Arizona "Birther" Bill

  It has been all over the news, the Arizona state legislation has voted to pass a bill which if made a law would require any presidential candidate to bring proof of their eligibility for office to the Arizona Secretary of State in order to be on the ballot. Governor Brewer has five days to sign or veto the bill and she, like everyone else, must anwser some tough questions, "Is this bill a good idea?", "Does it have the right motives backing it?", and "Is it constitutional?". These are hard questions that provoke many different opinions depending on who you ask. The supporters of the bill say it's purpose is to preserve the integrity and legitimacy of the presidential candidates. Those opposed to the bill say it is another attempt by the right-wing Republicans to attack eligibility of President Obama's fight to hold office. I am opposed to the bill because we don't need any new laws to qualify people to run for President, the Constitution names the only requirements to hold the office. To hold the office of President a person must be a born US citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for a minimum of 14 years.
  Candidates don't have to turn their birth certificates in to the states in order to put their names on the ballot nor does a state government have the power to disqualify a person from running for President in that state. This bill was created not out of concern of people forging birth certificates and IDs in order to run for the nation's highest office.
  This bill was formed out of a heated dispute over President Obama's birthplace. Was a bill like this ever proposed before? Did anyone ever demand John Kerry's birth certificate? How about  Bush's or Gore's? Despite the state of Hawaii releasing Barack Obama's birth certificate and confirmation of it's legitimacy by the Hawaii Secretary of Health, some still insist that a it is fabricated and a "conspiracy" exists to keep Obama in office. It is these claims that have created the traction necessary to bring this bill to Governor Brewer's desk. While I don't support this bill as it is unnecessary, and perhaps unconstitutional, I know that it will have no effect on Obama's Presidency or re-election campaign.  Because President Obama IS a US citizen, he IS eligible for the Presidency, and like it or not Barack Obama IS the President of the United States!

Libya: Justified Involvement or None of Our buisness?

In mid February 2011 the protests in Libya against the Gaddafi government broke into all out civil war. The world watched in shock as the country was thrown into chaos. At first the rebels made great advancements and Gaddafi's regime seemed all but over. The tide turned however, when Gaddafi's forces rallied and began a counteroffensive. With better equipment, organization, and training the  pro-Gaddafi forces pushed the rebels farther to the east and closer to the rebel capital of Benghazi. With the rebels facing collapse and the fear of genocide by Gaddafi's forces if they crushed the rebellion, the United Nations Security Council authorized a no-fly zone over rebel territory. As a result Gaddafi's government ordered a ceasefire, but within hours it became clear the government had no intention the crease fire and continued the fighting. In response to continued violence on March 19 a multinational force led by The US, Britain, and France began bombing Gaddafi's ground forces and air defense system. The bombing have given the rebels much needed relief, but Gaddafi's forces are still strong and an end to the war is not in sight.
Even before the multinational bombings began questions were raised as to how involved the international community should become in an internal civil war. Should we become involved even when a dictator like Gaddafi is on the brink of victory? Even when a massacre of those who rebelled against him seems likely? Is it worth the risk of loss of life? Is it worth the time, effort,and money? Some say it's not our problem, that getting involved in another middle east war, that it is not in our national interest. While many smart and respectable people have taken up this strong argument, I firmly believe that the intervention at the side of the rebels is the right course of action. I believe this because it IS in our national interest to prevent Gaddafi from crushing the rebels. The United States cannot be at peace with a nation who's leader sponsors terrorism, assignation, and violence worldwide. the United States cannot be a champion of freedom if we do not support those trying to attain it, and the United States cannot champion of human rights if we don't protect those who are treated inhumanely. The Libyans who have bravely risen up against Gaddafi government are fighting for a set of ideals. The idea that they may be able to express their opinion openly, from criticism of government to praising an unpopular organization. The idea that they may have Right to a fair and open trial. The idea that they may have the opportunity to follow their dreams and live their lives to the fullest. Thousands of Libyans have given what Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion for these ideals. It is up to us, the living to continue to support the cause they so nobly advanced. We cannot give the people of Libya freedom, but we can give them the means to acquire it, and then if the people of Libya stand together in the fight for freedom then they will be free. A century ago we said Arabs were unable to govern themselves. Fifty years ago we said they were unable to build a government free of corruption and dictatorship. Today the people of Libya are trying to prove they can govern themselves and can create a government that serves them. I believe they can and I believe a free Libya will be a benefit to the United States and the world. 

Pershing's Last Soldier

The last of a generation of soldiers has passed on. Frank Buckles, the last American veteran of World War I died in his home in Charles Town, West Virgina on February 27, 2011 at the age of 110. A kind, humble, man with a sharp wit Frank lived an amazing life few could duplicate. Only 16 when the United States entered the first World War Frank lied about his age to join the US Army after having been turned down by both the Navy and Marine Corps. In late 1917 Frank sailed to Europe aboard the RMS Carpathia the ship famous for rescuing the survivors of the Titanic, during the trip he had many opportunities to meet crew members who participated in the rescue. After arriving in France Frank served in 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment as an ambulance and motorcycle driver. After the Armistice he remained in France until his discharge in January 1920. Following his discharge Frank worked for several shipping companies which sent him to the Philippines, it was here the Frank became part of yet another war. On December 8, 1941 the Japanese invaded the Philippines bringing World War II to the island nation. Frank was captured by the Japanese early the next year and remained a prison of war at Los Banos for over three years until he was liberated. After liberation He moved back to the States and married Audrey Mayo and they had one daughter. Later Frank retired from the shipping business and bought a farm in West Virginia where he lived the rest of his life.
In recent years Frank Buckles has been a living memory of The Great War and a strong advocate of construction of the National World War I Memorial on the National Mall. After the death of Harry Landis Frank became the last American World War I veteran and earned the nickname "Pershing's Last Patriot".
When asked the secret to his long life Frank replied "Whenever you start to die...don't"

Now Peshing's Last Patriot is to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. A generation of great soldiers has passed on and while they are no longer with us, their legacy remains and it is up to us to keep it alive. To ensure the sacrifice, hardships, and heroism of the individual men and women of all nations in not lost. For that is the only way to truly remember Frank Buckles and The War to End All Wars.

      

Happy Birthday Ronnie!

On February 6, 1911 in an apartment above a bakery in Tampico, Illinois Ronald "Dutch" Reagan was born to John and Nelle Reagan. Few might assume he was presidential material at the time, but one person to perhaps see his potential was Ronald's father. "He looks like a fat little Dutchman," said John Reagan seeing his son for the first time, "but who knows he might grow up to be President someday." This prophecy came true almost 70 years later when Ronald Reagan became the 40th President of the United States. The most unforgettable characteristics of Reagan were his prevailing optimism, his quick sense of humor, and his compassion for people. His confidence in all Americans gave strength to a nation struggling to recover from an economic crisis and still healing from the scars of the Vietnam War. His eight years in office saw an unprecedent economic turn around, the first ever nuclear reduction treaty, and a better relationship with the Soviet Union than at time during the Cold War. His leadership is credited with helping to bring about the collapse of communism in Europe and the Soviet Union.  President Reagan was a true leader, firm but compassionate, strong but flexible, optimistic but not naive, all this and so much more. The truth is no words can fully describe Ronald Reagan. So this Presidents Day remember that a century ago was the beginning of a journey, a journey that would propel an unknown baby boy from Tampico, Illinois to one of America's most legendary Presidents. Only in America.

The 22nd Amendment, A good or bad restriction on presidents?

"No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once."
It is this part of  Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment that limits all presidents to just two terms in office. The 22nd amendment was ratified by the States on February 27, 1951. The amendment ensured that no one (except Harry Truman) could ever duplicate the four term Presidency Franklin Roosevelt had served. While many supported  it then, and most still do today, there are some who believe that a President should be allowed to serve more than two terms. So I enter the debate, should Presidential  terms be limited? Should we deny the American people from choosing a leader they think is successful more than twice? These questions may not seem like anyone would take them up seriously but some people have. Several congressman have proposed repealing the amendment  at least a dozen times since 1995. Even Ronald Reagan supported abolishing term limits in his post-president years. While no proposals have ever made it out of committee (and it is unlikely they ever will) it is still an issue that triggers a lively debate. it is also an issue that I want to have a solid opinion on.
  Why I Believe Term Limits Should be In place
The argument of some including Alexander Hamilton and Ronald Regan is that term limits prevent the American people from rewarding leaders they believe are successful. Also with term limits a second term presidents is a lame duck from the time he begins his second term as everyone knows he will leave office in four years. Also because they have no elections left to run for, second term presidents care less of what the public opinion think of them and their policies and therefore are more likely to become brewed in scandals or make unpopular decisions regarding policy. On the other side of the argument people say that removing term limits could result in one person being president for decades and that this would stifle the democracy the founding fathers intended to build. A democracy where a common man is elected to serve in the government for a few years and then go home, a democracy without career politicians. But could there ever be a president for life or a multiple term President as long as we continue to hold elections every four years?
Both sides have a good argument. But ultimately I think establishing term limits was the right thing to do. The idea that elections would prevent an unwanted long term presidency is not as powerful a factor as it may seem. The longer one remains an incumbent the more power and influence they gain, weather its through force or providing for others using the power of their position. A great example is Egypt, its clear now that President Mubarak wasn't very popular with the Egyptian people. But then how could the man win five terms as President and serve for over thirty years? Because of his power as an incumbent. Because he continued to impose Marshall Law on Egypt after the assignation of Anwar Sadat he had the power to imprison political opponents, bribe voters, and command advertisement outlets. Many people say this can't happen in the United States because of the freedoms our Constitution protects, but it does happen, just in a different form. Today we still have senators like John Mccain, Joe Leiberman, and Barbara Mikulski who that have served for decades. How have they remain in office for so long? Because of their power as incumbents. Over time incumbents are able to build up their political machines and support bases. Since they have influence on a national level they are able to provide benefits and rewards to those who support them. Eventually their power reaches a point were no one can challenge them and win. With this power and influence some politicians are able to stay in office for life. Senators like Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy remained in office until they died because they were politically impossible to challenge. The same is for our only president to serve more than two terms, Franklin Roosevelt. Despite the war in Europe as being a reason for his election to a third term, his New Deal benefits which many people depended on, created and enviorment were he couldn't lose.This is why term limits our important, they prevent career politicians and create a government where power and alliances our less of a concern, also the limited time in office acts as an incentive for those who wish to pass certain legislation and reforms to work quickly. This is why I think we should consider reestablishing term limits in Congress. I believe it would greatly benefit the American people and the government. As for those who argue that presidents and politicians in their final terms are lame ducks and are more likely to become involved in scandals as they no longer care about what the public thinks of them i have two points. First, the office of an elected official is influential is as much as the person holding it. Regardless of how much time they have in office a true leader can make a major impact on the decision making process. Second, if an official decides to do something he know is wrong because he won't be affected by any political fall out, should not have been elected in the first place. While seeking another term might impact the timing of their decisions, elections cannot change a person.

This is my opinion on weather we should have term restrictions, but I want to hear your ideas to so please comment.

The "Containment" Policy - Protecting Democracy with Dictatorship

The policy of "containment" originated under President Harry Truman, became the main policy of the United States during the Cold War. The goal of this policy was to stop the Soviet Union's communist ideology from spreading to other nations of the world.  Many like to think the Cold War was a battle between democracy and communism, between freedom and oppression. However, as always, with world politics nothing is black and white; there are a thousand shades of gray. The Cold War was no different. The ultimate goal of "containment" was not to promote democracy as much as to stop communism. People wonder today why the United States is today viewed with suspicion and distrust from other nations. One of the main reasons for this is because of our lack of consistency during the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the United States would support right-wing governments and dictatorships that suppressed their own people, all in the name of stopping communism. In countries like Nicaragua and Ethiopia this strategy back-fired as it turned the majority of the populations against the harsh pro-US governments giving the communist parties the strength to overthrow them and install a communist regimes. Not only did these countries become communist, the new governments turned against the US for supporting the previous suppressive regimes. Situations like these impact our relationships with some countries to this day.

Probably one of the most lasting results of of our support for unpopular governments is Iran. Our support for the Shah until he was ousted created the scene for the 79-81 Iranian hostage crisis. The result is a hostile view of Iran that continues to this day.

Since the end of the Cold War I believe today our policy of containment has been replaced a more mature world view. The United States prides itself as an example of democracy and freedom, but actions speak louder than words.  If we claim to support life and liberty throughout the world then we must show that we do. I see Iraq and Afghanistan as promising examples that the policy has changed with the end of the Cold War. In these countries the United States has supported governments that are chosen by their people, and are held accountable by their people. Perhaps in the future this era will be remembered as a time were we not protected democracy but also, strengthened it throughout the world.

The Future is Ours to Win

Tuesday night President Obama delivered his second State of the Union address. The focus of his address was to drive down the national debt and improve the economy through extending the Bush tax cuts and investing in education. Obama said we needed to "reinvent" ourselves to compete in the ever changing global economy, especially with China and India's fast growing economies. He said despite talks of our decline as a world power we still have the largest and most prosperous economy in the world. Obama stated he wanted to invest in innovation.  Focusing on more efficient and environmentally friendly technology by supporting companies who come forward with new ideas for more effective technology, anything ranging from cars to nuclear power plants. But to do so Obama wants to take away the billions of dollars from oil companies stating "I don't know if you have noticed but they are doing fine on their own." The President also is taking a drastic measure to reduce the national deficit by freezing all unnecessary government spending for five years. The goal is to reduce the deficit by 400 billion dollars over the next decade. This means cutting government funding from social programs, defense programs, and freezing government employees salaries. Again, as drastic as it may seem, the hope is that it will have an equally drastic effect on the deficit and put a stop the ever growing national debt.

The War on Terror
Obama announced early in his presidency that we would withdraw all military forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. So far it looks like the plan is on schedule, the last combat forces withdrew in August and the troops remaining are for security and training the Iraqi military. The hope is that these soldiers can return home soon as well. While the United States will continue to support the young democratic Iraq, the combat phase of the Iraq war is over. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the President stated Al-Queda is under great pressure and that their safe-havens are shrinking. The troop surge that began last year is scheduled to end in July when the soldiers will begin to return home. Some argue the troops need to remain there longer to have a more profound long term effect on the terrorists. They may be right, but the full effects of the surge are yet to be seen. 

The I Also Ran Row
I noticed from footage of the crowd during the address, Senators John McCain and John Kerry were sitting shoulder-to-shoulder. I find it funny the two recent defeated presidential candidates would end up next to each other. One may call it a coincidence. I would, too, if Joe Leiberman was not two chairs to McCain's left.

The Ryan Response
Shortly after Obama's State of the Union, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin delivered the Republican Party response.From the Budget committee room, Congressman Ryan addressed the nation on the Republican Party's view of how to deal with the economy in the new year. He expressed the need to reform or repeal the Health Care law passed last March. Ryan stated that it was similar to the socialized medicine of many European countries, where it had created a heavy national debt, resulting in higher taxes and cutting benefits for seniors. Ryan said America was slipping in the same direction, and the Health Care law sped up the process. He said spending cuts on all government levels is needed to contain the national debt that is spiraling out of control. Ryan stated the government was trying to do more than it should; it was doing too much and therefore spending too much. If this is not reversed,  the debt will "eclipse" our gross national product and the next generation would face a stagnate economy. But Ryan said it is not too late "we still have time, but not much time".

Conclusion
I found that one of the comforting and amazing things of the entire night was the concern and prayers for congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and those injured in Tucson along with the black and white ribbons to honor those killed. This as yet another great example  that all Americans, regardless of race, gender, age, religion, political views, or background, come to the aide of one another when needed and stand together in hard times.We are held together by the idea that all people have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. While there are times we may seem hopelessly divided in arguments ranging from foreign wars to health care initiatives, at our core is a love for freedom and compassion for those in need. We may not feel this bond everyday, but it shows in tragedies like Tucson, and it is this bond that allows us not only to weather the challenges that come our way but to become stronger from them. It is because of this that I believe regardless of who is president or what party controls the house and senate, that we will emerge from this recession and war on terror stronger and better than before.