Sponsored by WBC 8News.TV


Welcome to NonPartisans.Org


Our mission statement:
Advancing America, not a party, from a non-partisan point of view.

founded by Andrew Chulock

For greater privacy and to avoid GPS tracking by third parties, buy Two Cellphones. Turn Smartphone Off Unless actually Crunching, Or at Least Turn GPS Off. Buy a Flip Phone, Motorola Preferred, for voice and texting, with default E911 GPS on only to use for voice and texting.

Electronic Voting: Why I Still Prefer Paper
over Plastic

Nonpartisans.org hereby endorses Joe Biden for President.

Time for a Ceasfire in Gaza

-by Andrew Chulock
March 21, 2024

It is time for a ceasefire in Gaza. At over 30,000 deaths, with thousands more unaccountable, the death and misery at the hands of Netanyahu must stop and Netanyahu must resign. The United States and President Biden must make it clear that anything less than an unconditional ceasefire will result in the United States pulling arms support for Israel. The hostages that Hamas have taken must be released, but regardless of hostage negotiations an immediate ceasefire must occur. It is ironic and sad that Israel's existence, given to it as a result of genocide committed against the Jews, is now engaging in genocide itself. It is almost unfathomable to even fathom. 

The Healthcare Debate

-by Andrew Chulock
March 22, 2010

The current healthcare bill that just passed before Congress is too complicated and too costly to sell to the American public. President Obama has the right idea when it comes to providing access to health care for all. With over forty million uninsured Americans, clearly something must be done. A healthy America is not only a noble goal, it makes us more competitive in the global economic landscape. However there is too much money being spent too soon in the current proposal before Congress to fully digest where all that money is going. The two main problems with healthcare reform as it is being presently proposed are waste and the forceful way that it is being jammed through Congress by making health care insurance mandatory.

The current system being proposed makes it mandatory for all Americans to buy health insurance, even those that don't want or need it. Although the argument that people such as healthy twenty somethings should pay up for the overall good of the less healthly among us, this is inherently wasteful to the individual that does not need healthcare. There is an entire generation of people coming through college not on scholarship, struggling to pay their way through college, and saddled with student loan debt that is unconscionable and unimaginable, and is creating a class of workers that borders on indentured servitude. To require a new college graduate to assume the burden of even more debt in the form of mandatory healthcare insurance on top of a mountain of student loans is obscene.

A much better solution is to give the individual an annual stipend with the choice of purchasing healthcare insurance, or not buying healthcare insurance at all. Give the individual a certain amount of money each year, based on income, to be used at his or her discretion for any healthcare issue that may arise. All the money that is being proposed now in a mandatory health care insurance plan would be far better used in the form of health care subsidies that may be used soley for healthcare. If the individual does not need any healthcare for any particular year, the money is saved and not issued by the government. This is far more efficient than forcing everyone to buy healthcare insurance whether they need it or not. Some of the provisions before Congress now like dropping pre-exisisting conditions as a reason to deny healthcare coverage make sense, but forcing insurance companies to comply is not the free market way that will work. A provision in the healthcare bill can be made that only allows only those healthcare insurance companies that drop pre-existing conditions to get the subsidies granted to the patients.

In a system whereby citizens receive a subsidy that is appropriate to income, the free market would adjust and there would be no shortage of health care as is the fear with the current proposals on the table. More young well educated people in college would choose medicine over such disciplines as law and other high professions because of the increased demand in health care that would come in universal health care coverage by way of the subsidies. Medical schools would expand their admissions and new medical schools would spring up across the land to accomodate demand for more Americans finally able to realize affordable health care.New health care models such as H.M.O.s and P.P.O's would spring up across the nation and new companies would be started by entrepreneurial doctors, spurring economic growth. The overall economic boost to the economy would be substantial.

Unlike current proposals where health care would be mandatory and a tax or fine would be levied for failing to utilize the health care system, people sould have the option of using their health care subsidy dollars or not, but would have to use their health care subsidy dollars for health care.

The free market works. It has been tested time and time again and always rings true. What the health care system needs is a boost, based on individual needs not a complete overhaul.

The Bailout

by Darryl Bell
February 9, 2009

Article Preview: The government is giving Billions to bail out the rich and greedy. For many, the new administration’s rescue of our government, our national integrity, and our economy is a day late and a dollar short. The many solutions tossed around regarding ways to postpone foreclosures or revise loans to keep homeowners in their homes are great, but they do nothing for those who were already violated by predatory lenders and careless callous loan servicing companies. The thousands of families that are already out in the cold will suffer for at least the next seven years with the blight of foreclosure on their credit profile. If the government wants to provide stimulus from the ground up that will spur the housing market, they can make great progress by issuing amnesty to homeowners who lost their personal residence to foreclosure due to predatory loan terms, or job losses related to the catastrophic economy...

The Bailout (Foreclosure Credit Mulligan)

It would cost nothing to give direct help to families who have already been foreclosed, and increase the housing market demand, by returning those folks back to the market for a home without making them wait 7 years. Enact a law that gives all primary homeowners who lost their homes in foreclosure due to documentable hardships from the financial crisis a "credit mulligan" only on the foreclosure. This would allow these folks to compete for new homes on the merit of the rest of their credit.

Why can’t we give all primary homeowners who lost their homes in foreclosure since the financial crisis, a credit mulligan only on the foreclosure? This would allow these folks to compete for new homes on the merit of the rest of their credit, instead of eliminating virtually 7 years of all that demand represented by the increasing number of folks losing their homes.

It burns me that all these banks are getting a boat load of help but they want to turn around and charge ridiculous NSF fees. I have an unemployed friend who was charged $200 of NSF fees on visa check card purchases that totaled less than $25, sucking her deeper into the debt abyss. The bailout should require the banks to give a break on NSF fees for any overdraft totaling under $50 that are covered in under 3 days.

YES! and while they are at it the bailout should require the banks to give a break on NSF fees for any overdraft totaling under $50 that are covered in under 3 days. It burns me that all these banks are getting a boat load of help, paying their millions of bonuses, but they want to turn around and charge ridiculous N.S.F. fees. I have an unemployed friend who was charged $200 of NSF fees on visa check card purchases that totaled less than $25, sucking her deeper into the debt abyss. How can we turn around the economy when penalties are eating up the buying power, to fund ridiculous bonuses!

If the President can admit a mistake and seek forgiveness, isn't it hypocritical that he does not extend the same courtesy to his appointees? I am of the opinion that we should be putting real people into office, flawed and repentant who have compassion for the people they govern. We know that none of them are any cleaner than the others; some just have not yet been exposed. By expecting our leaders to be mistake free, we are creating an illusion of holier than though folks that cannot live up to the standard for long before they are exposed, while potentially better qualified men and woman (though flawed yet repentant) are not allowed to lead. We need to send the Christian based message that forgiveness and restoration is available to all people who sincerely seek it, even politicians just like Obama!

You're darn skippy. The free market concept suggests that unrequited greed would be curbed by the market itself; well here is the backlash to curb that greed. The people have spoken! if you want to exist, we will bail you out, but here are the consequences. For those who argue that you won't get quality CEO's without compensation, I say unemployment it is a heck of a motivator for people to curb their compensation demands. Let them compete for the positions at a handful of those companies who are still afloat or get on the unemployment line. Junior CEOs could not possibly do any worse and for much less pay! We need to usher in a new era of the business wiz kids who will work harder for less and not let greed get them out of touch with the hourly employee on the front line of their companies.

WBC 8News.TV, our News Channel

 Message in An Elevator:
How I Met Sting

A conservative laments: 
George W. Bush, the Worst President Ever?

 Darfur Genocide

 Darfur and Iraq: Priorities

Nonpartisans.Org Home

 The Troop Surge in Iraq

 The Democrats "You Tube Debate"

Police Salaries

 The Republican Debate



NonPartisans.Org Endorses Barack Obama
due to his support of high speed rail. I retract this endorsement.

by Andrew Chulock
April 13, 2008

After months of careful consideration, I am endorsing Barack Obama for President of the United States. This was an especially difficult decison this year as there were three excellent candiates left in Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator Obama. Above all else, I believe Senator Obama will unite this country. I believe in his campaign theme of hope and change, and after months of establishing this campaign theme, I believe Senator Obama has finally hit his stride and combined his message of hope with specifics of economic policy, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and addressing the genocide in Darfur.

Economically speaking, we owe this country's vast economic wealth and prosperity to our freedom. Sadly, during the last eight years, we have experienced a rollback in our personal liberties. It is our very freedom which allows us to start a new business, speak freely on the phone without fear of wiretaps, and the right to assemble peacefully without a camera pointing at us 24/7. There is a balance between privacy and security to preserve that freedom. I believe we are too close to crossing that line with the present situation. Barack Obama is a man that believes in freedom.When people in a society feel free, they do what they want to do and can create with the inspiration of the divine. For whatever reason, be it the fear of terror attacks, or a need to create jobs in the security sector, something has been lost in the last eight years. I believe Barack Obama is the man to stem the tide and bring us at least back to where we were before the attacks. Economic prosperity will thus follow.

On the subject of foreign policy, Senator Obama has a plan for Iraqi withdrawl. I believe we will have to maintain some forces in Iraq over a long period similiar to our presence in Germany and South Korea after those wars ended. However whether you agree with Senator Obama or not, he does have a plan. The current administration has none, other than to maintain just enough force in Iraq to maintain a quagmire, which really seems to help no other industry in the United States other than defense contractors and oil. Oil is the economic engine that drives this economy and is absoulutely essential to secure. However if we really had wanted to secure the oil in Iraq we could have sent far more troops to maintain stability in Iraq and thereby stabilize prices. The smaller current troop numbers, even after the surge, seem to have caused prices at the pump to go nowhere but up. Good if you own oil stocks, but at the expense of the average consumer. Senator Obama's plan, which has a definable strategy for exiting Iraq, will if nothing else stabilize oil prices and keep inflation down in the United States. His willingness to talk with foreign leaders, even hostile to the United States, is a plus, not a minus. (We talked to Qadhafi, for example, and he is now out of the terrorism business.)

Finally, Senator Obama brings an intangible to the White House which this country hasn't seen in a long time, not since Ronald Reagan. He is, after all, a Daddy, and exudes a warmth this country needs at the right time and right place in history. Perhaps that is his biggest asset. Happier times are ahead. Hope, it's a powerful thing.

The Marine Corps Marathon and 10K in Washington

by Andrew Chulock

At the crack of dawn, on October 28th, runners march to the starting line, at the Pentagon, all 33,500 of us!

What a weekend! My best finish yet by far, placing in the top 7.4% (200/2692) of all finishers in the 10K. Mix a beautiful city, meeting some amazing people (and runners usually are), the Spin Doctors performing live, and some perfect cool, clear, crisp autumn nights, and you had a recipe for the perfect weekend.

More updates soon

For news on demand: WBC 8NewsOur news channel has launched!

I'm Running!

by Andrew Chulock, October 25, 2007

In the MarineCorp10K that is,
in Washington, DC this weekend

I liked running in the National Half Marathon in D.C. so much back in April, with all the monuments as scenery and running up Capitol Hill I just had to return for another race. If you're running in this one, see you at the pre-race pasta dinner! I'll be with Team Darfur.

The Invisible War:
Where Is the Sacrifice at Home?
Update: On the way home from work today, Thursday October 25th, 2007 there was a small protest in front of the Aventura City Hall, in my hometown. It did my heart good!

by Andrew Chulock, September 26, 2007

I have traveled extensively across the country this year. I have been to conservative places (Memphis, Oklahoma City, Mississippi, San Diego) as well as to liberal ones. (Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago,Washington, D.C., New Orleans, Boston, Connecticut, and Atlantic City.) With polls showing that Americans oppose the continued war in Iraq, one would think that traveling across the country, there would be some evidence of people's discontent with the war that mirrors these poll numbers. So, how many actual protests have I witnessed in my travels? If we were looking back thirty five years during Viet Nam, the more relevant question would likely be how many protests in EACH CITY did I witness. Well, the answer is, unfortunately, just one. One single protest. And a paltry one at that, consisting of no more than 10 people, in Mystic, Connecticut of all places. (Yes, it's where the movie Mystic Pizza was filmed with Julia Roberts several years ago).

You can count me as among the people who say it is too early for us to withdraw from Iraq, and in fact I advocate sending significantly more troops. If more troops were sent from the outset, this war would have been over a long time ago, and sending more troops now would shorten the war, not prolong it. (Click here to read my article on why I believe that). Nevertheless I find it disheartening to see so few people who are against this war take to the streets to stand up for what they believe in. To end this war, really there are only two options: withdraw or win. I respect both points of view. What I don't respect is apathy.

If Iraq is truly part of the global war on terror, as this administration has asserted, then why is there no draft? If our very existence, indeed the existence of the civilized world is at stake as advocated, then wouldn't a draft be prudent to save our very existence? The last time it was asserted that our very existence was at stake, and asserted accurately, was during World War II. During that war, of course, there was a draft. Not only was there a draft, but every able bodied man and woman in the nation was involved in some way towards achieving victory. There were food rations, fuel rations, Rosy the Riveter, and victory gardens to grow food for personal sustenance so that more food could be sent to the troops. One could not experience a single day without some sort of sacrifice at home. War was our entire existence, from the time one woke up to the time one slept.

So, we are told, our very existence is at stake again. So where is where is the sacrifice now? Iraq, it is said, is an integral part of the war on terror, the fight for no less than our own survival. Or is the war in Iraq, not so important that it rises to this level? If it is, then why no draft? The answer is very simple. The same people who are hawkish on the Iraq War, for justifying it on the basis asserted above, that it is part of the war on terror that threatens our very existence, are the same people that WOULD take to the streets in protest if it were their sons being sent off to Iraq. The administration knows this, and that is why the option of sending volunteers into harm's way for three and even four tours of duty is more attractive to them then having a draft. A draft would truly unite the country and the administration knows this, in that it would unite EVERYONE against this war: Democrat and Republican alike. So instead the administration takes advantage of the existing brave men and women who volunteered to serve, for political expediency.

It is selfish that we, as Americans, choose to go about our daily lives while men and women die halfway around the globe on our behalf. Are we so plugged into our ipods, Blackberrys, the Internet and video games as to be indifferent while others make the sacrifice in our name, while our reaction is well, no reaction at all? Victory in Iraq, whether you were initially in favor or opposed to the war in the beginning, is in fact vital to our own national interest. There are enough reasons for us to be in Iraq right now, such as stability in the region, that render the scare tacticts used to justify it above unnecessary as well as dishonest. This administration has managed to prolong a war, an occupation rather, that has lasted longer than World War II. It has managed to quell dissent at home by limiting the burden of sacrifice onto a select few military families. This war could last another 50 years and people would be content with paying lip service to their sacrifice with "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers and to follow the President's advice to "Go Shopping", as long as it's not their kids serving in Iraq. In the process we have exhausted our armed forces and are ill equipped to handle other global emergencies such as Darfur, where people have died by the hundreds of thousands while our hands are tied in the quagmire that is Iraq. From this administration, I expected a bit more. But from Americans, I expected a lot more sacrifice than the space given up on an SUV for a bumper sticker.

Nonpartisans.Org founding sponsors:FloridaUSA.Com and www.Darfur.cc

NonPartisans.Org Home