The French Effect

In less than 10 months, the French people--Parisians, specifically--witnessed the destructive nature of radicalized terrorism under the guise of Islam. Regardless of the view of the which part of Islam, or if any, are viewed as more harmful than other religious or spiritual sects, the major question is: what will the French response mean for the rest of the world

In the wake of the Fifth Republic of France being hit twice, the world sees this as either an opportunity to unify the world under a single goal, much like the goal of Reagan's to oust Hussein from Kuwait in the Iraq War, or to fail to respond correctly to the ballooning epidemic of ISIS. Francois Hollande's quick and decisive reaction saved the French from more catastrophic casualties. The sealing of the borders and the state of emergency has allowed them to protect their people and find and capture the conspirators.

Yet, in light of the information we now know, what will the French governments response. Their immediate response came on Sunday as French fighter jets launched a massive air assault on the capital of the Islamic State, Raqqa. More importantly, what will their goal be now. And would it mean intervention from more nations, including the United States--Frances long time ally and friend, despite the political differences and issues from Bush to now. It's very possible, depending upon the French governments reaction, that news sources have claimed that France may invoke Article 5 of the NATO alliance, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

This would mean that all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which includes the U.S. would have to legally intervene on behalf and concert with the French government in which would be necessary for the security of France to be restored. In this sense, the total annihilation of ISIS would only bring the safety of France back to balance.

If they choose not to invoke Article 5 of NATO, their policy on action would dictate a much larger role in the global response to the problem. American candidates would have to either agree to the terms of engagement because an ally of ours was directly attacked, or they would sour the relationship of the Franco-American ties. Particularly, this would hamper any Democratic nominee because of their hands off approach, or Obama Doctrine, would intefere with their goal of achieving a sense of US retreat from world affairs. Unfortunately, this would mean that several key regional leaders would fill the vacuum of power: the Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, all of which are opposing to US power, both soft and hard. Their engagement would pin the world into a difference of opinions not seen since the Cold War. Russian agression in the Caucus', Georgia, and east Ukraine would allow for Syria to become a satellite of Russia, Iran could take areas of Iraq and China would be able to beef up its military power in the Asian area without check. These events could only occur if France's decision to ask for a coalition of force to deal with ISIS and the US wouldn't agree to therms under the current Administration.

Either way, the French policy of how they will deal with ISIS, as descrobed by the President and Prime Minister of France, it is an "act of war." It will mean more engagement from French warplanes and highly probable French troops engaging in a war in Syria to defeat, occupy the IS and then  the government of Syria, either under Assad or under a new government. If Assad is removed from power, Russia will complicate these matters since it has engaged in aiding the Assad government.

Only time will tell about how much the French will engage, react, and prepare for war and whether her allies will engage as well or not.

The Rand Paul Effect

"KRS 118.405: No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day."

Kentucky has strict laws about the governance of how a Senator or Candidate should be allowed to run for office. In the Commonwealth, the rule of law states that no candidate can be on two different ballots, as shown above. However, Senator Rand Paul, has requested that Republican Party of Kentucky (RPK) Leaders change its own rules of Primary elections to a "Caucus" so that he may in essence, double dip on the ability, should he: prevail in the National Convention, fail in the National convention, or prevail in the Senatorial election.

However, let's look closer at this concept of changing party rules. To do so, would require first that the State Legislature would need to introduce a House Bill and Senate Bill to amend the Election rules, which is currently split in party control (the House by Democrats, Senate by Republicans). Then, if it was passed by the Legislature, the Governor would need to approve of the Bill or veto. Current leanings would indicate that that would never pass. Since the House has been under the control of the Democrats for nearly 100 years, it would never pass committee. Secondly, it would also require the State GOP to ratify the change to their own rules 8.04, to be exact. Then it would need to clear the RNC Rule 16.C.1, which states that no caucus, primary or convention may be earlier than March 1 unless they are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.

These are just rules, the facts of the matter. However, as noted in the Boston Globe piece by Jeff Jacoby, that in a Bluegrass Poll conducted from August 25 to August 27, 2014, if the Kentucky Law should be changed so that Sen. Paul may run as both President and Senator, it was 27% Yes, and 66% No, with only 7% saying Not Sure. The data clearly expresses that members of the Kentucky Commonwealth do not want Senator Paul to change the rules.

So, what would be the problem? Well, in a Caucus, that would reduce the amount of people who can vote in the election of the candidate for president, because instead of the collection of registered voters casting a ballot, a select few would allowed to vote, then an even less number of those would be allowed to sit at the Convention for the election of the Republican candidate. It's surprising, that a man of Libertarian leaning would wish for the de-valuation and deselection of voters to hold a chance to win the Nomination, Yet, like most politicians, power is everything. If it is one thing that the fictional character Frank Underwood has taught us, it's that power is everything and that he wants that power, even though, his ideas would be destroyed by any seasoned Democrat in office, No polling or popularity within the fringe element of the Libertarian caucus, would ever gain the strength to eliminate such a candidate, because while many want a freer world, the devolution of the strength of the US soft and hard power would be the asking price.

As it seems the Majority Leader McConnell has signed off on this theatrical display of power, the Chairman  of the State Party and the other members would look idiotic and arrogant in the eyes of the state and national party! Why would anyone want to risk us loosing our votes? Or risk losing our ability to vote? Why would Rand Paul decide that this is a good thing?

So many questions revolve around this process, and I hope, as a voting member of the Republican Party, they defeat this notion and defeat the possibility of running on two ballots. The law that was put in place is a proper law, one that prevents overreach and keeps politicians in Kentucky honest, or is honesty no longer Senator Paul's vision? Senator Paul isn't moderate enough to win over the core of the moderates in the Party and those in the Middle, but he can definitely win the Fringe voters, who would undoubtedly hijack his platform and ruin his career, unless that is his plan.

I urge every Kentucky Republican to call the State Party and tell them No Caucus!

The Marriage Debate

Oh, how I wish this were a topic of lesser proportions, but alas, it cannot be and never will be, Where did the marriage concept, legally speaking, become the dominant force for social and other policies to become so ingrained into a cataclysmic problem?

Over the course of history, marriage became a more spiritual and religious component to a more legal standing. Where and when the precise moments of that change are not easily found. Thus, it must be that during the mid to late 20th century, in America that such a concept was adopted: that marriage was descriptive of a legal point of view and under the purview of the government.

Now, I am no proponent of the government telling me that their description of marriage is absolute law. Before you begin to think, he's ok with bestiality or polygamy!, I do say that there are certain limitations that should be collectively argued as irreconcilable with society and the general welfare of the people.

With the growing approval of same-sex marriages from the repeal of DADT and DOMA (United States v. Windsor), it seems inevitable. With the 6th Circuit of Appeals defending the state constitutional bans in contrast with the 9th, 10th, 4th, 7th, 11th, all either overturning and staying decision for appeal to the Supreme Court or overturning and not staying for appeal, it created a split decision for a full Supreme Court hearing.

With the legal stuff behind, I looked to other things affecting the concept of full marriage equality. Unfortunately, there not much basis for a differing opinion for escaping this issue, unless common law marriages, civil unions, or eliminating marriage from the law are in concert with your beliefs.

I once discussed this issue with an old friend, who unfortunately since passed away from horrible circumstances, and while it was a lively debate, I do not regret this debate.

As a New Age Conservative, there are realities that we must get behind, and marriage equality for all, save the outlawed portions that are as previously stated not good for society and its general welfare, is going to be one of them.

It is a reality because, as I have stated in other posts, the hyper-religious and extremist far-right, have become the anti-morality of our time. They embody the things that are wrong with my party. Marriage has and always be a spiritual component of life, regardless of religious affiliation. Before the creation of many of the monotheist religious, homosexuality was once a common practice, with much of the Ancient  World never mentioning it because it wasn't an important topic.

Many of my Republican friends will most likely excommunicate me and cry foul, but that doesn't matter anymore. We have larger battles to deal with than marriage--to which I firmly believe is something that should be extended to all peoples. And yes, this a complete 180 from my belief of a few years ago.

My beliefs are my own, they can change and can be altered, However, one notion that I cannot stand, is Democrats and Republicans saying that I am a traitor to my party or a person who is "idiotic and stupid" for being a Republican or even a New Age Conservative.