Obama’s Afghanistan Extended Commentary (B3N Roundtable)

It is good to see that sometime after you make a statement for a video, print source, or any other form of media that later on down the line someone higher up confirms you are right. They may not even know you made the statement or maybe perhaps they do. Regardless, it is good to know you know what your talking about. Maybe one day I’ll go viral on something important to people like Peter Schiff did on predicting the economic collapse of 2008 but till then I guess I’ll just keep working away here and on Big 3 News.

Now incase you don’t know what I’m talking about here is what is up. General Stanley McChrystal sent a report to Obama that he needs more troops in Afghanistan, but not to be fooled into thinking that just more troops will solve the problem and that their needs to be a rethinking of the strategy in Afghanistan. The strategy is elaborated in General McChrystal’s interview with CBS. It’s a simple one but it’s not going to be easy to execute for sure. General McChrystal outlined that the military forces in Afghanistan need focus on protecting the citizens and not killing the enemy. You would think that would be somewhat the same thing but it is a much different game. The Taliban have been using videos to give the elusion that military forces in Afghanistan are purposely maiming and killing civilians. While this isn’t true it works because it is almost inevitable that civilians are going to get caught in the crossfire because of where the Taliban targets troops and even targets civilians as pointed out in the CBS interview. It is a difficult thing to do, but as I pointed out in this video it’s the thing we need to do.

There are people, though I can’t remember there names or the name of the organization, that were shown on PBS who are going to the mosques and religious schools in Pakistan and teaching a less hardline doctrine to the people and it’s working. This I think is what the US strategy in Afghanistan should be. The should have people to work and talk with the civilians. The military should take more of an approach to protect civilians rather than attacking the enemy. They should stop the drone attacks which are largely ineffective and have attacked civilians which only undos the goal of the military in Afghanistan. If the military followed this strategy then there would be no need to fight the Taliban because it would fade away of it’s own accord because the people feeding it’s rank and file membership would see this fight for what it really is.

However this shouldn’t be the end of it. America needs to end its interventionist foreign policy. We need to only attack in defense of our nation. This doesn’t mean we have to downsize our military but it does mean that we need to stop getting involved everywhere around the world. We need to bring our troops home from outposts that are no longer needed. That way we end groups like the Taliban, who their main beef with us is that we are constantly involved in the politics and goings on in the Middle East. I wish I was their for the roundtable on General McCrystal’s report to Obama because I think I would have been able to bring home this point even better. Hopefully this will be the future strategy and we can bring our troops home.

Flight 93 Memorial Extended Commentary (B3N Roundtable)

This is going to probably be short because we agreed mostly on this in the video. Expensive. How expensive? Too expensive. I can say without a doubt that all of us felt there should be a proper memorial to the people who died on 9/11 and to the people on Flight 93, but seriously what are they going to build out there with all of that money? We don’t need elaborate statues and monuments to ever person who dies for freedom. I think it would almost add to the experiance of going out there on a small rural road to to the site, having a plaque with all the people who died on Flight 93, the hole in the ground where the plane went down preserved somehow maybe, and then a perimeter around it with a small museum on the history of 9/11. We know that 9/11 was a horrid event but seriously I don’t think they even spent this much on the Pearl Harbor memorial – the biggest attack on American soil up until 9/11.

But there is one thing at the end I would like to bring up and that is the issue of the purchasing of the property. The government finally agreed to a purchasing price for the land and payed out $9.5 million two the land owners to help set up this memorial. I’m glad that this happened instead of what I heard might happen if they didn’t close in on a deal. My understanding is that in the final days before Bush left office, plans were put in motion that if the land owners didn’t accept the US Government’s offer for the land that the government would claim their land condemned and take it. Even worse was that it was advocated for by the families who had loved ones die in Flight 93. While I can’t understand what they went through on 9/11. Levying the power of the government to take other peoples land to construct a project like this is outrageous. I’m glad an reasonable agreement was reached but the fact that this could have well been something much nastier ruffles my feathers a bit. It kind of taints the story a bit.

Free Speech Up in Smoke Extended Commentary (B3N Roundtable)

Lets just get this straight there is more to smoking laws than free speech. Freedom in general are at risk by the government’s curtailing of cigarette products. There is a lot of wrong in smoking laws. Sin taxes are invasions on freedom and the government attempting to enforce their morals – or the morals of the majority – on the minority of smokers because it is seen as a bad habit. Smoking bans in restraints and other places which give public access to private property also is destroying individual property rights. However the topic of this video is this recent (or was at the time of the video) smoking bill passed and signed by President Obama. The video is about a lawsuit by some tobacco companies against the law’s restriction on advertising. Since it was a short video there is no way I could fully elaborate on my points so I put the video above and below I’ll show you what I would have said if this debate could have been extended further.

“For the first time the Food and Drug Administration will be able to regulate tobacco products”

- Christopher Dodd (D-CT)

And a lot more too. The FDA will have full control over the regulation of the advertising, marketing, and manufacturing of tobacco products. I hope I can start buying stock in the FDA because they might as well just own the tobacco companies at this point. The law will mandate bigger graphic warnings on the package. Most cigarette flavorings – with the exception of menthol – will be banned because it might get kids hooked. The FDA gets to regulate the amount of nicotine content in a cigarette. New laws will further limit tobacco ads. Which reminds me, when is the last time you saw a tobacco ad on TV or anywhere outside of a gas station for that matter? The law states that it prohibits colorful ads that would attract kids to tobacco products. I guess now just like the pop culture the government now thinks that all kids have ADD and that parents can’t…well…be parents. Seriously I could have a bright colorful ad for a band, and I mean a classical music not a rock band etc., and I’m fairly safe to say it doesn’t mean I’m marketing to kids. Though I will say that there is two things I don’t mind them going after. The ingredients label and the “low tar” and “light” cigarette labels. Still to think that people think this regulation doesn’t go far enough. Some wanted the FDA to remove nicotine all together. News Flash: Removing the nicotine would only make people move to ecigs. Lets face it people don’t smoke for the hell of it. The smoke for the drug in the tobacco, nicotine. Get rid of the drug and ya they would stop smoking but they are still addicted to the drug. Congratulations but you didn’t really solve the problem.

What is even sadder is that Phillip Morris was behind and help write this bill. Yes, that’s right, the same company that gives services to customers that this bill blatantly attacks helped write this bill. Then it dawned on me. That is what a big tobacco company wants. This bill, while hurting them, preserves them on top of the tobacco industry and kills of competition. How you might ask? Quite simple companies have to bare the burden of paying for the FDA regulation. That’s right so not only are you going to be paying for those big sin taxes your going to get an even more sinisterly hidden tax to pay for all of this. Not to mention all the new laws that require removal of some of the nicotine, the ad restrictions, and many more restrictions and you have created a law that not only falls short of its goal but creates a monopolizing cartel of elite tobacco companies. Way to go big government.

On top of all of that I don’t even trust the FDA to do this in a fair and just way anyway. If you have seen the smear campaign the FDA has been launching against e-cigarettes then you’ll know what I mean. This is all white wash. Either the FDA will be understaffed and the regulations will be unfairly enforced to keep the tobacco cartel in power or the FDA will just sit on its ass like it normally does. Either way Joe American is going to be paying for it in more ways than one. I understand Jennie’s concern but when are people going to take responsibility for their kids. Bottom line when people become adults they should have the right to put whatever they want into their own body and the government needs to just back off.

Lost in the Weeds

I watched that video and asked myself: Why is Governor John Lynch (D) so afraid of a law to decriminalize small possession of weed? Heck it wasn’t even a law to legalize. I thought that the Democrats were the party that was about attacking the dealers and prevention with leniency towards the actual users. Bill Clinton was even behind setting up funds for more drug rehab. Yet here we have Governor Lynch finding it so much an issue that he threatened to veto it causing the New Hampshire Senate to kill the bill after the House had passed it 193-141. The bill, HB 555, would decriminalize anyone who possesses less than one ounce of marijuana to a fine of at the max $100 at forfeit of the weed. If they are under the age of 18 they also have to take a drug education class, community service, and their parents are notified. Failure to do so is an additional $1,000 fine.

I personally thing the decriminalization step should be skipped and go straight to legalization, but even still for a Democratic governor in a state like New Hampshire, which actively supports people who walk off the beaten path, why would this bill be such a threat. Here is why: Governor Lynch recently pumped up the police force. Lynch is rather proud, and rightfully so, that New Hampshire is the safest state in the nation two years running. He worked with local law enforcement to craft new laws against sex offenders. He also is responsible for increases in the state police department and in state prosecutors. He sees this law as a threat to the power of his legacy, as if an ounce or less of weed being decriminalized is some how going to tear apart the moral fabric of the state of New Hampshire.

This, unfortunately, is the state of affairs in the whole of the United States. Politicians fail to understand that decriminalizing drugs would lead to less non-violent offenders in prison. Even more so if it was legalized. It would let police focus on REAL crime and all the organized crime would not be able to profit from it the same why they were back in the era of alcohol prohibition. People should be free to put whatever they want into their own body so long as they harm no one else. Freedom should be the base rule on this issue.

Hello world!

This is the place for Sean’s blog.

Sean is a contributer for Big3News. Expect a new blog to be up shortly!