Hints Of Reason During GOP Debate Reaffirm My Faith In Humanity

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was quite sharp yesterday evening during the CNN republican debates, even if no one on stage took him on. His attempts at engagement with Marco Rubio and Donald Trump fell flat, but he showed some centrist leanings that cause him to stand out. The crux of this common sense seems to be the way he views how the United States should deal with terrorism. To quote the man himself, " As commander in Chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend America, but in defending America we cannot lose what America stands for." He rejects ideas of supposedly monitoring the internet or possibly restricting access, because they are honestly absurd. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush condemned Trump's insane plan to ban all Muslims from the United States. Some candidates are showing themselves to be at least a bit less heartless than originally thought, unlike a certain neurosurgeon and potential child-murderer running for office. Doesn't this just warm the cockles of your heart? Do these candidates have any ulterior motives for being rational human beings besides wanting to beat Trump?
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/who-won-republican-debate/

Paul Ryan: You Spend Some, You Tax Some

Paul Ryan and Congress reached a decision tonight that will postpone the inevitable government shutdown. This work of fiscal policy has two components: An $11 trillion package of expenditures and a $629 billion package of tax breaks. The packages are comprised of 12 different bills that should (hopefully) be able to fund the government for 2016. Democrats had the majority of votes in passing the bill so they had quite a bit of leverage on what is actually in it and what they were able to combat. Paul Ryan was reluctant but quite cooperative in his dealings and there were many compromises made for the bill to be passed. The primary objective was to try and reduce this deficit, but with all the spending provisions in place that will probably not be even close to happening. The United States Budget Deficit is currently 441 billion dollars, and with the amount of spending on this bill it seems like that will grow next fiscal year. On both parties, there were attempts to package the bill with agenda, and some attempts were successful. Most were not. Here are some of those provisions.

Both parties agreed that there should be increased security in screening for Syrian refugees and passed a visa waiver program making the process more secure. There was also some bipartisan support for ending the 40-year ban on exports for oil. This is the main focal point of disagreement in the bill, Democratic Representatives from oil producing states absolutely love this provision, while some Republicans caution exporting oil. And lastly, there was full bipartisan support for funding the upcoming Census in 2020.  

Democrats primarily won on spending and were able to allow more refugees from Syria, allow more funding for planned parenthood, and continue with aggressive regulations for the environment created by President Obama.

Republicans won on taxes and were able to cut corporate and business taxes and postpone new taxes being passed for devices covered by the Affordable Care Act.

Now these provisions are not set in stone. Voting on the tax portion of the bill will come on Thursday (tomorrow when I post this) and the spending vote will come on Friday. Most people, including me, don't believe this will go smoothly. Right now, especially during campaign season, both parties are less likely to agree with each other than ever. However, if the bill does get passed on those assigned dates, the bill will be sent to President Obama and the new provisions will be put in place to start the new year. Woohoo! Well, there is actually a lot to disagree on. Some of these provisions are for things that may anger or make you very happy. One thing I didn't like is that the bill will freeze Vice President Joe Biden's salary, which in my eyes is pretty pointless and mean to a man that appreciates ice cream so intensely. It also gives a $250 dollar deduction to elementary and middle school teachers, which I like. If you want to see some of the rest of these provisions (and you're going to have to because you're going to be answering which ones you like best,) check out the NPR article, the first source, and scroll to the additional highlights.

So which party won? Which provisions do you like best? Which provisions do you absolutely hate? Do you think the passage of the bill is a sign for better, bi-partisan politics? Or do you think that Thursday and Friday will be complete flukes? Do you like Paul Ryan as the speaker of the house? And finally, should we even bother balancing the budget?

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/459987911/no-government-shutdown-but-heres-whats-in-the-spending-bill?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/16/oil-exports-ban-congress/77420824/

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Cruz in Hot Water Following GOP Debate

Ted Cruz is under scrutiny after the Republican Presidential Debate on December 15, as there is the possibility that he  revealed classified information to the public. During a heated exchange between him and Florida Senator Marco Rubio regarding national security, Ted Cruz stated that "the old [metadata collection] program covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers to search for terrorists, the new program covers nearly 100 percent" (NBC). Rubio replied by saying "Let me be very careful when answering this, because I don't think national television in front of 15 million people is the place to discuss classified information" (NBC). Marco Rubio is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the surprise he showed when Cruz made his comments may indicate that the data is in fact classified.


The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Richard Burr, will be performing investigations to determine whether or not Cruz's comments contained classified information. They will attempt to learn if any media outlets previously reported this data, which would allow them to determine whether it is public or classified. However, because Cruz is not a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, there are some doubts over the validity of his comments. Senator Burr has stated that "...to my understanding this subject matter was not one where any members outside the committee had been briefed on it" (The Hill), and so it is unclear if what Cruz said is even true.

What do you think?

If it turns out that this information was classified, what consequences will Cruz face? Will Cruz be forced to drop his bid for the Republican nomination? Or will he gain even more support for being so transparent?

Sources:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/did-ted-cruz-reveal-classified-information-gop-debate-n481076

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/263443-burr-investigating-if-cruz-discussed-classified-information-during-debate

Everything You Should Be Looking For in the GOP Debate Tonight

Ah yes, it's that special time of year. Parents are whispering about what the future might hold. Kid's are running downstairs to their living rooms excitedly. There's a general warmth and buzz in the air.

Of course, I'm talking about the GOP debate!

As the last debate of the year, we're heading back to our favorite group of Republicans for one more three-ring-circus to close out the year.

Or maybe not.

Everyone knows by now that a major concern of the Republican Party is how they are being perceived. Certain "politicians" are making hard for legitimate concerns to be voiced and for real politicians to have speaking time. However, as many people are beginning to think, that could change tonight.

After the past few months being filled with inflammatory comments, from making fun of the disabled, to proposing Muslim's be banned from the U.S, Trump has a big job at the debates tonight. He has to keep showing the manic energy he's promised the United States and possibly prove he's more than just a big mouth. Otherwise, the election may go in a completely new direction (finally). Trump should be showing tonight that he has plans for the United States and can defend his past comments. If not, 2015 may be one of the last times Trump is relevant.

Ted Cruz has a major job tonight as well. While his polling numbers have been impressive, it's up to him tonight to secure a reason why. This is Cruz's chance to become a more competent face for the GOP. As NPR said, Cruz's only danger this debate is "Letting Trump's insults stick” (Taylor). If Cruz can come out of this debate with no major flubs and a strong stance, he’s got a very good shot at the nomination.

We then have the team of Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Chris Christe, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush. These contenders are not out of the race just yet. Watch for them to be pushing their policies hard. Their job this time around is to not get lost in the shuffle of the stage and keep strong when questions get tough and Trump gets loud.

Finally, watch out for John Kasich and Rand Paul. They’re in the bottom of the polls, and tonight, their only goal is to stay relevant enough to keep out of the B-Team debates. They could be debating very well tonight and making very strong comments. But only if they get the time.

Of course, the Undercard debate could find some surprises, but the likelihood Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki and Graham end up looking like a “‘warm up act’” (Taylor) is high.

How do you think the debate will go?

Do you think there will be any breakouts?

Any disappointments?
Do you think that the race may become more serious or just more insane?

If you’re responding to this after the debate, who was successful? Were there any surprises from predictions made?

https://www.gop.com/debates/

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/15/459746266/tonights-gop-debate-cruz-on-the-rise-as-terrorism-becomes-central-focus

Ted Cruz Is Rising In the Polls -- It's Too Bad Trump Has to Ride on His Coattails

Well, that may be an unfair statement. But not really.

Ted Cruz, a U.S. Senator for Texas, just got a major boost in the polls. According to People and NowThis, Ted Cruz is leading in some polls in Iowa with 31%, while Donald Trump is behind at 21% (Kimble). While this is probably cause for a sigh of relief with the GOP, Trump certainly is not going to let anyone forget that he is still at large.

While Cruz has been known for generally keeping quiet about Trump's inflammatory comments, recently he spoke out against Trump's proposed "Muslim Ban." He was quoted as simply saying, "'I disagree with Donald on that'" (Seipel). 

The New York Times, however, recorded him making more obvious Anti-Trump statements behind closed doors. National Public Radio said:

“…Cruz was saying last week that voters are asking themselves, ‘Who am I comfortable having their finger on the button?’… He added that, "It's also a question of judgment" — ‘a challenging question" for Trump.’”  

This, of course, set Donald Trump seemingly on war path. He tweeted at Cruz, writing “@tedcruz should not make statements behind closed doors to his bosses, he should bring them out into the open - more fun that way!” 

Cruz denied any fight he had with Trump and tweeted back “The Establishment's only hope: Trump & me in a cage match. Sorry to disappoint -- @realDonaldTrump is terrific. #DealWithIt” 

Now that the floodgates have seemingly opened, Trump has called Cruz a maniac, when discussing his temperament. When describing Cruz’s leadership, Trump described it as a style where “You’re never gonna get things done that way.” He then tried to undermine Cruz’s evangelical fans by reminding them Cruz was Cuban. He was recorded as saying, “I do like Ted Cruz, but not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba, in all fairness” (Seipel). 

Trump is of course undermining Cruz’s fanbase with caucuses coming up, especially in a state like Iowa. According to Iowa pollster J. Ann Sezler, Cruz is opening up the primaries at “a 10-point lead over Trump in that state, with 45 percent of evangelicals backing Cruz” (Seipel). 

Do you think Trump is making the comments to discredit Cruz or bring more attention to himself?

How do you think Trump will do in the Iowa caucus? 

How about the other Republican candidates?

How much longer do you think Donald Trump will remain in the race?

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination

http://www.people.com/article/ted-cruz-beating-donald-trump-in-iowa-caucus-poll

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/1069115729786583/?theater

The Trump Dilemma - What can the GOP do?

White House press secretary said it best -- "The fact is what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president," while referring to Mr. Trump's offensive, if not vexing comments about Muslims being allowed into America (CNN). My initial reaction, seeing the headline on the news, was plain shock. To be fair, I had bought into the Trump hype a little bit. I saw the economic prowess, the natural leadership ability, and the adverseness to Washington corruption, and thought that he might be the type of guy to reinvigorate the American people into politics, and bring us back to the international forefront. However, I was clearly wrong, and his campaign needs to come to an end before he causes more detriment to not only his name, but to our whole country. By (remarkably) leading the polls, he has unfortunately become an ambassador for American politics, and the American people. What is a Middle Eastern national to think when he sees a video of a top American presidential candidate spewing garbage about his people, and receiving a standing ovation? He/she would think that we all share his convoluted, bigoted views. We need the Middle East to be our biggest ally against ISIS, and Trump's mere appearance on the international media waves is bad for all the American people. More so, potentially, the Republican American people.
There is absolutely no way Trump will win this election. As I expressed to Mrs. Fox in class, he's actually "the worst," and the only way he would win in a general election would be if the DNC and Independent candidates both concede before election day. He's a radical, put simply. Any American who wants to exclude a whole group of people from our country clearly has never browsed over any of our founding documents, and has other major issues that they need to deal with personally. So, by some ungodly miracle, if Trump continues his hot-streak in the polls and wins the GOP candidacy, the Republicans will have no shot at winning in an election cycle in which they should have a realistic chance. So, what can the GOP and their supporters do? Well, a resounding 66% of likely GOP voters, as polled by Rasmussen Reports, favor Trump's unconstitutional plan, which is reminiscent of our internment and ban of Japanese people during WWII, certainly one of our darkest hours as a nation. The true Republicans need to not only separate themselves from Trump, but admonish his words and his actions, in order to distance themselves and the Republicans from his sideshow circus. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush need to be the prevailing cooler heads for the Republicans, and promote a more centrist, internationally acceptable plan for dealing with the radical Islam crisis that has befallen our nation. If they can't turn it around soon, Hillary has it in the bag.
What can Republicans do to overcome their dilemma with Trump? Does he have a shot to win the election? Are his comments acceptable? Does this dog look like Trump?

Sources
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/december_2015/voters_like_trump_s_proposed_muslim_ban
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/donald-trump-josh-earnest-disqualified-president-muslims/index.html
(No, that's not my dog)

Threat of Government Shutdown as Budget Deadline Approaches

Friday, December 11 will be the budget deadline for the 2016 fiscal year. However, partisan disputes will prevent this deadline from being met, as both Democrats and Republicans are attempting to attach a number of "rider" provisions regarding Syrian refugees, environmental policies, and economic regulations- including an oil export provision that Republicans widely support. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have stated that a government shutdown would be a result of Republicans continuing to push for "poison pill riders," even though both sides are looking to make attachments to the budget bill (CNN).

Unfortunately, the government cannot simply allocate the same funds as last year, as there has already been Congressional agreement that spending would increase by $66 Billion. The use of these funds was reached through bipartisan compromise; half the money will go to the military, in accordance with Republican demands, and the other half will go to welfare programs backed by Congressional Democrats.



Because of the inability to reach a budget decision, a stop-gap bill will be passed instead to give lawmakers more time to reach an agreement for the 2016 fiscal year. This bill will temporarily fund the government for only a few more days, and Congressional leaders are hoping that a deal will be reached in that time. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy stated that "there has been a number of issues that have not been finalized," and that [Congress is] in the midst of closure on these [issues] and [it is] not there yet" (CNN). Hopefully, he his correct in his prediction that a compromise will be reached, as a government shutdown will occur if a budget is not created for this coming year.

Earlier this fall, a government shutdown was also avoided by a temporary budget bill that would be effective until December- now, however, that deadline is looming. Indecisiveness regarding the budget bill was largely a result of Republican attempts to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, which were defeated by Senate Democrats and President Obama. Republican leaders were concerned about the potential for a shutdown back in September, as such an event would have reduced the public's confidence in the Republican Party, possibly damaging its efforts to win back the White House in 2016.

What do you think? Will this temporary stop-gap bill buy Congressional politicians enough time to pass a budget bill? Or will it just extend bipartisan bickering by a few days and ultimately end in a government shutdown?

Since Republicans continue to push for a provision regarding oil exports, do you think they will be blamed in the event of a government shutdown? Or will the stubbornness of both the Democrats and Republicans be to blame?

Sources:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/08/24-questions-threats-of-government-shutdown/76994550/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/shutdown-house-republicans-congress/

On Pfizer Inversion, many Politicians Miss the Point.

A couple of weeks ago, the largest pharmaceutical company in the country, Pfizer, did a corporate inversion with Irish company Allergan to save on taxes. Inversions happen when a conglomerate like Pfizer deals with a smaller foreign company in order to create a foreign headquarters, thereby allowing it to pay lower total tax rates.

The rhetoric surrounding this inversion by Democrats makes me nervous of their skill to lead the country, however supportive I am of the current Democratic social issue platform. Bernie Sanders, for example, stated that,

"The Pfizer-Allergan merger would be a disaster for American consumers who already pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It also would allow another major American corporation to hide its profits overseas. The Obama administration has the authority to stop this merger, and it should exercise that authority. Congress also must pass real tax reform that demands that profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes.”

While it may be true that banks and corporations like Exxon-Mobil make huge profits by exploiting demand, and their CEO's are making more money than they actually are worth by illegally avoiding taxes, the same case is not applicable to the pharmaceutical industry. In the drug creation process, the average drug costs in the vicinity of $2-3 billion dollars to create from start to finish. With the premiums that companies are pushing, however, this does not seem like a large amount of money until it is acknowledged that only one out of every twenty drugs that development is started on ever reaches the market. Drug companies actually make very limited profit margins on their products, and most profits are used to fund drugs that the doctors developing them care about. Indeed, many drugs for specific illnesses are never able to ever reach clinical trials because not enough people are afflicted with the illnesses to allow the companies to make money off the drugs.

It is for these reasons that I oppose the increase in <i> corporate </i> tax rate by Bernie Sanders. And not just him either; Hillary Clinton said about the deal, "The maneuvers powerful corporations are using to game the system and leave everyday taxpayers holding the bag are just offensive.” Why is it offensive that Pfizer wants to expand its business, and the best possible way to do this is by leaving the country? Why would a corporation not move to a country that better facilitates the growth of business? There is no moral contract that companies have to sign with the United States. The sheer difference in tax rates between Ireland and the United States should make this obvious: 39.2% in the United States versus 12.5% in Ireland. At that rate, Pfizer is able to exert higher risks in developing drugs that would not be profitable had the headquarters stayed in the United States, and Pfizer is not forced to sell its product at such high premiums.

In order to foster "fair" trade in the United States, high corporate tax rates are placed, but these tax rates are only driving away America's biggest businesses. Should they go higher, who will be the next to leave? In my eyes, this should be a much more pressing matter to Americans than the quagmire in the Middle East because it is happening right under out feet.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-condemns-pfizer-allergan-merger

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/clinton-condemns-pfizer-merger-with-allergan-as-just-offensive-1.2460709

http://www.newsweek.com/how-pfizer-should-be-punished-deserting-america-401895

A Christmas Miracle- Bipartisan Bill on Education gets Passed

Today, December 10, Obama signed the Every Child Succeeds Act to replace the No Child Left Behind Act. After signing, Obama said, "After more than 10 years, members of congress from both parties have come together to revise our national education law—a Christmas miracle, a bipartisan bill signing”. The senate cleared legislation beforehand in an 85-12 vote that $26 billion will be set aside each year for this act for grades preschool to 12^th grade. Obama has said that the NCLB has not produced the results that America needs to be competitive on a global scale and this new act will make every child prepared to succeed.

The bill curtails the federal government’s power in education; it gives power to the states to evaluate its schools and teachers with their own standards. The yearly budget would be $26 billion and the federal government cannot give incentives to use any particular learning standards or evaluate teachers in any certain way. This bill sets up a grant program for states to provide more early-child education to lower income areas. It provides for $250 million a year for expanding access to preschools. However, the bill still keeps the standardized testing requirements that the No Child Left Behind Act had and mandates that states document improvement of student performance on these tests. The bill requires testing in math and reading yearly in grades three through eight and once in high school.

People who opposed the bill include Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah who said that the Every Child Succeeds Act does not have a central planning model of education and as a result, will not succeed.

On the other hand, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers is a supporter of the bill and said that the legislation is a step in the right direction in letting the states have more discretion on educating children.

Senator Rand Paul voted no on the bill, Lindsey Graham voted yes, and Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders did not vote.

It is very important for the United States to improve its education system because our citizens are now competing on a world stage. It may be an improvement that the Every Child Succeeds Act gives more power to the states because that means that the school systems are more local and accessible, but still being held to national standards through standardized testing.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-senate-votes-to-replace-no-child-left-behind-law-1449678245

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-signs-bipartisan-education-bill-into-law-1449767196

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/10/459219774/president-obama-signs-education-law-leaving-no-child-behind

Is this new Every Child Succeeds Act an improvement to our education system? Is it better to leave education issues to the states? Is standardized testing a viable way of examining improvement in students? Is it better to have a centralized model of education or a decentralized model?

#WorstResponders

Let me premise this post by saying two things

1. This is an issue I implore anyone and everyone to take an action on. In a time where all we hear about politics is from the presidential race, not only is this not about Trump, but it is about something that all Americans treasure and love, the people that protect us.
2. This post is going to be an editorial because the topic frustrates me as well as many Americans. If you want to learn more or learn how to help, please visit http://www.renew911health.org/ (this is also one of my sources). With that said, let's get down to business.

On September 11th, after the World Trade Center and Pentagon were destroyed, tens of thousands of firemen, policemen, and paramedics arrived to help the injured and put out the fire. Regardless of political opinions, these people are as close to superheroes as you can get. Nearly 70,000 of these first responders were exposed to, as Huffington Post states "highly toxic dust from the wreckage of the World Trade Center towers, It contained asbestos, glass shards, cement and other toxins." 2,000 responders were injured in helping, many of which crippled for life, and 414 lives were ended. One of those whose lives were taken away after the chaos and madness was James Zadroga, an NYPD detective who died in 2006 of a respiratory illness caused by the air at Ground Zero.

In James' memory, George Pataki, the Governor of New York during 2006, signed a bill that expanded health care benefits to the first responders of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Every year till then, more and more first responders like James died of cancer or respiratory illnesses related to their fervor and bravado shown on Ground Zero. Later, the bill encompassed over 50 diseases related to exposure to toxic air on 9/11.  Federally, however, the law was unsuccessful initially. Why? Republicans. Yes, the party that supposedly never forgot about those who served our country... forgot about those who served our country. Filibuster after filibuster, hour after hour, Republicans in the Senate fought tooth and nail to prevent the Zadroga Act from being implemented federally. They voiced their concerns of fiscal responsibility, as it did cost 7.4 billion dollars. Wow! 7.4 billion dollars? How much did President Bush spend on the Iraq War? 1.7 trillion?  There is no way they could dare spare 7.4 billion dollars to help dying first responders, that would be fiscally irresponsible. I hope all of you can see the disgust in my words. Finally, after a large media campaign led by Jon Stewart shaming senate Republicans for their hypocrisy and negligence, the bill was implemented federally on January 2, 2011, 4 years after the bill was conceived in New York. All it took was publicly denouncing a few candidates, some rude remarks, and bi-partisan outrage to get the bill signed. Most of you are probably hoping this, excuse my french, crap is history.

Nope!

The time has come to renew the terms of the bill and Republicans in both the House and the Senate are at it again, touting fiscal responsibility. This time, the movement is led by everyone's favorite turtle Mitch Mcconnell. Mcconnell, the Senate majority leader, "is the key to getting this done and so far he's been an enormous obstacle. Unwilling to move the bill forward for purely political reasons" according to Jon Stewart. To show that this is purely political, the Daily Show later displayed a political ad sponsored by Mcconnell stating his support of a similar bill in his state, that expanded health care for cold war workers exposed to long-term radiation at their work. Why isn't Mcconnell supporting the bill? No one really knows. All we know is that he pulled the Zadroga Act section out of another bill when the same bill tightened oil export regulations. Essentially, he is taking the act hostage to get what he wants. However, when speaking to the responders, he showers them in the usual faceless rhetoric. The time has come again to pass the bill and people aren't budging, the situation looks bleak.

On the same episode of the Daily Show, former host Jon Stewart tried to assemble the identical panel he had on before but he was met with disturbing news. 2 of the 4 were too sick to make an appearance, and the third, John Devlin, had already died. On the show there are 5 seats total. Only two people are actually sitting. As a nation that loves its patriots, it is disgraceful, and time is always running out for a sick responder.

Look, as many of my friends know, I consider myself a Moderate Republican. However, the way the far right conducts itself is absolutely, without a doubt, unacceptable and has no place in American government and politics. Democrats do not even boast their support for soldiers and Ground Zero responders as much, but they always seem to do more. Far right Republicans talk and talk yet do absolutely nothing when the opportunity presents itself. Instead, they prefer inaction over bi-partisanship.

What do you think we should do to force Mcconnell to support the Zadroga Act? Does this situation make you rethink how America treats its first responders? Do you think the bill is too expensive? If so, are there any smarter and more fiscally responsible ways to support 9/11 first responders? Do politics interfere with bills that are time sensitive?

Sources
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/press-past/2013/03/20/the-underestimated-costs-and-price-tag-of-the-iraq-war
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyregion/10health.html
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/zadroga-act-wtc-world-trade-center-claims-lawyer-attorney-lawsuit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/911-first-responders_n_5797398.html

WATCH THIS! Jon Stewart recaps basically what I said except he is more funny.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i58xmo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-worst-responders
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5xvbon/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-jon-stewart-calls-out-mitch-mcconnell

How Obama Plans to Combat Terrorism

As focus shifts from our own president to the 2016 presidential candidates who share their views in regards to a multitude of political issues, it becomes even more important to not forget where President Obama stands in regards to the pressing issues of terrorism, the increasing threat of Isis in our country, and how exactly he plans to resolve them. On Sunday night, December 10th, President Obama addressed the American people in regards to the key elements that are needed to take out Isis and the threat of terrorism, all while staying at home. The president stated that his strategy to combat the forces of ISIL were to “continue military campaigns to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country necessary, provide training and equipment to Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground, stop ISIL’s operations by disrupting plots, cutting off finances, and preventing recruitment of more fighters.” Lastly he expressed that to “defeat ISIL abroad the U.S. and international community will also have to establish a process and timeline to pursue cease fires and a political resolution to the Syrian civil war.” Following the Paris terrorist attacks, the U.S. and partners in the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL “intensified” their efforts even more. The White House described the many actions that are being taken across the Globe to counter attack the acts of recent terrorists. Despite this all, President Obama made sure to recognize that the issue of terrorism does not only exist abroad, but here at home. He expressed that is it imperative that “no one on a ‘No fly list’ should buy a gun or a powerful assault weapon, that stronger screenings will be put in place for travelers to the U.S. without a visa to check if they’ve travelled to wazones. “ and most importantly to “vote to authorize the continued use of military force against ISIL.” Overall, the president spoke to the idea that the war on ISIL is not a war on Islam but a war on the terrorist groups who seek destruction and mass killing. He made sure that although we are fighting a Muslim extremist group, the anti- muslim bigotry in our country must come to an end, for the survival and well being of our country is at stake if we cannot all live side by side.

How do you feel Obama’s address covered the issues of terrorism our country currently faces?

Do you believe his strategy is ideal for our current situation? Should more be done? Less?

Did he touch upon the most prominent issues in regards to terrorism that our country faces? Why or why not?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/05/president-obama-addresses-nation-keeping-american-people-safe

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/president-obama-thirteenth-amendment-slavery-bigotry-donald-trump.html

Connecticut Acts to Expand Gun-Control

On Thursday, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy said he would sign an executive order banning people on federal watch lists from buying firearms. If this follows through, Connecticut would be the first state to enact such a change. Malloy and the legislature have been expanding the ban on assault weapons and barring the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines ever since the tragic Newton shooting in 2012. However, last week, the U.S. Senate turned down a bill to give the attorney general the power to block gun sales to people on federal watch lists.  Malloy, a Democrat that supported the bill, decided to take a stance on the issue especially after the Paris bombing and the San Bernardino shooting. “If Congress will not act, we in the states will,” Mr. Malloy said.

Under the executive order, state police will have to cross-reference the names of gun buyers with watch lists that Malloy was allowed access to after asking Obama’s administration. If there’s a match, he or she wouldn’t be allowed to buy the gun or ammunition. In addition, the police would be allowed to revoke existing permits from gun owners on watch lists. Those whose permits were revoked or denied would be able to appeal the decision with the Connecticut Board of Firearms Examiners.

In opposition, Scott Wilson, president of the gun-rights group Connecticut Citizens Defense League, said the order could unlawfully deny firearms to law-abiding citizens. “While we are all concerned about terrorism, this approach is very un-American and shameful,” he said. The same league has also been critical of the federal government’s no-fly list, saying that some people are placed on the list for invalid reasons. Mr. Malloy agreed that there can be errors on the lists and said the appeal process would be a rigorous one.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/connecticut-moves-to-deny-gun-sales-to-people-on-no-fly-lists-1449772894

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/12/10/us/ap-us-malloy-gun-restrictions.html

What do you think about the situation?

Do you agree with Malloy or think that the order would violate citizens’ constitutional rights?

If you disagree, what do you propose is another solution?

Why Trump Is, But Isn't the Front Runner

Donald Trump has been the front runner of the Republican Party for months now, which shocks many due to his outrageous comments and impossible policy proposals.  The most recent of his never-ending stream of outbursts includes proposing to exclude all Muslims (even those who are US citizens) from coming/returning to the country, and making fun of a disabled boy.  According to patterns, every time Trump says something shocking, he goes up in the polls.  This is most confusing because in a survey taken at the beginning of the campaigns, voters expressed interest in candidates with very different characteristics than Trump.  For example, "they wanted a moderate over a strong conservative," and the least important quality was "a very successful, self-made businessman."
Some theorists believe that Trump's supporters do not really agree with anything he has to say.  They simply know that he will be heard by the entire nation because the media is constantly on him, so they want to use him as a mouthpiece to get their issues heard.  According to theory, no voters actually believe he will be an effective president, who is able to not only get the issues heard, but resolve them.  For this reason, many believe that Cruz or Rubio are the Republican candidates who will get the majority vote in the primaries.

Do you agree that Trump is simply a mouthpiece for voters to be heard?
Do you think another Republican candidate will win the primary despite Trump being the current front runner?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/10/why-donald-trump-isnt-real-gop-frontrunner.html

How would a Trump Independent bid work?

How would a Trump Independent bid work?

     Once again Trump is taunting the Republican Party with his most recent notions to not rule out running as a third party for the presidential election.  Trump has been under fire recently for his egregious proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.  With this far fetched idea coming on the heels of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, trump's candidacy is becoming more and more of a concern for the permanent damage it can leave on the party.  

     Earlier in the year, Trump met in New York with the head of the Republican National Committee and signed a "pledge" vowing not run as a third party independent and to support the Republicans eventual nominee.  Recently, Trump has shown signs of going back on that promise.  

     In an interview on Wednesday with CNN's Don Lemon, Trump stated that an independent run was "highly unlikely" but denied to completely ruling it out as an option.  In addition, Trumo called the pledge a "two way street" which definitely leaves room to debate on whether it is a realistic possibility.  Trumps final words on the idea topped off the notion of a third party run,  "If they don't treat me with a certain amount of decorum and respect. If they don't treat me as the front-runner ... If the playing field is not level, then certainly all options are open," Trump said.  Well I guess we will find out before November, but until then nobody knows what will happen. 

How would an independent run affect each party in the presidential election?

What are some pros and cons to trump running as an independent?

Will Trump lose any support running as an independent opposed to running as a republican?

Are Trump's recent comments coming from fear of defeat or hubris? 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/politics/donald-trump-2016-independent-presidential-campaign/

Trump's Muslim Immigration Policies

Trump has recently come out with comments stating that all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States out of fear for future terrorist attacks and the need to "protect" America. These statements have created a whirlwind of both support and dissent from both Republicans and Democrats, as well as foreign nations who have sharply criticized these policies. Trump has justified his claims saying that the "visa lottery system" is allowing in criminals and those radical Islamists. Furthermore, Trump believes that this is the most effective way to solve the terrorist problems that face this country.

On the Republican side of the debate, presidential hopeful Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum have emerged as supporters of Trump. Contrastingly, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and a major voice of the Republican Party says that Trump does not "stand for the party", a comment that shows the emerging alienation and division within the Republican party. The Republican part has become a mix of the extreme right conservatives and more moderate centrists. Trump has tried to remedy his comments by repeating that FDR, a well respected president, set up Japanese internment camps and sent back Asian immigrants. Targeting the fears of the American people and the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and California, Trump has horrifically earned support from thousands of citizens and prominent reporter Laura Ingraham.

However, despite the supposed support for Trump, there are also facts that point to his lack of appeal to the general population. The White House press secretary has said that Trump is unfit for the White House and incapable of representing the American people on a national scale. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton has echoed concerns saying that "Hate is not an American value". There is a clear population that believes what Trump says and falls into the category of wanting to exclude Muslim immigrants.

An interesting note is the legality of Trump's policies. Gerald L. Neumann, a Harvard Law professor, has noted that the president is granted the right to block the entry of any "class of aliens believed detrimental to the US". Although no one has ever used this right, it raises the question of "What if he did use this power?".

Is the exclusion of Muslim immigrants from the US necessary to protect us from terrorism?
With his increasing support, does Trump speak for the American people?
What does this say about the divisions within the Republican party?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/donald-trumps-plan-to-bar-foreign-muslims-might-survive-a-lawsuit.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-muslims.html?ref=politics

Trump Continues Dominance in Republican Polls

According to the latest CNN/ORC poll, Donald Trump has taken back his lead as the Republican front runner with 36% support. Behind him are Ted Cruz (16%), Ben Carson (14%), and Marco Rubio (12%). Since the last poll, Trump has gone up 9 points, but Cruz is also gaining support, going up 12 points. Carson has lost support, going down 8 points, and surprisingly Jeb has very little support (3%) even with the amount of money he has raised.

Many people are still waiting for Trump's initial support to finally subside, but it does not look as if it is slowing down. Every time it seems as if he has finally done something that crossed the line and should cost him his campaign, he somehow gains support. The explanation for this may be fairly simple: education. Among GOP voters who have a college degree, the race is very close, with Cruz slightly leading at 22%, Rubio and Carson tied at 19%, and Trump at 18%. However, among voters without a college degree, Trump leads by far with 46% support, followed by Cruz at 12%, Carson at 11%, and Rubio at 8%. This is a significant statistic (although not very shocking) that will be something very interesting to follow as the election approaches. Personally, I think that statistic is enough to explain why Trump has the lead, and it is very unsettling. The leading Republican candidate is basically being nominated by uneducated Americans.

Trumps extremely strong views have carried him thus far, showing how many Americans feel that he is capable of making our nation great. His main areas that voters support are economy, federal budget, illegal immigration, and (surprisingly) ISIS and foreign policy. Many voters are very opposed to Trump's radical views on certain topics, but many others like his initiative and think he will be a very strong leader. Many seem to be much less concerned about political correctness than in previous elections, which definitely plays out in Trump's favor.

Are you surprised Trump holds such a strong lead? What do you think about the amount of uneducated voters supporting him? Do you think another candidate will eventually pass Trump, and if so who?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/donald-trump-poll-cnn-orc-national/index.html

Are we safe in our own borders?

Through the first 328 days of 2015, there have been 352 registered mass-shootings in America (Business Insider). While this is both an extremely alarming, and surprising statistic, it should similarly come as no surprise that not nearly enough is being done to curb the senseless act of violence, and the looming possibility of gun violence being present in all Americans' lives, whether they like it or not. I think it's about time that people begin to reject the ludicrous notion that a nation with a more readily available source of firearms is a safer one. This isn't 1776, we aren't in danger of the government taking up arms against us, and jo Americans are advocating for the rights of their local militia. As many of you know, this was the initial purpose of the 2nd Amendment as laid out by the Framers. The way I see it, America is a sick nation, and we need to cure our people from being targeted and murdered like video game characters. No more sitting on the sidelines, politicians. America needs gun reform -- it's a fact, not a debate.
We have enough problems with Americans taking up arms against other Americans, but now the threat of ISIS on American soil is becoming an imminent one. They have vowed to spill American blood, and it now appears as though the attackers responsible for the San Bernandino killings had ties to the terror group (New York Times).

Are we safe in America? What is the next step, for both the people, and policymakers? If ISIS is spilling American blood on our soil, why aren't we retaliating? Isn't America supposed to be the kind of nation that doesn't negotiate with terrorists, and fears no one?

http://www.businessinsider.com/2015-mass-shootings-chart-2015-12
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?mobile=1&URI=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2Fredirect%3Fto-mobile%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nytimes.com%252F2015%252F12%252F04%252Fopinion%252Fdont-make-san-bernardino-a-victory-for-isis.html%253F_r%253D0%2526referer%253Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F%26_r%3D0

Portland: The New Family Friendly City

People often call having a child a blessing. However, many couples struggle to grow their families because of how expensive it is to have a child. The costs of diapers, doctors, and all the new clothes the baby needs adds up quick. What makes this financial struggle even harder is the fact that not many jobs offer paid parental leave, and if they due, the time is very limited. As a result, many new parents are forced to use their sick days if they want to spend their time with their new baby.

The initial few weeks of a baby's development consist of innumerable "firsts" and have proven to be an important time to build the parent-child bond. Mothers and fathers are being stripped from their time with their new children due to employers strict policies. Fortunately, progress is being made in this issue. In the past, some companies have offered paid parental leave, some of them even for a generous amount of time. Recently, though, the matter has been taken to a state level as Portland declared they are to provide city employees with six weeks of paid parental leave. Portland is an infamously liberal city and is very politically correct in its ways. Therefore it is no surprise that the parental leave policy is structured in a similar fashion. Parental leave in Portland is not just for mothers, it is offered to any new parent, mother or father, in a gay relationship or straight. Additionally, Portland's policy is inclusive of all ways in which one may become a new parent; leave is offered to anyone who has acquired a child through: childbirth, adoption, or foster care. Having paid parental leave is not just beneficial to the parent and child but to the employers well. It has been studied that parents who come back too soon after having a child are distracted and not nearly as productive as those who have had an appropriate amount of time with their child.

Portland is not alone is providing parents with this paid time off; San Francisco and Cincinnati have also given their city employees paid parental leave. Seattle and Washington D.C. are additionally considering adopting this new policy. Cities do have to take into consideration the cost of allowing so much paid leave: it cost Portland $217,000 to entitle about 5,500 people to the six weeks of paid leave once a year.

In my opinion, this is an important matter that should be considered by all cities and expanded into all states. I think it is healthy for the relationship of the parent and child and agree with Seattle Commissioner Amanda Fritz that it is worth the cost of the program.  

What do you think: Is paid parental leave a good idea and worth the money? Will the policy spread more throughout the country? Why or why not? Will paid parental leave become a talking point for presidential candidates?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/03/pf/portland-oregon-parental-leave/index.html

"Boos Overtake Laughs" as Trump Falters in Front of Jewish Donors

Well folks, this one got awkward.

In attempting to connect with an audience of wealthy, influential, Jewish GOP donors, Trump decided his best strategy was to hit them with both barrels of ethnic stereotypes.

"Obama, oy-yoy-yoy," said Trump to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Thursday, one of the several GOP candidates to take the stage in an effort to woo potential donors.

In reference to his lead in the polls that was achieved with very little money spent on campaign advertising, he said, "I think you, as businesspeople, will feel pretty good about this, and respect it."

In accordance with his consistent campaign rhetoric, because he is such a good businessman, like all Jewish people, politics will come easily. The Iran deal? He says he'll fix it - he's "...a negotiator, like you folks."

There were some laughs throughout, but the crowd became overtly discontented in response to Trump's deflection of a question posed by Matthew Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition: Is Mr. Trump committed to Jerusalem as the undivided Israeli capital? Trump avoided the question, responding "You know what I want to do? I want to wait till I meet with Bibi," (PM of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu) upon which he was immediately showered with a cascade of boos.

Sensing a negative change in the audience, Trump posited that the Jewish donors would not have supported him anyway, because he neither wants nor needs their money, and "You want to control your own politician, I understand that."

But wait! He also has the plan for fixing the long-standing blood feud between Israel and Palestine. Despite questioning whether either side is committed to peace, Trump's message would be, "...let's go, everybody's even, we love everybody and let's see if we can do something."

Yes, a good plan in theory! However, one might think that two nations that have continually denied one another's right to exist and engaged in a multitude of conflicts spanning the last century, claiming over 130,000 lives, might not be totally pacified when Trump stomps in and tells them to knock it off because they know they're actually buddies. He also said that it would only take a maximum of six months to achieve his goals for the region, despite it being "maybe the hardest deal ever in history to make."

Trump was not the only GOP candidate that failed to impress the Republican Jewish Group on Thursday. Ben Carson also stumbled, pronouncing the name of the extremist group 'Hamas' as something more like 'hummus.'

Despite the fact that Jewish Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic anyway, and a good showing in this room would have won him few votes, if any, (he also doesn't need their money) this showing of tact, or complete lack thereof, has been inherent to the Trump campaign thus far. Faced with even a slightly critical audience, Trump managed to showcase both his ineptitude in foreign policy and his racist/bigot tendencies.

"Just relax, O.K.? You'll like me very much, believe me."


What are your thoughts?
Will foreign policy be his downfall?
Will his apparent business acumen translate to the geopolitical stage?
Who will he insult next?



http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/03/boos-overtake-laughs-as-donald-trump-stumbles-on-jerusalem-before-g-o-p-jews/?_r=0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/12032521/Donald-Trump-annoys-Jewish-donors-with-Middle-East-comments.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html