Saving the "Melting Pot"

This past week, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed a new immigration policy into law. The policy allows police officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and ask them for proof of citizenship. Officers can those detain those who fail to prove they are US citizens. The law has come under attack from many in the state and across the nation, including President Obama, who called the law "misguided". President Obama has even asked the Justice Department to investigate to see if the law is "illegal and approves of racial profiling". Many opponents claim that the law allows for racial profiling of Hispanic Americans. State Sen. Rebecca Rios, a Phoenix Democrat and fourth-generation Arizonan, said she's concerned about her 14-year-old son being harassed by police because of his brown skin, black hair and dark-brown eyes.

"I don't want my son or anyone else's son targeted simply because of their physical characteristics," Rios said. "There's no reason I should have to carry around any proof of citizenship, nor my son."

Common Sense- First, let me state that I believe America to have been and always will be a "melting pot" for all nations. Many of us, myself included, would not be Americans if it were not for our ancestors who decided to make a better life for themselves. But, I also know that my ancestors came to this country LEGALLY and became LEGAL citizens of this country. They worked hard, paid their taxes, and never asked for a free handout. If you want to come to this country, become an American citizen and follow the rules just like the rest of us. With that said, I do share concerns with the opponents of the new law. I hope that racial profiling does not become a result of this law and that officers will use true and honest judgment. However, I do support the new reform bill. It is a start to stopping the flood of illegal immigrants into this country. I also support a National ID card which would require all citizens to carry a card that shows that they are citizens of this country. It would identify those who don't belong in this country and help to reform immigration. To those who claim this law supports racial profiling, I say this: "If you are an American citizen and are able to prove that you are, what are worried about?"

Beam Me Up, Mr. President

President Obama addressed an audience today at Kennedy Space Center in Florida recommitting the US to space exploration. I applaud unusual) Mr. Obama's support of NASA's continued exploration into space. Although I believe that we should continue exploration, like Obama suggests, of asteroids and Mars, I do believe we should also plan to visit the Moon again in the near future.

Obama's Hometown District to go to GOP?

Most Americans would not focus on a Congressional race in a state other than their own, let alone Hawaii. However, a race for President Obama's hometown district is gaining national attention.

Honolulu City Councilman, Charles Djou, is the Republican candidate. The race draws national attention because Democrat Neil Abercrombie, who represents Hawaii's 1st Congressional District which contains Obama's hometown, is stepping down to run for governor. Over the past few weeks, Djou has received endorsements from key Republicans, such as Mitt Romney and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who have both been picked to run for President in 2012. Romney called Djou "a fiscally responsible conservative who can focus on turning the economy around".

The Democratic candidates include former Representative Ed Case and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa. In most states, state party leaders select candidates or states hold primaries in the case of special elections. In Hawaii, all three candidates will be on the ballot. Republicans hope that having two Democrats on the ticket will split the vote and allow for Djou's victory. The special election is being held by mail, strangely enough, and will end May 22nd.

Despite confidence from Republicans, the polls aren't real clear. In January, a poll reported that Case had 37%, Hanabusa had 25%, and Djou had 17% of the vote. However, a poll released by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last week showed Case and Djou tied at 32%, Hanabusa at 27%, and nine percent undecided.





Common Sense- If Djou were to win this special election, it would be a political and moral defeat for Democrats. Politically, it would loosen their grip on the House of Representatives and prove that Democrats have lost tough with the American people. It would also signal a sign of things to come in November with more Democrats losing their seats (and I would love to wipe that stupid smile of Pelosi's face). Morally, if you're Obama, how depressing is it to know that your hometown and place of your birth falls to a Republican? I'm sure many of you say "why would he care" or "it wouldn't affect him". You may be right. He may not show that it affects him but you never really know what's going on inside someones' head now do you? The race is close and there is still over a month to go. Djou needs to stay strong, campaign on the issues that really matter, and not be drawn into petty fights with Democrats when they attack him.

Identifying the Threat...Or Not

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) attacked the Obama administration today for stripping terms like "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic radicalism" from the US National Security Strategy document. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the report identified that the primary struggle was against " militant Islamic radicalism". Lieberman wrote a letter to top counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan on Friday stating that the administration "identify accurately the ideological source" of the threat against the US. He also stated that failing to identify Islamic radicalism as the enemy is offensive to followers of Islam around the world.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamic extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman also said that this is not the first time the Obama administration has "tip-toed" around Islam. In the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, the shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, was never referred to as a radical Islamic extremist. The term was still omitted after the administration learned the Hasan had contact with a radical cleric beforehand.

Lieberman ended by stating "unless we are clear about who we are fighting, it's counterproductive and we won't be able to defeat this enemy."


Common Sense- This completely blows my mind. How can you remove the main threat to our freedom from a key document such as this? Make no mistake, radical extremist Muslims are the greatest threat to this country. And how about our Islamic allies around the world? By not identifying Islamic radicals as a threat, it may appear the US accuses all followers of Islam of being a danger. I do understand that there are other terrorists, domestic and foreign, that want to harm the US. But the largest threat to America still remains these Islamic radicals. Therefore, once again, why remove that term from a key security document? It would be like omitting the term Communists/Communism from security documents during the Cold War. Communism was the greatest threat to this country and no administration removed the term from their security documents. It may just be me but I think Mr. Obama and his administration have completely lost sight of who our enemies are.

Justice Stevens Retirement and a Look at the Candidates

Today, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. This gives President Obama his second Supreme Court Justice nomination. Stevens was appointed by President Ford shortly after the Watergate scandal and is the Supreme Court's longest serving member. Stevens is also the leader of the liberal bloc on the court. He is scheduled to retire in late June/early July.

Stevens has been planning to retire since last summer and sent his letter of resignation to President Obama today. Stevens stated "that it would be in the best interests of the court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term" which begins in October. But who is Stevens kidding? He really wants to retire before the next court term starts so that President Obama still has a Senate majority before the November midterm elections. The November midterms may reduce the Democrat's majority. With the Senate majority in place, Obama should have no real problem with the confirmation hearings.
I am not trying to discredit Justice Stevens term on the bench but I just find it a rather odd decision to retire before the midterm elections so that there is plenty of time for confirmation hearings.

There are three leading candidates to fill the Justice Stevens position. They are:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49
Federal Appellate Judge Merrick Garland, 57
Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood, 59

Let's take a look at these candidates more closely.




Solicitor General Elena Kagan- Former professor and dean of Harvard Law School; Domestic policy aide to President Clinton. She was very successful at calming down the faculty and for bringing in many conservatives to the college. She has already passed one Senate confirmation hearing to become Solicitor General. There are some concerns with Kagan. First, many state her lack of experience as a judge and, therefore, has no "paper trail" for her views. Another concern with Kagan is her decision as dean of Harvard Law School where she banned military recruitment on the campus to protest the passage of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" homosexual policy in the military, claiming the latter violated the First Amendment.



Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood- Former University of Chicago law professor; Anti-trust expert in the Clinton Justice Department; Appointed to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) by President Clinton in 1995. Wood is by far the most liberal of all three candidates. Therefore, she may face a lot of difficulty in her confirmation hearings if chosen. She is a very strong pro-choice advocate and has even argued against bans on partial-birth abortions. Some conservatives claim that she has disregarded Supreme Court precedents. Others claim that she may push for the removal of "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the approval of same-sex marriages.




Federal Appellate Judge Merrick Garland- In 1989, Garland left a law firm to become a federal prosecutor in Washington D.C. He supervised a variety of civil, criminal, and national security matters in the Clinton Justice Department, including initial proceedings against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. He was later appointed to the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals. Garland is a moderate Democrat who is applauded by both Democrats and Republicans and seems the most likely to face little difficulty in the confirmation hearings.

There are many other questions facing President Obama: Should he appoint a strong liberal, like Stevens, or a more moderate candidate? Should he appoint a Protestant (Wood) or someone of Jewish background (Kagan/Garland)? Does he risk appointing the first homosexual to the Supreme Court (Kagan)?

Common Sense- I think former Attorney General Edward Meese said it best when talking about the retirement of Justice Steven's and Obama's appointment:

"Never has it been more important in our nation’s history that the next Supreme Court justice be a person with a proven commitment to the original meaning of the Constitution and laws as they are written. Many laws being passed and issues being raised in Washington will likely require judicial scrutiny in the coming years. It is critical that the life-tenured justices who will decide these cases will not bend the law to favor a political ideology or personally held belief, but rather interpret our framework as it is written."

President Obama MUST choose a candidate who decides based on the law of the land, not on personal beliefs or political ideology. Therefore, if I HAVE to make a choice out of these candidates, I would go with Judge Merrick Garland. He seems the least controversial, is applauded by both parties, and has the experience to make intelligent decisions based on the Constitution. In my opinion, if Obama wants to avoid political suicide in the midterms elections and in his bid for re-election, he should choose Garland or someone similar.

-SGS

Nuclear Treaty Signed but How Safe are We?

Today, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the new START treaty, which reduces both the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals. Of course, both celebrated the treaty as a landmark piece. However, many, myself included, wondered what the treaty would do to stop terrorist groups or rogue nations, like Iran and North Korea, who don't recognize such treaties. President Obama stated "Those nations that refuse to meet their obligations will be isolated, and denied the opportunity that comes with international integration." I don't know about you but that doesn't make me feel safe. "Deny the opportunity for international integration"? Why should we even allow such groups or nations that chance to integrate into the international community? In my opinion, you shut these terrorist groups and rogue nations down before they can even get their hands on nuclear weapons AND you build up your nuclear arsenal in case, God forbid, one of them does get their hands on one. He also stated that those nations that do agree to the treaty will "not be threatened by American arsenals." Iran continues to take steps towards its nuclear program while the United States and four other countries (Great Britain, France, Russia, and China) consider stronger sanctions against Iran. Despite the celebration, former Ambassador Richard Burt stated that the treaty takes "very small steps towards further reductions". The treaty will reduce the nuclear warhead limit to 1,550 per country over seven years, a third less than what is currently permitted (2,200). The US plans to announce the start of the disarmament in May at the UN.

However, there is another problem with Mr. Obama's new treaty. Hours before the treaty was signed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow that the Kremlin reserves the right to back out of the treaty anytime he feel the US missile defense system is a threat. The Russians have numerously said already they believe our missile defense system does serve as a threat. As New York University professor Stephen Cohen stated "it is a politically unstable treaty". Also, the Russians have a historical record of violating nuclear arm control agreements and have already stated building up their arsenals, unlike the US. President Obama's nuclear weapon agenda is ridiculous. By having a smaller, less reliable, less creditable nuclear arsenal, nations around the world will have more incentive to increase their own nuclear arsenals. The Wall Street Journal stated today that the reason more countries haven't gone nuclear is because the US has been a nuclear power, not a treaty. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Canada could all build bombs in a week. Instead, they have relied on the US as a nuclear power to deter aggressors.

Common Sense- I believe this treaty does nothing to stop the nuclear arms race that still goes on to this day. The treaty does nothing to prevent terrorist groups or rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. If anything, it increases their will to get them. With a less powerful nuclear country, such as the US, around, these groups and countries will feel less threatened. Along with that, other countries, like Canada or Japan, will increase their nuclear arsenals to protect themselves since the US may not be able to. The treaty also allows Russia to back out of the treaty if they feel threatened by the US and possibly reignite the Cold War.

-SGS

"Common sense is as rare as genius- it is the basis of genius."- Ralph Waldo Emerson.


"After Treaty, US Confronts Threat of Terrorists Acquiring Nuclear Materials"- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/08/treaty-confronts-threat-terrorists-acquiring-nuke-materials/

"Obama's False START"- http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/08/morning-bell-obamas-false-start/