Go Arizona!

Immigration laws have long been an n issue since the time of our founding fathers. Immigration has been both welcomed and unwelcomed. Immigration has been both legal and illegal. It is by the illegal means that immigrants become hated by us tax paying citizens. My boss, an immigrant from Mexico, has lived in Texas for thirty years now. He has not applied for citizenship, but he is a tax paying and law abiding man. Illegal immigrants, notably from Mexico, are getting away with tax “murder.” It is not fair for a man like myself to work 48 hours a week and have about 200 dollars deducted from my pay check. Likewise, an illegal immigrant can work the same time and be 200 dollars richer than I am. It would be not feasible to describe the other “benefits” that illegal immigrants “swindle” the government on. Brooke Christensen has noted in Props to Arizona that Arizona has passed an immigration enforcement law that allows the police to stop Hispanics on suspicion of being illegal. I agree with Brooke completely on this issue. The state government has to step in when the federal government fails to act. The Constitution denotes certain rights to the states and it is only appropriate that we exercise them. Arizona is setting a precedent for other states such as Texas, New Mexico, and California to create their own immigration laws. The federal government should look at the Arizona immigration law and see it as the first step in nation wide immigration reform. Illegal immigration from Mexico is an enormous issue that also entails crime and drug wars that could spill over into our state. The federal government must not only look at this issue, but the issue of immigration from over seas as well. It is evident that a vast majority of immigrants, illegal or legal, are in search of a better life. I believe the real problem lies overseas. As 9/11 has shown us, there are people entering our country who have the intent of creating a life or fear and anxiety for us citizens. The president and Congress should make it a top priority on their agenda to make immigration laws stiffer. If no efforts are made, I feel that our nation’s people may lose their rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Peace Is Possible

The battle over the Gaza Strip and other “holy” lands has occurred between Israel and Palestine for years. Bloody protests and public bombings have devastated the two nations. Cultural and religious differences have divided the people. Peace negotiations have failed time and time again. Fortunately, peace talks have proceeded as of late. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to continue peace talks with Palestine as long as the United States brokers the peace talks. It is pivotal that the United States Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, does all that is within his power to further the peace talks. I firmly believe that if we cannot do so, the nations of the world are on the brink of another world war! Recent allegations of cyber-hacking of United States government websites by the Chinese government further align with my suspicion. The unrest in the Middle East along with mistrust between other nations provides a ground for World War III. All of the wares that have involved United States interference have been based on the mistrust of another foreign government. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ statement on peace talks brings suspicion to my mind. Abbas stated the following: “Sometimes I feel that in Israel there are those who don’t want peace, but we have to try until the ‘last minute.’” Abbas’ statement implies that if peace talks are not successful, there will be some point where peace will be impossible. History shows us that when peace is deemed impossible, wars tend to break out; especially world wars! I believe that the United States is the key element to facilitating peace. We should take an aggressive approach to peace talks between Israel and Palestine instead of the laizze faire approach we have taken for years. World powers are responsible for facilitating the peace of the world. We, the United States, are a world power aren’t we? In my opinion, these peace talks will prove to be the deciding factor of whether war is inevitable or not.

Baby Killers!!!

The abortion controversy has been a huge debate among politicians since before I can remember. One hears the presidential candidates’ viewpoints on it during almost every presidential debate during election year. Potter Stewart said, “Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.” I too am a pro-life advocate. I have a 19 month old daughter and could not imagine life without her. My wife and I decided to have a child at a young age, but it never crossed our mind to terminate her when we found out we were pregnant. The keyword to my statement is the word “terminate.” The definition of terminate is to “put to an end prematurely.” Consequently, the definition of murder is the same, “to put to an end prematurely.” I am appalled, that the government allows women to choose whether or not they murder their babies. In article III of the United States Constitution, murder is outlined as a criminal law. Why is it that we allow mothers to chose whether they commit a criminal or not and let them get away with it. In the blog Pro-Life or Pro-Choice Brooke Christensen, recalls the video clip Silent Scream to exemplify her Pro-Life ideology. I agree with the opinions of Ms. Christensen and feel that the decision in Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

A lenient policy in an aggressive time

I have many times considered myself to be a Republican. I have had many debates with friends and family over various topics of government. I have backed up the far right 99 times out of 100. Today I have been called to take a more liberal approach on American legislation. President Obama has now decided to take a somewhat passive approach in handling nuclear arms. Mr. Obama feels that we should not use nuclear warfare against nonnuclear states that comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Obama has stated that possible threats of nuclear attack could be handled by a series of options that do not imply using nuclear force. He did indicate that nuclear force would be used if a biological attack were carried out on the United States. The new Nuclear Posture Review, like many policies, is likely to be a controversial issue prone to discussion and debate amongst conservatives and liberals. President Obama is not currently discussing the issues amongst Congress, but rather several nations of the world that they would apply to. Many governmental analysts and citizens view the new sanctions as a threat to American safety and liberty. It is important to note that the Nuclear Posture Review was created in order to slowly shift into an elimination of nuclear weapons, while not undermining our country’s nuclear deterrent. Mr. Obama’s nuclear strategy has been in the making for some time. It is considerably different than former President George W. Bush’s strategy that called for the use of nuclear force in response to a wide range of threats. Mr. Obama primarily views nuclear weapons as deterrents to nuclear attacks on the Unites States and allies. President Obama declined to state that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter an attack however. Over the next couple of weeks there will be many meetings between world powers to discuss this new stand. President Obama is hosting 47 world leaders at the White House next week to discuss the new plan. Over the next four years, the ultimate goal of the Nuclear Posture Review will be to safely lock down the world’s nuclear weapons. Many political debates and skirmishes are sure to arise over the next couple of weeks, even years, over the new policies. I believe that, policy set aside, the new stand on nuclear weapons will be pivotal in preserving the safety of innocent lives around the world.

Don't Blame Me!

Over the past year, there have been many terrorist type attacks in our country by our fellow Americans. Just recently, John Bedell opened fire outside of the Pentagon. There were instant allegations from both political parties concerning the political ideology of this man. The far right blamed the far left for the mind set of Bedell. The far left blamed the far right for his political state of mind as well. Jesse Walker has brought to my attention in “The Children of George Metesky” that this attack as well as others as of late does not spur from any party. George Metesky set off various bombs around New York during the forties and fifties due to his disgust with the Consolidated Edison Company. Sam Byck also took his disgust of government out by attempting to fly an airplane through the White House. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, sent various bombs across the country in order to get his views across. The key word in the previous sentences is “his.” These men, as well as Joe Stack, have engaged in terrorist type acts in order to get their disgust with government across; not their highly liberal or highly conservative views. They are products of their own ideology. They are protestors that the government could not hear out. Unfortunately, they had to take lives in order to “make a difference.” They may have been homicidal and rebel’s, but much like the common man, they showed discontent for the government. These terrorist type acts should be a marquise example for the politicians of Washington that things are not favorable for the “common” man. Instead of hearing the arguments of their fellow politicians, they need to open an ear to the average American. The one’s that make a difference each day; rather it be for good or evil!

Tea Party?

I am sure that most of us have heard of the recent attack on the I.R.S. building in Austin, Texas. Andrew Joseph Stack III, a tax protestor, flew his private plane through the office building on February 18th.

Frank Rich, an editor for the New York Times, has drawn upon the conclusion that such action could be linked to the platform of the Tea Party politicians. Both the Tea Party members and Joseph Stack share the rage of taxes and excessive governmental interference. Mr. Rich is attempting in his editiorial to magnify the purpose of the Tea Party and bring out the radical side of the members. I feel that he is also trying to reach and audience that is fed up with government taxation and to enlighten them of the Tea Party movement.

The attack on Oklahoma City in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh is also used in this editiorial to prove that the disgust with the I.R.S. has been brewing for years. Mr. Rich also notes that the Tea Party is very distinct in relation to the G.O.P. Tea Partiers are for a form of government that has few spending on entitlement programs as well as no Fed or I.R.S. Mr. Rich has also tried to show us the radicalism of the new Tea Party. In the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Minnesota governer Tim Pawlenty told the audience to emulate Tiger woods wife and "take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government in this country." I personally believe that the reality of these statements helps us to understand the ideology of the Tea Party movement. They are much like the rebels of the 18th century colonial era that decided to pursue radical means in order to overthrow a central government that was too strong.

The article also draws upon the possibility of another civil war arising due to the differences among politicians. Pam Stout, a political Idaho retiree, has stated the following: "another civil war may be in the offing." It is evident that history may be repeating itself once again. It is the political radicalism of the far right Republicans that are endorsing violent means in order to preserve the Union.

I think that the Tea Party politicians and members have good intentions on their platform; however, a few of the followers have misinterpreted how democratic government functions. We do not blow up buildings and take up arms in order to get our political ideals across. This is not a fascist country ran by a sole aristocrat. We are a land of the people, for the people, and by the people. The majority of our political parties need to spend more time informing the public of the advancements they can make in our lives, rather that mudslinging and bringing about the flaws of their opponets. Mudslinging brings discern and negative feelings towards our government. It has been going on so long in political elections that it only seems right to bring out the bad in our opponet. I am drawn to recall the great words of Thomas Paine, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." It is by those words in which we should analyze our government today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion

Who's to blame?

There has been a vast majority of the American population that has blame former President George W. Bush for the current state of the economy. I have heard the same thing over and over again, "Bush is the reason the economy is so bad." It is somewhat unimaginable to think that one person could cause such short falling for an entire nation. We live in a nation that is based on a democracy of checks and balances. We don't vote for a single dictator. The American voters vote for several Senators and Representatives to help facilitate the nation. It has been a popular voting scheme of the Democrats to rally their voters around the mishaps of President Bush. It would be more feasible to rally their voters around the economic policies of the Bush administration. We must note that President Bush did not do the "job" all by himself. The Wall Street Journal has stated that the tactic of blaming President Bush for the economic hard times is becoming ineffective. The American people want action to fix the economy rather than repeated claims of why it is in the current state. Recently elected Senator Scott Brown has gone under heavy scrutiny for his "Bush-like" politics; however, American voters elected him despite of his views. In this upcoming election year, I feel that the American voters will not remember the mishaps of President Bush, but rather the policies of the administration that has put our economy in a dysfunctional state. I feel this article brings light to a prospective that might be representative of the current American ideal.