US Worrisome After North Korea declares 1953 Armistice Invalid

The Armistice of 1953 stopped the fighting between North and South Korea, after the Chinese Communist backed North attacked the American and Capitalist freed South in august of 1950.  At the end of 1953 no peace treaty was signed but and an armistice was agreed upon and a heavily defended border divided the two warring enemies, on the 38th parallel. Since 1953 North Korea has been nicknamed “The Hermit State”, as it rarely lets insiders in and has very bad reputation with international affairs.  This has led North Korea’s economy and country to famine and extreme poverty as it only spends its money on defense, as they now have the third largest army in the world.  The United States and other United Nations countries have tried to reach out to N. Korea with economic and humanitarian aid, but have been denied.  The same countries have also demanded that N. Korea stop the production of nuclear materials in fear that they would try and make weapon of mass destruction.  Fears came to realities as N. Korea has now positively tested 3 Nuclear weapons in the last 10 years and have tested long range missiles as soon as January of 2013.  With this hyped attention on N. Korea, Kim Jung Un has released statements and videos swearing to destroy and create war with the United States and our allies, with the dismissal of the armistice.          

With North Korea continually racing to get more and bigger weapons to potentially attack America has stepped up its defenses with the south and continued with air raid practice runs.  China has continually tried to be the peace keeping country and told both the United States and N. Korea to stand down, giving N. Korea ultimatums with humanitarian aid in the balance.  Even though this has not had lots of immediate change, it has worked in the past.  Some experts worry though thinking that Kim Jung Un, the young new leader of N. Korea is trying to prove himself to his people and military leaders and is eager for a fight.

Congress has now been shown a new bill “North Korea Nonproliferation and Accountability Act of 2013” which aims to punish/ cut foreign aid to N. Korea for their latest bombing tests.  This bill also calls on the UN to ask all other countries to fallow the United States stance on these punishments. 

These kinds of punishments remind some Americans of pre-World War II era were Germany was a small and demolished country who was trying to build some defense for themselves.  Before any one took action Adolf Hitler had the world’s 4^th largest army and 3^rd largest navy.  Colin Powell has been quoted stating that any war like act on the bordering S. Korea, Japan or American forces will be treated as an Act of War and the U.S. and the coalition regime will act swiftly and decisively.

Park, Madison. "North Korea Declares 1953 Armistice Invalid." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

S. 298: North Korea Nonproliferation and Accountability Act of 2013." GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

Mullen, KJ Kwon. Jethro, Dayu Zhang, and Greg Botelho. "State Media: North Korea in 'state of War' with South, Threatens to 'dissolve' U.S." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

            This week the title that first caught my eye was The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, especially since it was brought up in class this morning that the Republican Party does not want the support of gay conservatives.  This topic also ties in nicely with the two gay marriage cases set to be tried at the Supreme Court this week. 

            Ken Mehlman is heading a group of over one hundred established Republicans who signed a marriage legal brief in support of same sex marriage.  An unlikely supporter of gay marriage, Mehlman worked as the political director for the Bush administration and chairman of the Republican National Committee.  After coming out in 2010 Mehlman is undoubtedly the most prominent openly gay Republican.  The intent if these actions were to offer a conservative perspective in relation to overturning Proposition 8, which prohibits same sex marriage in California.  His was not the only high profile Republican signature on the brief.  Steve Schmidt who orchestrated the McCain presidential campaign, Kenneth Duberstein, the previous White House Chief of Staff, and Meg Whitman of California who had originally supported Proposition 8 also signed in support. [1]  I think it is wonderful that people are able to evolve their opinions and openly support something they once opposed.  What strikes me most is the irony here.  Mehlman worked with the Bush Administration against gay marriage, while Obama originally was of the opinion that marriage was something only to be shared between a man and a woman.  The difference here is the change of heart helped propel Obama’s support, and I am not sure the same will be true for Mehlman and conservative support.

            Last week the Conservative Political Conference also hosted an unofficial panel about the issue of Republicans adopting a more, “inclusive tone” in the matter of same sex marriage.  Sen. Rob Portom of Ohio voiced his support of same sex marriage. Jeb Bush has also recognizes the need of a less aggressive approach to marriage and said, “Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on.  Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidate — even though they share our core beliefs — because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party.”  Even Karl Rove said on ABC last week he can envision a GOP candidate that supports same sex marriage.   The Washington Blade reports a staging statistic that, “51% of Republicans under the age of 30 support marriage equality.” [2]  

            While reading through the right wing blogs a reoccurring arguement against redefining the definition of marriage is that it won’t stop with gay people, but with the number of people whom one can marry.  I was surprised by this beacause in my opinion, a threesome or foursome marriage is not relevant to the issue at all, as the conflict lies in the sex not the number.  I think it is really interesting how some Republicans are adopting this, “evolve or die” mentality. [1]  I would love to see this happen not only because I support equal rights to all people, but I think it could bring the two parties closer and get rid of some of the, “single issue” voting that happens.  I don’t see Republicans as a whole embracing this anytime soon, but I like to see that a party is having to adapt to new social norms and this represents a changing America.

 

References

1. Johnson, Chris. “CPAC highlights GOP Division on Gay Rights, Marriage.” washingtonblade.com (accessed 25 March 2013) http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/03/18/marriage-debate-heats-up-at-conservative-conference/ Web.

2.   Totenberg, Nina. “Former Bush Aide Pushes “Conservative Case” For Gay Marriage.”

http://www.npr.org (accessed 25 March 2013) http://www.npr.org/2013/03/24/174982423/former-bush-aide-pushes-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage. Web.

 

The Upcoming Supreme Court Debate on Marriage Equality

By now, everyone has heard about the upcoming Supreme Court hearings regarding marriage equality. Tomorrow California’s Proposition 8 will be contested, and on Wednesday the Defensive of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, will be challenged on the basis of federal benefits given to married couples. Naturally everyone has a passionate opinion on this issue, and Washington has been buzzing about the impending hearings for weeks. Protestors from both sides have been camping outside the capital, ready to make their voices heard.

            As a recent NPR article points out, many influential politicians who voted for DOMA now want the law overturned. Even former President Clinton, who originally signed DOMA wants to see it reversed. All 15 sitting Democratic senators who originally voted for DOMA in 1996 now oppose it. It is certainly amazing how quickly the American people (and the world) have come to accept marriage equality, or at the least, civil unions, within the past 17 years. One could argue that this has become a party issue—with Democrats overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage, while Republicans remain in favor of DOMA. However, it seems to be more likely for a Republican to be in favor of gay marriage versus a Democrat against the idea, further proof of changing American attitudes towards this sensitive issue. Even Fox News recently reported that the gay marriage issue is diving the Republican Party—and it certainly is.

As Reuters reported, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio recently made headlines for changing his position on gay marriage after learning his son was gay. His declaration that he wants each of his children, including his gay son, to enjoy the love and commitment of marriage is certainly heartwarming to supporters. However, Senator John McCain remains staunchly in favor of DOMA despite having a gay daughter.

            I believe the need for equality will override politics, and it is my hope that the Supreme Court will agree tomorrow and Wednesday. Considering that inter-racial marriage only became fully legal in 1967 (due to a Supreme Court ruling, no less) marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples only seems imminent. If not this week, another time in the near future will provide marriage equality for all citizens, regardless of sexual identity.

References:

Lynch, Sarah N., and Kim Palmer. "Republican Senator with Gay Son Now Backs Gay Marriage." Reuters. N.p., 15 Mar. 2013. Web. 

Roth, Zachary. "Gay Marriage Showdown at Supreme Court." MSNBC. N.p., 25 Mar. 2013. Web.

Welna, David. "They All Voted for DOMA, But Now These Senators Are Split."NPR. N.p., 23 Mar. 2013. Web.

"Supreme Court Tackles Gay Marriage, as Advocates Line Up for Historic Argument." Fox News. N.p., 24 Mar. 2013. Web.

The Great Gun Debate

     There has been great controversy over gun control through the years and recent events across the country from Colorado to Connecticut have added to the debate. There seems to be a stark difference between Democrats and Republicans as to what acceptable gun control is and what should be re-evaluated. Senator Diane Feinstein has put forth legislation which she hopes will help cut down on gun related deaths and violence. Senator Feinstein’s legislation is aimed to regulate and ban certain military style assault weapons as well as ammunition clips that are designed to work with assault weapons. The bill would focus both on sales in stores and in private.

     The bill itself would strengthen previous legislation that was enacted in 1994 banning assault weapons but would exclude over 2,000 types of firearms from being banned. The latest controversy that took place over this legislation happened in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee when Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas lectured her on the constitution and the second amendment. The verbal exchange that ensued became heated as Senator Feinstein responded. Feinstein has personal motives behind attempting to pass this legislation. She is known to have worked on gun control reform based on her experiences in San Francisco with the murders of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. She describes the emotions of knowing how awful assault weapons were as she had to put her fingers in the bullet holes.

     Gun control has been a hotly contested issue with Republicans traditionally defending the right of American's to own any weapon they choose. Democrat's are more in favor of regulating which weapons are available on the market and who should be able to use them. This bill would help to strengthen background checks for anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm as well ban private sales of assault weapons.

     I see no problem with banning the types of assault weapons that Senator Feinstein is targeting. It doesn't seem necessary for private citizens to have access to military style assault weapons when there over 2,000 other types of firearms at their disposal. It will be interesting to see how members of each party will act once the final vote is called.

Works Cited

Liptak, Kevin. "Feinstein Describes Feelings during Exchange with 'arrogant' Colleague." CNN Political Ticker RSS. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/14/feinstein-describes-feelings-during-exchange-with-arrogant-colleague/?iref=allsearch.

Stirewalt, Chris. "Left Grows Impatient on Gun Ban." Fox News. March 15, 2013. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/15/left-grows-impatient-on-gun-ban/.

"United States Senator Dianne Feinstein." Assault Weapons -. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons.

"What's in Feinstein's Gun Bill." CNN. January 24, 2013. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details.

Nomination of the Drone Assassin John Brennan as Director of the CIA

President Obama has nominated current Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan to replace former CIA Director David Petraeus. Brennan has been a quintessential player in the drone program working hand in hand with the president to establish his notorious “kill list”. The drone program has killed at least 2629 people, of which 213 were confirmed militants and 331 were confirmed citizens (87 of which were children) according to a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.[1] Some estimates put the ratio of civilians killed to militants as high as 49:1, or 98% civilian deaths.[2]

Brennan’s nomination was delayed in early February due to Code Pink protestors at his confirmation hearing.[3] In mid February the senate panel delayed the hearing again as the awaited more information on the drone program that he oversaw. Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein repeated a demand to see all nine classified Justice Department memos on the supposed legal basis for targeted killings of U.S. citizens, only two of which had been released.[4] The panel then voted to delay the vote a second time, again citing the release of the drone memos.[5] After the senate panel finally approved Brennan’s nomination senator Rand Paul said that he would filibuster it on the senate floor,[6] which he then did for almost 13 hours. His concern was mainly over an American could be targeted domestically by the program, to which Eric Holder responded indirectly yes.

The public has no explanation of the legal basis for the drone killings. The drone program has already targeted and killed American Citizens abroad outside of a warzone, the victims were Anwar al-Aulaqi and his 16 year old son in Yemen. By doing so depriving them both the right of due process of law and habeas corpus.[7]

What’s equally concerning about Brennan are some of his statements on Iran. He was virtually echoing calls by the intelligence community before the move was made to go to war with Iraq. He even believes that Iran has not made the decision not to weaponize, despite the findings of 16 US Intelligence Organizations that say otherwise.[8]

The nomination of Brennan as Director of the CIA is a terrible choice. We do not need the person responsible for the wildly illegal drone program heading the intelligence committee. Brennan would make America less secure with the continuation of policies that he has been instrumental in implementing by creating more hostility abroad and breeding anti-American sentiment. Senator Rand Paul is to be commended for his attempts to delay the process and raise awareness, though I believe they fell short of what was needed, a veto.

---

[1] Steadman, Ian. "'Naming the Dead' aims to give a voice to civilians killed in drone strikes." Wired.co.uk. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/05/naming-drone-victims (accessed March 8, 2013).

[2] Taylor, Robert. "Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare." Policymic. http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare (accessed March 8, 2013).

[3] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for February 08, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/headlines#281 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[4] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for February 14, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/14/headlines#2144 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[5] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for February 28, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/28/headlines#2282 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[6] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for March 06, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/6/headlines#362 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[7] Jay, Paul, and Michael Ratner. "Brennan Hearings: What is the Legal Basis for Drone Targeted Killings?." The Real News. therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=9651#.UTlddxmoHk1 (accessed March 7, 2013).

[8] Jay, Paul, and Lawrence Wilkerson. " CIA Appointee's Statement on Iran Echoes Tenet on Iraq." The Real News. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=9681#.UTldYRmoHk1 (accessed March 7, 2013).

Will Spring Bring a Political Thaw to Washington?

                President Obama’s recent dinner with 12 Republican lawmakers has some wondering if the coming months will see a lessening of the strict partisan gridlock that has prevented Congress from completing any major legislation. A number of news articles have reported on the dinner, although so far the participants have been reluctant to say what was discussed.  From brief statements afterwards, however, it seemed like the Republican lawmakers thought that it had been a useful dinner, and they hoped that President Obama would more frequently engage personally with members of Congress.  President Obama apparently took their advice to heart, because he is now scheduled to have lunch today with Congressman Ryan, chair of the House of Representatives Budget Committee (and frequently described as the leader of GOP thought regarding finances) and Congressman Van Hollen, the Democrat’s top Budget Committee member.

                This is an interesting turn of events, since President Obama emerged from the 2012 election in a very combative form.  This may have been an attempt on his part to reassure members of his own party, who thought he had been too conciliatory with Republicans during his first term.  In the face of such an obdurate Republican Party (particularly in the House), however, his combative style has achieved very little.  And with a recent Gallop Poll showing declining approval ratings, President Obama must have decided that it was time to change his approach.  Striking a bipartisan tone isn’t new to the President (just look at his first term), personally engaging with members of Congress is.  Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have complained that President Obama has not done a very good job of reaching out to members of Congress on an individual basis, instead dealing with people in leadership positions (like house speaker John Boehner), mounting campaign-style public events, or using Joe Biden (who still has a good relationship with many members of Congress). 

                I find it refreshing to see President Obama making an effort to reach out to Republicans in an effort to reach some sort of compromise.  While I can understand his frustration in dealing with such an intransigent Republican opposition, his most recent actions look much more presidential than simply complaining about the other side.  I think that if he is seen as making a genuine effort to negotiate with Republicans and come to some sort of “Grand Bargain”, he will have a lot of public support and improve his negotiating position.  I think in the Senate there may be enough Republican Senators that recognize the public wants action to come to some sort of deal.  The real unknown is if there are enough Republicans in the House who would be willing to compromise for the benefit of the country, even if it meant risking a strong primary challenge from the right.  Speaker Boehner seems like he really wants to reach a deal, but whether or not he can drag the rest of his caucus along with him is another matter. 

Sources

Cowan, Richard, and Susan Heavey. "Obama Hosts Ryan Lunch in New Outreach to Republicans on Budget." Reuters. Thompson Reuters, 7 Mar. 2013. Web.

Horsey, David. "Hoping to Break the Stalemate, Obama Takes GOP Senators to Dinner." Los Angeles Times. Tribune Newspaper, 7 Mar. 2013. Web.

Lerer, Lisa, and Kathleen Hunter. "Obama Tries Charm Offensive to Woo Republicans on Deficit." Businessweek. Bloomberg LP, 7 Mar. 2013. Web.

Sequestration Continued….

          For this week’s blog, I wanted to get back to the issue of sequestration.  This hot-button topic has both parties pointing fingers and essentially blaming the other for the budget cuts.  When looking at GOP and Democrat websites, I have seen basically the same exact articles, only the blame gets placed on the opposing party depending on what site you are on.  For example, the GOP.gov website explains the sequester in terms of the 3 things you should know, and those things are , “ 1) President Obama Proposed the Sequester…. 2) House Republicans took steps to replace President Obama's sequestration, passing bills on two separate occasions. Neither of which the Democratic-controlled Senate considered…. 3) No One Should be Talking About Raising Taxes on Americans with so much wasteful spending in Washington”.  [1]

            I thought this was interesting because I was under the impression that Republicans demanded the sequestration in return for giving the Obama administration the legal “wiggle room” to pay bondholders in the wake of the debt ceiling negotiations of 2011 as I discussed in last week’s post. I then stumbled upon a democratic perspective on democrats.org where Elizabeth Chan suggests, “Republicans continue to refuse to work with President Obama and Democrats to reach a balanced approach to reducing the deficit and averting the sequester. Their insistence on putting politics first has put our nation's military preparedness on the line and jeopardized the livelihood of the 800,000 Defense Department employees who now face furloughs—the consequences of which are already being felt across the country.” [2] 

            It seems as though the parties are campaigning more for the absolution of responsibility rather than the urgency for action.  With so many conflicting views and claims, I went to a relatively neutral source to try and sort out the mess.  What I found in an article on CNNMoney.com helped to put a non-partisan spin on the issue.  With respect to the blame game, the article appears to support my idea that too much time is being wasted on pointing the finger when it says, “Myth 1 - Obama is to blame for the spending cuts: No. In fact, both sides got behind the idea and time has been wasted playing the blame game.”[3]  The author goes on to state, “To make matters worse, agencies will have little discretion about what gets cut since the sequester mandates that the cuts be made by the same percentage to every non-exempt area. Efficient programs will be axed right along with bloated or duplicative ones.”[3] 

            Sequestration highlights many of the negative aspects of our two party system, but it is not only this issue that showcases how blame for a problem is unfortunately equally important to assign as the solution to it.  Congress had a year and a half to subvert the effects of these cuts, but was unable to find common ground, regardless of the formation of the “super committee”.  I then wonder, when the effects of the cuts really start being felt by Americans, will the parties expend more energy on righting the ship, or remain hindered by party allegiance. 

 

References

           

1.“About the Sequester – The Three Things You Need To Know.” GOP.gov n.p.,n.d.(accessed  7 March 2013) http://www.gop.gov/sequester/ Web.

 2. Chan, Elizabeth. “The GOP Sequester: Defenseless.”  www.democrats.org.  6 March 2013. (accessed 7 March 2013) http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/the_gop_sequester_defenseless. Web.

3. Sahadi, Jeanne. “4 myths about the spending cuts.” CNNMoney.com. 1 March 2013. (accessed 7 March 2013)

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/01/news/economy/spending-cuts/index.html?iid=article_sidebar. Web.