If Not Now, When is the "Right Time" for Improving Gun Control?

In light of recent events, I would like to make a mildly opinionated post regarding the lack of gun control in the United States. This morning, at Umpqua Community College in southern Oregon, at least 13 civilians were killed and 20 were wounded. 

Today in the White House Press Briefing Room, President Obama spoke out on the subject: "Each time this happens I’m going to bring this up. Each time this happens I am going to say we can actually do something about it. But we’re going to have to change our laws… I hope and pray I don’t have to come out again during my time as president to offer my condolences." However, time and time again, changes in legislature have been discussed and actions have not been taken. Obama also has said that "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it" (Smith-Spark). One of the advanced countries that Mr. Obama was referring to in the above quote was Australia, where Prime Minister John Howard announced a nationwide gun law reform. As a result of this advancement, the probability of dying by means of a gunshot was reduced by 50%, a statistic which should really drive home the fact that with the easy availability of guns, violence is inevitable.

The American people know that gun violence is an epidemic: "Ever since the shootings at Columbine High School, in a Denver suburb, in 1999, American schools have been preparing for gunmen" (Lepore). However, it should not be the public school system's responsibility to prepare for massacres. It should be the government's responsibility to remove potential gunmen's resources. According to The New Yorker, there are nearly 300,000,000 (yes, three hundred million) privately owned firearms, 106,000,000 handguns, 105,000,000 rifles, and 83,000,000 shotguns. These statistics put the United States in first place worldwide for the largest amount of privately owned guns, followed by Yemen, where the amount is half of America's.

To drive the message home, I would like to highlight the fact that there have been 142 school shootings since the tragic massacre at Sandy Hook. Those 142 times could have been prevented, had stronger gun laws been implemented in this country sooner. It is time for change.

I leave you with a couple of questions on the matter:

1. What can America do to mirror Australia's methods of limiting gun accessibility?
2. Should there be requirements for gun ownership? If so, what should they be?

http://www.nytimes.com/live/shooting-at-umpqua-community-college/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/1/142-school-shootings-sandy-hook-massacre-newtown-c/

http://www.nytimes.com/live/shooting-at-umpqua-community-college/obama-gun-laws-need-to-change

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

Biden Continues to Hold Out; Plans to Skip First Democratic Debate

As the first Democratic debate approached on October 13, current Vice President Joe Biden still has not decided if he will be running in the 2016 presidential election. He has been waiting to let things play out before he makes a definite decision, because he only wants to run if he knows he will for sure win. For this reason, he and his team have been loaded with tons of research and strategic plans that have made it difficult for him to come to a conclusion. Biden is also struggling with whether he and his family are ready for the rigors of a campaign after the recent death of his oldest son.

Even though he has not declared that he will be running, Biden still has a substantial voting base already. This base is led by Democrats who are yearning for an alternative to Hillary Clinton, especially after recent developments on her personal emails. Many believed that this push would certainly cause Biden to declare, but he continues to hold off on a decision. However, he seems to be gaining momentum each day that may result in a decision to run in mid-October. Although Biden seems comfortable taking his time, many wonder if it is becoming too late for him to make his decision. Many Democrats are hoping for him to enter the race, but are slowly losing hope. At this point, no one knows what Biden will do, but whatever his decision may be will undoubtedly shake up the Democratic race.

What do you think? Will Biden end up deciding to run for President or not and how will this affect the Democratic race? Do you think he will have a chance to win the election considering he has held out for so long? Or do you think his indecisiveness has attracted voters' attention while they become sick of Hillary Clinton?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/10/01/us/politics/ap-us-dem-2016-biden.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/biden-clinton-2016-democratic-debate/index.html

Hillary Still Holding Strong - Sanders Making Bank

Despite the recent rise of Bernie Sanders in the current political meta game, a poll conducted by CNN and ORC shows that Hillary Clinton is still holding strong with an 18 point lead in the Democratic race. Other candidates in the race, including Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley seem to be lacking the appeal of the American people. This is especially evident in Sander's state of Vermont, as demonstrated in a poll by Suffolk and USA Today. Within this poll, all three candidates hold less than 2%  of the combined support in the state. On the other hand Clinton continues to demonstrate good numbers with 43% support in the state, while Sanders only comes in at a surprising 23% support. Additionally, even though the race is far from over and only points to signs of increased competition, the poll conducted by CNN put forth that 54% of those surveyed would not be in favour of more Democratic debates. Which in reality, oddly contradicts the state of the race at present.

One bright spot for Sanders came in the third-quarter of campaign fundraising, in which he out-raised Hillary by $3 million, netting $28 million total. At this pace, Sanders is due to beat the collections of President Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, as he has had almost twice the amount of contributes compared to President Obama at this point in the race. Unfortunately for Sanders, he still lags behind Hillary, as Sanders lacks Super PAC, in total donations and is no where near the total of what the President earned in his 2007 campaign. However, supporters of Sanders understand that the situation could have been much worse than it is now and there is much opportunity within the race.

The CNN/Orc Poll conducted was executed between the dates of September 24th and September 28th, surveying 1,000 voters with 430 from the Democratic primary.

Ultimately, despite the continued rise of Sanders, Hillary seems to be chugging along, gaining superiority in Vermont and across the entire country all the while. If Sanders wishes to come out on top, he will certainly need a comprehensive course of action. What does Sanders have to do to catch up with Hillary? Does success correlate to his increased fundraising? What does Hillary need to do to stay ahead?


http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

http://time.com/4058075/bernie-sanders-fundraising-hillary-clinton-barack-obama/

http://img.ccrd.clearchannel.com/media/mlib/15172/2015/08/default/hillary_sanders_0_1439284535.jpg

Scott Walker Drops Out of the Presidential Race

Scott Walker, a Wisconsin governor, announced on Monday, September 28th that he would be dropping out of the 2016 Presidential Race. In his resignation speech he stated that his reason was because he wanted the number of Republican candidates to decrease so that people are able to focus more attention on who will give them a positive conservative message, instead of recognizing the current front runner: Donald Trump. He encouraged the other candidates to follow suit.

His resignation came out just days after a CNN poll which put him at less than 1%. An insider states that this was a major factor in his decision to pull out of the race. This was a drastic drop from when he first entered the race in July. Originally he was a front runner in Iowa and donors and people from the conservative base. During the first primary debate on Fox he was actually ranked third following Trump and Bush. 

Walker is said to have made the "Pawlenty" decision, this means that he resigned before gaining too much debt. In fact, many were not surprised at his decision, and say that he made the smart choice for his position. 

A major reason for the decline in his poll ratings comes from his debate performance, which were not up to par. He failed to make and impact and display his ideas clearly to his audience. He would give different responses to the same question; for instance he gave three separate responses to his policy on birthright citizenship with in seven days. The voters were displeased with these inconsistencies which consumed his policies. After the CNN debate Walker was losing support in Iowa, which was the final nail in the coffin. He depended on Iowa, and with out it there seemed to be no clear path to the presidency. 

What impact do you think Walker dropping out with have on the rest of the Republican candidates? Will more follow suit? And for what reasons do you think they will make this decision?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34317758

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/05/fox-news-announces-candidate-line-up-for-prime-time-debate/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/scott-walker-drops-out-2016-election/

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