Russia Launches Aerial Attack on Syria, Motives Questionable

Earlier today, Russian planes carried out bombing runs on Syrian soil, claiming to be attacked ISIS hotspots. Russian President Vladimir Putin received the go-ahead with a unanimous vote from the upper house of parliament, and let loose a host of Russian warplanes in Syrian airspace. If this were the case, all Russia would truly be doing is adding fuel to the fire of the humanitarian catastrophe currently ongoing in Syria. However, it is widely speculated that his main target in attack was not ISIS strongholds, but rather Syrian rebel strongholds. Putin would be inclined to do this because of Russia's close relationship with Syria, and their tyrannical leader Bashar al-Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry today stated that he does not think that Russia had serious intentions to fight back ISIS in Syria, but rather protect their interests in the Middle Eastern nation (New York Times).

On top of this, just last week President Obama and Putin had discussed potential deconfliction in Syria. This aggressive act by the Putin regime has taken US-Russian relations back a peg, and has done nothing but add wood to the fire in Syria.

Getting Russia on the same page in the fight against ISIS would clearly be a step in the right direction, but their support for the evil Assad makes it impossible for our leaders to see eye to eye. Putin continues to be a rebel without a cause on the world political scene. His brash, unfiltered actions only seem to cause distrust with Western nations, and turmoil in the East. If he were to side against Assad, it would certainly help bring the carnage in Syria to an end. However, he continues to aid the tyrant while Americans call for his departure.

As it stands, Russia will most likely not be sustaining continued military presence in Syria, although there are currently 600 readied troops stationed at Russian Latakia Air Base in the middle-east nation (CNN). Since the Russian attacks were clearly not aimed at ISIS forces, we need to closely monitor Russian military movements, and begin to have more advanced military discussions with them before a crisis ensues.

Do you guys think Russia has all negative motives in Syria? What is Obama's responsibility in this dilemma? What type of response would be most beneficial to the United States or the world as a whole?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/world/europe/russia-airstrikes-syria.html

No Government Shutdown ... For Now

 

 

Today, just hours before the end of the fiscal year, Congress was able to approve a stopgap (makeshift or temporary) spending bill. This bill, while by no means perfect, was able avert a government shutdown, that is until December eleventh. The bill was passed 277-151 thanks to Democratic support of House Republican leaders and a vote earlier that day in the Senate which approved it 78-20.

That disproportionate vote clearly illustrates the growing disagreement within the Republican party, namely the growing sect of conservatives and their discontent over their inability to force policy changes on the Obama administration. A hot topic for the conservatives in the House at the moment is Planned Parenthood. The resolution adopted on Tuesday to cut off all federal funding of the organization is certain to be blocked by Democrats in the Senate, only helping to further their frustration. These internal issues have led to John Boehner’s resignation from Speaker of the House and left many wondering what the future holds for not only the Republican party but also the House.

The stopgap bill will keep the federal government functioning at about last year’s level ($1.017 trillion a year, although with some increases for emergency situations, such as $700 million for wildfires in the West). It will give Congress ten weeks to work together to provide a more detailed and thought out budget to carry the U.S. throughout the next year. Although many feel that their success during this time is not guaranteed and that these pressing issues will still be present and just as divisive in December, possibly leading to a shutdown then.

Besides these recent issues, there are plenty more that must be addressed before a complete budget can be passed. For starters Democrats are pushing to lift spending caps that they feel are limiting our economies growth, which would mean an increase in spending -- a policy many Republicans are against. Other issues that must be confronted include the “potential need to raise the federal debt ceiling,the expiration of many highway programs at the end of October, the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and the need for a longer-term spending agreement” (The New York Times). Overall there will be numerous challenging discussions that will have to take place between now and December in order to resolve the budget issue and once again avoid government shutdown.

While approval of similar stopgap measures used to be routine, the divided House places a dark cloud above the whole process and leaves many wondering if such a measure will be enough and if anything can be done to move it away from its temporary state. People’s concern and discontent with Congress and their inability to work together to develop a broader and more sustainable budget, is clearly expressed by spokesman Josh Earnest, saying, “The American people deserve far better than last-minute, short-term legislating” (WRAL). With Congress’ decision and the House’s divisions, is it any wonder that many candidates are playing off of American’s anger towards Washington?

 

    What do you think about Congress’ decision to pass a stopgap bill? Was there any way that they could have avoided making such a decision?

   

    What do you think will happen in December? Will there be a shutdown? How do you think the Republican party, namely the conservative portion, is going to influence the end result in December?

 

    What effect is this going to have on the Presidential Candidates and their message to the American people?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/politics/government-shutdown-congress.html?_r=0

http://www.wral.com/house-senate-to-send-obama-temporary-spending-bill/14936898/

 



Can We Trust Carly Fiorina?

Carly Fiorina: The Overview

Widely considered the finest speaker at the recent G.O.P. Debate, Carly Fiorina has since gone up in the polls. However, some of her success may be largely thanks to deception and exaggeration. Though dancing around the truth is both a commonality and often times a necessity in politics, Ms. Fiorina should still be exposed for the falsehoods she has immortalized as of late. Furthermore, a trend must be noted in most of Fiorina's recent arguments; she contradicts herself frequently. 

The Pros

Granted, there are many qualities of Fiorina's that lead me to believe that she would be a good leader. She has taken responsibility for her actions regarding the downfall of Hewlett-Packard under her supervision and she has plenty of experience engaging in foreign affairs. Additionally, after losing a child to drug addiction, she knows about hardship and overcoming adversity. 

The Cons

On the topic of personal campaign funding, Ms. Fiorina believes that money and pompous attitude do not a politician make; she recently made a presumed jab at Donald Trump regarding his elitist nature: “Leadership is not about how big your airplane or your helicopter or your ego is" (Corasaniti). Though I appreciate her step away from the world of economic supremacy, many argue that Fiorina is too wealthy to fully understand the adversity that real working class Americans face (Peck). 

Lastly, despite having every reason to embrace her position as a woman in power, Carly Fiorina rejects feminism in its purest form. This can be defined as defending the equality of women and equal rights for the sexes. As a matter of fact, Fiorina has remained out of touch altogether for much of her campaign; she seems aloof and rather ignorant regarding the continuing struggle for women's' rights. On the contrary, Ms. Fiorina has been under fire for comments she has made concerning Planned Parenthood. It was proven that she lied about the contents of the famed "Planned Parenthood video," likely in order to justify her strong opinion on the subject. To make matters worse, even after it was revealed that Fiorina had exaggerated and lied about the video's true footage, she continued to make the same claim at each of the stops on her tour through the state of South Carolina. 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/politics/carly-fiorina-builds-off-successful-gop-debate-performance.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tom-perkins-carly-fiorina-rich-vote_56003c54e4b0fde8b0cf1754

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carly-fiorina-planned-parenthood_560aeac0e4b0af3706de3d62

West Point Cadets Let Loose With One Pillow Fight You Don't Want to Have

The United States Military Academy is one of the most prestigious colleges in the world, producing the U.S. Army with some of its top leaders since 1802. But when an annual pillow fight that marks the end of Plebe Summer (summer training for incoming freshmen) turns to a bloody brawl, one can only ask: "what kind of people are we letting run our military?"
This annual pillow fight has been a tradition for years, designed to build a sense of brotherhood amongst the Plebes (freshmen cadets), organized by the Plebes and overseen by upperclassmen. To ensure no risk of injury upperclassmen saw that the Plebes wore protective gear, such as helmets.
But security footage shows that the helmets that were intended as a means of protection became a means of injury as some of the Plebes began to stuff their helmets into their pillow cases, thus an innocent pillow fight became a lethal battle zone, knocking some cadets unconscious and leaving others with broken bones, dislocated shoulders, and concussions.
"West Point applauds the cadets' desire to build spirit and regrets the injuries to our cadets," Lt. Colonel Christopher Kasker, a spokesman for the Academy, reassuring that the injuries will be further investigated and appropriate measures will be taken to prevent such a thing from happening again. But so far no resolve has been shown to punish any cadets nor repeal the pillow-fighting tradition at the Academy. "While these spirit events do occur, we never condone any activity that results in intentional harm to a teammate" said Lt. General Robert L. Caslen Jr., superintendent of West Point, stating that 30 cadets required medical attention and 24 ended up with concussions.
The Military Academy it a very rigorous college and it almost seems necessary to blow off some steam. But it was under very poor leadership that these cadets were allowed to assault each other with malice and it is necessary for precautions to be made to ensure that something as bad at this will never happen again.
Under poor leadership, weather it is minor or major, harm can come to the people under that leadership. How do you guys think this could relate to the people of Syria and Bashar Al-Assad?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/at-west-point-annual-pillow-fight-becomes-weaponized.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/us/west-point-pillow-fight/

President Obama and Vlad Putin Continue to Contradict Each Other in Plans of Handling Syria

Yesterday the United Nations convened to discuss how to go forth with handling both military involvement in the Syrian Civil War and unifying nations to put a stop to the Islamic State and other radical terrorist organizations. President Obama and Vladimir Putin of Russia, being the two front runners of involvement in Syria, continue to show opposing views on the specifics of how to approach the Syrian Civil War, but two things has been made clear by both sides: the conflict must come to an end, and the Islamic State must be put to an end.
President Putin has time after time expressed his support for the dictator of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad, and has confirmed that he has made preparations to provide Al-Assad military support. Putin, contradictory to President Obama's views, believes that Al-Assad will be a strong component in the fight against ISIS (the Islamic State). But in order for such a thing to happen, Assad needs to regain control over his people so he can put his resources toward the fight against ISIS.
President Obama has for a long time been stressing that Assad needs to step down from power for peace to truly be restored in Syria. "While military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to solve the problem in Syria," Obama stated yesterday in front of the UN, adding that he is "willing to work with any nation -- including Russia and Iran -- to resolve the conflict." Obama again stresses that Al-Assad must be removed from power and the Syrian people must find a way to live together peacefully in order to truly end the conflict.
Obama and Putin have been playing a game of political chicken: each waiting for the other to side with him on how to handle Syria. Obama is still holding his ground, realizing that if Putin decided to put his resources into solving the problem in Syria, the cost will eventually become too high to support Assad and Putin will eventually have to find a way to withdraw his support for him. Assuming that works, the tensions between the US and Russia will come to an end as the two nations devise a new approach towards Syria.
What do you guys think could be a possible outcome if the US and Russia never come to terms regarding involvement in Syria?
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/world/middleeast/obama-and-putin-clash-at-un-over-syria-crisis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/100000003943065/obama-addresses-un-general-assembly.html?playlistId=100000003133407

U.S. Government Reveals the Severity of Data Hack: 4 Times Greater than Previous Claim

In the past year, the U.S. government has been ridiculed for hacking into citizen phone calls and private data. This greatly violates the privacy of citizens and has caused an uproar in regards to governmental actions. Not only has our own government been listening in and reading upon our conversations, but other countries have supposedly also hacked into our own government data. According to CNN, an estimated 18 million federal employees at the Office of Personnel Management had their data hacked by an unknown outside source. The government had acknowledged only 4.2 million employees had been hacked, however as further investigation continues the number is expected to grow. Investigators have been quick to point fingers at China for this incident, however they deny all accusations. Others believe that the OPM hack last April was never been fully fixed. Therefore security systems were never improved and this has caused an even greater hack to occur. A contracting company by the name of KeyPoint Government Solutions was supposed to take action in improving the flaws in the governmental security system however they were never actually fixed. Investigators believe that KeyPoint may have created their own access to the OPM system and are behind the data intrusion. This event has caused serious frustration among government employees and lawmakers because Obama's administration has seemed to lessen the severity of this issue. This data hack is a problem that concerns the protection of all citizens and their privacy and it is currently being violated which raises an even greater problem  Now the greatest question arises: Can Washington keep the United States data secure?

• Are American citizens subject to data hacking at any given moment?
• How should the federal government take action in this invasion of privacy?
• How does this violate our rights as citizens of the U.S.?
• Why do you think the United States is quick to accuse China of the data hack?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/opm-hack-18-milliion/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-cybersecurity-opm-idUSKCN0R14UX20150901

Trump Tax cut plan

Trump Tax Plan a Triumph of Showmanship Or Common Sense

Donald Trumps proposal to overload the tax code does fit the bill.  However, it would hardly raise the revenue needed to fund the nations balance.  Trump is trying to give the people what they want contrary to the peoples expectations.  Trump believes that his words will pay the dues of his plan.

Trump revealed his new tax plan with a bang. Mixed with sleight of hand, exaggerating on the negative impact on the rich.  In actuality, the plan would significantly reduce taxes on many business owners, lawyers, and bankers, and other wealthy professionals.  The plan will reduce almost everyone's taxes, with the exception of a few investment fund managers who might receive a slight increase in their taxes.

Trumps new plan would exclude 75 million households from paying income tax, also including low income families and couples.  Trumps plan would lower the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 25% and lower the corporate tax rate from 35% percent to 15%.  Trump's new list of plans to raise enough revenue to cover the costs of his tax cuts, would be completely ineffective.  Trump would help pay for the rate cuts with a one time 10% foreign revenue payment.  

Trump's new broad tax cut plan, promises a lot and will definitely come at a high cost $$.  In addition, his plan is vulnerable to loopholes which can be exploited and could derail the plan from coming forth into society.

• Do you agree with the authors position on Trumps new plan?
• If the plan were to be put into effect, would it be successful? why, or why not?
• What was Trump's intent when presenting his new tax cut plan to the public?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/business/dealbook/trump-tax-plan-a-triumph-of-showmanship-over-common-sense.html?_r=0

Boehner's Resignation Signals Growing Rifts in Republican Party

On Friday, September 25, John Boehner announced that he would retire his position as Speaker of the House amidst growing tensions in Congress. The declaration that he would formally resign came a day after the pope visited the United States' capital and addressed Washington politicians. Though this announcement is quite recent, there is already growing speculation that a likely candidate for the next Speaker of the House will be Representative Kevin McCarthy of California.




Boehner's resignation serves as a representation of the numerous divisions that are becoming ever more apparent in the Republican Party. Conservatives all over the nation have been voicing their dissatisfaction with "establishment" Republicans, growing tired of their willingness to bend to the demands of Democrats (thus abandoning their conservative principles) and their lack of loyalty to their constituents. The demands of this branch of voters are being echoed by candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who actively criticize the state of politics in Washington and advocate for a new wave of Republicans that will stand by conservatism. In addition, the growing dissatisfaction with moderate Republican politicians has led to surges in the popularity of anti-establishment presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson, who, like Cruz and Rubio, are tired of Washington Republicans being "pushovers."  Not only this, but this new wave of voters demanding a return to conservative politics poses a threat to moderate candidates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich, who are not as vehemently devoted to conservatism as some of their counterparts.

The extent of this dissatisfaction has been reignited with the recent debate over whether or not to perpetuate funding for Planned Parenthood in the upcoming federal budget bill. Conservative voters and politicians have voiced their unwillingness to appropriate funds for the women's health organization, but moderate Republicans like Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell understand that compromise is necessary to avoid a government shutdown. As a result, the Republican party is in a very difficult position at the moment; If it continues to fund Planned Parenthood, it will alienate conservative voters, who have begun to comprise a growing portion of the Republican electorate. On the other hand, if Washington Republicans attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, the proposed budget bill will not make it past President Obama and Senate Democrats, resulting in a government shutdown. If that were to occur, the poor leadership of the Republican Party would once again be made apparent to Americans.

The remediation of factional disputes in the Republican Party will be far from resolved even after this budget bill controversy passes. Regarding the upcoming presidential primaries, it is absolutely essential that a candidate appealing to all sides of the Republican political spectrum is elected if the party hopes to get its candidate in the White House. Though there is a growing number of voters who want politicians devoted to conservative ideas, many Republicans continue to understand that more moderate candidates are necessary to avoiding Congressional deadlock. Thus, the fight for the Republican nomination will continue to drag on as people hope to find a candidate that appeals to all factions of the Republican Party.

What do you think? Will the "Conservative Revival" among Republican voters lead to the election of an anti-establishment, right-leaning presidential nominee? If so, is this the right move for the Republican Party, or would it be better off with a more moderate candidate? Amidst all these factional disputes and divisions, what seems to be the Republican Party's future?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/john-boehner-resignation-jeb-bush-2016-presidential-campaign/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/why-john-boehner-quit/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/john-boehner-to-resign-from-congress.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Carly Fiorina: Real Condender or Republican Pawn?

In last week's Republican debate, Carly Fiorina made a strong showing for herself, "cutting Trump’s balls off with the precision of a surgeon” (Kaufman). However, many supporters of the up-and-coming candidate should be warned, say Republican experts.

Last week, Fiorina made her first appearance in the main debate, coming from the undercard positino in the last debate. She came out seemingly confident, and she was able to deflect Trumps attacks for the most part. As a result, Fiorina was met with good reception from Republicans following the debate. The Washington Times, however, groups Fiorina as a sort of sprinter who will quickly run out of energy: “This remarkable nomination battle has been shaped by these three outsiders,” the authors wrote in their analysis. “While we think that they are unlikely to end up on the November 2016 ballot, each one has influenced what the eventual standard-bearer will do and say — for better or worse” (McLaughlin). The three candidates in this category, Trump, Carson, and Fiorina, all are political novices who many experts do not think will be able to stand up to the "long distance runners" of Bush, Kasich, and Cruz.

Right now, Fiorina is the darling of the Republican part; she controls 15% of the primary vote, second to only Trump, and the Heritage Action for American forum in Greenville, South Carolina, and the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, Michigan, praised her this past weekend. Unfortunately, the benefits of being a frontrunner come with consequences; her background, experience, and character will come under an increasing amount of fire as the media crawls into her life. Controversy over her management of HP and her failed senate run may spell Fiorina's early end. It is likely, says Slate.com author Jamelle Bouie, that Fiorina will be relegated to a cabinet position or even a place as VP. 

• Do you think Carly has a chance to win the nomination?
• Do you think she can overcome the controversy of her past?
• Is Carly better suited for a cabinet or VP position?

Sources: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/carly_fiorina_rises_in_the_polls_the_new_republican_star_will_now_likely.html 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/carly_fiorina_rises_in_the_polls_the_new_republican_star_will_now_likely.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/carly_fiorina_cut_trumps_balls_off_with_the_precision_of_a_surgeon_national_reviews_rich_lowry_doesnt_mince_words_on_the_kelly_files/

Congressional Republican Leaders Advocate Compromise in Budget Bill

A recent budget bill that would have kept the federal government running until December 11 was filibustered and defeated by Senate Democrats on September 24, due to the fact that the bill also intended to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. This opens up an issue for Congress because if a spending bill is not passed by the beginning of October, a government shutdown will occur. Thus, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was aware that the bill would not pass through the Senate, this was simply part of an attempt by more moderate Congressional Republicans to prevent a government shutdown from occurring. This would be particularly harmful to the reputation of these politicians, seeing as they were already largely responsible for a government shutdown back in 2013.

Mitch McConnell's failed vote was essentially a method of demonstrating that a provision to defund Planned Parenthood would simply not be approved by Senate Democrats and their ability to filibuster (meaning that 60 votes total are needed to pass the bill, rather than just a majority). As a result, he and other leading Republican figures are pushing for a vote on a new spending bill that does not cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, hoping that House Republicans will approve of it. In addition, Speaker of the House John Boehner is in favor of this compromise, though he plans on later introducing something called a "Reconciliation Bill" to defund the organization, which is immune to the Democrats' filibuster power.

Obviously, the central-right Republicans in Congress are more concerned with preventing a government shutdown than making a foolhardy attempt to stop Planned Parenthood funding.

Nonetheless, the views of more moderate Republicans are not shared by conservative politicians. A leader among Congressional Republicans demanding a provision that strips Planned Parenthood of funding, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas remains committed to passing a bill that takes away federal cash-flow to the non-profit organization. Though a number of far-right politicians are siding with him, many Congressional Republicans realize that the risk associated with trying to pass an anti-Planned Parenthood bill is not worth a potential government shutdown. In addition, Planned Parenthood has already received its funding for the year, and so it would only stop receiving a flow of federal money in April 2016.

Thus, as a result of all these factors, it is unlikely that the upcoming spending bill will contain a provision to defund Planned Parenthood, and the more moderate Congressional Republicans will most likely prevail in their pragmatic attempt to keep the government running and preserve their reputation. Debates over the fate of Planned Parenthood will resume later in the fall, though Senate Democrats and President Obama will likely do everything in their power to prevent Planned Parenthood from losing funding.

Personally, I agree with the Senate Democrats in this situation because Planned Parenthood provides essential healthcare services to low-income women and men (not just endless abortions, contrary to popular conservative belief). This NPO is a critical to women who need mammograms, STD Tests, and access to contraceptives, especially when they cannot afford these services under normal conditions. In addition, the federal government is not allowed to provide funds for abortion, and so defunding Planned Parenthood is an impulsive decision by conservative Republicans.

I applaud Senate Republicans like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner for realizing the importance of reaching a compromise in the budget bill. Doing so enables the smooth functioning of government and prevents right-wing conservatives from having their way in the midst of more important matters.

What do you think? Should Congressional Republicans continue to push for an anti-Planned Parenthood provision, or should they make the pragmatic choice and just agree on a bipartisan spending bill?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/planned-parenthood-vote-pope-francis/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/abortion-limits-bill-senate.html

Rubio v. Trump v. The World

          Marco Rubio, whose reputation as a level-headed has taken him this far in the presidential race, was recently tested by none other than resident instigator, Donald Trump. In an interview with CNN Trump said, "Marco Rubio, he's like a kid. He shouldn't be running in this race as far as I'm concerned" (Diamond). On top of this, Trump called Rubio out as lazy and weak in terms of fundraising. However, Trump's latter claim is ironic; according to the New York Times, Rubio is leaps and bounds ahead of Trump in terms of "Money Raised." In fact, Rubio is ranked at #3 of the current 14 Republican candidates, where Trump is at #12. 

          Notorious for his composure, Rubio is maintaining his collected nature in his response to Trump's relatively unfounded claims and accusations. Speaking to WLAP Radio, Rubio recognized that Trump has been "exposed" recently and that he understands that Trump attacking him is just his way of reacting to his own situation. Rubio stands by his opinion that Trump is a laughable candidate in this race: "He really never talks about issues and can't have more than a 10-second sound bite on any key issue" (Rappeport). While I agree with Rubio here (in fact, after watching the GOP Debates, "10-seconds" may be a bit of a reach), the American people still seem to be intrigued by something about Donald Trump. 

          There must be something of substance which continues to draw the people in. After all, Trump is continuing to lead in many polls. According to a study done by Quinnipiac University, Trump is retaining his lead; he currently has 25% of the Republican support. However, other candidates are following closely at his heels. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have currently have 17% and 12%, respectively. After the debates, it was widely considered that Fiorina gave the most compelling performance while Trump, though entertaining, was the worst. So, what is the verdict? Will Bush, Fiorina, and Carson surpass Trump entirely, leaving him in the dust? Or will he continue to win over the hearts of the American people? And what will become of Marco Rubio? Will he keep his position as a frontrunner, or is he all talk and no action? Comment below with your responses.



Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/donald-trump-marco-rubio-foreign-policy/
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/24/taking-the-gloves-off-marco-rubio-punches-back-at-donald-trump/
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/presidential-candidates-dashboard.html
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/24/taking-the-gloves-off-marco-rubio-punches-back-at-donald-trump/

Pope Francis Challenges Congress to Heal World’s ‘Open Wounds’

SEPT. 24, 2015

           Nearly a week ago, Pope Francis ventured on a historic endeavor to try to change the conditions and lifestyle in Cuba. Now he is on another mission, to turn the perspectives of the American public and to bring about changes that he believes is for the better good. Just before Pope Francis landed at Joint Andrews Base in Maryland, the Catholic community in the United States were already debating on the issues that Pope Francis might bring forth in front of Congress. As soon as the Pope landed, both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were there to greet and accompany Pope Francis as he traveled to Washington D.C.. Today, September 24th, he went in front of Congress to express his thoughts on many issues deemed worthy enough to deliver his message to the American public.

           The Pope, being the leader of almost 1.2 billion Catholics around the world, questioned American government's policies and conduct for the American people. He called for the American government to start using its political power to stop poverty that is ravaging across society. In addition, he asked the American government to help patch up the "wounds" in the world that are a result of hatred, greed and pollution. He acquainted himself with many liberal issues and wanted the government to resolve this issues in a orderly manner. He preached for the condemnation of firearm trade and the elimination of the death penalty. Yet, one issue he believed should be top priority is that the government shouldn't make decisions based on their wealth, but rather make decisions that will provoke wholesome change in humanity. “Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one, the greatest common good,” he told a joint meeting in Congress (New York Times). Along with many political issues, he also defended religious freedom and addressed the issue of same sex marriage. He believes that people should still follow the writings of the Bible and what a normal family consists of, yet he is willing to accept that family can be defined in various ways. "Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life," Pope Francis said (New York Times). Overall, Pope Francis wants the American government to help mend the bridges between the wealthy and poor, the oppressed and all of humanity as whole. After his confrontation with Congress, he decided to visit the homeless at St. Patrick's Church to get his message across to the rest of society about the importance of helping the poverty-stricken community. 

Do you agree or disagree with what the Pope deems as important for the American government to address?

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/us/pope-francis-congress-speech.html?_r=0

Increasing Prescription Drug Costs

           Over the past few decades, companies have been taking older drugs which previously have been relatively cheap and vastly increasing the cost of them. This has been creating huge problems for patients without the financial capacity to pay for such lifesaving drugs. With the recent outrage over the 5000 percent increase in price of Daraprim, the prescription aids medication, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both vocalized their plans to solve the recent prescription drug problems. Clinton this past Tuesday made a proposal to the public to put a 250 per month cap on out of pocket prescription drug expenses. Clinton stated that her patient spending cap would be parent of a larger plan that would eventually force drug makers to spend more on research and and development, end tax breaks for pharmaceutical advertising, and to import drugs from other countries. Sanders reiterated his earlier statements on the matter stating that he wanted to allow citizens to purchase drugs from Canada and to have Medicare negotiate with drug companies over prices. He also stated that he has backed these proposals since 1999, long before Clinton ever announced any of her proposals. Many citizens have started to vastly criticize Clinton for her proposal as they have said that it would make it harder for patients to get the drugs they need, actually cause prices of drugs to go up, and have the focus be on research instead of helping the public. More people have supported Sanders idea's for drug reform than Clinton's.

1. Should either plan be put into action?

2. Why has the republican party remained very quiet over the increasing controversy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/hillary-rodham-clinton-proposes-cap-on-patients-drug-costs-as-sanders-pushes-his-plan.html?ref=politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

Pope Francis in the United States

            Since Dwight D. Eisenhower met Pope John XXIII every president has met the pope. This week Pope Francis is visiting the United States and met President Obama last Wednesday. At the elaborate welcoming ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House, the Pope addressed 11,000 ticketed guests and the nation. In this address he shared his opinions on many of the controversial issues that plague the American government. He gave his support to President Obama's efforts on climate change, stating that he was "accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem that can no longer be left to a future generation." Pope Francis also agreed with President Obama's efforts to rebuild ties with Cuba; an opinion not shared by many Republicans. While he agreed that the economy is benefitting the few upper-class at the expense of many he also defended traditional values. Pope Francis warned against protecting the institutions of marriage and family; an opinion not shared by many liberals. The Supreme Court ruled only months ago in the favor of nationwide same-sex marriage. He also spoke on behalf of American Catholics stating that they were, "concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and their right to religious liberty..." President Obama was quick to point out that "here in the United States we cherish religious liberty." Pope Francis will continue his United States tour in New York and Philadelphia stating that he is here to offer guidance about shaping the nation's political future "in fidelity to its founding principles" and was ready to listen to the "hopes and dreams of the American people."  Some of the questions that the Pope's visit leaves us with is whether or not his visit and guidance on politics blurs the lines of religion and state too much. Plus on a broader scale, especially admits candidate Ben Carson's controversial statements; should religion be discussed in campaign debates if it supposed to be separate from the state?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/pope-francis-washington-visit-updates/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/history-of-popes-and-presidents/index.html

The Syrian Civil War, Recent Players, and Its Effects

The complex situation concerning the Syrian revolution and the refugee crisis it has caused is building new tensions between the U.S. and Russia. Due to the constant escalation of this terrifying civil war Syrian people have been leaving their nation in even greater numbers, neighboring countries have reached capacity, and many are being turned away from European countries. Making matters worse, Russian Prime Minister Putin sent fighter planes to Syria in support of Al- Assad, furthering the bloody conflict. The Syrian refugee crisis is exacerbated by Russia’s aid to Syrian President Al-Assad which opposes American policies calling for the end of Al-Assad’s regime. This presents a threat to US fighter planes in the region, ratchets up the tension between the U.S. and Russia, and gives Al-Assad one more method of slaughtering his people.The conflict of interest between the United States and Russia concerning the side each country supports may strain relations going forward. This brings us to the question of whether or not outside countries should even involve themselves. If so, where do we cross the line from aid into interference? Most importantly, as this conflict escalates and the need to put an end to the situation for the sake of the refugees becomes more urgent, how is the global community to put a stop to this civil war?

On Syria Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/russia-fighter-jets-syria-carter/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-defense-secretary-discusses-syria-with-russian-counterpart-1442589965

http://www.newsweek.com/syrian-refugees-all-you-need-know-373475

http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly

Hopefully not the Start of a Cold War

Hopefully not the start of a cold war

President Barack Obama is scheduled to host a state visit from Chinese leader Xi Jinping on September twenty-fifth. As China’s economic state is deteriorating, President Obama is expected to take a restrained position in talks with Xi Jinping, as the global economy ties our countries together. However, due to cyber spying on China’s part and China's aggression toward neighbors on the South China Sea, the President may very well come down hard on China, imposing sanctions on Chinese companies thought to be engaged in hacking American businesses and interfering with China's internet. Our President is tasked with walking a fine line in order to make his last sixteen months of office count. Coupled with Xi Jinping’s need to appear strong and hard-edge on protecting China’s interests in the face of economic decline, many think President Obama may have a hard go of it. However, though tensions may be high, neither party wants to pick a fight in this instance. Diplomatic relations are key in this day and age, both due to the globalization of the economy and the growing cooperation between countries. During his stay, Xi Jinping and President Obama will hesitate to do anything rash, but neither of them will be in a position with their constituents where they will be able to back down. There will be more on this story as it develops, and I hope to start a discussion concerning:  

1. How will this meeting pan out? 
2. What action or inaction do you think the situation dealing in cyber espionage calls for on the federal level?
3. What will this meeting's long-term effects be in terms of relations with China?

House Votes to Halt Planned Parenthood Funding for a Year

This past Friday, the House voted along party lines to block any federal funding of Planned Parenthood for a year. In a 241-187, almost all House Republicans and two Democrats approved this legislation. This will give time for Congress to investigate the claims of wrongdoing. The legislation is unlikely to be enacted as the Senate has enough votes to block it, and President Obama has promised a veto. However, the passing in the House is mostly a symbolic action, since it is the first legislation that has been passed after the hidden camera videos of Planned Parenthood employees came out this past summer, which featured dialogue between employees of Planned Parenthood discussing how they can illegally profit from the tissue of aborted fetuses.

House GOP leaders hope that this legislation will placate the 31 conservatives who have promised not to vote for any spending bill that includes Planned Parenthood in order to avoid a government shutdown. However, it is unlikely that this action will suffice as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that is was “not a sufficient vote to defund Planned Parenthood” and “Innocent, unborn babies deserve more than just a show vote.” Democrats such as Rep. Frank Pallone have accused the Republicans of just wanting a government shutdown, claiming, “That’s what they’re all about.” But, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R- Tenn) refuted this statement, saying, “We are not on a bill about a government shutdown.”

After hours of emotional floor speeches citing graphic descriptions and images of mishandled abortions and references to the videos, the bill passed. A bill was also passed tightening restrictions on abortion doctors who violate infant protection laws in a 248-177 vote.

Planned Parenthood’s VP of communication responded: “Millions of Americans rely on Planned Parenthood for birth control, lifesaving cancer screenings, and other critical preventive care, and nothing that politicians in Congress did today will change the fact that our doors remain open to everyone, in every part of this country, who needs high-quality, compassionate reproductive health care.”

Republicans say that Planned Parenthood’s funding will be reallocated to the thousands of government-supported health centers, which would treat the women who had previously gone to Planned Parenthood. Democrats, however, say that these clinics already have too many patients to treat, and this bill will result in reduced women’s health care.

Planned Parenthood currently receives $450 million a year in federal payments, mostly in the form of Medicaid support for low-income patients. This is just 1/3 of the organization annual budget of $1.3 billion to support its 700 clinics that provide STD testing, contraceptives, and abortions. None of the federal funds can be used for abortions.

Personally, I do not agree with this bill, as Planned Parenthood provides both sexual and reproductive health care and education for millions nationwide, including STD tests, cervical and breast cancer treatments, and abortions, playing a very important role in the health of many women. I also feel that this bill would undercut a woman’s right to choose.

What do you think? Do you think that this issue is worth a government shutdown? If enacted, how would it affect women’s health care? How do you think this issue will impact the upcoming presidential election?

Sources:

http://time.com/4040582/house-vote-defund-planned-parenthood/

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/254181-house-votes-to-freeze-funding-for-planned-parenthood