisdom they will not depart from it.

Light and Darkness

Darkness is best defined as the absence of light, and animals that live in total darkness, are predominantly found to be blind.  Total darkness is something that few sighted humans have ever experienced, I experienced it on the level of being on a tour of a cavern, to which, the tour guide, pre-warned us that he was going to turn off all ambient lighting and that the darkness that would ensue would be so complete that we would be unable to see even our hands in front of our eyes.  When this did in fact occur, it was extremely unsettling, because the sudden loss of vision is not a pleasant experience, darkness on this level I had never experienced before.

It is not too surprising to learn, that primitive societies often had sun gods, because of the critical importance that light brings to our lives.  Without the sun there would not be life on this good earth, because we need its heat and its light in order to function and to create photosynthesis which converts light from energy into chemical energy.  That is why the sun is of such significance to us today, and in the past, because our lives could not exist without it. The sun therefore, acts as a proxy to God himself.

In literature darkness is often associated with evil, and light is often associated with good.  This certainly makes logical sense, but is it necessary for both conditions to occur?  Are, in fact, darkness and light, good and evil, two sides of the same coin, forever in war with each other or is there another conceivable explanation that we must respect?  First, it is important to note that darkness and light are not equal in strength or the equivalent to each other; they are merely manifestations of a given condition.  As for good and evil, actions that represent good are in accordance with God's law, and actions that represent evil are not in accordance with His true justice, they therefore are not equal and never can be. 

John 1:5 states, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."  This can be translated to state that darkness, or those that dwell in darkness, are unable to grasp that any power that they hold in this world is a power that must bow to the Light.  Further, that those that live in darkness, despite the presence of light, will ignore the light as if it didn't exist, even though that light is the portal through which all love and all blessings pour forth.  Additionally, that all those that previously lived in the darkness of their ignorance, are given the opportunity to go to the light, to become embraced by the light, and to become one with the light, or they can remain in the shadows afraid to or fearful of embracing the Truth, that will correct them from the error of their ways.

There are many that believe, that evil and darkness, are foes that must be wrestled with and only through great individual effort or through the grace of God that they will be overcome.  This may be true to a point, but the Higher Truth is this, you may live your entire life in the cave of absolute ignorance and darkness, but should you allow the bright light of Christ to enter your domain, your freedom will become instant upon the penetration of True Light.

Beheading

Beheading, also known as decapitation, is a form of capital punishment, which has been around seen Roman times, but had fallen virtually completely out of favor as a form of execution in modern times, to which modernity deemed this punishment as being far too brutal or too graphic, till its recent resurgent as a form of terror in the Islamic State in Iraq and in Syria.  Why beheading? Obviously, once you have captured or caught an enemy combatant, or a civilian such as a journalist, and have put that person in a defenseless state, there is not an exigency to execute that person and to do so would hardly seemed humane or justified, yet the Islamic State makes this part and parcel for who and what they are.  The Islamic State justification for beheading journalists or combatants is in retaliation for military strikes against their country which invariably creates carnage and civilian death.  The most probable reason that beheadings are used to take the life away from these men who are often seen to be as "pawns" in this grisly game of death, is most likely the "fear factor", the fact that it makes "good" theatre, and also, very importantly, the very personal nature of the staged death itself, since the sword or axe is controlled by the perpetrator from his hand to the neck of his victim.

The beheadings committed by the Islamic State are often taped andthen distributed throughout social online media with the attendant propaganda in the somewhat forlorn hope that by so doing so, that this act will somehow preclude future air strikes from countries such as the United States.  In actuality, it does nothing of the sort, except to make it almost a positive certainty, that military strikes will continue to rain down upon them, innocent civilians will be caught in the crossfire, and that the perpetrators of these horrific pre-meditated acts, will become targets of interest to America.

What the Islamic State fundamentally gets wrong, is that there is no terroristic act that they could possibly conceive or execute that will ever get Western nations, most notably the United States, to cease and desist in protecting their own or in asserting their own massive power.  If the Islamic State has any moral high ground or moral suasion on their side, they effectively negate it by executing people that have done them no harm, and in a manner that only encourages scorn or hatred of their message and their position.  What the Islamic State fails to recognize is that turning the ship around of a country as mighty and as powerful as the United States, is something that takes concerted effort, intelligence, and the patience of Job, and that the sword of "avenging justice" that they wield, is absolutely nothing of the sort.

Unfortunately, beheadings by the Islamic State will not be going out of style anytime soon.  While the beheadings are an abject failure in regards to successfully rectifying wrongs by Western nations, they appear to be a supreme success in recruiting other Islamic disenfranchised men to their cause and are an effective tool of propaganda.  Regrettably, this is another sign of the downward spiral of man's inhumanity to man, completely unnecessary, and clearly wrong.  In absence of any clear dialog or diplomacy between rival nations or people, things will pretty much continue along this gruesome, bloody and God-forsaken path.

Are there any Black Majority States?

America has fifty states, to which none of them are currently black majority states, although the District of Columbia had been black majority since 1950, since 2011 it has become instead a black plurality.  There was a time, however, when there were three black majority states in America, to wit, Louisiana from 1830-1910, Mississippi from 1840-1930, and South Carolina from 1830-1910.  Additionally, three more states had black populations exceeding 40% for decades which were Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.  At the present time, there are zero states which have black populations of even 40% or above, the state with the largest black population is Mississippi which stands at about 37%.

In America, our election system, typically is setup so that the majority rules, or in absence of a majority, the plurality will often rule, so that there is something to be said about strength in numbers and in voting in general, as the winner of an election, will become by definition the arbiter or representative of what is or isn't policy for the greater whole, whether or not a significant portion of the population is or is not in approval of said policies.  Consequently, if there is a lot of commonality in people, such as creed, race, ideals, or the like, it behooves those people to join together to effect change.

After our civil war, to which many men of all colors were killed on both sides of the war, whites in the defeated confederacy were denied the right to vote, subject to individual loyalty oaths and the re-admission of their state into the United States.  The reconstruction amendments (13th to 15th) to our Constitution were specifically setup to assure, protect, and to mandate that all citizens, no matter their race nor slavery nor involuntary servitude, were entitled by law to not have abridged any of their immunities or privileges, nor to be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law.    These amendments to our Constitution were specifically enacted to protect the very class of people that had been abridged these basic human rights purely on the basis of the color of their skin.

For a very brief period of time, there were blacks that were elected to both the Senate and to the House of Representatives from the deep south of the United States from 1870 up to as late as 1901, but that would end, through intimidation, through fraud, and through violence.  For instance, for a short period of time, Mississippi had the first and then the second United States Senator, ever elected of color, in the years 1870-71, and then 1875-1881.  Since that time, there was been no black Senators elected from the state of Mississippi up and till the present day.  In regards, to the House of Representatives, Mississippi has had as many as eight delegates, but currently has only four delegates, due to their modest population, to which one of the districts, the 2nd district, is the only district that has ever elected a black congressman, which was not until 1987, when Mike Espy was elected.

The disappointment of the state of Mississippi, which should be a state with significant black power, or at a minimum have significant pockets of black power, is that instead it is one of the most racist, most discriminatory, and most unjust of any state because the whites are still the power behind the throne, with far too many of them unwilling to share, unwilling to change, unwilling to be fair, and unwilling to give brotherly love.

Women Major League Baseball

Back in 1992, there was the very successful movie, "A League of Their Own", based on the real All-American Girls Baseball League (AAGBBL) which was dramatized quite successfully.  The impetus behind the advent of the AAGBBL was the fact that during World War II, minor league parks were being disbanded, because of the lack of young men to play the sport, and with America being the land of entrepreneurship, imagination, and opportunity, some enlightened businessmen along with some professional MLB owners, came up with the concept of a baseball league for women which they were then able to bring to fruition, and to which the league was in business from 1943 to 1954.

Fast forward to 2014, and Sports Illustrated featured a 13-year old Mo'ne Davis on its cover, applauding this female phenom of Little League baseball.  Baseball is definitely a sport that females can play successfully and probably only necessitates a few modest rule changes to accommodate the differences in size between men and female athletes, but essentially the game can be played in current MLB or minor league ballparks with the probable inclusion of a portable outdoor fence to reduce the distance for a baseball to travel for a homerun.

The beauty of the women MLB would be similar to the concept behind the WNBA which uses the same arenas that the NBA uses, but schedules its games during the NBA off-season.  Because baseball is played outdoors, the women MLB games would have to be scheduled while their respective MLB or minor league affiliates were on the road, which is easy enough to do, and obviously their season would be significantly shorter, perhaps just accommodating the traditional summer break with games primarily on weekends.

Women with a baseball league of their own, is a concept that could be successful again given the proper funding and the proper foresight.  Unlike basketball, to which having just one important physical factor, which is height, can be the strongest determinate as to whether you will or will not be successful in the sport, baseball is a sport that embraces women of a greater variety in both weight and height, as long as your incumbent athletic skill is developed.

Another advantage that a women's baseball league would have is that some of the rules within the game, could easily be looked at, modified, tested and then utilized first in the women's league that later may be applicable to MLB.  For instance, the amount of visits to the mound could be limited; the amount of time between pitches could be monitored with something akin to a shot clock, as well as limiting the amount of time that a batter can step out of the batter's box.  Additionally, a line could be drawn on the base-path just beyond a reasonable lead-off point, so that if a base-runner does not place a foot beyond the line, no pick-up throws would be allowed.  Also, the foul line, which runs in a straight line from home plate to 1st and3rd-base and then extends out to the outfield, could be changed, so that once the foul line passes 1st and 3rd base, it could be angled out to incorporate more of the outfield as being in fair territory.

The women's MLB would be faster and perhaps a more fun game than MLB, more like a throwback to the bygone days when there was more daytime baseball and the love of the game was the motivating factor with the watching and the playing of baseball considered to be the family pastime.

Wikipedia

There are people like myself, that get curious about a certain subject and therefore want to find out about it and that leads to another subject and to another subject and so forth, so that encyclopedias have always been a part of my life.  The nature of encyclopedias, however,  have changed over time, so gone or marginalized are the World Book, Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, and so forth.  Today, when people think of encyclopedia, they are thinking about it online, and the company that they are drawn to again and again is Wikipedia.  Wikipedia dominates the online encyclopedia world, to which according to econsultancy.com "Wikipedia has a massive 97% share of internet visits among the top five reference websites," which is an absolutely stunning domination, especially for a company that relies on unpaid volunteers to write and to edit articles on Wikipedia.

Although from a consumer standpoint I have to admit that Wikipedia does a fine, fair and comprehensive job in delivering content that is pertinent and meaningful, I am somewhat puzzled though by how consistently Wikipedia entries lead or are at nearly the top on so many of my Google searches.  I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, or even that it is wrong in any aspect, it just seems suspicious because the internet is rife with companies that will give their eyeteeth to be at the top of the Google search engine results.  Something like this makes one ask the question, does Google feature Wikipedia entries at the top of their search results because this is more often the most meaningful response to a query and consequently this represents a win-win for all, or is there another possibility or possibilities?

The first question to ask, is will Google create its own encyclopedia to compete or to replace Wikipedia?  Before I answer this question, recognize that Google Chrome was not the first web browser, but currently is the most popular web browser in America, twice as popular as the 2nd place Firefox.  Also, keep further in mind that Gmail was not the first email application, but now ranks #1 worldwide.  To answer the question above Google did in fact come up with their own encyclopedia which was known as "Knol", created in 2008, but dissolved in 2012.

The next question to ask is it conceivable that Wikipedia may one day have its own search engine?  It certainly makes sense as their database is a comprehensive database of collective knowledge, its breadth is worldwide, it is wide-reaching, it is current, it is growing, and Wikipedia is a known product held in high regard.  Whether Wikipedia becomes its own search engine or is bought out by a search engine company such as Bing, to then compete against Google Search is definitely an intriguing question to ask.

I do believe, however, that Wikipedia and Google have a special relationship, perhaps implicitly understood, that each serves the other well, so that if the objective is to be both the best search engine and have the best go-to site that answers well the petitioner's requests, why change the formula.

Too Many Lawyers

According to answers.com there is: "one lawyer for every 265 Americans."  This means that the United States has the highest per capita amount of lawyers in the world.  While having an abundance of attorneys can be a net benefit for society because attorneys are needed both for civil as well as criminal law, as well as their desirability for their analytic skills, their understanding and respect for the law, along with their overall intelligence and fairness to their application of law.  In fact, archives.org, states that out of the fifty-five delegates to our Constitutional convention, that "thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training."  This would strongly imply that an understanding of the law is a good and fundamental trait for those that desire to create foundational documents that will stand strongly through the test of time.

It is probably fair to state that a country without laws is either an absolute paradise to which all that live within it, understand that there is a Higher law that governs man's life, or a land of absolute chaos, that survives with the animalistic motto that "might makes right".  Ideally, lawyers exist within countries to assure the public that not only is the law fairly applied, but that law is sound and sensible to begin with.  The problem, therefore, with too many lawyers, is somewhat similar to the problem of too many cooks.  When your IQ is greater than average, your dedication and work-ethic are outstanding, you can reason well both inside and outside the box, you are highly motivated to exceed, as well as seeing the law as shades of grey and not something that is as simple as black or white, there are bound to be some significant changes in the daily dynamics of civilized life, to which our laws and the interpretation of such become something to be molded or twisted as opposed to something that is solid and well grounded.

It doesn't take a genius to note, that lawyers like to stay busy, as well as they have a necessity to make money, not only to pay for their higher education, but to establish themselves in society.  Consequently, lawyers have more than a vested interest in testing law, trying law, creating new laws, or overturning old laws, in order to create work for themselves and others, along with the possibility of providing tranquility and an improvement of the general welfare.

While eventually market forces will even out the most appropriate amount of lawyers needed in the United States, having highly intelligent people that are motivated more by what is in it for them, while not considering the long term consequences of their actions or the fairness thereof will have a noxious effect upon the law in general, because when bad law muscles out good law, or complex or convoluted law overtakes straightforward and honest law, the end result will be very bad for Americans and for society in general. 

There are too many misguided opportunistic and parasitic lawyers in America, breeding contempt for the law, which impugns upon the reputation of the good lawyers that are necessary for good law.

The Lord's Prayer

The most famous prayer in the world, the most said prayer in the world, the most known prayer in the world, is recognized as the Lord's Prayer, from Matthew 9-13, which is as follows:

"…Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen."

Luke 11: 2-4 has a slightly amended version of the Lord's Prayer, to which this above prayer was given by Jesus in answer to one of his disciples' request which was: "Lord, teach us to pray…"

Because of the importance of this prayer, which came from the mouth of Christ himself, one has an obligation to pay special attention to it and to know the true meaning and significance of this prayer, as opposed to being able to recite it from rote memory, but without the reflection and the sanctity that is due it.

The Lord's Prayer begins with "Our Father", and not "My Father", and that His name should be "hallowed".  The words "our Father" are extremely important, as important as any two words that you will come across in your entire life, because it is those words that make it clear that each of us, all of us, no matter where we are born, raised, or created, have the same Heavenly Father, therefore we are all brothers and sisters in God, as our Father is exactly the same.  Additionally, our Lord should be respected, with great reverence and love, and not to be trivialized.

"Thy Kingdom come" recognizes that the kingdom that is currently on earth is not of a heavenly origin, that therefore we suffer from the lack and the limitations of physical life and physical hurt that can only be healed by God's true kingdom of perfect love, truth and justice.  Further, the request that "Thy will be done" is a recognition that our free will here on earth, often leads us into errors of judgment and of form, and that thereby this can only be corrected by being in perfect tune with his Divine will.

"Give us this day our daily bread," does not literally mean just food for the body, but also encompasses the necessary food for the soul, for guidance, for abundance, for health, and for our own well being, to which we ultimately owe all of our good fortune to God.

"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" is of critical importance to understand, as the forgiveness that you receive is equal to the forgiveness that you give others.   For those that live lives of much criticism and hate, their forgiveness by their Father will be slight, even if their life is otherwise exemplary, whereas those that may have great sins and great faults, but are forgiving of their fellow brothers and their respective frailties, along with lending others a helping hand, will find that their debts forgiven will be substantial.

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil," is the petitioner's request to stay on the straight and narrow path, and not to wander off onto the byways that will entice and ensnare us.  It is another way of saying that when our flesh and our mind are weak, help us to straighten our spine and our thoughts, and if we should fall away from God's love and divine protection, do not forsake us, but save us from our own self-destruction and error.

"For thine is the kingdom," for this great saying we can bring in two other great religions, to which a Muslim prays that "there is no God but God," and the Jew prays "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the

Lord is one," to which all recognize that there is only one God, one kingdom, one power, and one everlasting glory, and that kingdom will never be vanquished, to which it has no beginning and will have no end, and that to Him we pay homage by our right actions, right thinking, and right deeds.

The Executive Office and War

Our Constitution makes it clear that Congress "shall have the power to declare war", but this declaration has not been made by our Legislative branch since World War II, which means that every war that the USA has been involved in since that time has been a declaration or a quasi-war brought forth from the Executive branch of our government.  The terrible thing about war is that war is a terrible thing, consequently one's involvement in war, should be carefully considered, reasoned, negotiated, debated, and contemplated upon.  War should seldom be a first choice, and should not be made under questionable circumstances because virtually all other alternatives such as blockades, diplomacy, embargoes, and humanitarian aid should be seriously considered by any mature nation, especially a nation that is looked upon as a world leader.

War isn't quite like boxing, but there are many people that don't mind boxing, if they do all the hitting, but never get hit back in return.  For far too many influential politicians, military, and corporations in America, war is looked upon as somewhat of a one-way street, profitable and also where we bully or put down other countries with relative calmness because of our superior technology, firepower, weapons, logistics, training, and experience.  To make matters evenpalatably better for the United States, the actual American soldiers that are in any real danger have a tendency to be young, economically disadvantaged, and with no political lobbying power.

To help even things out for the Executive branch of government, that perhaps finds it a little too easy to declare war, I submit that the Executive branch as a matter of honor, should have direct "skin in the game" when it comes to our foreign wars.  Consequently, all members of the Executive branch should be thoroughly vetted so as to ascertain the amount of relatives or children that they have that fall within the traditional bounds of our draft/selective service age of 18-26.  Further, since our military, now actively recruits females, both young men and young women should be made eligible. 

Once that list is ascertained, all of these young adults, should be compelled to serve their country in our wartime needs, to which a certain percentage of them must be placed in harm's way so as to give them a fair opportunity to not only show bravery, courage, and resolve, but if it should happen, to die or to be wounded in service to their country.  This, in itself, would make wars far more meaningful and far more poignant for not only the Executive branch in particular, but for all Americans.

There was a time in America when important and highly valued people would resign their position in government, in private enterprise, or in society, in order to serve their country in its time of need.  This action is still necessary in order to demonstrate to the population at large, the commitment and the incumbent obligation that those in power and influence must bring to their nation and its ideals, so that if the war is good enough to be declared by the Executive branch, it is also good enough to risk your fortune, your family, and your life for.