Discriminatory Laws Get Dunked on in Two States

Jonathan Lovitz, National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Vice President of External Affairs, would say, “the best thing you can do for the bottom line is inclusion.” With this view in mind, it's no wonder that many corporations have been against the recent slew of discriminatory laws introduced in state legislatures in the last year alone. Big businesses like Netflix and Coca-Cola were a great help in Georgia when they pressured Governor Nathan Deal to veto a bill discriminating against lgbtqia+ consumers. They threatened to leave Georgia, taking countless jobs with them. It was this boycott that brought Governor Nathan Deal to his decision. This law, that was alleged to protect the faith-based community in Georgia would have given Georgia businesses the right to turn  away homosexual customers. The South Dakota legislature attempted to pass a similarly discriminatory law.Many businesses and organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America, united to protest it. Governor Dennis Daugaard struck down this bill which infringed on the protections that transgender people, and those of various gender identities, have been afforded. This law would dictate public school bathroom usage by chromosomes and anatomy, thereby barring transgender students from using the restroom matching their identity. Do you think the aid of corporations was necessary for these outcomes? How do you think that these types of inflammatory laws get passed through the legislature so easily a veto is required? How would any of these measures proposed by these state legislatures actually be beneficial to anybody except bigots?

Sources:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/28/georgia-gov-to-veto-controversial-religious-liberty-bill-that-prompted-corporate-threats.html

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-hollywood-reacts-georgia-anti-gay-law-veto-story.html

http://www.hrc.org/blog/24-hours-all-eyes-on-south-dakota-as-gov.-daugaard-weighs-legislation-attac

Obama Lands in Cuba

Obama is the first sitting president since 1928 to land in Cuba, which is a “dramatic personal demonstration of his core foreign policy principle of engaging America's enemies.” It is a bold leap for Obama to step into Cuba in hopes of opening new economic channels for businesses and encouraging the Cuban government to grant more freedoms for its people.

Obama carefully planned his actions through Cuba and interacted with the Cuban people. He even tweeted “¿Que bolá Cuba? Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people.” Obama tried to connect with the Cuban people by saying, Que bolá, which is an informal Cuban greeting.  In addition, “Obama dined at a "paladar" -- one of hundreds of privately-run restaurants that only recently became permissible in the state-run economy. Those types of businesses -- along with new investments from American firms -- give U.S. officials hope that Cuba is on a path to finally opening its economy after decades of isolation.” His visit to Cuba was carefully planned to encourage the Cuban government to open its country to the world. The Cuban government “hopes the two-day visit will allow it to reap benefits without ceding control, while dissidents on the island want it to speed the pace of change.”

An embassy has also been opened in an attempt to improve relations between America and Cuba. Obama commented on the new embassy by stating  "For the first time, the American flag flies over an embassy, and having the embassy here means we can more effectively advance our interests and values and understand the Cuban people and their concerns".

Many dissidents are happy about Obama’s arrival in Cuba. “Jose Daniel Ferrer, a Cuban dissident… said Obama could act like President Ronald Reagan, demanding immediate improvements in human rights just as Reagan demanded the Soviet Union "tear down this wall." However, this is a drastic change that is not likely to happen and Ferrer  agreed that “even incremental change is beneficial to the island's politically oppressed citizenry. "Obama's visit is good for the people and good for the cause," he said.”

What do you think about Obama’s arrival in Cuba?

Do you think his arrival will successfully encourage the Cuban government to change?

Do you think the trip was a waste of time?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/world/americas/cuba-obama-visit-havana-dissidents.html?_r=1

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/20/obama-touches-down-havana-launching-history-making-visit/82050936/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/muchas-gracias-yes-we-did-obama-declares-cuba-embassy-n542326

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/politics/obama-cuba-arrival-change/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-cubans-wait-for-obama-tension-and-excitement-on-havanas-streets/2016/03/20/78726756-eed1-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html

Tensions Rise in the Asia-Pacific as the U.S. Sends in Stealth Bombers

          Just last week North Korea tested two short-range missiles and bragged of its accomplishments of miniaturizing its nuclear warhead to fit on ballistic missiles. America’s response? The U.S. Air Force deployed three of its B-2 stealth bombers to Asia and Pacific. These bombers are top of the line weapons. They are a low-observable, strategic, long-range, heavy bomber capable of penetrating sophisticated and dense air-defense shields as well as completing missions at altitudes as high as 50,000 feet. They will be kept in Australia and the goal, according to a release from U.S. Strategic Command, is to “integrate and conduct training with ally and partner force, and conduct a radio communications check with a U.S. air operations center.” With North Korea on a mission to one-up the United States and South Korea, the commander of U.S. Pacific Air Forces, General Lori J. Robinson, said in the press release “Recent events demonstrate the continued need to provide consistent and credible air power throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific region… Strategic bomb deployments ensure our ability to protect power at a time and place of our choice and develop strong interoperability with out regional allies and partners.” Basically what Robinson is saying is that the  United States must continue to show its strength to keep the respect of other nations. 
              Earlier this month there was a similar instance from the U.S. Navy in which they sent the aircraft carrier USS John S. Stennis and its strike group into the South China Sea, where Chinese ships were operating close by.  On this, Robinson was quoted saying, “We would encourage anybody in the region and around the world to fly and sail in international air space in accordance with international rules and norms. We would encourage all nations in the region to do just that, just as the United States is doing.” 
              In my opinion I want the United States to be respected and agree that in many cases intimidation is a powerful tool because it can at times prevent violent action from being taken. However the United States has already well established how capable we are. In the Win/Gallup International’s Annual Global End of the Year Survey the United States came out on top as the greatest threat to world peace among all nations. To me, we are teetering on a line between showing our strength and being reckless. 
               What do you think? Is this earning respect or just reckless intimidation? Should we be involving ourselves in the first place? How do you think this years candidates would answer if given this question in a debate?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-talks-deploy-b-1-bombers-expand-b-52-missions-australia-amid-growing-tensions-2332981?rel=rel2

http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/us-seen-as-greatest-threat-to-world-peaceand-the-nation-most-would-like-to-move-to-140102?news=852058

Clinton wins Missouri Democratic primary and Sanders concedes

Hillary Clinton has narrowly won the Missouri Democratic primary, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says he won't request a recount. Clinton led Sanders by 1,531 votes, though some absentee votes still need to be counted. The announcement means Clinton swept all five states that voted in Tuesday night's primaries. A Sanders spokesman said that the Vermont senator won't request a recount because he wants to "save the taxpayers of Missouri some money." A noble move by Bernie in a surely harsh time. Although Sanders does appear to be in a tough spot, his campaign is not over as he moves into Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wisconsin, New York and California. Sanders is perhaps the most publicized “underdog” campaign and continues to show it by giving Clinton a run for her money at a vast majority of primaries. Although Sanders is making an impressive attempt, is it enough to secure a nomination? Is Bernie Sanders campaign for president finished?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-wins-missouri-democratic-primary/story?id=37729452

What people around the world think of Donald Trump

In a recent article by CNN, citizens from countries around the world were asked of their opinion on the GOP frontrunner, Mr. Donald Trump. While responses were varied, he seems to have a few supporters in Israel and Russia, calling him a strong leader who isn't afraid to do something. But beyond those few supporters the results were truly horrifying for the Trumpster. Among the most frequent responses were calling trump a "businessman", "rich guy", and even "entertainer". The bulk of foreign responses portrayed trump in a negative light and shed fear on the prospect of him running the country. Many felt internatonal relations would be horrible and even that the possibility of world war three was not far off. With Trumps presidency seeming more and more likely every day, what does this mean for the world? And what does this mean for the world's people? Will Donald Trump negatively affect the United States image in the world?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/world-reacts-donald-trump/index.html

North Korea Launches Missiles

Reports are beginning to surface about North Korea launching ballistic missiles off the east cost of the Korean peninsula. The launch was confirmed by the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was also confirmed by U.S. officials. This event is a little concerning considering that It comes one week after North Korea fired two missiles from North Hwanghae province toward the sea east of the Korean Peninsula. The question that arises is is that the U.S. has around 17,000 U.S. military personnel working with 300,000 South Korean troops in an attempt to prevent North Korea from trying to launch any attacks against South Korea or neighboring regions. However, North Korea has not been listening to anyone, especially considering the U.N. earlier this year created a list of sanctions and regulations that North Korea must follow, and they have not recognized the regulations whatsoever. Furthermore, on top of everything there are claims being made that North Korea has miniaturized nuclear warheads comes after they reported a successful test of a hydrogen bomb in February. North Korea is a country that should not be taken lightly, and measure should be put into place to prevent them from performing any acts of terror. Some questions to ask are: What is the best solution to ensuring North Korea does not attack anyone? Should the U.N. actually try to get involved this time, instead of just giving North Korea a slap on the wrist. In President Obama's last days in office, should he still try to make an effort regarding this crisis. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/asia/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html

President Obama's Final Campaign

President Obama is approaching the end of his second term, but before he is out of office he is "running one final campaign". Since the death of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been debate over whether or not Obama should be able to appoint a new Justice. Although it is clearly stated that it is within his powers as president to do so, congress is making it incredibly difficult, specifically the Republican Senators. After enjoying the benefits of having a republican majority among the Justices, they are not very quick to vote in Judge Merrick B. Garland, a democrat. 

Obama called in all of the troops to fight this, and is using similar tactics to how he won the 2012 presidential election. This "strategy call" requires the work of supporters and activists who want Garland appointed as much as Obama does, and he and his staff hope that with enough pressure put on congress by the people and the media, they will give in. The president called back people that worked on his campaign four years ago, such as Stephanie Cutter, Amy Brundage, Julianna Smoot,  Paul Tewes,  and Katie Beirne Fallon. This team is made up of experienced campaign managers, chief of fundraising, field operative, legislative director, and aides that are loyal to the president and are familiar with how he works. What this team is put in place to do is collect opposition research in response to the attacks made on Garland, solicit donations from mainly democrats, and develop advertising that puts Garland in a more positive light than that of which the Republican senators have been using. Obama is launching this as a full blown campaign so that the process is made more fair and more accurately represents the American people. “Starting Monday, in fact, the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group, will begin a $2 million television, radio and digital media campaign in New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado, North Dakota and West Virginia,” says Carrie Severino. This campaign can work in Obama's favor, but it also has the potential to be a complete waste of funds and backfire completely.

So what do you think, will this team help Obama to get Judge Garland appointed? Do you think it's strange that this team is working to collect opposition research in response to the attacks made on Garland? More importantly, how will the Republican senators react and respond to this campaign?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-campaign-veterans-court-nominee-stephanie-cutter.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news