Hillary Clinton 2016?

          Hillary Clinton has officially announced that she will run for president in 2016. This is amid several recent scandals, including her private email server and her handling of the Benghazi attack that took place on September 11th 2012. It seems to me that Hillary must be extremely confident if the thinks she'll be able to run as an effective candidate when her credibility both as a person, and as a political official is so questionable.

          Her private Email server is such an important issue for several reasons. The first being that because this was a private Email server the government has no record of any email sent or received By Ms. Clinton. Her aids also used private Email, and the server had the capacity to delete Emails completely, leaving no record of their existence. Not to mention the fact that a hacker could have easily breached the security of the server. The frightening truth is that Hilary intentionally used a private Email so that the state department would have no record, meaning that she intended to keep her correspondence between important officials secret from, not only the people, but the government as well. Though She Herself tuned over 55,000 emails from her server "a proper search was not conducted" according to Judicial Watch Lawyer Michael Bekesha.

          Hillary's history of corruption begins in 1974 when Hillary Clinton worked for the House Judiciary Committee. At this time they were investigating Richard Nixon's involvement with the Watergate scandal. Hillary along with several other Members of the committee conspired to remove Nixon's right to legal council. In order to do this She, according to Her Boss Jerry Zeifman, stole documents and wrote a fraudulent legal brief that ignored the right to legal council precedent set during the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Zeifman believed that the brief was so fraudulent that had Hillary submitted it to a judge he believed she would have been disbarred. This event serves to underline her obvious contempt for the legal processes and institutions of the Constitution and this Country.

          The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has been the center of many scandals over her entire political career. Many other presidential candidates with less storied pasts have run and lost because of them. This means that unless Hillary is ready to loose She'll need a virtual media firestorm of support in order to be elected.


Sources
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-judicial-watch-reveal-top-hillary-clinton-advisers-knew-immediately-assault-benghazi-armed-attack/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/judicial-watch-the-clintons/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2008/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-foia-116030.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981534/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpPrhkmV_rA

Death Penalty for the Boston Marathon Bomber?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Found Guilty, May Face Death Penalty

As many of us already know The Boston Marathon was bombed almost two years ago to the date. It's known the bombing was planned and carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers. Tamerlan, the older of the two who was shot and killed during a standoff with Watertown Police, and the younger of the two Dzhokhar. With Dzhokhar being the only one left to stand trial, he was charged with 30 counts with many having the death penalty as a sentence if found guilty. Today the jury came to the verdict after about 12 hours of deliberation over a 2 day period. They found Tsarnaev to be guilty on all 30 counts his faced. Now, the same jury moves to the sentencing phase. With more witness testimonies the group of seven women and 5 men will have to decided if Tsarnaev should be put to death or not. The vote for him to receive the death penalty must be unanimous.

The question comes into play now if death is the easy way out for a man who injured over 200 people and killed 4. The Tsarnaev brothers set out to cause death and destruction on innocent civilians, but is sentencing him to death enough justice for the atrocities they caused? I believe not. Making him suffer in prison for the rest of his life seems more fitting for me. Those in favor of the death penalty might claim that their is no mistakes in this case, everyone knows he did it, thus there can't be any mistake in killing an innocent man which has happened in other death penalty cases. But isn't that the easy way out for a 21 year old? He would have to spend his entire life thinking about the decisions he made if not sentenced to death. He's a coward and doesn't deserve the right to forget about the mistakes he's made. Let him rot in prison. Opinions? Do you think that seeing we live so close to Boston we're more likely to lean one way or another on the issue? Is the death penalty really the answer?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32225787
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/08/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-verdict-boston-marathon-bombing

Funding for Food Safety

In 2010 Congress passed a law that allowed the Food and Drug Administration to create new rules and powers to prevent further food outbreaks that were getting people sicks. However, Congress has not provided the money to the FDA to enforce these practices. The FDA requested 580 million dollars to make these changes, but Congress has given them less than half of this amount.

An estimated 48 million Americans have food-borne illnesses each year, but without the required funding for these changes this number could increase. Since Congress is in the hands of Republicans and they are trying to cut back on spending the FDA is not sure they will receive the money they need. “If we keep shortchanging the F.D.A., it will continue to cost us billions of dollars a year to deal with food-borne illness,” said Ms. DeLauro, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency’s funding.

Without the proper funding the FDA will not be able to train 2,000 employees on the new standards that are required in food safety. It is also believed that the agency will not be able to oversee food imports as strictly as they would like. Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky said that anything more than 100 million dollars will be hard to give to the FDA. Should the FDA get the money it is asking for or are they asking for too much at the wrong time?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/food-safety-laws-funding-is-far-below-estimated-requirement.html?ref=us&_r=0

The Uniting of Nations Gone Sour

Illustration by Joohee Yoon via New York Times

It is no secret that the United Nations includes non-democratic members. In fact, out of the current 193 member nations, less than half are led by  democratic governments. The point of the UN is to promote international cooperation including issues on human rights and social justice. Yet, many of the member nations that head or are members of the Human Rights Council or the Commission on the Status of Women are known violators of the very statutes on which the United Nations stands.

For example Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Venezuela are all members of the UN Human Rights Council. Ironically, all three of these countries have histories of suppressing the rights of their citizens. Saudi Arabia with it's strict congruence with Sharia Law and spotty claims to citizens right to due process, has repeatedly been listed for the ongoing and most severe human rights violations. Qatar, which also has a history of suppressing protesters or anyone that would speak against social principles, while also violating the rights of migrant workers. Venezuela, where the socialist and militaristic regime is known for it's harsh responses to protesters.

Another example being the fact that Iran and Sudan are both members of the Commission on the Status of Women. While Iran continues to sanction the stoning of women for the crime of adultery and other such "honor killings". In Sudan, young girls are subject to genital mutilation. All of these instances are recognized as gender specific violence and therefore human rights violations. Yet both countries are represented on this commission and allowed to pass judgement on other nations.

Specifically noted by Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, is that Israel in particular is targeted far more than others as a result of these loose committee membership legitimacy situations. For example, the Non-Aligned Movement, consisting of 120 member countries, is a bloc and has been chaired by Iran since 2012. This gives Iran the ability to raise 120 votes against Israel, it's enemy. Also, going back to the Human Rights Council, in it's agenda there is Item 4 which brings up issues that require the councils attention. There is also an Item 7, which is specifically for human rights situations in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. This means that there is an entire council agenda item that can almost exclusively target Israel, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia serve to judge. Ambassador Prosor repeatedly states how Israel faces multiple condemnations from these committees and commissions while there are violators sitting on them as members.

While I am a supporter of the UN and what it stands for, I feel that the strength of it's original standings has dwindled. As an organization that is meant to serve the world justice, it lets an awful lot slip through the cracks. The fact that some countries serve on these committees and commissions (that are meant to uphold rights and justices) while openly violating these very ideals, I feel should be an embarrassment to the UN leadership. Continuing to allow the UN's democratic forum to be taken advantage of, and to be manipulated in order to hide and overlook the discrepancies of some countries is a mistake. All nations need to be held accountable for their actions, and they should not be allowed to abuse a system that is meant for the benefit of the international community.

Sources:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/opinion/united-in-ignominy.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=Multimedia
• http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/qatar?page=1
• http://www.unfpa.org/

Human Rights Council Agenda Link:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/ProvAgenda10session.pdf
H.R.C Member List:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

Hiding Police Names

Monday night before midnight Arizona governor Doug Ducey vetoed a bill that would allow law enforcement to hide the names of police officers involved in fatal shootings or beatings for 60 days. This would prevent the public from finding out which police officer was involved in things. The thought behind this bill was for a cool down period after an event happened.

However, when the bill was proposed there was much concern over it. Civil rights groups and even some police chiefs were some that had concerns over the bill. The police chiefs believed that it would cause distrust in police and not allow them to do their job. I also believe this. If police officers could get away for 60 days after fatally shooting someone it could happen more often as they would not be as concerned with their name being released.

It has caused a split between law enforcement in Arizona, as some are for the bill and others are against it. To add another law that’s going to add distrust or adversarial relationships is not the way to go,” Roberto Villaseñor, the president of the association and chief of the Tucson Police Department, said Monday. He believes that if he had to bring up the subject again 60 days later it would cause even more problems. However, Steve Smith, who sponsored the legislation, noted that the bill had bipartisan support. “I think it’s a good bill, and I think it would have protected our officers,” he said.

I believe this bill would have been a bad idea if it had been passed. It would have caused more distrust towards police in a time where there is much distrust going on. I understand that they are only trying to protect their police officers and their families, but this is not the way to go. Had this been passed before Ferguson and other police shootings that have been happening I think it would have passed. What are your thoughts?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/us/politics/arizona-governor-doug-ducey-vetoes-holding-back-the-names-of-officers-in-shootings.html?ref=politics

Campaign Funding

A successful election campaign depends on communication, and communication costs money. However, it is believed by some that money has the potential to corrupt a candidate, to drive him or her to serve their own interests or the interests of their campaign donors rather than the public good. In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush and John Kerry raised nearly half a billion dollars in private funding in their bids to win the White House. 

Recent history tells us that the magnitude of big donors' campaign spending rises as their commitment to the public interest shrinks. Mercury Insurance and its founder and chairman, George Joseph, spent a combined $31 million in 2010 and 2012  to pass two almost identical ballot initiatives to remake state auto insurance rules in Mercury's favor and to the public's disadvantage. The spending was so conspicuous that voters recoiled, rejecting both measures.

Big business and political campaigns have become closer in recent history and is driving politicians to appeal to big business and not the public they are meant to serve. With increased funding from corporations it has created corrupt policies and biased voting practices on the part of elected officials. 

Reform is needed and it is needed now!

Take a look at recent articles on the subject

Campaign Reform

Bipartisan Medicare Bill

Courtesy of Boston Globe

Recently the House passed a bill that would establish a new formula for payment to doctors. The payments would be increased by .50% every year through 2019. It was passed 392-97 in the House and is expected to be taken up by the Senate on Friday. The bill also allows doctors to receive bonuses or penalties depending on their performance scores given to them by the government. The bill was a bipartisan bill negotiated by Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Of the bill Boehner said:

This is what we can accomplish when we focus on finding common ground.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would spend $900 million less than if Congress decided to completely freeze Medicare payment rates over 11 years but would increase the deficit by $141 billion over the same amount of time.

Besides from doctor repayments the bill also would renew the Children's Health Insurance Program for two years and provides $7 billion to 1,000 community health centers, also for two years. While it is expected to be harder to pass in the Senate than in the House, Some Senate Democrats are unsure about the bill as that $7 billion funding is not to be used for abortions unless there are cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in jeopardy. Pelosi, as a supporter of abortion rights, encouraged her fellow Democrats to support the bill as

The abortion language in the bill is already in place for community health centers and will expire after two years.

But there are some complaints on the medical side in regards to this bill. Dr. Don McCanne of the Physicians for a National Health Care Program said:

In the fervor to finally rid us of the flawed...model of setting Medicare payment rates, Congress is about to pass legislation that includes ill-advised, misguided and detrimental policies that could cause irreparable harm to our traditional Medicare program.

While president of the American Medical Association Dr. Robert Wah said:

The Senate must act... to stop a looming 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements that will force reductions in access to health care for America's seniors, military personnel and their families.

While I think that the most of the federal programs have their faults and misuses, Medicare included, there needs to be a change that would be for the better good of the average population. These changes seem well and good and if doctors truly want to help people they should accept that traditional methods are not always effective, and if they are it has an expiration date.

It is also nice to see that the two parties can work together and is reassuring that are system does work and can work when correctly done so. Medicare has been a program that is been around for a long time now and these proposed changes, if not approved by the Senate, will hopefully open the door for more proposed changes in terms of health care and health insurance.

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/26/house-doc-fix-medicare-bill/70481156/

Other Sources for information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/us/house-passes-bill-changing-medicare-fee-formula-and-extending-childrens-insurance.html?_r=0

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/03/19/house-leaders-push-deal-fix-medicare-payments-doctors/vLKZCt734SqUdCvQJebLIN/story.html