3 Reasons A Massive ICE Raid is a Bad Idea



There are many emotions on both sides of the immigration debate as a massive ICE raid is on the horizon. The raid had previously been postponed but is back on schedule over the weekend to be executed on Sunday, July 12th. The ICE raid will target ten U.S cities nationwide and is projected to result in thousands of arrests, detentions, and potentially deportations. Contrary to what Trump and the media seem to want us to believe, however, this is not the first time the government has executed a massive crackdown on immigration either through mass deportation or militarized border operations. From the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930s to Operation Wetback in 1954, all the way through Bill Clinton’s Operation Gatekeeper, the government has always been involved in massive crackdowns and raids but they haven’t always gone well.

1. American Citizens will Be Caught-Up

Around the 1930s the United States began to see an economic downturn that would see the crash of the stock market and record losses in jobs. The Great Depression would take a great toll on many Americans, and their newest immigrant group would be no exception. America already seemed to have been developing a shifting of Mexicans, having made border crossings a criminal act for the first time in 1929. Then Americans decided they didn’t want Mexicans to share in their New Deal programs and began to blame them for the disappearing of jobs. There was a call to return these new arrivals to their old “home”.

On a federal front, the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930s was focused on deporting Mexican nationals, especially with no proper papers or legal verifications of their approved status in being here. Local agencies who were involved in the actual execution, however, made their focus on Mexicans in general. Of the over 1 million Mexican nationals and individuals of Mexican descent, this historian estimates that about 60% of them were United States Citizens. That’s 600,000 citizens forced out of the country that didn’t deserve to be.

While no official numbers to seem to be available it is also said that many of those deported in Operation Wetback were U.S citizens. police-275875_640

With President Trump having advocated an approach tossing away due process “for illegals” and “criminal aliens” (those who allegedly came here illegally) don’t ever doubt for a minute that these massive ICE raids will be no exception.

2. Unintended Consequences: The Blowback of Immigration Policy

The CIA once coined the term “blowback” as a way to describe the unintended consequences of foreign policy. One of my favorite examples was when the United States in co-operation with Great Britain installed the Shah of Iran, a brutal but somewhat pro-western military dictator whose rise and subsequential overthrow would lead to the rise of the Ayatollah.

Of course, these mass migrations and the violence at the border are also related directly to foreign policy, but there is a glimmer of blowback even how our government handles its immigration matter. Between the years 1998 and 2005, the U.S government undertook a massive deportation operation that sought only to deport those with a criminal background. Between those years we sent away 46,000 criminals many of them violent and dangerous. Three little countries including El Salvadore, Honduras, and Guatemala, received about 90% of them.

Keep in mind these are criminals that have adapted to and essentially been trained by a modernized police force and prison system, and thousands of them in just a couple of short years have been dumped into three small countries that have neither. We essentially unleashed the Arkham Asylum onto three small central American countries.  This caused criminal organizations and gangs to overrun the authorities there, who received not even the decency of fair notice from the U.S.

Many of them set up drug smuggling and human trafficking syndicates, and many acted as coyotes ironically bringing more drugs, more criminal activity, and more human trafficking into the United States. Not only that but these three countries also now boast some of the highest murder rates in the world. Add to this thousand of asylum seekers and undocumented workers that have lived in the United States for years, including dreamers who are likely to return as human trafficking victims, and we’ve essentially made it Christmas for criminals. Even in our immigration policies it seems, there are unintended consequences. Will these ICE raids be any exception?

3. It Hurts American Industry

The nationalist’s argument on the economy front is always the same, “They steal our jobs and hurt the economy” and the argument is always wrong. I discuss this in my book and have cited plenty of research that disproves it. Wharton School of Business, The National Academy of Sciences and Engineering, The CATO Institute, and the Hamilton Project run by Princeton Universities are just a few of the sources that agree with me the immigration is good for the economy (whether lawfully approved or not) Not only that but massive ICE raids that result in deportations actually hurt the economy. Wharton School of Business released a “policy simulator” in 2016 showing that, but we have also seen it play out in real life.

In 2011 an immigration crackdown in the state of Georgia cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars due to lost crops that resulted from a lack of labor for the harvest. The governor attempted to replace the migrant workers with prisoners but the plan backfired when prisoners walked off the job because they couldn’t take the heat.

It had also been reported that the hotel and restaurant industry in the state had been affected as well. While it could be argued this particular ICE raid may not affect the farms since they’ll take place in major cities we can see through many examples and endless research that the loss of migrant labor and consumer immigrants will most certainly be felt.

Bonus reason Number 4.

Some of our detention centers are already overcrowded.

The Crisis We Created: An Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson


Dear Dr. Dobson, Let me first say that you have accomplished many things that I admire even if I may not always agree with your politics. As a child I grew up listening to your Adventures In Odyssey series and as a young teen read a couple of your books. I had at some point come to appreciate what your organization has tried to do for families across America in strengthening marriages and providing guidance for parents and children. That being said I did have some concerns I wanted to mention, with all due respect, of course.

Recently, I was able to read your newsletter detailing your visit to the southern border. While I do agree with some of your points I fear I must respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions. First I want to clarify that both Democrats and Republicans have politicized this issue for years rather than provide us solutions that work for all Americans. It is both parties, not one that must be blamed especially when you consider America’s role in creating these refugee crises in the first place. We have a long history as a nation and as a government of propping up dictatorships, overthrowing democratically elected governments, and training war criminals and terrorists throughout the world. And even now we continue to do many of these things,and oddly enough we have done so in some of the countries you mentioned in your newsletter.

As a Christian, I believe we should accept responsibility for our actions. As the good book says, “What a man soweth that shall he also reap” If we are ever to confront the border crisis head-on America must accept its role and responsibility in contributing to this international crisis and begin to change its role in the world. I have written a book detailing this subject, though it only gets to the tip of the iceberg on the immigration issue and issues that surround it including our mistakes in foreign policy and the war on drugs, which have exponentially escalated the violence surrounding drug prohibition across Latin America and the world. While pointing out the problems and their causes I also point out opportunities and solutions. Despite the book’s title, “You’re Wrong About Immigration: An Open Letter to Donald Trump” it is not a criticism of the president but a letter to him attempting to start an honest conversation on this issue. I’d like you to also have a free signed copy if you’ll allow me to send it to you as a token of my esteem.

Like you, Dr. Dobson, it breaks my heart to see what is happening on our border each day, but it equally breaks my heart that there are solutions that are widely ignored in favor of partisan politics. Nothing will ever change as long as the two parties continue to point their fingers at each other and not at the years of bad policy on more issues than one that has led to this situation.

That being said I did have one more concern. I was very moved in your newsletter when you told the story of how you asked the interpreter to tell some of the refugees that God loves them and you love them. I ask this not to attack but to understand. Beyond words what did you do to show these refugees God’s love? Other than observing and reporting back what did you do, as a follower of Christ does, to help these people during your visit? Just remember what the bible says in James 2

“If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

With all due respect our love, our thoughts, and our tears do nothing for those who are among the “least of these” if we do nothing to help.

I hope if you haven’t already done so you will use your next trip to the border, if there is one, to carry out the mission of Christ in showing his love and helping those in need.

I thank you for taking the time to read my letter and wish you the best,


David B. Beaver


P.S: This is an open letter to you that will also publicly be posted on my blog www.eoi2017.wordpress.com

I will not post your response without your consent.

How to Be A Blogger If You Don’t Have Time to Blog


I have seen it countless times before. We’ve all been there. Bloggers often fail too early for no other reason than that they find themselves overwhelmed with the task of producing original content. Visitors that see a blog that hasn’t been updated in weeks or even months will assume two things:

1. The blog is no longer active and there’s no point visiting

2. The blogger is not dedicated to their craft

It takes time, effort, and energy to write blog posts from scratch, for some bloggers, that is simply time and energy they don’t have, and then, of course, there’s the monster we know as “writer’s block” I’m sure you’ve asked at least once or twice,

What should I write for my next entry?”

When can I find time to write it?”

Failing to answer these two question will result in your inactive and inconsistent blog to die before it even launches. That’s why I’m here to to help! Let me do your blogging for you so you can spend time doing what’s important. What would you do if you didn’t have to worry about sitting in front of a computer blogging all the time? Grow your business? Spend time with family and friends? Well, I’m here to make that happen for you.

I have years of experience as a freelance writer and blogger on Fiverr and beyond, and my five-star reviews speak for themselves. My buyers love my work and I know you will too. Take for example Fiverr user and survivalist blogger SuccessMC.


The best part is, it’s better than a 100% money-back guarantee. There’s zero-risk for you. If you don’t like what I’ve written you can simply reject my delivery, cancel the order, and never have to pay a penny. If anything I am shouldering the risk because I will dedicate my time and energy into producing your content and once I send it to you for approval I can’t take it back. I won’t get paid if you don’t like it, but you’ll still have the work that I delivered. I’m willing to operate under these conditions because I know that you’ll love the work I produce for you so much you’ll come back for more just like other users have

bandicam 2019-06-22 15-41-10-406

Because I provide you with

-Well written and researched blog entries

-Quick responses and close communication

-On time delivery

-Unlimited revisions

-Excellent, high-quality content


Don’t let your blog gather moss and die away! I’m here to help! Place an order now or contact me with the details of your project for a customized offer by visiting my page on Fiverr. You won’t regret it!

Click this link and we’ll get started today!

Innocent Blood Pt. 2: 4 Cases that Reveal The Truth about Capital Punishment

law-1063249_640In my previous entry, I explained that there are many flaws in our court system and because of them too many innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. In many of these cases, the individuals were exonerated later because of new emerging evidence. Once released from prison some were even awarded settlements as compensation, though some were not so fortunate.

It’s hard to say how many innocent people the state has executed because of our broken criminal justice system, especially since as they say, “dead men tell no tales” but there are some among the living and in history who have shown us the flaws of the American court system.

There are likely more cases than we know of, but listed below are four that are unsettling:

John Stoll

Featured in a film produced by Sean Penn, “Witch Hunt”, John Stoll was one of many to be falsely convicted on charges of molesting numerous children, including his own. He would go to prison as a sex offender and child molester for over 20 years before the courts would realize their mistake. All of the children who had testified against them, now adults, recanted their testimonies and the judge ruled the methods used by investigators to question the children rendered the testimony unreliable. Mr. Stoll was exonerated of his crime and released from prison to receive a somewhat generous settlement for his time unjustly served in prison. Even so, the ordeal could not be undone by money. The injustice would end up costing Mr. Stoll two decades of his life, his relationship with his son and mother, and his reputation in the community.

Mr. Stoll was innocent but proven guilty in the court of law based on hysteria and unreliable testimony that investigators still deny any wrong-doing in the process of gathering.

Clemente Aguirre

Florida man Clemente Aguirre was one of many to be wrongfully convicted of the ultimate crime, murder, and it was a double. In 2004 he had a little too much to drink one night and wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time. Since he was seen at the scene of the crime and blood was on his clothing it was assumed he committed the crime. Mr. Aguirre spent 14 years in prison and had been on death row when DNA evidence and new evidence suggesting the daughter of one of the victims had already several times confessed to the crime, cleared him of all charges.

Mr. Aguirre and his lawyers successfully cleared his name before he was set to be executed or died in prison but other victims of the system were not so fortunate. Others have been exonerated post-humously.

George Stinney Jr.

George Stinney Jr. made history in the country at the age of 14 by becoming the youngest person to be executed in the United States. It was said that he was so small that the straps of the electric chair they used wouldn’t fit properly and he had to sit on a book.

Stinney was convicted based solely on a confession he gave police who apprehended and questioned him with his parents nowhere in sight or earshot of the beating to death of two young girls. There was no physical evidence and no eyewitness testimony linking him to the crime.

It wouldn’t be until 70 years after his conviction and execution that he would be exonerated of all charges.

The Central Park 5

Some people have only recently become familiar with the case of the Central Park 5, partly due to the presidents ranting and moaning about it, but more recently after a Netflix miniseries How They See Us

In 1989 five teens, all of them between the ages of 14 and 16 at the time, were accused ofthe brutal beating and rape of a female jogger in Central Park late at night. Police apprehended the boys who had only two things in common allegedly linking them to the crime:

1. they were ethnic male teens (4 black, one Latino)
2. They were allegedly seen somewhere in central park that night and were suspected of being part of a much larger scale attack that night in which many joggers were beaten and robbed.

There was no evidence linking the boys the crimes committed that night except for a confession that they and their families insist was coerced by the police. The police allegedly apprehended them, questioned them intensely for hours, and even deprived them of food, water, and bathroom breaks, according to one.  All the while questioning them without the presence of an attorney or even a parent.

There was no physical evidence linking them to the crime, the boy’s confessions themselves contradicted one another, and there was no direct eyewitness testimony. Despite this, the boys were convicted and would serve years in prison and some time on parole before they would be exonerated years later when the real attacker came forward to confess.

Mr. Reyes, a serial killer, and rapist had performed a similar attack two days before and admitted to both the assault and the rape and confirmed that he acted alone. DNA evidence, as well as details Mr. Reyes, recalled from the crime scene proved that his story was true. After reinvestigating the matter the DA’s office exonerated the Central Park 5 of all wrongdoing.

Around the time of the crime our now President Donald Trump took out an ad in the Times calling for New York to reinstate the death penalty so the boys could be executed, it read:

“Reinstate the death penalty, bring back our police”

After having their childhoods ruined and their lives adversely altered in irreversible ways, they were awarded together with a settlement of $41 million dollars for their false incarceration. While that money cannot give them back their childhoods nor the time they lost with their families, it has gone a long way into helping them resettle into society as productive members.

If it were up to men like Donald Trump, five innocent men would be dead, and they would never have been given that chance…

The state should not have the right to murder its own citizens in cold blood. Too much innocent blood has been lost because of it.

Innocent Blood Pt. 1: Why I Oppose the Death Penalty


As a kid, the world seemed like a much simpler place. We knew who the bad guys were. We had a basic understanding of right and wrong, and a very clear moral compass. Everything was black and white, good vs. evil. As adults, we learn that real life is not so simple.

What crime is worse than murder? You prematurely end the life of a person who didn’t deserve it and leave their families behind to suffer from their loss. “An Eye for An Eye, a Tooth for Tooth” After all, the man or woman who is accused of such a heinous crime and is convicted by our court system always deserves it. Right? Wrong!

A life for a life, it seemed like a fair trade. That’s why I supported capital punishment, but as I got older I began to hear more and more cases that have revealed that things are often not what they seem in the courtroom. Too often in the courtroom justice get’s the wrong guy. Too many times our justice system because of its flaws has convicted the innocent. And for all the cases we know of, how many more may exist that we don’t even know about? There are certainly many flaws that can be addressed and I’ve proposed at least a few on this blog, but it may never be a perfect system. The death penalty is permanent and forever irreversible. There can be no healing nor reconciliation, no closure and no revelation of the truth that is needed for justice to prevail. After many of the cases I have seen over the years I have been convinced of two things:

1. The state cannot be trusted with the decision of who should live and who should die.

2. The government should not be given the right to murder its own citizens.

Tomorrow, in my next entry I will share just three of the many cases that explain why I will always oppose the death penalty.

The Free Green Market pt. 3: Subsidies and Regulations



When we are talking about climate change and energy solutions we must examine the United States and its subsidies for fossil fuels. It is no secret that oil, coal, and other dirty fossil fuels are propped up by the government, and that the companies producing these types of energy have their hands in the pockets of many of our politicians. Despite this it never seems to occur to our elected officials claiming to have the solutions on climate change that propping up one industry over another is neither a free market nor a green market.

Rolling Stone Magazine reports that the United States has spent more money on subsidies and supporting industries like oil and coal than it has spent on war and defense. In 2015 the total budget reported by the pentagon came to about $599 billion while tax subsidies for fossil fuels came to about $649 billion. It shouldn’t surprise us then that these industries remain competitive and that these types of carbon producing energy sources remain popular in the U.S. When we consider how we subsidize carbon in this country,we begin to see that a carbon tax is redundant when compared to the option of phasing out the subsidies that push carbon production in the first place.

Not only do subsidies like this harm green energy that would otherwise be more readily produced and consumed by a free market, but the regulations do as well. The Harvard Business Review reports that unnecessary regulations are costing the solar industry alone an additional $70 billion. Such regulations also slow the growth of solar by making it less effective, for instance regulations that prevent many Americans from investing in “plug and play solar” systems that would allow them to use significantly less grid electricity wherever they live at the time.

Instead of adding new taxes and regulations that will only harm Americans and cost both the government and the economy billons of dollars I propose getting rid of the regulations that kill green energy, and the subsidies that prop up their polluting competitors. I suggest these subsidies be phased out overtime to avoid shocking the economy since their removal will lead to increased prices in fossil fuels that we still rely infrastructurally. Over time, this will even the odds and green energy will begin to see new triumphs.

By adopting a truly free market system that allows the consumer, not the government, to regulate the energy economy I believe we will see significant growth in the green energy sector, by default leading to a reduction in our carbon footprint. I suggest that in this case, and more often than not, that the government is the problem not the sollution when it comes to allowing the growth and embrace of green energy and technology that carries the answers to climate change.


Book Release: “You’re Wrong About Immigration”



I’m posting this to announce the release of my new book “You’re Wrong About Immigration: An Open Letter to Donald Trump.” In this book I discuss the facts on immigration as they relate to our current policies, and the discussion on the American political scene.

For some time now I have offered an online service writing letters to Congress, and other public officials for clients seeking to make their voices heard as well as for activism and advocacy. In many ways, the format of this book, written as a letter addressed to the president, was inspired by my work there.

The book goes beyond merely criticizing President Trump’s harsh immigration policies and extreme enforcement methods and explores extensive data and history. The book explores some of the history of immigration in the United States and of the governments many failed policies that have contributed to the refugee crisis that appears to have been brewing on our own national border. These are not just sentiments held by the reader or a partisan group, but also a discussion of the facts on immigration and written in a way to educate and inform the reader as much as to provoke a thoughtful discussion.

The book also suggests remedies and reforms that work for Americans on all sides of the political spectrum as well as the immigrants aspiring to come here, who I argue help to make America great. The book is backed by substantial research and historical facts. In this book I don’t just give an alternative perspective, but also present the cold hard facts on immigration. These facts have been backed by historical examples, research from universities and think-tanks, and scholastic essays and books on the subjects I discuss. These facts will also help you better understand the immigration issue as it relates to our history, and some of the research available, allowing you to better understand the issue and discuss it more effectively.

The book is available as a paperback or Kindle book on Amazon.com.

You can find more information on my author profile recently featured in the local news, here in Central Pennsylvania.

I encourage you to check out the book for yourself. Amazon even offers a free peak so you can decide for yourself if it’s worth the read.

The Free Green Market Pt. 2: The Nuclear Option


When we are considering how to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and energy sources that pollute the environment you often hear about solar, wind, and hydro, but nuclear seems to be the elephant in the room. Not many people want to discuss the option for many obvious reasons. Nuclear plants can meltdown, they produce radioactive waste, and of course the fuel they produce and use can be turned into deadly weapons of mass destruction. Despite all of this there are many advantage to consider.

In an article published with Yale historian Richard Rhodes, who has written a number of books on the history of nuclear power and policy argues that Nuclear Power Must be Part of The Energy Solution.

First and foremost because nuclear energy uses the process of nuclear fission rather than burning fuels to produce energy it can produce unfathomable amounts of power while releasing no carbon emissions into the air during its regular operations. It also boasts a much higher capacity factor, which measures the amount of time a plant is actually producing energy. The sun is not always shining and the wind is not always blowing, but nuclear reactors are always producing.

Many fear the dangers of nuclear energy and nuclear radiation. 3 major accidents have occurred in global history involving nuclear power plants, in one of them, Three Mile Island in 1979, not a single soul died. Coal is meanwhile responsible for more deaths in terms of industrial accidents and has caused far greater health concerns having killed hundreds of times more because of the effects it has on local air pollution. Coal also releases more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear reactors.

Coal is not the only culprit in causing death, however. Other fossil fuels, even clean natural gas are guilty with high numbers as well, but renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, and hydro are guilty too. According to some research nuclear power is actually the safest way to produce electricity in the world.

In considering the cons of nuclear power including the risks of accidents, proliferation, and of course the dilemma of nuclear waste we should also considering the following


While there is still some research to be done on thorium some sources, including work published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, believe it may the be the future of safer and cleaner nuclear energy. It is believed to be more stable and safe, lower in levels of radiation, and much less likely to be weaponized.

Early research on thorium in the 1950’s at the dawn of the nuclear discovery, but also in a tumultuous Cold War, was shut down because thorium reactors produced significantly less plutonium, an important element in creating the atomic bomb. Uranium reactors produced much more of it and it was a time when nuclear weapons were in high demand. Today, some are taking a second look at it because this and the fact that weaponizing the substance would be much more difficult it may carry a lesser risk of proliferation while still providing comparable energy potential.


In considering the dilemna of nuclear reactors and their production of nuclear waste we should also consider what natural solutions may lie before us. Scientists have discovered that certain microorganisms may play a role in breaking down and reconstituting nuclear waste as safer, cleaner materials. This process is called bioremediation and through additional chemical processes may even be used to recover radioactive material for reuse in creating additional energy. In other words this process may actually allow us to recycle nuclear waste for even more power.

Similarly, phytoremediation, may also accomplish the same thing through the use of plants. Some research has done been showing that quick growing Vetiver grass was able to absorb up to 92% of the radioactive materials it was exposed to. Similarly studies have been done with many plants ranging from the water hyacinth to Chinese cabbage. More recently, however we are discovering that once again industrial hemp may play a major role. Hemp might even be, according to one Phytotech scientist the, “Best phyto-remediation plants we have found” Some are even considering using the fast-growing cannabis plant to clean up the disaster in Fukushima.







The Free Green Market Pt. 1: Hemp


Dear Representative Ocasio-Cortez,

Many have expressed concern with many of your radical proposals outlined in your Green New Deal, in particular, the costs and the effect they may have on the economy. You have argued, on the environmental front, that your proposals are necessary in order to combat the very serious problem of climate change. To your critics you responded in a tweet you posted back near the end of last month, saying:

“Yup. If you don’t like the , then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge – and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”

I will say that while I don’t care for the tone and language you used, I do agree with you on the main point. It’s always easier to criticize than to come up with ideas and solutions of your own, and it is indeed easy to “shout from the cheap seats” instead of contacting our representatives directly. Because of this, I’ve decided in response to your request, though it may come late, to submit a few of my own proposals and ideas to you. Let me first say that we do at least agree that the U.S should be doing more to address climate change, and indeed we should be more responsible stewards of this planet, especially in considering how our actions will affect future generations. That being said I do not believe your Green New Deal, is the path forward. I would argue instead that what we need is not to expand, but to scale back government involvement.

While Republicans may argue that we should simply “let the free market work” and Democrats argue for more government involvement, neither side seems to acknowledge how the government does more harm than good, and how the free market may well provide a path forward if we but gave it a chance. Too often I hear the free market bearing the blame, when in fact it very well may carry the answer. I suggest that the problem with carbon emissions and harm to the environment is less about capitalism and “greedy corporations polluting the air” (though the latter does seem to enjoy the current government model) and more about what the government does to cause harm.

In light of this, I would like to suggest the following ideas to reduce government involvement, rather than expand it, in order to create a Free Green Market.


In the European Union, we have also seen some sweeping measures being employed in order to reduce carbon emissions. One of these ideas has been to subsidize the burning of wood for heat and energy to replace nonrenewable fossil fuels that pollute the environment. On its face, it certainly seems like a good idea, and is said by some to be “carbon neutral”. The burning of woodchips can indeed be a very efficient way to generate heat. Many of these woodchips being burned have been derived from recycled building materials to offset the impact of deforestation as well. Trees are indeed a renewable resource and a relatively clean source of energy and heat. While they release smoke and carbon monoxide into the air scientists and climate change activists in some places have argued the trees they grow from offset whatever impact they have by absorbing all of that emission during their lifetime, releasing fresh oxygen into the atmosphere as they grow. The problem with this theory is first that according to some sources is that all of the carbon it absorbed during its lifetime is stored and then released upon burning back into the atmosphere. Believe it or not, this means it releases more into the atmosphere than many fossil fuels including coal and gas. To make matters worse the subsidization of wood burning in Europe, some assert, has led to mass deforestation to facilitate the demand. Even if we could keep up and plant a tree for each one that is burned it could take as long as 10-20 years for its emissions to be reabsorbed from the atmosphere at very least.

On the other hand, woodchips can also be derived from hemp. While a tree may take as long two decades to grow to its full size and be ready for harvest Hemp can grow between 10 and 20 feet high in as little as four months. In that time it is fully ready for harvesting and commercial use. While I haven’t researched or tested the theory it may also be worth considering whether or not this young plant would release fewer carbon emissions than its larger and longer-standing tree counterparts.  Either way it would substantially reduce the need for the resulting deforestation.

Woodchips aren’t all they have to offer, however. Hemp has been used in the manufacturing of canvas-like fabrics, rope, textiles, and paper. According to the Department of Agriculture, 1 acre of hemp can produce as much as 4 times more paper than an acre of trees. It is also naturally pest repelling and weed resistant, meaning no chemicals and/or harmful pesticides need to be used during its production. This makes it a much cleaner and more efficient alternative to similar crops including cotton.

Even as far back as Henry Ford hemp was even being used in the production of motor vehicles, but he had only discovered the tip of the iceberg as car manufacturers around the world are continuing to consider its potential in replacing other mined mineral resources in their production.  Some companies, for instace the Canopy Corporation are also considering its use as an alternative to petroleum plastics. Instead of banning straws and abandoning plastic grocery bags, what if they were made from renewable, rather than oil resources?

I do not suggest subsidizing hemp or expanding government involvement, but what if we eliminated subsidies for some their less environmentally friendly competitors like those we supply for timber and cotton?

Only recently through the passage of the Farm Bill, supported unanimously by the Senate and signed by the president, was industrial hemp made legal in the United States. This momentous decision has set the sky as the limit for the hemp industry, and it’s only the beginning. In light of the FDA promising to highly regulate the industry, and the strict licensing requirements, which this government has promised to rigorously enforce I also suggest considering the introduction of some legal protections for the industry and growers of hemp.

I also suggest scaling back some of the current bill’s restrictions that may be used to close the door of the industry to some disadvantaged individuals, or may be used as an excuse to prosecute and harass legitimate and licensed hemp growers.

This is a new beginning for hemp in America but the plant itself has far-reaching potential. Its legalization and the resulting industries that will develop will play a major role in revitalizing the economy, creating jobs, and indeed in cleaning up the environment.



AOC, The Free Market, and The Green New Deal


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been making waves since she began her campaign for the house in New York City where she would make the impressive leap from an obscure waitress to probably now the most famous (or perhaps infamous depending on who you ask) house representative in the country. Her many radical and I daresay notorious reforms have been laid out in a proposal she has called “The Green New Deal”, a proposal estimated to the cost the American taxpayers as much $93 trillion according to Fortune Magazine including the costs of her new environmental proposals to reduce carbon emissions, which alone soar as high $12.3 trillion, alone more than half our current national debt.

In addressing the issue of climate change we are going to focus on the latter, that is her environmental proposal. Specifically, I’ve written this as a response to Tweet she posted near the end of February in which said:

“Yup. If you don’t like the , then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge – and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”

It just so happens that even long before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal I have thought about this issue quite a bit. While I don’t necessarily agree fully with the radical, apocalyptic predictions of climate changers I do believe it is a real thing, and that we should be more mindful of our impact on the environment and how it will affect future generations. I also tend to believe personally, as a Christian, that we should be responsible stewards of God’s creation as he so entrusted us. Because of this, I’ve considered solutions of my own, and what I have found is that often the government solution is a redundancy. We encourage green energy initiatives in government, but the same government regulates away green energy sources. We pass taxes on carbon while providing tax subsidizies to fossil fuels and other carbon producing industries, we invest in foreign sources of green energy, but then enact tariffs on them.

We often hear conservatives saying the solution to climate changes is allowing the free market to do its job by supplying the already existing demand for more clean and efficient energy sources, and from Democrats that the free market has failed. What neither side seems to want to acknowledge is the great American myth of the free market? We can neither expect the free market to clean up the environment nor blame it for its woes when we have no free market, to begin with.

We regulate away the manufacturing and expansion of green energy in our country while passing cost-increasing tarriffs on green products we import. We subsidize fossil fuels like oil and coal, giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace, and we ignore the obvious free market solutions in front of us.

Despite government involvement, we are beginning to see the albeit slow rise of technologies like electric cars, and the rise of popularity in natural, and often plant-based solutions.

Currently, projections estimate that by 2050 the United States will increase its utilization of renewable energy resources to about 32% of its total energy use. These numbers, given the right conditions, which would require a reduction in government inolvement could be substantially higher especially in light of the fact that the public supports it, and thus there is absolutely a demand for green energy in the market.

In my next blog, I will be discussing a number of reforms in what I will be writing as an open letter to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, presenting my alternative proposal to tackling climate change. Instead of a Green New Deal, I will be proposing the creation of a Free Green Market, which will address government hindrances to an environmentally responsible marketplace as well as often too rarely considered solutions to the dilemma of carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependance in the United States.

My proposals, I argue, will lead to a significant reduction in carbon emission and dependence on fossil fuels without costing the taxpayer trillions of dollars and potentially harming the economy, and infact helping it through the encouragement of new and innovative industries that my well create jobs.

Once I’ve finished the blog I’ll also be sending the letter dirctly to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself. No guarantees she’ll read it, but who knows? Hopefully, you will consider doing so regardless as we engage in this very important conversation.