The Political Sentinel

Gun Politics in America

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:50:00 +0000

**This is an essay I wrote for one of my political science classes**

Gun Politics in America

Today in the United States there are few issues that spark as much heated debate as the issue of gun control does. Thousands of issue advocacy groups across the United States push to persuade policy makers to regulate firearms more, and there are thousands that push for just the opposite. This issue always seems to make its way in to the center of debate during the election cycles, and has made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court several times; so what is everyone so fired up about?

Supporters of firearm regulation use many statistics of gun violence, firearm concentration, the rarity of guns being used for self defense, how less firearm regulation costs taxpayers, and many more points to make their argument. Statistics show that, unfortunately, even though the minority population makes up less than a third of the population, they account for over half of all gun related deaths in the United States. This propels their side of the argument, saying that one could stop, or substantially reduce, racial violence by restricting the availability of firearms.

Supporters of firearm regulation would also argue regulation is needed despite the claims that firearms are needed for self defense. The supporter would claim that self defense is almost never the case in gun related violence, and it is more likely to result in an accidental injury or death, a crime committed, or suicide involving the use of the firearm. They go a step further, and explain that less than a quarter of gun owners actually lock up their firearms. One could argue that with the increased chances to access the firearm, there is an increased chance it will cause accidental or purposeful violence.

Another argument for the pro-firearm regulation movement, is the issue of taxpayer dollars going towards paying the medical bills for the uninsured involved in gun related violence. Since many victims with gun related injuries are not insured, the tax payers end up picking up the medical bills of these uninsured individuals. Of course the argument is: if there is more gun regulation, it will be harder for these victims to be injured by guns, thus driving down costs to the tax payer substantially.

On the other hand, opponents of firearm regulation say that studies show areas with less firearm regulation actually have decreased crime rates, it is against the second amendment to restrict the use of firearms, and firearm regulation only makes it harder for average citizens to gain possession of a firearm, not a criminal. These are the most profound opposing arguments of the firearm regulation opponents, however there are many more points they use to defend their point as well.

A firearm regulation opponent would first address, that the right to bear arms is protected under the second amendment of the United States' Constitution. This point is pretty self explanatory, and most firearm regulation opponents would state that because the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, the whole argument of firearm regulation should be laid to rest.

The opponents of this type of regulation do not buy into the argument that more guns, lead to more violence. In fact, they believe the exact opposite. Opponents believe that if a criminal knows that one might be armed, they will be less inclined to try and commit a crime involving that person. They use statistics of the United States being one of the countries with the lowest rate of crime committed in someones house when the owner is home. Because of this belief, opponents not only believe that guns should be allowed in the home, but outside the home as well—in public areas, restaurants, parks, etc. This is called concealed carry, and many states have adopted this. Opponents will argue that every state that has concealed carry laws, it also has lower crime rates.

Finally, a firearm regulation opponent would argue that creating more regulation on firearms would actually make the general public—law abiding citizens—less safe. They argue that waiting periods, background checks, and other methods of regulation delay the citizens ability to protect oneself. They argue that criminals are not going to buy these guns legally, and therefore will have quicker access to firearms. Thus, crime rates increase due to the lack of the citizens self protection.

When comparing the two sides to this heated argument, there are actually some similarities in the way each side makes their respective arguments. For example, both sides use the second amendment to defend their argument believe it or not.

The supporters of firearm regulation highlight the fact that the second amendment does not mention individual use when mentioning the right to bear arms. The supporters say that the language of the amendment clearly shows the founders intended the firearms to only be in possession of members of the state militias. They use historical evidence that says the founders wanted to give the right to the militias to overthrow the federal government if the states deemed the federal actions as tyrannical. However, the opponents also use historical context to defend their point, saying at the time the language of the amendment was written, there were no formal militias, and the “militias” consisted of anyone who was capable of using a firearm. They say that this clearly promotes individual ownership of firearms, and therefore regulation of firearms is unconstitutional.

Another point the two sides both use to promote their view, is the role of firearms in abusive relationships in which the woman is the victim. The supporters state that there are significant increases in fatalities in these relationships when a firearm is involved. The supporters say they can save lives through increased regulation of firearms. The opponents however, believe that women can stop these violent relationships by having increased access to firearms. With easier access, women in abusive relationships may consider buying a gun for protection, thus decreasing the violence in the relationship substantially.

The two sides have different views on this issue, but base their arguments on the same fundamental principles—protecting women, decreasing violence, decreasing crime, etc. There is evidence that both sides of the argument have prevented gun related violence in certain areas, but in the world of politics, this issue is too heated and highly controversial to find a happy medium between the two sides—at least in the eyes of the supporters, and opponents of firearm regulation.

In addition, I tend to agree, through my recent proliferation of knowledge on the firearm regulation issue, to believe in less regulation on firearms for a number of reasons.

First, I believe that criminals having the simple thought cross their mind that perhaps they might get shot if they choose to commit a crime is a good thing. Not only has crime decreased in neighborhoods with many gun owners, but it has also decreased in states that have enacted concealed carry laws. More firearm regulation only produces the opposite of these results—increased crime rates.

Second, the second amendment, including the historical context of when the amendment was written, clearly produces a individual right for citizens to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers knew how precious freedom was, and also knew that an individual right to bear arms would instill freedom in America for years to come. History has clearly shown that populations that are forced to be unarmed by their governments, are way less likely to have the same freedoms that armed populations do. It also shows that it takes little effort for the government to abuse its power—for example Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Fidel Castro have abused their power, and their people for that matter.

Lastly, I believe firearm regulation only leads to law abiding citizens becoming more vulnerable. These criminals are not going to obey the law when coming into a possession of a firearm, hence the name criminal. I believe that background checks, and waiting periods are not helpful at all, and perhaps unconstitutional. Most opponents of firearm regulation tend to agree that rights cannot be restricted solely because of the fact they might be abused. In the text they used the example of the cars, and tell how just because someone might abuse the rights of a car, that is not a sufficient reason to enact regulations such as background checks, or waiting periods for buying a car. I agree wholeheartedly with the opponents on this point.

I want society to be safe, and crime rates to be low. Whether it be firearm regulation, or firearm proliferation that achieves that. However so far, evidence shows that the latter is better at achieving this goal. Although if firearm regulation were able to achieve these goals more so than firearm proliferation, I would choose firearm regulation.

White House's Unprecedented attack on FoxNews

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:23:00 +0000

As one might have heard, the President and members of the President's staff---Rahm Emanuel, Anita Dunn--have commenced a full fledged attack on the FoxNews Organization. These acts have never been seen before by any previous administration in history, so why is this one doing it? The White House suggests that FoxNews is an opinion network as opposed to an actual news organization. President Obama has said in interviews that he does not get the most favorable coverage from Fox; and while that maybe true, the whole point of a news organization is to present the news, not to provide favorable coverage to the current administration.

The FoxNews Channel has had, and continues to have, substantially better ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined for quite some time now. One may be puzzled when thinking why the Obama administration would choose to alienate Fox viewers--when they are the largest viewing population of cable news. In a recent Foxnews poll, around 2/3 of fox viewers are either independents or democrats, so obviously Foxnews is not an arm of the Republican party. The claims on the left and from the White House, are clearly false, and could possibly hurt Mr. Obama if they are not stopped soon.

The underlying issue here however, is much bigger than unfavorable coverage of the current administration; it is a clear attack on free speech. The Executive Branch is a very powerful institution, but when it comes to limiting the rights of free speech, they do not stand a chance. Today in the New York Times, they reported that the other news organizations are standing behind Fox in an effort to defend the profession of journalism. This is a clear sign that the first amendment is not to be meddled with.

In addition, the President is a smart man, and therefore should stop these childish attacks on a respectable news organization. Continuing to attack FoxNews will only make things worse for the President--he might be labeled as thin skinned, or making an attempt to limit the freedom of the press. Both would hurt the president substantially, and the White House knows that, so they should just stop the childish attacks, and get on with the Nation's business at hand.

Governor Palin Entering 2012 Primaries?

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:42:00 +0000

This past Friday, Governor Sarah Palin announced she would step down as governor effective July 26th. She insists the reason is to silence the ethics complaints against her, but is that really the reason? I think not.

During the 2008 campaign, I was a big supporter of Governor Sarah Palin. I still am; That is why I am so against her early resignation, because, I believe, this will hurt her future political career.

Her resignation could be looked at one of two ways. Number one: It shows that she puts her state before her own problems, and her stepping aside will allow the current administration to move forward their agenda. Number two: One could ask oneself, if she cannot handle the pressure of the Alaskan Governorship, how will she be able to handle the immense pressures of the presidency?

If Governor Palin would decide to leave the public sector, then her actions are appropriate. If that was the first speech of the 2012 campaign, her actions put her at a disadvantage-- especially when running for the Republican Nomination.

I truly hope to see Governor Palin on the national stage one day, whether it be Senator, Vice President, or even President. I believe in her dream of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and Energy Independence. I fear, however, that her decision now might crush her dreams.

Cap and Trade: A Massive Government Intervention

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:37:00 +0000

-Publishers Note: I took a couple of weeks off the blogging to enjoy my summer time off. I will be back into full blogging mode now.-

President Barack Obama has said that he would not sign legislation that would raise taxes on families making under $250,000, yet he has stated he would sign the climate "cap and trade" bill proposed by congressmen Edward Markey (D-Mass), and Henry Waxman (D-Cali). The Heritage Foundation calculated this new proposal would cost American families an additional $1200 a year in energy costs, and predicts energy costs will increase by 90%.

Here is Candidate Obama talking about his Cap and Trade plan:

Mr. Obama even admits that his plan would make energy costs sky rocket and put an overwhelming burden on businesses. Under this plan, companies can buy "carbon credits" to use. In other words, businesses will have to pay the government to pump pollution in the air, and if a business goes over their credited amount, they will receive hefty fines from the federal government. However, businesses can sell their "carbon credits" to other companies for money, making the decrease in pollution very slight.

All these carbon credits will do is put another overwhelming tax on corporations, who will, fully, pass the cost off to consumers. Therefore, costs on goods will rise tremendously and put a hamper on economic growth.

This bill has passed The House already by a margin of seven votes. This bill cannot become law, because if it does: Prosperity will decrease, and Government, Energy Costs, and Living Costs, will increase.

Judge or Representative Sotomayor?

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:53:00 +0000

Today, President Obama announced his nominee for the replacement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. The president has chosen Judge Sonia Sotomoyer, from the Second District Court of Appeals to fill the vacancy.

Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be the first Puerto Rican Justice on the court. She is a respectable judge, but her comments in the following video has raised some controversy on the right.

In the Constitution, there are three branches of government. The Executive Branch is given the job to carry out and enforce laws. The Legislative Branch makes laws/policy. The Judicial Branches job is to interpret, and uphold the Constitution. That's the constitution at its simplicity.

Now that we have reviewed a 7th Grade history lesson, can someone tell me why a Judge, with over 20 years experience, says that the Judicial Branch makes policy? The sole job of the court is to interpret the laws and uphold the Constitution. Elected Representatives do the legislating, not appointed officials.

Other than her comments, Ms. Sotomayor has a record of judicial activism, a racial bias, and being overturned by the Supreme Court.

A Few Cases Involving Judge Sotomayor:

-- In one case reversed by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and the majority on the appeals court ruled that an inmate could sue a private corporation for injuries he suffered in a halfway house run by that company. Though the company operated the house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons, Sotomayor argued that the company was not shielded from liability. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision in 2001.

-- In another case, Sotomayor dissented in a 2006 opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. She argued in her own dissenting opinion that the state law "disqualifies a group of people from voting."

-- Sotomayor, in 2003, also wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision that a Muslim inmate's rights were not violated when he was denied a holiday feast. Sotomayor argued that the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the feast was important to his religion.

-- In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in a decision to dismiss a case in which a black student claimed his school discriminated against him by transferring him mid-year from first grade to kindergarten. Sotomayor argued that the "lone black child" in the class was not given an "equal chance."

-- In 2007, Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the "best technology available." She wrote it could only consider cost as a factor in more limited ways. This decision, too, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

-- In 1993, Sotomayor threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant -- prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an "abomination" that the defendant did not deserve.

The President has the numbers on the Senate Floor to confirm Ms. Sotomayor, but in order for the nominee to be sent to the floor for confirmation, rule #4 of the Judiciary Committee states, 10 or more members must vote to send the vote to the floor, and one must be from the minority party. If Republicans do not think Ms. Sotomayor is capable of upholding the constitution, they can simply not vote to send the vote to the floor.

Source: Foxnews

Memorial Day: Honoring the Ultimate Sacrifice

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Mon, 25 May 2009 00:56:00 +0000

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May. Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in the military service. First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War (it is celebrated near the day of reunification after the civil war), it was expanded after World War I to include American casualties of any war or military action.

Tomorrow is a day of honoring the brave men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Many take advantage of our freedom, and overlook these days of honor and remembrance. These brave soldiers put their lives on the line, so we could live ours. The least we can do is honor their sacrifice.

So tomorrow when your going to the baseball game, having a cookout, or just relaxing at home, take a moment to remember the fallen. If you see someone in uniform, tell them thank you. Go to the store and put an American Flag up in your yard to honor the soldiers who gave their lives in the defense of Liberty. Do something to show families who have lost loved ones, that you are aware of the tremendous sacrifice they have given.

Bottom Line: Freedom isn't free, so honor the heroes who have paid for it.

President Obama's Commencement Address

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:02:00 +0000

Today, President Obama gave the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. The President was interrupted by protesters, and addressed the controversy around the honorary law degree he received.

Pro Life Notre Damer's v. President Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:04:00 +0000

As you may know, many pro life Notre Dame Students will protest President Obama's commencement speech at their graduation. They are protesting the President's strong pro-choice, and pro-stem cell views.

Some students are planning to make a big stir to protest the graduation commencement speaker, while others are planning peaceful protests. The students who plan to give the police a run for their money, they must remember that the news media, regardless of their reason of protest, will mark them as just crazy, violent protesters. The students who protest peacefully will have a better chance of getting their message across. Especially when a recent Gallup poll shows more Americans are pro-life, rather than pro-choice. The same thing happened with the civil rights movement. Malcolm X wanted to lead violent protests, while Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to protest peacefully. Who was projected better in the world? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Bottom line: Protesting is a great communication tool, but the whole point of protesting is to get a message across. And the whole point is lost, when violence is used.

Change of Heart: President Obama to Block Release of Detainee Photos

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:03:00 +0000

Today, President Obama has reversed his previous decision to not block detainee photos requested by the American Civil Liberties Union.

WASHINGTON--In a sharp reversal, President Obama announced Wednesday that he will not release hundreds of photos potentially showing U.S. military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"My belief is the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefits to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," Obama said in a brief appearance. "The most direct consequence would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger."

Obama added that he's made it clear to military officials, however, that the abuse of detainees is "prohibited and will not be tolerated."

Obama told his legal advisers last week that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes they would endanger U.S. troops, and that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented in federal court, a senior administration official told FOX News.

The Pentagon had planned to release the photos by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. That decision was made after the Justice Department lost its latest round in federal court and concluded that any further appeal probably would be fruitless.

But on Tuesday, the president raised the issue of these photos with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, during a White House meeting and told him of his decision to argue against this release, the official said.

Full Article

President Obama has made the right decision. Nothing good will come out of releasing these detainee photos. Releasing the photos will only put our troops more at risk, and further Anti-American opinion. As I have stated earlier, political popularity never outways National Security.

Miss California Keeps Her Crown

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:56:00 +0000

Today, the owner of the Miss USA Pageant, announced that Miss Carrie Prejean, the current holder of the Miss California Crown, would keep her crown. He said she was asked a tough question, and answered it honestly.

Now I know I haven't written about this story, because I don't understand what the big deal is. A 21 year old woman gave her honest opinion, and then left wing bloggers and MSNBC News Anchors tried to destroy her for it.

In America, everyone has the right to thier own opinion, and everyone should respect that. Her answer was not a radical answer. She said where she comes from, marriage is between a man and a woman. She also said America is a place where one can choose. She never held anything against the gay community. Miss Prejean has been bashed for not giving the answer that best represents the State of California, yet one must remember Proposition 8 PASSED in California. Proposition 8 was the referendum to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Also, her answer was the same as the current President of the United States, and yet the left wing blogosphere, and press, are holding nothing against him for it. This again clearly shows the liberal bias, and double standard the mainstream media produces everyday.

Wanda Sykes, The White House Correspondents Dinner, and The Mainstream Media

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:03:00 +0000

Over the weekend, the annual White House Correspondents dinner took place. Controversy arose when comedian Wanda Sykes reffered to Rush Limbaugh as a terrorist, and wished death upon him. Below is the video of the dinner. To fast forward straight to the Limbaugh comments, go to 2:04.

Just for a minute, pretend this was a Conservative Comedian, say Dennis Miller, wishing death upon a liberal commentator such as Keith Olbermann, would this get the same coverage? The answer: absolutely not! The mainstream media would portray Mr. Millers comments as hate speech. Do not take my word for it, take this example highlighted by CNN Anchor Lou Dobbs. A man published a joke in a local news paper making fun of Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. He wrote, "If a soldier was trapped in an elevator with a gun, two bullets, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama Bin Laden, what would happen? The answer, the soldier would shoot Nancy Pelosi twice, and strangle Harry Reid, and Osama Bin Laden." The mainstream media attacked the man for printing such a joke, and the man has since apologized. Will there be an apology from Ms. Sykes, probably not. This just shows the double standard, and liberal bias in the mainstream media.

Was it Worth it?

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:49:00 +0000

The White House has released the photo-op pictures over New York City. This photo-op is estimated to have cost the tax payers over $330,000. Take a close look at the photo, and see if it was worth the money, and the producing mass panic over New York City.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter Expected to Retire

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Fri, 01 May 2009 02:54:00 +0000

This is an article by FoxNews that suggests Supreme Court Justice David Souter may retire at the end of this term, due to the fact that he has not hired any law clerks for the next term. With an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, President Obama can put someone as far to the left as he wants, without having to worry about his appointee being rejected.

WASHINGTON--National Public Radio, among other media outlets, are reporting that the justice plans to retire by the end of the court's current term.

Eight justices are known to have hired the four law clerks who will work with them in the next term — making people speculate that Souter, 69, is not be hiring clerks because he isn't planning to be in Washington in the fall.

A retirement would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings.
This is concededly an unusual way to signal that a retirement announcement is imminent, but one former senior government lawyer who declined to be named because he practices in front of the Supreme Court said, "It's getting late, even for Souter."

For the last three years, at least, the identities of Souter's clerks for the upcoming term have been known by now. Gossipy legal blogs actively seek out the names of the clerks — recent graduates of the nation's top law schools who go on to lucrative careers and, sometimes, the Supreme Court.

Clerkships are highly sought and applicants have been known to interview with multiple justices in the hopes of landing a job at the high court.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens were clerks when they were younger.

The First 100 Days: A Review of the Obama Administration

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Fri, 01 May 2009 02:33:00 +0000

**This post will analyze the later 50 days of President Obama's Presidency thus far. To see information from the beginning 50 days, click here.**

The hundredth day of the Obama Administration has arrived, but don't get too excited. This whole hundred days frenzy, emphasised by the media, is only considered a hallmark holiday by the new administration. However, these first 100 days have been significant. The American People have seen bickering, partisanship, and lots of spending. So where is the change we were promised?

The first one hundred days, have been marked by some as, "The most expensive 100 days the American People have ever seen." One cannot argue with the facts. President Obama, along with the help of Congress, has doubled our national deficit in just three short months. The President has signed the biggest spending bill in history, and proposed a $3.6 trillion budget. The budget is expected to double the federal debt in five years, and triple it by the year 2019. In all, President Obama has proposed, and signed, about 5 trillion in new spending. On the Economy, the President deserves a C.

In Foreign Policy, President Obama has led the U.S. in a new direction. Obama has set a time table for a withdraw in Iraq, and set U.S. sights on winning Afghanistan. In his overseas trip to the G-20 Summit, and NATO Summit, he surprised many by his actions. He apologized for America's arrogance, stated the U.S. would take concrete steps towards a nuke free world, and said the United States is not a Christian nation. He bowed to the Saudi Arabian King, and in his Latin Americas visit, shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The President has declassified memos that include authorized methods of interrogation by the Bush Administration. It allows the enemy to prepare for these methods if captured, and threatens National Security. All in all, the President deserves a grade of a C, in foreign policy.

In my opinion of Obama's Foreign Policy, I think it is good that we are focusing more on Afghanistan. President Obama made the right choice. After the surge, security in Iraq has increased substantially, and the need for combat troops is decreasing. Although setting an exact date for withdrawal may not be the best strategy. President Obama's mission in his overseas trip was to improve our moral standing in the world. That's fine, but there are better ways to go about achieving that moral standing. One could tell Europe this is a fresh start, and that the United States is listening to their concerns. There is no need to apologize for the United States' actions. It makes America look weak. Bowing to a foreign dignitary does not make people feel all warm inside either, but rather offended, even if it was done out of respect. The most powerful man in the world bows to no one, and especially when the King did not bow first, or at all for that matter.

To show that I keep an open mind to President Obama's ideas, and do not oppose him for the sake of opposing him, I would like to express my favorable thoughts on our new President: I created the Political Sentinel to keep up with the far left, and to provide the Conservative side of issues. Inevitably, the President will make his way into the center of these debates. Ideologically, I oppose the President strongly. Although on a personal level, I admire him. Mr. Obama made the choice early in his lifetime, to get an education, and use it to help others, not himself. That alone commends my respect. Finally, I have enough of a challenge running my own life; I cannot imagine having the burden of running the country on my shoulders. I am willing to cut the President some slack, but only to a certain extent.

That being said, my grade for the President so far, is a C. To many Conservatives, I am being too generous to our new Commander-In-Chief. Obama has made choices which many on the right disagree with. However, Republicans must keep an open mind in order to not be classified as the party of opposition in 2010. History shows that in a midterm election, the party of the President usually loses seats, so Republicans must offer up legitimate solutions to issues, so that in 2010, the Republicans can make big congressional gains.

Presidential Press Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:18:00 +0000

Today marks President Obama's 100th day in the White House. He also gave his third prime time Presidential Press Conference. Below is the full video of the event.

Pushing The Pause Button On Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:19:00 +0000

Hello everyone, and thanks for reading the blog! For the next week and a half, I will be studying for my college level (AP) tests. So I will maybe post a few things, but not much. Look for an over view of President Barack Obama's first 100 days next week. Other than that, enjoy your week!

Torture: A Moral, or Political Issue?

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:27:00 +0000

Americans have quite the wide range of opinions on, and definitions of, torture. Some say water boarding is torture, others say yelling is torture. This post will analyze the "torture" techniques used by the Bush Administration, and whether it is a moral, or political issue for the Obama Administration.

President Obama has flip flopped on the issue of prosecutions of former Bush Administration Officials. When over the weekend, and Monday, both the President and his Chief of Staff said the administration would not look into prosecutions of former Bush Administration officials. One reason for the flip, could be the pressure of liberal interest groups.

MoveOn.org has started a petition to Attorney General Eric Holder to look into prosecution. However, one must remember the reason MoveOn.org was founded. In the late 90's the group formed to send a message to the Republican Congress to move on, and not investigate President Clinton's wrong doings in the White House.

A second reason for the flop, may be for strictly political reasons. The release of the memos were not at random, but were released to get the public eye off the tea parties, and once again lay blame on the Bush Administration. One thing the Obama Administration does not understand however, is the damage this can, and will bring to their administration, and our country. Bush lawyers are now looking at prosecution for giving legal advice. Although the methods, at the time, were legal. Not only that, but leaders in Congress were given a full briefing on the enhanced interrogation methods. If pursued, there is no telling where this would stop. Releasing interrogations to the public, are basically telling our enemies what to expect if captured. That's why the United States Military has water boarded their own, because they want soldiers to know what to expect if captured. The United States has lost much leverage over these terrorists. Also, interrogators will be cautious in digging for information. They will not be investigative enough, due to the fear of prosecution.

Finally, the definition of torture is not defined clearly. The way we are headed, raising your voice to a detainee will be considered "harsh" interrogation. Interrogation methods authorized at the time: water boarding, sleep deprivation, placing a prisoner in a room with a caterpillar, removing religious items, solitary confinement. In my opinion, that is not harsh enough tactics to use against men who have plotted, and succeeded, to kill thousands of Americans. Especially when American Soldiers captured prisoner in Iraq, and Afghanistan, are subject to their fingers be chopped off, and the use of blow torches, meat cleavers against them.

Bottom Line: The political popularity of releasing the memos, does not out way National Security.

The American People Deserve Better From Their Media

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:56:00 +0000

On April 15th, frustrated Americans came out to protest the out of control government spending. As news networks emphasized, the blame comes from both parties. However, those in the mainstream media took it the wrong way. They portrayed it as an Anti-Obama, Anti-Democrat, movement. Take a look at how they portrayed the tea parties.

This is the reason I created The Political Sentinel. As you can see at the top right of my page, I mention how corrupt the media is, and this proves it.

CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS are not news networks. They are opinion networks. These tea parties were not Anti-Obama, Anti-Democratic rallies. People gathered around from all ideologies. They protested government spending in general. BOTH parties are at fault for this economic mess we are in.

This is why Americans are protesting:

This video does fall short when it comes to blaming the Bush Administration, and the Republican Congress when Republicans were in the majority. The conservative president, and congress, had a chance to cut back government spending, but instead went on a spending free for all.

The bottom line: These protests are not a political spectacle, they are an obligation of every American Parent to stop the generational theft from their children.

Tax Day Tea Parties a Sham? I Think Not

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:40:00 +0000

This is a video, highlighted by Nearly Nobody's News, that shows the heated debate on the tax day tea parties happening today. Liberals are calling these events a sham, manufactured, and a fraud.

By no means am I excusing the enormous amount of deficits of previous Republican administrations, but when making an argument that Democrats are fiscally responsible, one must consider the following:

-President Obama proposed a $789,000,000,000 stimulus bill, that adds $800 billion to the deficit, and spends most of the money two years from now, when America is predicted to be out of its recession.

-President Obama signed a $400,000,000 dollar spendulus bill, filled with massive amounts of pork.

-President Obama has proposed a $3,600,000,000,000 budget, filled with more than 8000 earmarks.

-Projections of deficits created by his budget for the next ten years total over $9.6 trillion (Four times the size of President Bush's deficits)

-Deficits under President Obama would never go below 4% of the total economy, a number economists say is unsustainable. Even Peter Orzag, White House Budget Chief, agreed.

-The President said his budget would cut the deficit in half, by the end of his first term. The CBO projects the deficit to be $139 billion larger than expected.

-The CBO projects higher revenue levels for the federal government. Although instead of using the extra money to pay for the deficits, President Obama will use it for a down payment to his universal health care plan.

So when one talks about fiscal responsibility, one must admit that in less than 100 days in office, the Obama Administration has doubled the deficit. It is being disingenuous to say that the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. The truth is, in Washington, there is no fiscal responsibility. The total federal debt is the responsibility of both parties. To show you some scary statistics, watch this video highlighted by The Conservative Cloakroom. It will blow your mind, and might convince you to attend one of these tea parties.

I admit, it was a big step when in two years of the Clinton Administration, there was a surplus. But that deserves a golf clap. That is only one step of many, when it comes to eliminating the federal debt.

Finally, it is not a sham to protest this out of control spending. It is almost an obligation of the American people. The more America spends, the more money we owe to the Chinese. It weakens our power on the world stage when the Chinese can blackmail us with our own debt. The American People must stand up today and tell the Congress, and the President, that they work for us. And our message to them, is to stop spending our money.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

GM: Governmental Motors?

noreply@blogger.com (Don Olsen) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:36:00 +0000

**Publishers Note- This is Don's first post**

General Motors, an American icon, is close to a complete financial collapse and close to being taken over by the U.S. Government. Chrysler is right behind them and Ford is in only slightly better shape. There has been much discussed over the past few months on what got GM, as well as the other American car companies, into their current financial situation. All of us have heard it was caused by bad management, the unions, making cars that people don't want, or bad quality products. Other causes have been discussed, but I believe these to be the main ones.

First, bad quality products, This is something that may have been true in the past, but is hardly true today. J.D. Power and Associates just came out with their 2009 Vehicle Dependability Study, and Buick was tied for first with Jaguar, knocking Lexus down to the number 3 spot. Toyota is 4th, Mercury is 5th, Infinti is 6th, Acura is 7th, Lincoln is 8th, Cadillac is 9th and Honda rounds out the top 10. Half the cars in the top 10 are American (Jaguar is owned by Ford, or at least it was until recently). What about those high quality German brands such as BMW, Mercedes? Both Ford and Chrysler are rated higher. The sad reality is the American car industry has increased its quality significantly over the past years, but the average American consumer would never believe a Buick is better than a Lexus. Who is to blame for bad quality, management or the unions? They can both take credit for that.

Second, building vehicles people don't want. It is said over and over that the 'Big Three' build too many trucks and SUV's that people do not want. The number one selling vehicle in the USA for the past thirty-two years has been a Ford F-150 pickup truck, and that includes last year when gas cost over $4.00/gallon. The number 2 vehicle still isn't a car, it's a Chevy Silverado pick-up truck. This might explain why both Nissan and Toyota have started to build and sell full-size pick-up trucks in the United States. Last year GM manufactured and sold around 9 million vehicles, the same as Toyota. I guess these people were never told they really didn't want these vehicles.

Third, unions and management. These two entities really need to be discussed together, as they go together hand-in-hand. The health care for life, and pension costs that the 'Big Three' are saddled with, were negotiated and agreed on by both management and the unions. At the time many of these decisions were made, the cost of health care was relatively low, and it allowed management to keep the direct employee compensation lower and it helped keep employees. The unions viewed it as good for their workers and a win-win solution. Everybody was happy. No one could foresee the cost of health care ballooning like it has in the past 20 years. Management didn't pay close enough attention to outside competition coming into the market. The unions have been too concerned about saving positions in stead of making their members more productive and thus their companies more competitive. Management began to rely on their financing arms as a major profit centers and their truck divisions as another. Hindsight is always said to be 20/20, but in reality it is even better than that. It is always easier after the fact to say how something should have been handled.

Currently GM is paying three people in retirement for every one they actually have making cars. The "Big Three's" labor cost is $25.00 more per hour than their competitors. This is due to the pension and health care costs mentioned above. These costs add an average of $5,000 to the cost of every vehicle. The only way any of the American car companies can compete and survive is to be able to eliminate these legacy costs. Sadly, the only way that is going to happen will be either bankruptcy or the government taking over the pension obligation. The goverment can assist these companies, but we don't want or need the government to run them. I will quote from Bill O'reilly, "If the unions don't bend, we won't lend."

The President Has Become A Divisive Figure

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 04:57:00 +0000

This is an article written by Karl Rove, published in the Wall Street Journal.

The Pew Research Center reported last week that President Barack Obama "has the most polarized early job approval of any president" since surveys began tracking this 40 years ago. The gap between Mr. Obama's approval rating among Democrats (88%) and Republicans (27%) is 61 points. This "approval gap" is 10 points bigger than George W. Bush's at this point in his presidency, despite Mr. Bush winning a bitterly contested election.

Part of Mr. Obama's polarized standing can be attributed to a long-term trend. University of Missouri political scientist John Petrocik points out that since 1980, each successive first term president has had more polarized support than his predecessor with the exception of 1989, when George H.W. Bush enjoyed a modest improvement over Ronald Reagan's 1981 standing.

But rather than end or ameliorate that trend, Mr. Obama's actions and rhetoric have accelerated it. His campaign promised post-partisanship, but since taking office Mr. Obama has frozen Republicans out of the deliberative process, and his response to their suggestions has been a brusque dismissal that "I won."

Compare this with Mr. Bush's actions in the aftermath of his election. Among his first appointments were Democratic judicial nominees who had been blocked by Republicans under President Bill Clinton. The Bush White House joined with Democratic and Republican leaders to draft education reform legislation. And Mr. Bush worked with Republican Chuck Grassley to cut a deal with Democrat Max Baucus to win bipartisan passage of a big tax cut in a Senate split 50-50 after the 2000 election.

Mr. Obama has hastened the decline of Republican support with petty attacks on his critics and predecessor. For a person who promised hope and civility in politics, Mr. Obama has shown a borderline obsessiveness in blaming Mr. Bush. Starting with his inaugural address and continuing through this week's overseas trip, the new president's jabs at Mr. Bush have been unceasing, unfair and unhelpful. They have also diminished Mr. Obama by showing him to be another conventional politician. Rather than ending "the blame game," he is personifying it.

The question that will worry the Obama West Wing is whether the views of independents come to look more like Democrats or Republicans. Recent opinion surveys show that support for his policies among independents is slipping.

On both Mr. Obama's performance and policies, independents are starting to look more like Republicans. For example, the most recent Fox News poll (taken March 31 to April 1) found that Mr. Obama's job approval among independents has fallen to 52%, down nine points from the start of March and down 12 points from late January. Over the same period, the number of independents who disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance has doubled to 32% from 16%.

The same poll also found that 76% of independents worry that government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. Independents oppose Mr. Obama's proposed budget by a 55%-37% margin.

If independents continue looking more like Republicans, especially on deficits, spending and the economy, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats could be in for a rough ride.

It was the concern of independents and "soft partisans" about national debt and spending that gave rise to Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. More significantly, independents angry about deficits and spending were the key swing bloc in the 1994 congressional races, where Republicans picked up eight Senate seats and 54 House seats, winning their first House majority since 1955.

Declining support for the Obama agenda among independents may further unnerve congressional Democrats, especially in the House. Sixty-nine Democratic congressmen represent districts carried by Mr. Bush or John McCain in two of the last three presidential contests. Forty-eight of these districts were carried by Mr. McCain last election. If independent support continues slipping, many of these Democrats will be fingering worry beads as the mid-term election approaches.

Perhaps that's why 20 House Democrats voted no or abstained on the president's budget resolution, joining all 198 Republicans in not supporting Mr. Obama's budget framework. Nineteen represent GOP-leaning districts -- and at least 16 are vulnerable to Republican challengers, including 14 freshmen or sophomore congressmen.

We don't yet know the price Democrats will pay for Mr. Obama's fiscal radicalism. But we do know that no presidential hopeful in our lifetime has made bipartisanship more central to his candidacy and few presidents have devoted as many eloquent words to its importance. Yet no president in the past 40 years has done more to polarize America so much, so quickly. Mr. Obama has not come close to living up to his own standards. It took him less than 11 weeks to achieve the very opposite of what he promised. That, in its own regrettable way, is quite an achievement.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923500880003227.html

Destined To Repeat?

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:22:00 +0000

The following is video of Glenn Beck's special entitled, "Destined To Repeat?". He makes the point in this special, that people who don't know history, are destined to repeat it.

Click for: Part Two , Part Three , Part Four, Part Five

House Bill Allows 'Victims' of Global Warming to Sue Businesses, Federal Government

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:34:00 +0000

This is an article from The Washington Times. It highlights a provision in a bill authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cali), and Edward Markey (D-Mass), that allows "victims" or "soon to be victims" of global warming, to sue businesses, and federal government.

WASHINGTON- Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment.

The Waxman-Markey blueprint, including the lawsuit provision, has just been released, and the Senate is drafting its own energy bill. But Mr. Waxman has set an accelerated schedule for passing the bill through his committee by Memorial Day and President Obama lists an energy overhaul bill as one of his top priorities.

David Doniger, senior counsel with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the measure is similar to a landmark environmental ruling from the Supreme Court allowing states to sue the federal government for damages from climate change - largely on the basis of lost shorelines from rising sea levels - but did not set grounds for people to file lawsuits.

"The [Chamber of Commerce] is trying to say the global-warming legislation is scarier than global warming itself," Mr. Doniger said. "It's part of a menu of scare tactics they are compiling."
Under the House bill, if a judge rules against the government, new rules would have to be drafted to alleviate the problems associated with climate change. If a judge rules against a company, the company would have to purchase additional "carbon emission allowances" through a cap-and-trade program that is to be created by Congress.

The measure sets grounds for anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part," to government inaction to file a "citizen suit." The term "harm" is broadly defined as "any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring."

It would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million, committee staff said. It is unclear whether the provision would actually cap damages at $75,000 per person, because the U.S. law referenced does not establish payouts by the government.

The $1.5 million cap reflects a compromise reached with House Republicans in a 2007 version of the measure introduced by Mr. Waxman, committee staff said. Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey wrote the measure into a broader climate plan introduced last week, although it was left out of a bill summary that committee staff provided at the time.

Republican committee staff said the measure has the potential to muddle the judicial system.
"Perhaps a more accurate title of the bill would be 'The Lawyer Full-Employment and As-Seen-on-TV Global Warming Act of 2009,' " said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House committee.

Democratic staffers said the measure provides guidance to the courts on how to apply existing Clean Air Act provisions. Private citizens can sue the government based on harm caused by pollutants currently regulated under the Clean Air Act - including nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide - but they lack standing to sue for damages resulting from climate change.

Regulating carbon dioxide has been a hard slog for environmentalists, and some energy analysts say that the Waxman-Markey bill and parallel efforts by the Obama administration constitute a multifaceted attempt to achieve the goal by regulation if legislative attempts fail.

The "citizen suit" would allow people to force government action on climate change, seemingly a redundancy in a bill that would achieve that goal if passed. But environmentalists have been cautious in their tack, arguing that many environmental protections on the books were not vigorously enforced under the Bush administration.

Environmental lawyers played down the significance of the provision.
The measure would not guarantee payouts from the government or successful lawsuits, Mr. Doniger said, but would set the bar for people seeking to force the government to act on climate change.

He likened the measure to tort laws regarding cigarette smoke or cancer-causing chemicals, in which the harmful effects are not seen for decades.

"If this pollution isn't curbed, it isn't just today or tomorrow you have problems, it's also 20 to 30 years from now," Mr. Doniger said.

Expansion of the Clean Air Act to allow "citizen suits" on climate change has been a goal among environmental groups and moderate to liberal Democrats for many years - although the measure has never succeeded.

But amending the Clean Air Act is "potentially a big gamble" because it opens other sections of the act to modification during the bill-drafting process, said a Democratic energy lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ties to committee members.

If you disagree with this provision, contact your congressman or congresswoman and tell them to vote NO to the expansion of the Clean Air Act!

Source: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/10/climate-bill-could-trigger-lawsuit-landslide/?page=2

Protest Out Of Control Government Spending

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:24:00 +0000

Next Wednesday, is you guessed it, tax day. Many Americans on this day are going to "Tea Party" protests, to show their frustration with all the unecessary government spending.

Click here to find a tea party near you.

The Tax Day Tea Party is a national collaborative grassroots effort organized by Smart Girl Politics, Top Conservatives on Twitter, the DontGo Movement and many other online groups/coalitions.

The Tea Party protests, in their current form, began in early 2009 when Rick Santelli, the On Air Editor for CNBC, set out on a rant to expose the bankrupt liberal agenda of the White House Administration and Congress. Specifically, the flawed “Stimulus Bill” and pork filled budget.

During Rick’s rant (see video below), he called for a “Chicago tea Party” where advocates of the free-market system could join in a protest against out of control government spending.

A few days later, grassroots activists and average Joe Americans began organizing what would soon become the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party effort.

On February 27th, an estimated 30,000 Americans took to the street in 40+ cities accross the country in the first nationwide “Tea Party” protest.

Organizers of the February 27th events pledged to continue on with an even bigger and better protest to follow the first. With April 15th being “Tax Day”, it was decided to schedule the second round of Tea Party protests to ride alongside the tax deadline.

And with that, the “Tax Day Tea Party”, the second round of the Nationwide Tea Party protests, moved into reality.

Obama Living In Fantasy Of Nuke Free World

noreply@blogger.com (Zach Olsen) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:04:00 +0000

In a speech today in the Czech Republic, President Obama says the United States will take concrete steps to a world without nuclear weapons.

The only problem with nuclear disarmament, is there is always a country who will not participate. The idea of a world free of nuclear weapons diminished when the United States and Russia first developed these weapons. There is too much of a risk to disarm now, when we have about 2500 more nukes than anyone else. We do not have exact numbers of other countries' nukes. So no one can be sure whether each country is keeping its end of the deal. The increase vulnerability of the United States is not worth the political popularity it may bring. President Obama knows that the United States cannot actually carry out this policy, and is just saying it to please the world. I Hope.