CIA memos

I am writing about Obama’s decision to declassify previously classified memos entailing the Bush administrations interrogation techniques. Obama said that his reason for putting an end to the interrogation techniques outlined in the memos, “I believe our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values, including the rules of law.” However many others are saying that Obama released the CIA memos as payback to Cheney. Reporting that Obama told reporters at the Oval office that the memos demonstrate that the nation lost its “moral bearing” during Bush’s administration.
That does not seem to be the case for a couple of reasons.

First off the Bush Administration needs no help losing support they were all set on their own. Why would Obama ever declassify memos simply to discredit an administration that already did a good job discrediting them? Especially at the expense of the country’s national security!
Reading some of the blogging being done a lot of people seem to think that Obama has compromised the nation’s security, saying that the enemy now knows how far an American soldier would go to get information. However do you really think they didn’t already know? I was not surprised to hear that Obama released these documents and as far as the interrogating tactics go I thought they were already public knowledge.

I don’t think that this was an attack on Cheney; however I do believe that it was an attack on Obama. Saying that “President Obama and his Administration themselves have politicized the most critical of issues, U.S. national security.” But how can you say that when Obama made it clear on the campaign trial that he wanted to put an end to the Bush administrations interrogation techniques?

Links used: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/at-cia-hq-obama.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/27/obama-released-cia-memos-as-cheney-payback/

Speculation of Specter

There is a new member of the White House's caucus entering today, Arlen Specter. There has been a lot of speculation and talking, having to do with Specter because one sole reason, his recently Republican turned Democrat decision. A lot of people have been asking, is he really a Democrat or how can you just turn into a Democrat after being Republican for so long? Questions have ran through my head as well, but how has the members of the White House responded?

According to published reports Specter got nothing less than a warm welcome when he arrived at the White House this morning. President Obama and V.P Biden were there to greet him "in a high-level show of unity for the newest member of their caucus" the New York Times posted. Specter just so happened to be arriving on President Obama's 100th day of administration. There were other topics talked about this day as well, like when the three of these men worked together before in the Senate, which was not very long ago. It is said that V.P Biden and Specter have been acquaintances for quite some time and have embraced in many talks.

Now back to the question of Specter changing parties. He has been speaking about his reasoning for changing parties especially now that he is running for re-election in his home state. He was quoted saying "“I was unwilling to subject my 29-year-record in the United States Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican electorate.” In this state, because of the last election, many people who were moderate Republicans ended switching over to the Democratic Party. This left the senator in a tough position and it led him to the choice of changing parties. Although this has happened he has said that it does not matter if he is Republican or Democrat, he has always represented Pennsylvania and that is what he is going to continue to do.

Free Speach has been lost to Lobbyists

So apparently the voice of Lobbyists from various organizations are being silenced at the time. It seems that they are barred from making any comments or suggestions about the Stimulus Plan. The reason? President Obama has tried to forgo this by hoping that the people would come to rely more on the government rather than lobbyissts, "The administration’s goal was to dispel any suspicions that special interests were working behind the scenes to influence the $700 billion spending plan."

A in meeting on Friday, representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, the American League of Lobbyists and the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told the ethics chief, Norman Eisen that the rules have unfairly singled out those who happen to be registered to lobby. The rules do nothing to prevent self-interested car salesmen, bankers, electric utilities or labor unions from meeting with administration officials. Instead, the rules shut out only the professionals whose job is representing others in public policy debates. Dave Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists stated that Lobbyists “must legally report every contact they make with government officials while those not registered as lobbyists can do as they please. “You are banning the one group that is required to be transparent.” Whats even more surprising is that since this occured last Friday even representatives of non-profit and human-rights organizations have been withheld from speaking out. The interesting this these non-profit groups are being targeted as a means to exclude coporate interests.

So the question now is, do they still have a right to speak out?

Or is it because of these large corperations that they feel they ahve the privilage to speak out againts policies that were created to prevent the high industries from making any more drastic mistakes that help hurt their companies?

Link:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/lobbyists-march-on-the-white-house/

Who's to Blame?

Having spent some class this week discussing the true roots of politics, I am still extremely interested as to where political belief is structured. Family lives as well as education were considered the primary sources of belief, yet should there be a greater effort put forth in hopes of creating a more educated voter and participant in the political system. Are those new registered voters just as worse as a radical or an idealist who have tunnel vision to other outlooks of the spectrum?
The newly registered voters are much defined as being undeclared and especially under educated with respect to government and its role. As I had stated in class, I was completely unaware as to what foreign aid and policy was as of two years ago being nineteen and twenty years old as a registered voter. I am somewhat upset with the lack of involvement I have been accessible to throughout my adolescence years. Having taken only a general civics course as well as a few American history classes, it was never clearly spelled out just how exactly our system of government plays out with the rest of this world; something that was under minded throughout my youth. Having a special interest in the market and its position, I would have never been able to see most of the connections with U.S. government and the rise and fall of the stock market on a daily basis if it weren’t for three years of college education.
Being that schooling, especially at the college level, is becoming extremely expensive, how are those who don’t move on to additional schooling going to become involved with our political system? From what we have learned up to the University level on average is subpar to those who live and breathe politics each and every day. Although the system somewhat wants only an “elite” group involved in the political spectrum, all others have a right and duty to become involved with the free market, capitalist system we have created here in the United States.
Those who feel confused, misinformed, or left out in politics; don’t take it personally. Our schooling must be changed in a way that gets people prepared for at least a minimum involvement in politics. A general understanding of the right and left wings of the spectrum would create a stronger, more educated voter turnout that would strengthen expectation and demand the best of the best for our Chief Executive and Opinion leader. Our future here in the United States as a dominate country lays in the youth that will carry our country on for generations to come. We must consider revising our education program to create a better rounded citizen of the United States of America.

Political Parties

Political parties through time have been primarily Republican or Democrat. Even through eras such as the progressive and federalist times, two major parties have gained the respect of those being involved in the system. The two party system creates a left as well as a right of beliefs for how the system should work and function. If one party feels strongly towards one part of politics, for example government spending, the other party takes the opposing view for the majority of things. With that said, why can’t a third party, possible a mixture of ideologies, prevail? Especially during a time we are living in now, where no one truly understands where our future will be heading.
Some say a third party would never gain the voter respect, never receive enough campaign finance or publication like the red and blue. Having the largest number of voters being in an undeclared state, it is evident that there are those out there in large figures looking for alternatives in our system of politics. This two party system we have structured our beliefs around creates bad media, miss representation, and especially propaganda opposing its one and only rival. It is sometimes difficult to listen to republican or even democrats smash and rag on the opposing party’s opinions on a variety of issues just to make their side sound more appealing. If only there were the strength of a third party that took the best of both worlds and made another that was more organized and presentable to those who are truly fed up with the two parties we have now.
At times I feel these two parties we have created limit the expansion of a growing United States. I feel as if opinions, on both sides of the spectrum, prohibit any possible growth of becoming a more outstanding country. If a good idea was spelled out by the Republican side, the Democrats would rag on it so bad that it would hinder its possible growth, and vice versa. This type of restriction has been going on since the beginning of politics, I know, but what if the majority was up for a change?
Although my ideologies of a third party that would better represent the general good of the United States is somewhat farfetched, I feel as if there are many out there who are looking for different answers. At a personal level, I am fed up with listening to who is “T-Bagging” who, or who got the U.S. in the deficit it is today. I want somewhat of a realist who can live up to what he set for himself and his country. Not saying that Obama isn’t dealing with the situations to the best of his abilities, I feel as if it could be done with the United States as a whole. A more educated body of voters will hold the success for the future to come of the United States.

"Green" Stimulus plan

The stimulus plan has many different parts to it; to help boost the economy. The government is on the right track, not only are they adding more jobs and increasing the economy but there going green. In this day and age global warming and climate change are very serious. Many believe in global warming and some don’t, but everyone recognizes the need for renewable energy (so does the government).

Obama has spoken on this green part of the stimulus package. Two and half million jobs (+/-) are the unexpected outcome from just the green projects of the stimulus plan. The government is allocating a large sum of money (billions) to weatherize homes throughout America. Weatherizing homes means making them more energy efficient, so millions of American’s energy bills are lowered. So weatherizing will not only create jobs for Americans but cut there energy bills.

Green investments through the stimulus package will amount somewhere near 15 billion dollars, but another big part of the green plan is tax cuts. Homes that use solar energy, wind energy or other renewable energies will be allocated tax cuts. This is a great thing; many people will probably start using renewable energy on there homes, and that will majorly cut costs of energy bills for them and give them money on tax returns. (Businesses will also be entitled to this)

Grants are another part of the green stimulus plan. Grants will be given to companies or groups that are creating renewable energy (or green) projects. I believe this is a great thing, and that this will work. Many government members are skeptical as to if this will be effect. It should and most likely will be; making homes, business etc... more energy efficient is the future. More and more companies, groups, homes are going green; people are noticing the advantages of green and also the environmental aspects of it. Glacier national park had 150 glaciers, now there’s only 50; this says a lot and going green will help out with global warming problems (especially since America is a large contributor to co2 emissions).

This will also help the auto-industry out. Grants will be given for creating green cars or more energy efficient cars. Smart grids are also anther part of this green chunk. Smart grids will be placed on homes around America; these smart grids will help with the amount of energy used and cuts energy costs. Another part of the green plan caught my eye. Grants will be given for projects in clean coal. I looked into this and it is huge. America has over half of the world’s coal mines. Coal is a good source of energy but it is dirty. Liquefying coal is much safer and can be used to heat homes, business, hospitals, building etc… Why not use a resource we have here in America. If clean coal can be produced and effective it will open millions of jobs for Americans. This is a brief outlook to the green part of the stimulus plan; much more is included.

“Hate is Preached and even the Family is Not a refuge!”

You would think that homophobia would be neutralized here in the US to some extent, although in the past this was common: brutal assaults, negligence, with-holding the right to work etc. The biggest issue I have to this day is the mistreatment of homosexuals-thinking they are a disease that needs to be cured, and the only way to accomplish this is the killing of innocent people. Now these ideas and the mistreatment of homosexuals have stopped here in the US, but what about outside the US? Do people still hold these warped, misguided and savaged principles? Apparently so!
Young boys and men are brutally murdered and condemned by the church and more importantly the church. A subculture of gay society has been allowed to flourish in Baghdad because Iraq has become Democratic, but this newly found culture has been dealt a blow which as of right now seems that they cannot recover from. Sadri City has been the focal point of these attacks, for within the past 2 months there have been about twenty-five deaths, and attached to the bodies was a note with the word “pervert” written in Arabic. There was one man named Basim who recalls, “Three of my closest friends have been killed during the past two weeks alone. They had been planning to go to a café away from Sadri City because we don’t feel safe here, but they killed them on the way. I had planned to go with them but fortunately I didn’t go.” I feel that the chaos, the destruction of life and families has moved across the Atlantic and into the Middle East, but the odd thing is nowhere is safe-families won’t protect their own sons because of hatred.
However, because of this new subculture that’s risen the streets of Sadri City are changing drastically. There are some like Basim who wear their hair long, ears pierced which is uncommon for Iraqi males, and some wear white makeup to make their skin look lighter, which is apparently a popular look for gay men in Sadri. Since two years have passed now women walk the streets unveiled-wearing dresses above their knees and more people have started to actually go out at night. In light of this there is animosity, hatred and religious persecutions not only by the community but their own families, thus the state has created a death squad to—handle the situation. The recent spate of violence has seemed aimed at more openly gay men rather than homosexuals in general. Yet the Clerics of Sadri City have begun to bring about the wrath of god on gay men. “Homosexuality is against the law and it’s disgusting”, said Lt. Muthana Shaad who for the past four months has taken the role to “campaign to clean up the streets and get the beggars and homosexuals off of them.” To ensure they do their job the young gay men are constantly harassed and badgered by in the police to ensure they “can’t get together in a coffee shop or walk together in the street.” This whole idea of cleaning up the streets of homosexual filth is so frustrating. Why must we create laws to subjugate others-hatred, discrimination, racism, homophobia and Murder! Why do we create these laws, why?!

Here's the Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middleeast/08gay.html?_r=2&ref=world

Obama and Immigration policies--good or bad?

President Obama has recognized the need to deal with illegal immigration. He has plans on helping illegal immigrants become legal; he also has plans to place more federal agents on the border, and to increase technology to help prevente illegall immigration; but he and his director of intergovernmental affairs (Cecilia Muñoz) don't beleive in the continued consutruction of a 670 mile fence along the mexican border.

Rasmussen Reports national survery, has reported that the majority of american citizens want the fence up. This fence I beleive is esstional in a number of things, not just preventing illegall immigration. Having this 670 mile fence along the mexican border would help crack down on drug trafficking. Many drugs are smugglled across the mexican border and brought into the US. Placing this fence up will either prevent or delay these drug cartels. They would need to cut through the fence, thus the US border patrol can gain an idea on where they will be border jumping and enforce there.

This fence is also essential to illegal immigrants crossing the border. Right now the US is in a recession and the last thing we need is illegal immigrants coming over and taking american jobs. Times are also tuff in mexico, and a reported increase of illegal immigrants are trying to get into America. I believe Obama and his administration should continue the building of the fence, and re-take a look at border patrol.

Human Rights Activists: Dying Trying

In October of 2006, Human Rights groups in Russia were shut down under a new public policy, a NGO law came into effect, but why?

Amnesty International reports that a Human Rights Activist was killed 1 April, 2009.  In the report it goes as far to say that this is not an odd occurrence to happen in Russia, that in fact most of the time, killings go unreported, 'The silence here it says is equivalence to condoning them,' (Amnesty International).  When Lev Ponomarev, a Human Rights activist, spoke out against these killings in 2008, a group of young adults, seemingly working for the Russian Parliament, attacked him.  

The Committee to Protect Journalists writes, however, the killings and beatings do not stop.  Not only are Human rights Groups being shut down for promoting the safety and welfare of citizens globally, those involved in these groups are trying to be shut up.  Lev Ponomarev has been beaten again, and not just beaten, brutally attacked.  International Human Rights Groups have been contacted including Amnesty International, Freedom House, Frontline Defenders, as well as others, bring President Obama, and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to meet in London.

News from that will hopefully bring a beginning to an end of such a horrible world-wide phenomenon.