Author: Kellie Bartoli

Before he was even inaugurated, President Barack Obama drew steady comparisons to arguably one of the greatest presidents in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both men used progressive tactics to communicate with Americans and each inherited the presidency at a less-than-ideal economic time. And if Rep. Jose Serrano’s (D-NY)  proposal passes – a lack of serving just two terms.

On Jan. 6 (the first day of the 111th Congress, in case you’re keeping score), Serrano introduced

H.J.Res.5 , a proposal to repeal the  22nd Amendment, removing presidential terms.

The 22nd Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution on Feb. 27, 1951, when three-fourths of the states’ legislatures ratified it.

The “two term tradition,” as it is often known, dates back to George Washington, who, despite being wildly successful across the nation, didn’t seek a third term of office. Whether he meant to set a precedent or not, the ensuing leaders followed suit.

In an 1805 letter, Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, wrote: “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years. …I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”

How prophetic, Mr. Jefferson! His constitutional vision wouldn’t be seen for a century or so, leaving a little wiggle room for a few presidents.

In 1860, Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office, after serving the country from 1869 – 1877. He narrowly lost out on the Republican Party’s nomination to James Garfield, who eventually won the presidency.

Just a few decades later, Theodore Roosevelt tried his hand at serving three terms. After assuming the presidency in 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated, Roosevelt was elected to his own term in 1904. But presiding over the United States from 1901 to 1909 wasn’t enough for Roosevelt. He attempted another election in 1912, but fell to Woodrow Wilson.

The most famous case concerns that other Roosevelt, though. FDR broke all precedent by being elected four times. The rising conflict in Europe helped lead Roosevelt to his third victory, and World War II ensured his fourth election.  One year after his fourth term began, Roosevelt suffered a stroke and died in office.

After FDR’s historic turn in the White House, Congress went to work on crafting an amendment to prevent such a presidency. While the 22nd Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1951, Congress actually passed it on March 21, 1947 – less than two years after FDR’s death.

But perhaps Rep. Serrano (and the others who have sponsored similar bills in the past) know something about American history that the rest of us don’t.

Many experts believe Washington’s iconic Farewell Address hints that it was Washington’s age that stopped him from seeking a third term.

“Washington didn’t want to die in office and have the succession appear ‘monarchical,’” wrote James MacGregor and Susan Dunn, college professors and authors of “George Washington.” “His primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquility of Mount Vernon.”

The authors also note that Washington believed that term limits would “exclude from the presidency of a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.”

Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s close friend, fiercely opposed presidential term limits in his Federalist No. 72, saying among other things, that term limits would discourage new projects and threaten political stability.

While the current proposal to repeal term limitations doesn’t have any co-sponsors yet, many believe it has a chance to make an impact on Congress. It needs a two-thirds approval vote in both houses and ratification by three-quarters of states before becoming official.                                                        

Author: Sarah Riordan

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a member of the most powerful court in the nation?  Can you imagine having to make decisions that change an entire population’s lives forever?  Though everyone probably has a desire to hold such power, it can’t be easy.  In fact, it must be incomprehensibly difficult to interpret an intentionally vague constitution.

That’s why, on occasion, it’s not a bad idea to cut the Supreme Court a break.  Granted they have the power to make millions of people mad in one sweeping decision, but all things considered, their jobs can’t be easy. 

Now, without a doubt the Supreme Court has made some questionable decisions, and truthfully Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has reason to question the decision they made in 2008 when they overturned the ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case Kennedy vs. Louisiana.  As a result of the case, Vitter is sponsoring S.RES.4, which asks the Supreme Court to allow the death penalty for similar cases in the future.

Kennedy vs. Louisiana is a tragic case to say the least.  Patrick Kennedy was a 43 year-old man, who one morning decided to rape his 8 year-old stepdaughter.  As a result of the unusually brutal rape, the girl bled internally and rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery.  The stepfather claimed that the girl had been raped by some teenage boys the neighborhood of their Louisiana home.  After an investigation into the crime however, the evidence was irrefutable; the stepfather had in fact raped the young girl. 

Without getting into too much detail, according to the court documents, the rape of the girl was so unusually brutal, that the damage done was permanent.  In addition to the already perverse nature of the rape, during the trial it came out that Kennedy had raped before.  The first time, it was his 8 year-old goddaughter.

The court sentenced Kennedy to death by lethal injection.  Kennedy appealed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court heard the case, but supported the original sentence.  Thus, Kennedy appealed federally, and the U.S. Supreme Court took over.  

In a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court overturned the case, stating that because only six states list childhood rape as a capital punishment because it does not include the taking of another person’s life. Thus they said it went against the 8^th Amendment which prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment.  The majority included Justice Kennedy, Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer.

The dissent included Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito. The dissent stated that prohibiting the death penalty in Kennedy’s case went against society’s standards of decency, and by no means went against the 8^th Amendment. 

The amendment in question is like most other amendments; it’s vague. The exact wording is as follows:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Naturally, Senator Vitter agreed with the dissent, and felt the U.S. Supreme Court should have respected the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision.  It’s a tough case, and forming a strong opinion couldn’t have been easy. 

Given the vague language of the 8^th Amendment, and the gruesome nature of the crime, Vitter’s jab at the Supreme Court is understandable.   Kennedy raped two eight-year old girls, causing them both permanent mental and physical damage.  Considering the cruel and unusual crime, in my opinion, the death penalty would have been cruel and unusual by no means.

So, what do you think?  Was the Supreme Court’s Decision Correct? Did Kennedy Deserve the Death Penalty? Post your comments and let us know.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Congresswomen Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) is sponsoring a bill that essentially calls for law enforcement to be stricter in their prosecution of hate crimes.  H.R.254 states that any harm caused in the name of race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion should be called a hate crime and therefore the perpetrator should pay not only for the crime committed, but for the fact that it was motivated by hate.

Apparently, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee is a mind reader.  She can tell when a crime is racially motivated, and she can tell what a person is truly thinking when they pull the trigger.  Miss Jackson-Lee is so intuitive, that she knows when a murder is not just a murder…but a murder caused by hate.

Now, I’m sure that ignorant people commit crimes everyday in the name of race, religion, and gender, but as the law currently stands, those people are already prosecuted.  For example, if a white man shoots a black man and the black man dies, the white man will be charged with murder.  Naming the crime one of hate, does not change the ultimate outcome; murder is murder.  One man is dead, and one man is living.  No law will change that.

Even if a white man shoots a black man and the black man doesn’t die, it’s still a crime! It’s a crime known as attempted murder.  And like murder, we already have laws that will send the offender to jail.  Whether it’s a hate crime or not is irrelevant; the white man won’t walk free.

In addition to the fact that we already have laws against these crimes on the books, I can’t help but wonder how a judge or jury will decide a crime is in fact a hate crime. Will they attempt to guess what the offender was thinking?  How will they know that the crime was motivated by the “hate criteria?”  What if there was simply a love triangle of mixed races, and the black man killed the white man for having an affair with his wife.  Is that not just a regular crime of passion?  Because the people involved happened to be of different races, does that make it a hate crime? 

Furthermore, are not all crimes, crimes of hate?   Most of the time, you cause bodily harm to someone because you…ready for this…hate them!!  If you’re going to create something called a hate crime, then every crime under the sun should fall into that category.  It’s a pointless distinction. 

Ultimately, what this bill will do is close in on our rights as U.S. citizens.  In H.R. 254, Congress is attempting to read people’s thoughts.  If they can prosecute a person on supposed intent, then what will that lead to?  Could a person speaking out against homosexuality be accused of a hate crime and arrested because the intent behind his speech was hateful? 

The end result if American jumps on the hate crime band wagon, will be a government that attempts to read people’s minds, and prosecute on thoughts.  That is not the kind of country I want to live in, and it’s certainly not a country that was founded on freedom.

I think I just might hate H.R. 254…

Author: Sarah Riordan

As the Unites States continues to step up the war for democracy in Afghanistan, Senator Barbara Boxer is making sure the women are included in the U.S.’s plans.

The questionable treatment of women throughout the Middle East has been well documented by women who managed to escape the oppressive atmosphere.  One example is found in Betty Mahmoody’s book “Not Without My Daughter.”  In her tragic story she is virtually held captive by her husband in Iran and beaten within an inch of her life. Though her story is disturbing, even more disturbing is that when Mahmoody turned to her Iranian friends for help, they told her that her husband’s behavior was not unique and was, according to law and custom, virtually acceptable. 

Likewise, in Dr. Qanta Ahmed’s book “In the Land of Invisible Women,” she writes about the everyday burden of being a female in Saudi Arabia. She even states that for a while, there was a law pending that made it illegal for Saudi women to wear seatbelts because it defined their chest too much.  In other words, a Saudi man would rather a woman be thrown through the windshield of a car, than have her chest stand out more than usual. 

And so the problem continues throughout most of the nations of the Middle East.  Not every man throughout the Middle East abuses his wife, nor is every woman unhappy.  However, according to Boxer’s S.229, there does seem to be some well-documented problems that should be addressed as long as the U.S. continues to have a presence in Afghanistan.

According to the bill, research has shown that Afghanistan has one of the highest mortality rates in the nation for women in labor.  There is an estimated one woman who dies in every 54 births.  In a world of modern medicine, the amount is unusually high.  In contrast, according to an MSNBC report in the United States 12 women die in childbirth for every 100,000 babies born. 

Aside from issues of healthcare, education for women is virtually nonexistent.  S.229 says that 79 percent of women in Afghanistan are illiterate. The bill also says that schools who teach girls are often subject to brutal attacks by extremists hoping to limit their rights. 

According to Boxer, educating women and providing them with proper healthcare and education is essential in building a democracy.  Clearly the U.S. has a vested interest in establishing a democracy in Afghanistan.  Such an interest in fact, that American soldiers are losing their lives every day for the cause.

To help the women of Afghanistan Boxer proposes forty-five million dollars go toward a number of potential projects.  These projects include providing shelters for abused women, health care, education for both young and old, and therapy for those suffering from anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorders caused by years of oppression under the Taliban rule. 

Though the opposition will most likely zero in on the costs proposed in the bill, Boxer does have a point: regardless of how much money the government chooses to spend, women in Afghanistan need proper resources in order to propel their country toward democracy. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Tom Ammiano’s  plan to legalize marijuana in the state of California is turning heads around the nation. The Assemblymen seeks to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.” 

Proponents of the bill claim that aside from lack of substantial health concerns, the plan would help provide $1 billion per year in much-needed state revenue. In addition, the bill would bring down overall costs for law enforcement, while helping officials focus on more important priorities.

Opponents say that legalizing pot is socially dangerous largely due to its’ suspected reputation as a “gateway drug.” In addition, many highly respectable institutes have conducted studies about the health effects from smoking cannabis and the results are not positive. 

Either way, the public has spoken and according to a recent poll conducted by CNN, 95% of Americans now are in favor of marijuana being legalized. See:

Author: Kellie Bartoli

As Americans, we enjoy our freedom to do anything we may choose. Anything, that is except travel to Cuba.

Since 1963, the United States has followed a strict travel ban with Cuba – the only country that Americans are forbidden from visiting. Earlier this month, however, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and eight co-sponsors introduced to Congress H.R.874, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

By lifting the 46-year sanction, the bill aims to restore the travel rights of Cuban refugees living in the U.S. and enable unrestricted American travel to Cuba, except during times of war and “imminent danger to the public health or physical safety.”

Despite growing popularity, the bill faces a tough crowd. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Miami), a longtime advocate of the Cuban sanctions, says similar acts are often proposed, and “every year embargo supporters kill [them] before they get any traction. …While we recognize that these are fights take place, we have great confidence that we’ll defeat them.”

The strongest argument against the measure is the belief that American tourism will breathe money into the Castro regime.

According to Humberto Fontova, a Cuban exile who has since penned two books about the island, at least 2 million tourists have visited Cuba each year since 1994, creating a $2 billion cash flow, which “is only going to increase now with Americans going to Cuba.”  

If the measure passes the House, President Obama will almost certainly sign it into law; throughout his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to change the travel ban. At a Cuban Independence Day event in Miami, he said, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad.’ …We’ve been engaged in a failed policy with Cuba for the last 50 years. And we need to change it.” Obama later went on to vow unrestricted travel and financial rights for Cuban-Americans.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act will be a good test of Obama’s pledge. In addition to lifting travel sanctions, the new bill loosens the tight strings pulled by President George W. Bush, who placed even more stringent restrictions on American-Cuban relations.

Under the Clinton administration, for example, Cuban-Americans were allowed to visit the island once a year and send quarterly payments of up to $3,000 to their families. In 2004, Bush enacted stronger limitations: Cuban-Americans could only visit family once every three weeks for 14-day intervals, “family” was defined as parents, spouses, children and siblings – not friends or other family members, travel spending was capped at $50 per day, and cash remittances were maximized at $300 every three months and could only be sent to immediate family.

The new bill, however, calls for a $170-per day travel allowance, the ability for Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and stay as long as they want, and eliminates a cap on remittance.

While the travel ban has been enforced for nearly 50 years, the proposal is moving much more rapidly. It was initially introduced to Congress on Feb. 4, and the House plans to vote as early as Wednesday. It is to be reviewed by the Senate at the beginning of next week. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Abortion is a tragedy.  It doesn’t matter if a person is pro-life or pro-choice, any intellectually honest human being should be able to state-without a doubt-that abortion is tragic. 

Because abortion is clearly devastating, many women who have an abortion suffer from post-abortive conditions.  These conditions include, depression, anxiety, relationship problems, sexual problems, and in severe cases, thoughts of suicide.

In Congressman Pitts’ new bill, H.R. 1457, he addresses the issue of post-abortive conditions and asks Congress to recognize the problem, and give money to research and solutions for women suffering.  The problem is however, like all other life-motivated bills, this one will also most likely be shot down by our heavily democratic Congress.

That’s what’s so puzzling about the abortion issue.  Pro-choice people claim that keeping abortion legal is all about the women.  It’s about women having a say in what happens to their bodies.  It’s about women who are not yet ready for a child having an abortion to keep control of their lives. They say it’s about the well being of females across America. 

If that’s the case, then why is nearly every single Congressman and woman supporting H.R.1457, a pro-life politician? If it’s the pro-choicers who care so deeply for the female population, then why wouldn’t they jump at the chance to support a bill designed to help women deal with choosing abortion?  Are they really out to help women?

The truth is that many pro-choice advocates deny there is such a thing as a post-abortive condition.  In fact, I once interviewed a woman, from a Chicago suburb, who was in charge of hiring escorts  to walk girls into a local abortion clinic. In the interview, I asked her if she ever worried that the girls she helped escort into the clinic would someday feel pain and regret .  She replied by saying that the only reason women feel guilt or regret is because the pro-life community convinces them that that’s the way they should feel.  It’s not the abortion, but the community that makes girls feel guilty.

The research conducted for H.R. 1457 however, tells a different story.  The National Institute of Health has done no research on the issue.  So, sadly, Congressman Pitts was forced to look to a major study conducted in New Zealand for facts.  Pitts found that a woman who finds herself pregnant and carried the pregnancy to term has a 35.7 percent chance of suffering from severe depression.  A woman who finds herself pregnant and chooses to abort that baby however, has a staggering 78.6 percent chance of suffering from severe depression.  The numbers remain consistent across the board from depression, to anxiety, to thoughts of suicide; women who have abortions suffer from these conditions at a much higher rate. 

Pitts simply requests in his bill that 3 million dollars, a pittance by today’s standards, be given to medical research on post-abortive conditions over the course of three years.  This way, the National Institute of Health could try and find ways to help women who are suffering.

So why would anyone not support this bill?  Well, it once again calls the practice of abortion into question.  It suggests that, unlike pro-choice advocates would have us believe, that abortion is not a quick and painless procedure.  Recognizing that there are long term side affects to an abortion could actually help a woman to…God forbid…make a different, more informed, life affirming choice.   For some reason, the pro-choice community can just not have that. 

Good luck Pitts, and thanks for truly caring about women.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

Welcome back.  Now that you’re all up to date on the Democratic Carnahan clan, let’s go over the other controlling force in Missouri; the Republican Blunts.

To be perfectly honest, it wasn’t easy to find information on the Blunts. Most of the information obviously surrounded Matt and Roy.  However, the family’s political history goes back much further than Roy. So here’s what information is available on the power-house family’s early days.

Despite the many websites viewed in order to gather information on Leroy Blunt, none of the information provided dates for Leroy Blunt’s political career. We do know however, that Roy Blunt’s father was a Missouri State Legislator. Prior to serving as a state legislator, Blunt’s father, Leroy, was a member of school and city councils. Roy learned about politics and getting involved in the community from his father and later when on to pass whatever message his father gave him onto his kids.

Roy Blunt’s political history, because it’s still going on, is easier to track than his father’s.  Roy Blunt’s political journey began in 1973 as the Greene County Clerk.  Then in 1984 Roy was elected as Missouri’s Secretary of State.  After serving as Missouri’s Secretary of State, Roy returned to his education background and served as president to his alma mater Southwest Baptist University. He returned to politics in 1996 when he was elected to the United States Congress.  Roy is still serving in Congress today and recently announced his plan to run to fill Kit Bond’s seat in the U.S. Senate. He will be running against Robin Carnahan is the ultimate Missouri power family showdown.

Like the Carnahan family, two generations of politicians just didn’t seem to be enough.  So Matt Blunt set out to continue his family’s political legacy.  Matt Blunt’s political career began as a state rep. for Greene County, and was later elected Secretary of the State of Missouri.  After his stint as Secretary of State he became Governor of the state of Missouri at the age of 33.  He was the second youngest governor ever elected in the United States.  Matt chose not to run for reelection in the 2008 election.

In addition to Matt, Roy Blunt’s other children also have their hands in politics.  Both Andy and Amy work as lobbyist in D.C., and there’s much speculation that they too will one day run for public office.

So, needless to say, the Blunt family isn’t going to disappear any time soon.  With Roy Blunt’s recent announcement that he will be running to fill Kit Bond’s (R-District 7) Senate Seat, their hold in Missouri is as strong as ever.  Though Missourians may be feeling a need for a change of pace, it’s not likely.

So who will fill the much desired seat?  Will it be Robin Carnahan, from the Democratic power family, or Roy Blunt, the Republican from an equally influential clan?  One thing’s for sure, this is going to be one hot race.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

 To quote the oh so diplomatic Judge Judy…don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

 The above quote pretty much sums up Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s new bill, H.R. 463.  In fact, the first paragraph is where the deceit begins. Here Slaughter states that the bill wants to provide contraceptives to girls with the intention of reducing the number of abortions. 

Okay, first things first, when reviewing the long list of Congressmen and woman who signed their names supporting the bill, something seemed odd.  The typical pro-life advocates were absent from the list.  For example, Fortenberry, Akin, and Lipinski were neither listed as sponsors or cosponsors.  So naturally, something about this bill just felt off.

When reading through the first pages of the bill, nothing obvious stands out.  It follows the format of a typical bill beginning by citing research about unplanned pregnancies, and the number of women in lower socio-economic circumstances that don’t have access to birth control.  Wait a minute…that does spark a thought, who was the famous woman that longed to provide minorities and poorer woman with birth control? Oh wait, that’s right, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, which is also the largest abortion provider in America.

Sanger’s goal was to eliminate people she saw as inferior through birth control.  Now for those of you, who view Sanger as a saint; let’s review some of her most infamous writings.

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America.

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Whenever a bill aims to provide birth control, it nearly always focuses on minorities within the US.  That is exactly what Sanger’s goal was.  Apparently Sanger and Slaughter both think they know what sort of women should be discouraged from having children.  According to Sanger, it’s not about providing a service to women, but about eliminating the poor and minority groups.

Now at about page four, the bill becomes incredibly transparent.  Suddenly, the bill goes from speaking about birth control, to speaking about emergency contraception. (The morning after pill.)  Even the most ignorant of college students can tell you that the morning after pill is used in case conception has occurred.  A true pro lifer would be against the use of this emergency contraceptive because its goal is to cause a very early abortion.   If the public does not view the morning after pill as an abortifacient, it should.  So either Slaughter is ignorant, or she thinks the public is stupid enough to be convinced that this pro-choice bill has a prolife message.  Come on Slaughter, stop being an elitist and give the public a little more credit.

Honestly, the problems mentioned above don’t even touch the surface of all the wrong stated in H.R.463.  The bill also mentions birth control providers helping with the elimination of STD’s.  Are they planning to do this by providing birth control?  If anything, providing girls with the pill is going to give them license to be more sexually active.  The pill does not protect against STD’s.  Neither does the morning after pill.  No birth control (other than abstinence) can truly keep a person safe from disease.

This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  It’s trying to seem prolife friendly while forcing taxpayers to go against their convictions by providing emergency contraception funding for girls.  If Slaughter’s bill is passed that‘s what will happen.

Slaughter, who do you think you’re kidding? 

Oh, and does anyone else find it ironic that her last name is Slaughter? Anyone…anyone?  

Author: Crystal Fontaine

The nation of Ethiopia is nestled between the countries of Sudan and Somalia. There are approximately 85 million people who live in the nation. Relations between the US and the 2^nd most densely populated African state have been relatively positive since the early 1900s.  Unfortunately, due to a number of reported human’s rights violations, strain between the two nations has emerged. Recently, Ethiopia’s Charities and Societies Proclamation Law, or CSO, went into effect, causing uproar from the human rights activist and international aid communities.

Amnesty International called the CSO a tyrannical law that is intended to dominate and scrutinize civil society in an atmosphere of increasing intolerance towards the efforts of human rights advocates and civil society organizations. Amnesty International considers the law’s provisions as violations of international and regional human rights treaties. The Ethiopian government asserts that the law is to address what seem to be inadequacies within the current legal regime, promoting financial transparency and accountability. The law will provide more “proper” administration and regulation to civil society, according to Ethiopian officials.

The CSO law will criminalize human rights actions carried out by Ethiopian organizations that obtain more than 10 percent of their funding from foreign entities. The law imposes a disproportionate amount of criminal penalties for even small administrative violations of the regulation. It also establishes a Charities and Societies Agency that will have widespread unrestricted authority over civil society associations, allowing for government observation and obstruction in day-to-day operation and management. If the law is violated, one could face up to fifteen years in prison.

The law passed after the arrests of two outspoken opponents of the government. One of the opponents, Birtukan Midekssa, had originally been convicted in her role of sponsoring protests after the much disputed 2005 elections and then pardoned; only to have the pardoned revoked on inadequate evidence. The other opponent was arrested in November on the charge of plotting acts of terrorism; however, there appears to be little evidence supporting the charge.

Ethiopia’s new CSO law is only the beginning. A flurry of proposed legislation from the US is expected to be released in a hot and heavy fashion. As other key global players in human rights circles (such as the UN and EU) begin to emerge, the situation between the US and Ethiopia will only become more intense.

One of the most probable US legislators to step to the plate is Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ). Payne introduced the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007 (H.R. 2003) even before the situation escalated. At the time, H.R. 200 aimed to force the unconditional release of all political prisoners, support humanitarian assistance, and strengthen U.S-Ethiopia relations. The Secretary of State would have the authority to provide financial support to local and national human rights groups, establish a program to strengthen independent media and establish a program to provide for a judicial monitoring process.

For information on Representative Payne, follow this link.

For more information on researching and tracking pending US/Ethiopian legislation, make sure to check back with State Surge – How do you keep up?

Author: Crystal Fontaine

What would you do the government suddenly demanded you to leave your family and friends to join the US military? What would you do if, no matter your best efforts, you were forced to serve? The idea of a military draft is not a new concept. In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Selective Training and Service Act, which created the nation’s first peacetime draft. Men were drafted to fill vacancies that were no longer being filled by volunteers.

The draft, or conscription, is not without controversy. During the ever unpopular Vietnam War, it became a central issue for the American public. In order to avoid the draft, many men fled the country and protests weren’t uncommon. When the government ended the draft, an all-volunteer military was established. Since then, young men from the ages of 18 to 26 have been required by law to register with the Selective Service so that during an emergency the government would have a number of men to call upon. As the nation is currently fighting two wars, the United States has stretched its military sources thin without the use of a draft. Some might say that now is the time to once again instill the military draft.

One of the major proponents for the draft is the Excelsior State’s Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY). Rumors (and precedence) have it that this year Rangel would like to reintroduce legislation to re-establish the universal military draft. Rangel has introduced similar bills in the past, declaring that everyone in America should be forced by law to work for the government for a minimum of two years for little-to-no- pay. According to the New York Representative, the draft would strengthen U.S troop levels that are inadequate now to cover possible future action in places such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Rangel has tried to introduce similar legislation in the year 2003 and again in the year 2007, but each time he has failed.

Rangel believes that a draft is the best thing for the nation due to citizens contributing to a shared sacrifice, giving the public a better understanding of military service. Former President Reagan once said, “Conscription rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state—not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers—to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea”. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said in the past that Rangel’s proposition for the draft was more about creating a point on social disparity. Many others have noted that the re-introduction would not get much attention from the public as the issue of the military strain in Iraq has been pushed to the side due to the economic crisis.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Despite the opening scene of Mean Girls  in which homeschoolers are viewed as gun-toting, spelling bee-winning, backwards members of society, many are pretty normal and dedicated to education. 

Perhaps Senator David Vitter has seen the positive side of homeschooling, and that’s why he is out to give homeschooling families a little financial break. 

The word “little” above does in fact, as it usually does, mean little.  Basically, Vitter’s S.100 gives homeschooling families 500 dollars per child tax deduction for eligible homeschooling expenses maxing out at 2,000 dollars.  So if you have over four children, you have to get rid of the rest.  Or perhaps just let them learn to read on their own.

On a more serious note, Vitter is actually trying to be fair to families who do not choose to send their children to taxpayer-funded public schools.  Vitter probably sees that plenty of families out there are paying for everyone else’s education, but no one is aiding them in paying for their children to learn. 

As far as expenses go, families who choose to home school or send their children to public schools, are forking out quite a bit in taxes to support public education.  Private schools charge thousands of dollars a year and homeschoolers are hit because they have to pay for their own textbooks.  If any of you out there are in, or have children in college, you know how expensive textbooks are.  Vitter is trying to give homeschoolers a rare break in the world of government tax policies.

So, Vitter’s reasoning is quite…reasonable.  However, the whole issue does raise the question, “Should people who choose a different path for their children’s education be eligible for tax breaks?” Personally, I am not opposed to homeschooling and would fully support any family who chooses to do so.  However, the point is that no where are American citizens guaranteed a tax break for making a choice.  As a society, we opted to use tax dollars for a publicly funded school system.  As a result, part of being an American citizen means that some of your money will go to providing the greater population with an education.  If you choose another way that’s your choice but people shouldn’t expect special concessions.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

The signs of economic recession are everywhere. Recently, a small town in mid-Missouri with a population of approximately 5,000 people experienced the distressing effects of the economic slump as a local factory laid off 400 workers – a whopping eight percent of the town’s population. Economies of every size are all realizing the effects of the economic downturn.

According to the United States Small Business Administration, there were 27.2 million businesses in the United States in the year of 2007. Of those, small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9%. These small firms pay nearly 45% of the total U.S payroll and employee about half of all the private sector. Over the last decade, small businesses alone have generated 60-80% of net new jobs annually. Although big business, such as GM, shows the more “noticeable” effects of the recession, we cannot forget the little guys, who may be struggling just as much.

In November, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), purposed the small business-focused Senate Bill 3699, which seeks to improve the HUBZone program. Snowe’s efforts may very well go a long way to providing one of the cornerstones of America’s future.

HUBZone Background

HUBZone is a program created under the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 97’that falls under the sponsorship of the U.S Small Business Administration, promoting economic development in historically underutilized business zones. The program attempts to do this by enhancing employment and capital investment by providing Federal contracting preferences to small business in economically distraught areas. The HUBZone areas are defined as a qualified census tract, a qualified “non-metropolitan” with a median income of less than 80% of the state median, or property within the margins of federally recognized Indian Reservations. In order to be eligible, a business must be positioned in a HUBZone, the business must be owned and controlled by one or more U.S citizens, and no less than 35% of the employees must reside in the HUBZone.

Under Snowe’s legislation, numerous concerns with the program are given light. For instance, there is no real assurance that only qualified firms are apart of the program. This is attributable to not acquiring certain documentation and conducting site visits more regularly during certification process. The legislation provides a list of improvement suggestions, including the development and implementation of direction for establishing if an application is qualified, establishing a time period for completing recertification, building measures to measure efficiency that take into account contracts being calculated under several socioeconomic subcategories, economic characteristics, et cetera. In addition, the Comptroller General must present a report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business in the House no later than two years after the implementation of the bill.

As quoted by Warren Buffett, “In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield”. Over a year ago, many of us did not anticipate that we would be facing an economic crisis with the scope we are working through. Today, we are facing an economic crisis of which the likes have never been seen. As we work through the urgent, macro reforms currently on the table, we, as Snowe suggests, must improve on what we currently have and find ways to help our small business communities. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Tim Williams is the safety and security manager at a propane gas facility in Lynn Creek, MO.  Lynn Creek is a tiny town in the center of Missouri, however, Williams is anything but a small-town man.  With two degrees and a passion for the arts, Williams tries to stay current.  This is no easy quest, because Williams only has access to dial up internet.  

 To all the city folks out there, not having high-speed internet is about as foreign a concept as not having indoor plumbing.  Believe it or not, in the year 2009, there are people who, in order to get online service have to use their phone line.  Now you may be sarcastically thinking, “Oh, poor people, they don’t have fast internet.”  If those are your thoughts however, you have clearly never tried checking your e-mail using dial up…you’ll be there all day.

“My internet is so slow, that I can’t even get access to important work files.  There are a lot of safety forms I have to fill out, and at home, my computer is too slow to even look over them.  If I don’t fill them out, I’m fined.   I must travel to my sister’s law office to use her internet,” Williams said.

For those many Americans like Williams out there who suffer through dialup daily, former Congressman Thomas Allen (D-ME) has your back.  He was sponsoring a bill, H.R. 5682, which draws attention to the fact that not all Americans have access to broadband and DSL.  In fact, around 34 percent of Americans still use dial up according to a report conducted by Fox News. 

Usually bills that propose giving something to someone else means that the money given is taken from…the taxpayer.  When reviewing each and every bill, it’s always a good idea to ask yourself if providing this service to others is worth using tax dollars.  In the grand scheme of things…you know…war, roads, police officers, is Broadband really worth using that money? Well, the beauty of Allen’s proposal is that it actually won’t cost the general public a thing.

Allen states in the bill, that Broadband and DSL services should be given tax breaks for going into rural areas.  This way, DSL and Broadband have incentive to expand their horizons. As a result, companies who take high-speed internet to small towns will get a tax break, and more business. 

Granted, not all of America is desperate for high-speed.  MSNBC sites research that states 14 percent of dial up users say they have no desire to switch to something faster. However, the survey was taken in New York City.  Those people already have access, they just choose to torment themselves daily by not using it.  The survey didn’t reach small towns in America where people have no option other than using dialup.  It’s all about providing all citizens with options.

In the end, it’s not a bad idea.   No one is forcing people to use high-speed internet, but for goodness sake, let the people who need it, get it!  

Williams really wanted to read this article, but because he can’t visit websites that have photos or video, he unfortunately, will not be able to.  

Author: Sarah Riordan

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich makes a rarely noticed cameo in what is becoming the most anticipated bill in the nation. With the House officially passing H.R.1, news about the bill is of prime national interest.  Despite the public criticism of the original bank and auto bailouts, Congress is at it again making a massive bailout for anything and everything that Democrats deem important. 

Rumors are circulating about what H.R.1 is actually supporting, and the talk is that the bailout is for everything from birth control to ACORN.  One thing that is actually without a doubt in the text of the 647 paged bill is a shout out to Governor Blagojevich of Illinois himself.

The shout out however, is nothing for Blagojevich to write home about.  In fact, it’s pretty much down right embarrassing and on some levels virtually unconstitutional. 

To clarify, I am no fan, nor have I ever been a fan of Blagojevich.  As a resident of the beautiful city of Chicago, the rumors of corruption at the highest level of both city and state government is the stuff of legends.  Just pick up a copy of the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune or the Daily Herald on any given day, and you’ll find the lead story is one about Blagojevich and Mayor Daley and their many and various political antics. But alas, Chicago functions and remains a beautiful and efficiently run city.  Consequently, we continue to elect officials that we “suspect” are corrupt.

Now that the clarification segment of this piece is out of the way, let’s get to the insanity of the “Blago” shout out in H.R.1. The best way to describe what the bill says is to quote the bill itself.  It reads as follows: 

“None of the funds provided by this Act may be made available to the State of Illinois, or any agency of the State, unless (1) the use of such funds by the State is approved in legislation enacted by the State after the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of Governor of the State of Illinois. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any funds provided directly to a unit of local government (1) by a Federal department or agency, or (2) by an established formula from the State.” 

As I write this, my impeached Governor is less than 24 hours away from most likely being removed from office. Regardless, what is stated in H.R. 1 still goes against American principles. What the sponsors and cosponsors of H.R. 1 failed to review before creating the bill was a document of apparent little importance known as the United States Constitution.  Amendment 14 clearly states that a bill or law cannot target a specific individual. This Amendment is also known as the “Equal Protection Clause.” This act was designed to prevent exactly what is happening in H.R.1.  Blagojevich, as of tonight, is still governor of Illinois.  He has not been removed nor has he been convicted of any high crime or misdemeanor.  He is one of 50 U.S. governors and is being unequally targeted.  Where is the equal protection in that?  Blagojevich, guilty or not, is being unfairly targeted as a specific individual. 

Personal feelings about the governor aside, this clause in H.R.1 is simply unconstitutional. The clause in H.R. 1 is patently unfair and I find it disturbing that our legislators are blatantly or ignorantly ignoring our Constitution and so should you. 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

For the constitutionally challenged, the above paragraph is the 1st Amendment of The United States Constitution. Now, it’s pretty straight forward, but for some members of Congress like Harry Reid the 1st Amendment is apparently a little hazy.

It’s no secret that conservative radio personalities are far more successful than their liberal competitors. According to Rush Limbaugh.com, Limbaugh rakes in 20 million viewers weekly. Air America, one of the few liberal radio stations available failed due to financial difficulties and lack of listenership. Now, Air America is giving it a second shot, and conveniently enough, just in time for liberal members of Congress to push for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. 

The Fairness Doctrine was enforced by the FCC when radio first came into existence. The Reagan administration found the doctrine to be a violation of the 1st Amendment, and abolished the act.

In a post Fairness Doctrine world, talk radio has become predominantly conservative. It’s not because the air waves have a strong bias, but because there is simply no audience for liberal radio. The world may never know why, but that’s just the case.

A Preemptive Fairness Doctrine Initiative

Republican Congressmen and women have joined together to present a bill that will prevent anything similar to the Fairness Doctrine from being instated. The bill, H.R. 2905, is short and to the point. It simply says in one extended paragraph that under no condition should the Fairness Doctrine or anything that sounds similar make it as law.

Reasons for opposing the bill go beyond freedom of speech (Though that alone should be enough). Reinstating the doctrine would also cause a virtual accounting nightmare. Imagine radio stations having to hire people simply to track how many hours, minutes and seconds are dedicated to a specific political party. The notion is ridiculous beyond comprehension. The fact that the government would be monitoring what a radio station is allowed to put on the air screams a word hated by all Americans, “Censorship!”

That’s why H.R. 2905 is an extremely important bill. It’s all about the slippery slope. If we give Congress the power to monitor what goes on radio and television stations, Congress should also be able to monitor and control the editorial sections of all newspapers. For that matter, why shouldn’t Congress be able to control everyone’s opinion? I better stop writing now before I’m cuffed and taken away. This is just another example of the government becoming entirely too large, and sticking its hand in places where it doesn’t belong.

So, the Conservatives are attempting to slap that hand away, and pass a bill that will protect our first amendment rights. This bill goes back to the founding fathers who hoped to prevent a future where citizens were unable to speak openly. The fact that anyone could even consider promoting such a direct violation of the most treasured Amendment to the United States Constitution is simply devastating.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Would you buy a car from a salesman who wouldn’t tell you the price?  Given that everyone most likely answered “no” to the above question, the same principal should apply to Congress and taxpayers.   As taxpayers, we shouldn’t buy a bill from Congress that doesn’t list a definite price.

Congressman Ron Kind is the salesman here and he is presenting a potentially costly bill (maybe or maybe not; we don’t know) H.R. 7151, with no mention of a dollar amount.  Kind argues in his bill that wildlife is a valued part of society and should therefore be protected.  His solution to the problem is simply to establish a government funded group that observes wildlife in designated regions with the mission to note any decline or increase in their population.

That all sounds good. After all, who doesn’t hold affection for the fuzzy, little creatures of nature? But a key part of the proposal was left out of the bill; the cost!  Naturally, as taxpayers, we’ll be footing the bill for this observation committee (or whatever), and I think it’s important that we know what exactly we’re funding.

That’s the problem with a lot of the bills Congress puts forth.  They vote to pass their pet projects with little to no thought regarding from where the money is coming.  Apparently Congress believes that the wallets of taxpayers contain an endless supply of cash.   If a bill with obvious costs doesn’t give estimation for those costs, it should be scrapped from the get go. 

Wildlife is one of our earth’s greatest assets and we should respect and ensure that it remains preserved for future generations.  However, Kind needs to do a little homework here.  Spell it out so that we the taxpayers know exactly what we’re buying.   

Author: Sarah Riordan

Prayer in school: what a tender topic to address.  With all the legislation involving school prayer however, not addressing it would be ignoring the giant white elephant in the capitol. 

Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson’s new bill, H.J. RES. 11, designated  as “The Prayer Bill,”  is another attempt by the Republican Party to make prayer in schools protected by the U.S. Constitution. 

The resolution in its entirety is only one paragraph long. The gist of it is that no one can be forced to pray in a school, and no one can be stopped from praying by anyone person or organization in the United States. 

The debate about prayer in school seems never ending.  There are so many sides to the issue, and all sides have good points.

On the one hand, liberals say that permitting prayer in public schools is a tacit endorsement of religion and thus a violation of the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. According to the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s website, public prayer in school is unfair to students that aren’t religious.  The website states that public schools are for children from every background.  The page even mentions Emerson’s bill as an attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s decision to not allow prayer in school.

Though the left is right in insisting that prayer not be brought into the classroom, they take things much too far when addressing individual prayer.  In some extreme instances kids have gotten in trouble for simply bowing their heads before a meal.  Obviously, prayer on a personal level should always be allowed.  Forbidding personal religious practices is nothing short of a violation of an explicit constitutional right.   That’s why bills like Emerson’s are necessary, to protect religious rights on an individual basis.   

Though the bill seems straight forward, it does seem to be lacking clarification concerning the role of teachers within the classroom.  It is perfectly reasonable that teachers in a public school should not insist that their class pray before the lesson begins.  Teachers should not lead the students in prayer.  Yet, it is also perfectly reasonable in our pluralistic society that if a student has a question about religion, a teacher should be able to answer honestly, and according to his or her conscience. Even if…God forbid…that means suggesting that God could possibly exist.

The left should insist on a “teacher clause,” and the right should be willing to honor such an action. As far as the rest of the bill is concerned, it seems to fit with the ideals on which our country was established.  We are free to worship as we choose, but we’re not free to insist that others worship as we do. 

There’s nothing wrong with four Christian students praying before lunch; just as there is nothing wrong with four Muslim students turning toward Mecca and praying while on break from class.  The way to solve this debate is to be reasonable, and not carry things to the extreme.  As it is so often with these issues, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes – a balance lawmakers should keep pursuing.

Author: Sarah Riordan

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That’s the first thing that I’d do.“  – Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007. 

Despite what the Obama campaign would have had the American people believe prior to Nov. 4, the president-elect is not out to help the pro-life community. Though he claimed in his third debate with Senator John McCain that he would like to limit the number of abortions by supporting organizations that help women through crisis pregnancies, his voting record, and his willingness to support tax-payer funded abortions, tells a much different story.  Obama’s pro-choice stance is so extreme, that he voted against a bill that required doctors to provide life-saving treatment to infants who are born alive after a failed abortion.  At the federal level, when, H.R. 4292, Born-Alive Infant Protection Act  came before Congress in 2000, it was passed unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike.

With an unabashedly pro-choice president coming into office and a liberal pro-choice Congress, bills like Congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s, H.R.7091, are all the more important for pro-lifers. Fortenberry leads the fight to protect the unborn by asking Congress to give more financial support to organizations that help women who are going through a crisis pregnancy. In the bill, Fortenberry suggests that grant money be given to pregnancy help centers. These grants would become available once an organization provides proof that their services are indeed helping those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy.

What criteria does Fortenberry suggest to gauge the effectiveness of these crisis pregnancy centers?  To receive a grant, a center would need to provide services including health care, clothing, food, a place to stay, and emotional support.

Fortenberry bolsters his position by citing an array of staggering statistics. According to research mentioned in the bill, 48 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973. The bill also says that in 1992 nearly 98 thousand domestic adoptions occurred in the United States.  This number is in stark contrast to 2001 when only approximately 59 thousand babies were adopted. 

Though not directly stated in the bill, the reader can easily infer the correlation between the decrease in domestic adoptions to the increase in abortions. Other numbers given imply that most of the women who choose abortion, choose it because they aren’t financially capable of supporting a child. Rather than providing taxpayer funded abortions, Fortenberry’s solution to the economic issue is to provide financial assistance to those who can either help a woman get on her feet, or help her find an adoptive home for her baby.

Unfortunately, under a Barack Obama presidency, in all likelihood, a bill like this will never see the light of day. The sad truth is, President-elect Obama is one of the most pro-choice presidents our nation has ever seen.  Despite what he and his spokespeople say, his voting record speaks for itself.   

Fortenberry’s attempt to aid pregnancy help centers that do not promote abortion will most likely fall on deaf ears. Though Fortenberry’s goal is to provide women with a real choice and should be supported by both Democrats and Republicans, for some reason, the majority of Congress members along with our incoming president, feel (or so their voting records indicate) that limiting abortions would somehow be detrimental to our society. Perhaps Obama will live up to what he said in the third debate and sign this bill; but don’t hold your breath.   

Author: Jared Fallon

The fascinating country of Lithuania is not very well known by Americans despite the fact that it has endured many hardships in the pursuit of democracy. This resilient nation that once was the largest country on the European continent eventually became the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence. As a deeply historical, excitingly cultural, and surprisingly interesting Northern Baltic state, it is certainly worth finding more about.

Also see:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Country Profile: The Republic of Lithuania

• Population: 3,600,000 (less than half of New York City’s)
• Size: Roughly that of West Virginia (America’s 9^th smallest state)
• Major Religions: Roman Catholic by far, #2 Orthodox
• Languages: Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish
• Per capita GDP: $16,800
• One of the fastest growing countries in the world, with a GDP growth rate of 8.8% in 2007
• Joined both NATO and the EU in 2004
• Prior to EU membership, Russia was the key economic and political driver of this northern Baltic state

Top Lithuanian Legislation

H.CON.RES.371: Strongly supporting an immediate and just restitution of, or compensation for, property illegally confiscated during the last century by Nazi and Communist regimes.

- Sponsored by Robert Wexler

- 32 Cosponsors

H.CON.RES.255: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the United States commitment to preservation of religious and cultural sites and condemning instances where sites are desecrated.

- Sponsored by Mike Ferguson

- 59 cosponsors

S.CON.RES.87: A concurrent resolution congratulating the Republic of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration of independence.

- Sponsored by Gordon H. Smith

- 6 cosponsors (including Obama – maybe he does know something about foreign policy?)

Fast Facts:

• In the 14th century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe
• Lithuania was the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence
• Home to the only museum of devils in Europe
• Largest collection of Amber (the Gold of the Baltics) in the world
• Nearly every midsized-large city within the country holds an annual jazz festival
• The largest jazz fast is the countries’ second largest city and culture capitol: Kaunas
• Lithuania has more UNESCO World Heritage points than Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldova, Slovenia, Albania, Bosnia, Cyprus, and Georgia

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/lithuania-fast-facts-hot-legislation/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/congress-aiming-hit-adult-entertainment http://www.statesurge.com/news/congress-aiming-hit-adult-entertainment#comments Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:17:25 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=348 They say that if you really want to hurt someone hit them in the wallet. Congressman Duncan Hunters bill, H.R. 3889, does just exactly that by throwing a mean right across at the monetary chin of pornographers and their distributors... ]]>

Author: Sarah Riordan

They say that if you really want to hurt someone hit them in the wallet. Congressman Duncan Hunter’s bill, H.R. 3889, does just exactly that by throwing a mean right-cross at the monetary chin of pornographers and their distributors.

A well known political and moral conservative, Hunter’s bill, known as the “Parents’ Empowerment Act,” moves beyond the current federal criminal laws which prohibit the sale and distribution of pornographic material to minors. H.R.3889 provides a civil action for a minor injured by exposure to an entertainment product containing material that is harmful to minors. To put that in layman’s terms, parents or guardians of a child injured by exposure to adult material can sue the pants off (no pun intended) distributor who either sells or otherwise distributes pornography to anyone under the age of eighteen.

What constitutes an “entertainment product containing material harmful to minors?” The language of the bill parallels the “Miller Test,” a three-pronged constitutional criteria for federal and state laws and court adjudication.

“Harmful to minors” means any written, visual, or audio matter of any kind that:

1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and

2) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; sadomasochistic sexual acts or abuse; or lewd exhibitions of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or post-pubertal female breast, and

3) a reasonable person would find, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

While the bill attempts to thoroughly define just exactly what “pornography” is, it can’t possibly elucidate every potential permutation of adult material. Ultimately it follows the wisdom of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.” If the average person thinks it is pornography, then it is pornography.

What punitive damages can be awarded to a minor harmed morally or psychologically by viewing prurient material? Compensatory damages begin at $10,000 for each instance of exposure plus attorney’s fees which quite often run as high as the settlement itself. Depending on the number of exposures, a real financial hurt could be put on a careless distributor of adult materials.

Now, some might view this bill as just another attempt for lawyers to get rich. In our sue-happy society, we find reasons to sue for everything from McDonald’s making me fat to Fear Factor grossing me out. However, Hunter’s bill is an attempt to add another layer of punishment on top of any criminal action which might be taken against a careless or outright predatory distributor of pornography to minors. It is a reasonable action by Congress and if passed it should make distributors of adult oriented “entertainment” think twice about to whom they sell their wares. As far as I am concerned, “Go Duncan!”

Author: Sarah Riordan

The latest political fad and tax-payer dollars are like thunder thighs and miniskirts; they should just not be allowed to mix.

Olympia Snowe’s recent bill is another attempt by Washington to follow the trends and “go green.” The bill, S.3682, proposes that grants ranging from $25 thousand to $1 million be dispersed to small businesses that show a desire to produce green products. The kinds of products being produced aren’t specified, but as long as it says green, Congress says go.

Snowe is no stranger to energy bills. She paired up with Senator John Kerry in early 2008 to promote another bill encouraging small businesses to be more energy efficient. According to senate.gov, Snowe even stated in an interview that she was ashamed and surprised by the Bush administration’s lack of interest in the energy crisis.

Though the bill sounds good on the surface, the fact that it simply sounds good is exactly the point. It’s pleasing to the ear, but essentially does nothing. Going green is a fad, and with little fool-proof research done on green products, Washington should not be throwing tax-payer money at something so new.

The main problem however, is the bill itself. There are two stages in the proposed bill. Stage one offers grants ranging from $25 thousand to $250 thousand. Phase two ups the grants to a range of $250 thousand to $1 million. In order to reach phase two however, you have to pass phase one. Bureaucrats, (which are in no short supply in Washington) will decide if the business has used the phase one funding effectively and deserves to move on to phase two and receive more money. The arbitrariness of how this will be decided is also problematic. What standards will be used to measure the effectiveness of stage one?

The problem with this plan is that the bill is striving to give incentive to already existing businesses to turn to selling more energy efficient products. Certainly, most honest businessmen would tell Snowe that even $250 thousand dollars isn’t nearly enough to retool an entire company into an eco-friendly utopia. The $1 million might be doable, but this doesn’t come until phase two. Now if you don’t have enough money to turn your business around using the phase one grant, then chances are, you won’t be approved for the larger grant that comes with phase two. As a result, the taxpayer’s money will be going out for phase one, but will end there.

Ultimately, this bill is yet another sad attempt to try and make it seem like Congress is doing something about the current energy crisis. If something is going to be done, it has to be carried out on a much larger scale. Giving a few select businesses insufficient funds is going to do nothing but waste the taxpayer’s hard-earned money. If Congress wants to make our country more energy independent, how about not following the latest green fad, and start putting the taxpayer’s money toward something more along the lines of serious research into alternative fuel? Then our money won’t be going toward a fad, but a long-term commitment to bettering our nation’s future.

Author: Jared Fallon

Illinois’ Governor Rod Blagojevich and chief of staff John Harris are now under investigation for allegedly trying to sell Obama’s vacant seat. In return, the 52 year old Blagojevich was reportedly looking for a cushy job (tips glady accepted) within the new administration. According to the Associated Press, Blagojevich’s game plan can clearly be seen when viewing some of the reported comments taken from various wiretaps.

When viewing the sheer amount of pending proposals in the Illinois legislature, the disappointing slap in the face for those who backed Blagojevich and worked on various bills with the Governor will create waves of change that will be felt throughout the Land of Lincoln, if not the entire country.

According to the AP, Blagojevich’s game plan was:

A HARD BARGAIN. On Nov. 3, Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.”

LANDING WELL. On Nov. 5, while discussing his authority to name Obama’s replacement, Blagojevich said Obama could use his influence to name the governor to a lucrative spot with a private foundation. Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’ve got this thing and it’s — golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for — nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”

A RESISTANT OBAMA. On Nov. 11, during a conversation with Harris, Blagojevich said he knew Obama wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. — them.”

SIGNS OF STRUGGLE. On Nov. 12, during a two-hour telephone conversation with various people, Blagojevich talked about securing high-paying jobs for him and his wife in exchange for the Senate seat. He said he is “struggling” financially and does “not want to be governor for the next two years.” Blagojevich said advisers are telling him he has to “suck it up” for two years and give this ” — Obama his senator. — him. For nothing? — him.”

THREE CRITERIA. On Nov. 12, Blagojevich told Harris his decision about the open Senate seat would be based on three criteria in the following order of importance: “Our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that. Legal. Personal. Political.”

TALKING OF MONEY. On Thursday, Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that if Senate Candidate 5 wanted to be appointed to Obama’s seat, the candidate should follow through on promises to raise money for Blagojevich. “Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now . . . right now . . . and we gotta see it. You understand?” But Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?” 

Author: Jared Fallon

Nevada Senator John Ensign has a true love/hate relationship with convicted felons. Within the same proposal, he wishes to improve federal felon’s job training and life skills preparation while requiring them to work a minimum of 20 percent more than the average American. Despite the fact that a 50 hour work week is generally not viewed favorably, the irony of Ensign’s Senate Bill 3695 is that if Congress decides to hold hearings for the proposal he is likely to see rapid pace due to lack of attendance. His 22 page proposal is currently in Committee on the Judiciary, and is certain to liven up the debates on felon’s work protocol.

When reading through the proposal, it is clear that Ensign sees the federal work system as becoming a well-oiled machine, including provisions “to provide products and services that are market quality and competitively priced”. John’s restructuring approach offers an intriguing approach: “We help you by improving work standards, making you work a hell of a lot, and then if you ever get out of here you should find your vocational and life skills greatly improved”. Personally, I like Ensign’s approach.  If it were to pass, let’s just hope for John’s benefit that he never ends up becoming a convicted felon – I wonder why Ted Stevens didn’t cosponsor the bill. 

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when many parents are concerned about the widespread and increasing amount of video game use, a major state-sponsored video game initiative is about to take place. Beginning in 2010, the US Army plans to pour $50 million dollars into developing battlefield simulation videogames in order to help prepare troops for combat. The idea behind such a program is certainly nothing new, but when considering the sheer amount of investment the Army is going to make, it is certain that many companies within the industry are doing back flips with the increased potential for private contracts for merely making shooting your cyber enemies as life-like as possible.

Currently, there is a lot of support in the House to conduct research initiatives into the health affects video games have on children. Such video game legislation is largely viewed as polar opposites to military policies like these. Such bills include Joe Baca’s H.R.2958, a bill that has support from many legislators who feel there is far too heavy an imbalance favoring first-person shooter and violence-based games. Furthermore, many parents advocate groups are pushing bills to tighten industry standards for video game ratings and their lure to teens – most notably including games that often are criticized for encouraging violence as a solution for domestic issues. For advocates in this realm, the $50 million dollar initiative is seen as an extreme set-back for these efforts, only strengthening the mind frame of American children to incorporate such violent games into their everyday lives. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition for the term security states it is “the quality or state of being secure: as A: freedom from danger: Safety b: freedom from fear and anxiety”.  We all strive for a secure environment. A place safe from predators and anything else that may cause us harm. Generally, we are able to live our lives without too much fear of our safety being compromised.

Some of that security has been shaken, however, in recent years due to events such as 9/11 and the recent economic crisis, which has created a feeling of insecurity for those who may lose their homes.  Although a breach within our secure parameters has usually been of physical or mental form, today’s technology allows that breach of security to go one step further into the virtual plane. As most people today own a cell phone or subscribe to the internet, many of us are vulnerable to the curious and even dangerous minds within the virtual world. The President-elect remains no exception.

Recently, Verizon Wireless had to fire an undisclosed amount of employees, who were connected to a breach of records from a cell phone that was used by President-elect Barack Obama. According to Verizon, the employees are “hired to take care of customers” and Verizon’s standards for taking care of customers do not include employees snooping through phone records when they are not authorized to do so by the customer. The phone was a simple flip phone, which is no longer used by Obama. Although the employees could not read any text messages or listen to any voice mail that the phone may have received or sent out, they probably had access to the dates and times of calls, the lengths of the phone calls, and telephone numbers.

There is an investigation currently underway to determine whether the information acquired was shared only between the employees or if any of the information leaked outside the company. Employees will face the “appropriate disciplinary action…up to and including termination”, as indicated by Lowell McAdam.  Ars Technica stated that the employee’s actions fall outside the coverage policy of privacy laws because the laws generally only cover the content of communications, such as voicemail, and not the type of data they were able to access. The security breach follows speculations and concerns about security risks and compliance with federal laws, such as the Presidential Records Act, within the new administration. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Atrazine is a pesticide for control of broadleaf and grassy weeds. It has been recognized by the Environment Protection Agency as possibly being, “…found in some public or private drinking water.” In the very same fact sheet this widely used pesticide was further listed as a risk that, “May cause health problems.”

Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council said “Several European countries have banned Atrazine and that it should be prohibited in the United States. We know it accuses irreparable harm to exposed wildlife, it’s a potential threat to human life, and it’s in our water at unacceptable levels.” Surprisingly this statement was made during a long battle between the EPA and environmental groups in 2003. Unfortunately, after hearing the reports, the EPA concluded to keep the product on the market, merely promising to step up monitoring on surface water supplies.

This product is still as harmful as it was years ago and truly is an example of where the EPA is failing the American people once again. Representative Keith Ellison understands this and is fiercely fighting for the complete removal of Atrazine off the market. He is the chief sponsor of H.R.3399, a bill “To prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing Atrazine.”  The EPA has found Atrazine to potentially cause short-term effects when exposed to levels above Maximum Contaminant  Level (MCL is 3ppb): congestion of heart, lungs, and kidneys; low blood pressure;  muscle spasm; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands.  Long-term effects can be weight loss, cardiovascular damage, cancer, retinal and some muscle degeneration.

Atrazine is a dangerous chemical. However, the EPA only asked water suppliers to collect water supplies every three months for a year to find out if Atrazine is present above 1ppb. If it is higher, they will continue to monitor and treat the water. If low or no presence of Atrazine is found they discontinue monitoring for the pesticide. According to Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA’s assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides and toxic substance, 8 out of 200 US water systems have Atrazine levels significantly above the legal limit. Two water systems in Missouri, two in Kentucky, and various sites in Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Iowa are currently involved.

If you are in one of these areas, you should learn more about how your water is treated.  Contact your state’s Department of Health and Environment for more information. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

If a national movement against bulk gun purchasing does not pass, Senators Sandra B. Cunningham and Teresa Ruiz M will see it happen within the state of New Jersey. S.1774 prohibits individuals from purchasing more than one handgun within one calendar month. The only exception to the bill is that the purchaser is law enforcement official, a license handguns collector, or involves a transfer of handguns between retail dealers. In an effort to reduce gun trafficking and to keep guns out of the hands of the unstable and criminals, this bill would hereinafter set forth handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card. This card restricts gun purchase from anyone that would not be in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare. This specifically restricts anyone with a conviction of a crime or domestic violence, drug dependence, institutionalized for a mental disorder, a habitual drunkard, a physically defected person, anyone subject to a restraining order, or a juvenile involved unlawful use or possession of a destructive device.

The Brady Campaign rated New Jersey second for the strength of their gun laws. The Brady scorecards include five major categories of laws: curbing firearm trafficking, strengthening Brady background checks, child safety, banning military-style assault weapons, and making it harder to carry guns in public. Unlike the federal “End Gun Trafficking Act of 2008” this bill is more detailed in relation to the background of the gun purchaser, at times, denying second chances for one with a slightly, questionable past. Is this a common sense law or has it crossed the line?

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Once again the debate over Stem Cell Research has been resurrected, causing an outcry from opponents. Although President-elect Barack Obama has just two months to go before he takes his inaugural oath and the oval office, there is the expectation that Obama, like many of his predecessors, will issue an abundance of executive orders that will reverse most of the Bush administration policies. One of those policies concerning many is the Bush Administration’s policy that banned Stem Cell Research.

Obama is an advocate for funding for stem cell research. He believes in the importance of stem cell research and how it might benefit thousands of patients with incurable or untreatable diseases. As a Senator for Illinois Senate, Obama supported legislation that allowed embryonic stem cell research in the state of Illinois. Obama, as a Senator in Congress, continued to support such legislation. He co-sponsored the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which amends the Public Health Service Act, expanding the number of human embryonic stem cells eligible for federally funding research. The bill did pass through Congress; however, the Bush Administration turned around and vetoed it. In addition, President-elect Obama supported other legislation such as the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act as well as the Fetal Farming Bill of 2006.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has raised a huge voice, warning that there are dangers of alienating millions if Obama lifts the ban on funding for stem cell research. According to the conference’s associate director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, the real question to the debate is should the “…Bush policy get replaced with the law of the jungle”. Should we open that door where scientists are given free rein to experiment by creating and cloning human embryos just in the name of scientific research and then discarding them after they have served their purpose?  For many, this is an emotional issue, leading all of us to dig deep down within. The moral implications hold strong.

Meanwhile, medical researchers are elated; holding their breath in suspense at the very probability of freedom from the governmental funding ban. According to scientists, the ban has obstructed hard work to develop life-saving treatments. For example, scientists declare that the cells taken from human embryos present the most potential in developing therapies or possibly even cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, and other diseases. The possible benefits to stem cell research are seemingly endless as so much could be learned. The existing policy has disheartened the field of stem cell research, causing many scientists from the United States to migrate to other nations where the research is flourishing to do their exploration.

There are strong arguments on both sides to the issue. Nevertheless, should we put a hold on possible treatments and cures in the name of morality? Is it right to do things that many view as playing God?  As indicated by an article in the Washington Post by Ronald Green, “There is no question that we must move ahead, but caution is the key”.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Representative Cliff Stearns, like so many Americans, has had enough. September 11 of this year, he was quick to express strong dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq, when he sponsored House Resolution 1431. “Expressing the sense of the House of Representative that the Department of Defense and the Department of State should withhold funds for any new reconstruction projects in Iraq until the Iraqi Government reimburses the United States for previous reconstruction projects, and for other purposes.”

As soon as I type, “withhold funds from Iraq” I feel military families tense up at the idea of leaving their men and women without gear. Then I hear the conservatives rant about American pride and support for our troops. Therefore, lets look at the facts:

Since 2003, the United States has approved huge budgets in Iraq. An estimated $21,000,000,000 spent in the first few years in Iraq, provided by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF). In May of 2005, another fund created by the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), estimated spending $18,000,000,000. Again the importance of these cost: they were not for our military, but for Iraqi security forces and its’ citizens.

This is the same country that generated $96,000,000,000 in revenues from 2005 to 2007 – 94% of that amount coming from crude oil exports. The Government Accountability Office reports Iraq had a budget surplus of $29,000,000,000 from 2005 to 2007. Most recently, Congress has approved over $4,000,000,000 for Iraq reconstruction in the fiscal year 2008-2009.

What are the reasons we continue to write out checks at this magnitude when Iraq can clearly fund this project without assistance? I know it might be easy to forget this little economic obstacle in front of us, but that alone should make Iraq reconstruction spending a lesser priority for our checkbook.

Cliff Stearns calls for immediate action to be made regarding the situation. The Department of Defense should withhold funds for any new “reconstruction project” in Iraq, unless Iraq reimburses the US for previous projects or Iraq matches future assistance on a dollar-by-dollar basis. The accountability office also said “evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared y the Iraqi Finance Ministry- reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.”

If these were not reasons enough to stop funding, compare Iraq’s budget to its personal spending on reconstruction efforts. From 2005-2007, Iraq devoted only 1% of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions with James Glanz and Campbell Robertson, over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.

Enough is enough. Without evidence, solid facts, and convincing reports that make a reliable claim to continue funds to Iraq, enough is enough. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, and all other governmental agencies involved should withhold funds for any new mysterious “reconstruction project” to Iraq. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

College students are being pushed to new levels of creativity, not in their studies or community involvement, but merely for survival with the frustrating costs of textbooks. USPIRG has studied the rise of textbook costs, claiming that students spend as much as $900 a year on textbooks. In a technical field, this expense can increase by as much as double. Largely due to insufficient communication about the textbook market, publishers can get away with these rising costs. These lofty expenses result from new editions constantly produced every three and a half years, even with subjects that have not changed significantly. These same publishers also”bundle” study guides, CD-ROMs, and extra materials with a textbook that significantly increase a textbook without the option to purchase the textbook only.

To put it all in perspective, a Government Accountability Office study shows that textbook prices have been rising at double the rate of inflation over the past two decades.

The cost challenges force students to share textbooks, hunt for bargains online, set up book fairs, or, worse, do without. When given enough time, students can find the very same textbook and class material overseas for almost 90% less (Michelle Singletary Washington Post column “The Color of Money” interviewed on NPR). The only downfall with buying internationally is the longer shipping time. This option is less valuable because most colleges do not give out book lists in a reasonable time to purchase online. Worse, some college bookstores do not make the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) available, restricting students from purchasing low-cost textbooks.

You can imagine the support when Representative Julia Carson sponsored “College Textbook Affordability and Transparency Act of 2007″(HR 3512). The proposal was introduced only 3 months before Julia tragically passed away from cancer. Julia’s bill would ensure that college textbooks and supplemental materials are available and affordable. Carson hoped , and her long list of cosponsors are still pursuing, to inform students about the costs of textbooks before registering for classes in order to be aware of the full cost of higher education. This bill has three main points. First, to encourage students to purchase early and always look for used editions. Second, this bill would require universities and faculty to review materials and editions that are required, without compromising high quality course materials or purchase unnecessary editions. The third point H.R.3512 emphasizes is timeliness. Timing truly is everything; schools would be required to disclose textbook lists, costs and ISBN numbers soon enough to students to give them a fair chance at accessing textbook costs in time. Despite the fact that it may not be the most effective way of cutting down costs, the bill interestingly enough seeks to give out a full history of revisions for the college textbook and/or supplemental materials that helps explain the real difference and what will be missed between editions.

While entailing a comprehensive list of objectives, H.R.3512 marks the beginning of what should become one of the most important objectives in reforming our higher education system. It is unnecessary in its entirety to keep such a costly, unneeded structure for such necessary materials in place. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Recent announcement of Darfur rebels killing at least 3 Chinese oil workers on October 29 is increasing interest as to what will be China’s next move in regards to the tragic Darfur Conflict. The recent rebel activity is putting China in somewhat of a difficult position, balancing its personal increasing energy needs with criticism of suspected Sudanese government funding/sponsorship from nations around the world. China thus far has seen the act as a form of terrorism, again subtly undermining US accusations as to why the Chinese government got involved with the crisis in the first place.

There is a group of pending pieces of US legislation that may begin to start seeing increased activity, currently being stalled by Election Day results and overall lack of public interest in the tragedies that continue to occur within the region. One such bill is H.RES.422 (formerly S.RES203), calling on the Chinese government to use its “unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan.” Although in the past the resolutions calling nations to value US/UN human rights violations vs. energy and economic interests have rarely if ever worked, the resolution would be seen in positive light from a US policy perspective. The last wave of legislation with ambitions to improve the Darfur situation failed miserably, as President Bush attended the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

After the close of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing many legislators were disappointed in Bush’s wide attendance of the games, virtually ignoring resolutions calling for presidential abstinence from either the opening ceremony or boycotting the games altogether in order to coax the China to cease various actions with the Sudanese government. Obviously none of the resolutions worked and legislatures became increasingly acknowledging of the fact that the US simply is too hesitant to take any strong actions against Chinese intervention abroad – even to the point of violating precedents concerning supporting fellow democracies from communist adversaries (such as the case with Taiwan).  

Author: Jared Fallon

The field of lobbying is one of the most illustrious and controversial toics in the realm of public policy influence and reform-drivers. Coming from the president elect who left the nation’s most expensive campaign in history with an extra $85 million on hand, it is no surprise that he would choose to detach himself from any possible accusations of heavy lobby influence – at least at the beginning of his world-watched entrance. President Elect Obama announced on November 12 his strict ethics rules, barring federal lobbyists from making any sort of donation to his inaugural events – yet again another history-making move from the former Illinois Senator. Despite the fact that Obama is the one in the limelight in the area of lobbyist ethics reform proposals, there is currently a major proposal pending in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to make a much more meaningful, widespread impact along the same lines. Not surprisingly, Obama is one of the bill’s cosponsors.

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) outlines his proposal to “provide greater transparency in the legislation process” with S.230. The “Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007” revises a long list of protocol and standards for legislative branch or executive branch officials and lobbyists alike – being one of the only major outstanding proposals of its kind. In terms of lobbyist protocol reform, S.230 has 3 major provisions:

• The requirement of lobbyists to report the ticket prices they buy for elected officials to events at the highest possible prices
• The prevention of lobbyists to pay for any sort of conference, meeting, or retreat for an elected official
• The banning of any means to provide transportation, lodging, and/or any travel assistance – perhaps the most lobbyist-debilitating portion of the bill.

Other provisions of the bill include reforms in both the deadlines and requirements for reporting contributions, strengthening guidelines for information intended to be made public over the net, and increasing the penalties for breaking both proposed reforms and outstanding ethics rules. Partially considering that Obama now has bigger policies to tackle, it is unlikely that this senate bill will get very much media attention, but it is nice to see seemingly honest intentions for ethics reforms reflected in a new position that is consist with voting records past. The parties in opposition for any proposals of this type are destined to get K Street heavy-hitters and large financial backing from lobbyists around the nation, if not the world. The danger is such a proposal is that the goal is to lobby against lobbying – attacking the offense offensively and trying to “beat them” at their own game. It is a daring move for an elected official, and one that, at the very least, should some level of respect for Feingold.

Regardless of your personal opinions on lobbyist’s influence in the political realm, one thing that is undisputable is that the field has grown immeasurably over the past 10 years, and that clearly there are strong benefits for an entity from having a strong, power-packed lobbying team. It is estimated that the amount of lobbyists in Washington since 2000 has more than doubled – bringing the total number of registered lobbyists to far over 35,000 (compared to only 435 Federal Representatives and Senators;a 1-to-65 ratio minimum). The starting salaries for former White House and elected officials that sign on as lobbyists start at $300,000 – quite a sum for moving your workplace only a few blocks away. Personal feelings towards contract lobbyists aside, it is indisputable that the increase in both demand and salaries points to a shift in the framework of which corporation/Capitol Hill interaction operates.

According to lobby industry officials the field in the 1990’s was largely reactive – based on waiting for the most recent proposals to echo the halls of the Capitol. Recently, the situation has become far more pre-emptive (and profitable) as corporations have discovered just how much sway they can exercise by seeking to infuse influence ahead of time. The shift has caused some current lobbyists, such as former Clinton lobbyist and current contract lobbyist Patrick Griffin to make such bold claims such as “They (corporations) see that they can win things, that there’s something to be gained. Washington has become a profit center.” The shift has been so monumental that even officials on the Hill have been pressed to reform their tactics. Since 2000, in an average 4 year span Federal expenditures on lobbying have increased by 30%.

The situation is lending itself towards greatly diminishing trust between the general public and elected officials. The problems are bound to get worse, as repealing both heavy expenditure projects and recently created trends will prove to be much more difficult than they were to be initially introduced. Daring proposals such as S.230 are a bold risk for elected officials – introducing a two-pronged attack at both elected officials and those paid to provide great efforts towards the influence of such officials.

Whether or not Feingold will find success I cannot predict, but I do know one thing: when there are enough registered lobbyists in Washington to outnumber the official count of all Senators and Representatives by a factor of 65, there is a serious breakdown in the accountability of the system. If a Federal Senator (average salary: $165,000) was put in one room with 65 federal lobbyists (average salary: $300,000), it is a sure bet  that no human on earth would have an easy time staying true to what’s best  for the general public, much less the humble goal of being a public servant.

Am I saying that lobbyists are evil? No. Am I trying to make the point that we have a failed political structure with too few restrictions? Not necessarily. What I am saying is if I was locked in a door with 65 other people representing far over $19 million and a both a wide mix of companies and industries, I would find doing my job fairly, for the best outcome of the public, very, very, very challenging.

Author: Jared Fallon

The war on abortion seems to be never ending, having 2 stark opposition groups that work tirelessly to either fight as the Pro-Choice or the Pro-Life reformists. After so many years of rhetoric and seemingly unchanging lines of argumentation, a group of 120 Congress members are taking a more unique approach to battling, or as the bill states, “informing” mothers of the implications of abortion.  Christopher Smith’s (R-NJ) House Resolution 3442 takes a slightly different spin than the average anti-abortion bill (and the long track record of Smith’s abortion efforts), calling his proposal the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2007”.

In the 22 page long bill Congress outlines a series of findings to help make the case for mothers being properly informed of the scientific (albeit somewhat one-sided) facts of unborn children. Select findings from the bill are as follows:

It has been found that after 20 weeks after fertilization,

• An unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain
• Unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain
• An unborn child may experience substantial pain even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia
• Medical Science is capable of reducing such pain through the administration of anesthesia or other pain –reducing drugs directly to the unborn child

The bill’s foundation is that in review of current legislation, animals are treated better than unborn children, despite the fact that they are both capable of responding to harsh stimuli sensation. H.R.3442 makes the case rather compellingly by offering a look into the Human Slaughter Act of 1958 that requires “humane” treatment in reference to handling or slaughtering animals. This means that the animal must either be killed by a direct shot or blow or be given a method to lose consciousness before the animal is slaughtered. Furthermore, the bill provides a look into the Animal Wellness Act, outlining provisions for minimalistic pain and overall treatment conducted after the animal has been tranquilized.

The overall tone of the bill creates the notion that the most common methods of abortion after during or after the 20 week mark are inhumane and can torture the organism with substantial pain. Such methods include “…dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull…(and/or sucking) the child’s brains  out before completing the delivery of the dead infant”. The bill is unique in that it does not necessarily make the claim that abortion is a method to kill children or that the organism is not a human until is completely born, but rather that we should have the same standards of treatment for unborn children as we do animals.

The proposed call to action for the bill begins on page 8, and would require the doctor administering the abortion to provide many pieces of information, with the most important factors including:

• The age of the unborn child
• A Department of Health and Services-approved “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure”, outlining the use of pain-relieving drugs, description of risks, and the administration of anesthesia, and a
• “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form”

The approach of the bill merely attempts to have the parents making the decision be informed of the “substantial pain” involved for the most prominent procedures, as well as the risk of administering techniques to ensure that the unborn child receive less pain. To see the exact provisions of the bill which include details as to what content is required in the brochures, timelines, and distribution of information, follow this link.

Whether or not you personally believe in such a proposal, Senator Smith does outline a strong case for reform requiring that unborn children be given, at least, the same treatment that animals are given in the event that parents do indeed choose to have an abortion. The bill certainly is worth review and, at the very least, offers a more middle-of-the-road call to action than the average pro/con abortion groups commonly support. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Back in 2008, many journalists’ predicted that other states would start following New York/Amazon’s decision to start charging tax for all citizens within the state ordering from Amazon.com, which, in turn, would lead to possible Federal taxes for such purchases. New York’s policy began on June 1 of this year and marks the supposed end of tax-free e-commerce – a movement that began taking full momentum at the beginning of the year. The approach for states’ efforts for charging an e-tax has been proposed and debated over the two most recent National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and has been reviewed with favor from influential people such as Neal Olsten, federal affairs counsel for NCSL. When asked about an pro e-commerce tax policies Olsten was quoted saying “We’ve heard encouraging words from the Democratic Leadership in the House.”

More recently, tax-advocacy groups and lobbyists have pursued such actions, largely claiming that states need the potential millions of dollars in profits that they are missing out by allowing such purchases to continue being tax free. Verenda Smith, associate of the Federation of Tax Administrators, takes a more absurd humorous patriotic route. “Do you want to be a good American, or do you want to be an American who wants to cheat your government deliberately? It’s a harsh way to look at it, but it’s true.” Considering the fact that being a “good” American has a direct correlation with a pay raise for Verenda,  she should read Carnegie’s “How To Win Friends and Influence People” next time she decides to make public comments that are more embarrassing to herself than condemning of the general public. One senator aims to limit such restrictions, and hopes to help keep the internet free, at least to some degree.

Kentucky’s Jim Bunning (R) is proposing S.3670, a plan to regulate certain State and local taxation of e-commerce. Despite the fact that Bunning’s proposal does not address taxation for citizens making purchases within their respective state, it is refreshing to see bills that do not encourage such legislation. More dialogue must be created about such proposals to help encourage online purchases to remain free of such impositions. In recent times, other proposals to limit e-commerce from being taxed are gaining as little momentum as Bunning’s, receiving few (if any) co-sponsors. Action must be taken to, at the very least, limit the amount of jurisdiction states have over such transactions.  

Bunning, a former Major League Baseball pitcher, seems to have been batting 100 in the realm of e-commerce for consumers…we need more with the same mindset in Congress if there are any hopes to keep taxation from reaching the invisible but intrinsic borders of e-commerce. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Belarus’ official title is the “Republic of Belarus”, however the CIA Worldfactbook displays a note unique only to this small Eastern European country: “republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship.” Belarus received its independence from the Soviet Union on August 25, 1991, but since then has retained…cozy, relations with Russia. This little country of nearly 10 million is currently being squeezed into a situation that will cause it to turn towards other powers in the attempt of keeping surprisingly high growth rates. How will the US react to an increasingly frustrated country that’s slowly drifting away from Moscow?

Background

Belarus’s first 4 years of independence can be characterized by swift, broad reforms looking to shape a new country based on a defeated population. Like so many in Eastern Europe, the average person was looking to have more “Western concerns”, rather than worrying over communism, state-oriented supply targets, and bread line-type difficulties. Yet in 1994 President (dictator) Alexander Lukashenko reverted back to the old days of Belarus with the time-tested promise of economic recovery. Since then, widespread government price setting, management and regulation has taken place, and in more recent years, private company acquirement has been seen across the board. The interesting factor is that despite economic reversions back to time’s past, Belarusians have seen GDP growth rates as high as 7%, although high inflation has never-the-less been prominent. How is this possible? One answer: Putin’s Russia.

Belarus has been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of Russian generosity, marked with heavily discounted natural resources and the re-exportation of Russian petro at significantly higher market prices. For a small country still moving towards increased government control, Belarus has had it made. However, in recent times Russia has been seen attempting an…unique approach. While still maintaining the need for NATO-countering missile defense build-up partnerships with Belarus, Russia has decided to require that 85% of Belarusian profits on re-exported oil must be shared with the Kremlin. To make matters worse, by 2011 the Belarusians will need to get used to paying natural gas prices at the world market cost, an increase of over 50%. With the two largest drivers of the ill foreign investment-receiving Belarus economy, where does Belarus have left to turn?

Recent European developments

As overall Russian momentum has decreased within the country, the European Union has been moving in. A decision in August of 2008 declared the EU-imposed travel ban on Belarusian public officials (including the president himself) has officially been lifted – a significant development for which President Lukashenko expectedly expressed strong support of. “All impediments to dialogue have been lifted. The main thing is we can now talk without an iron curtain.” Many analysts predict the recent move with be more than conductive to the opening of the Republic of Belarus out of economic desperation, matched with the newfound government official encouragement. How will the US react?

Pending proposals: the United State’s approach

The US will take any position that will allow itself to gain more former Soviet Union members on its side- even at a time when financial markets have taken a downturn. Former Russian President and current Prime Minister (czar) Vladimir Putin was given the title of the “prime minister of the Russian-Belarus alliance” as of May 2008, matched with clear developments that Putin has no intention of decreasing influence within the region. In terms of foreign policy approach, paired with decreasing European sway (NATO vs. EU), any actions taken on the part of Putin are largely viewed as an East-West conflict, reflecting attitudes as old Cold War era. To view the 6 pending Federal legislation, follow this link.

Highlights of the proposals are largely shaped by the US’ stance on the treatment of ethnic minorities of Belarus. Mark Kirk’s H.R.5152 aims to authorize assistance for such groups in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the attempt to promote democracy and approach aspirations all too frequently ignored by the former Stalin state, quickly turning a cold shoulder or merely claiming ignorance for the atrocities that displaced millions of people. Overall, the bill is shallow and ill-conceived, allowing only 3 pages of explanation to throw $125 million dollars to a problem with very little restrictions or specific approach. The saving grace for H.R.5152 is found on page 2, allowing $25 million specifically for national broadcasting of the proposed foreign aid benefits to the countries’ citizens. Belarusians’ state-dictated broadcasting program remains one of the largest divisions for US-Belarus relations.

Lukashenko’s state-ran Belarusian broadcasting HQ, pictured left

The last proposal truly worth viewing is H.R.571 – a broad, sweeping plan to increase tariffs on products of any US-recognized non-market economy – ranging from Laos to North Korea to Belarus – a proposal that will most likely see more individual measures taken with the recent democrat’s sweep. As with Iran, Obama largely believes that the only two options that should be taken when dealing with seemingly difficult regimes is to greatly increase dialogue and to impose sanctions or tariffs on countries, in an old-fashioned attempt to squeeze desired action among the general public.

The situation with Belarus is quickly developing and should prove to have more desperate measures taken on behalf of the Belarusian government in the attempt of retaining any measure of economic growth. Europe will most likely see the widespread opening of markets with the “Republic”, and sooner or later Belarus will have to find a much more effective way to attractive foreign (not Russian) investment within the country. For Europe’s last dictatorship, decisions will have to be made between Prime Minister Putin’s sway and Western ideologies. As Russia continues to flex its muscles around the world, Belarus will prove to be a very significant example to the world as to the expected strength of Moscow vs. the US. The messages that will be sent to the world will most likely prove to be as impactful as the United State’s efforts in turning former Axis allies (Germany and Japan) into democracy experiments – strengthening America’s sway around the world. Belarus is quickly approaching a marked time of needed reform, it will prove to be most interesting to track what will happen to Europe’s last dictatorship.

Belarus’ geographic centralization allows the country of 10 million to retain particular strategic advantages – many times to Russia’s benefit

Author: Crystal Fontaine

I remember that day, the fateful day of September 11, 2001. It has become a day that no single American will ever forget. I was sitting, ironically, in a history class at the time, watching as history was being made right in front of my eyes on that television. There were feelings of outrage, disbelief, and even fear all across the nation. Suddenly, the security once felt had vanished within just a few hours.

History books will soon enough see the affects of such drastic acts.

Seven years have sped by since the attacks on the World Trade Center. Lives have changed. Times have changed. The United States is currently fighting two wars that seem to have no clear end in the near future. Security has tightened at the airports. Sometimes, it is almost worth driving now days to avoid the hassle of going through security. Although gas prices are lower than what the average American has become accustomed to, they still remain higher than what they were just a few years ago. Furthermore, the United States is currently navigating its way through a mortgage crisis paired with the financial crisis – both of which have made significant effects around the globe. Many people are altering the way they live (including myself) just to survive the high prices and live comfortably at the same time. The world certainly has become a different place.

Recently, General David Petraeus was promoted to the new Chief of the United State’s military’s Central Command, with the responsibility of overseeing the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. With this new title, General Petraeus made the important step of visiting Pakistan on Monday, November 3 – a nation extremely vital to coordinated efforts against terrorism. Shortly after his arrival, jihad militants carried out a rocket attack(s) on the airport in the city of Peshawar, which demonstrates a deterioration of security that needs to be addressed. General Petraeus met with several important officials during his visit, including Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhlar and army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Pakistani officials warned him on Monday that the numerous missile strikes the American military have made on militant targets in Pakistan is creating anti-American sentiment. As of August 2008, Washington is suspected in at least seventeen missile strikes to counter insurgents.

The situation in the Middle East is an ugly one. Will there ever be peace? The United States has become entangled in a web that it cannot seem to release itself from. Where do we go from now? This web is now being handed down to a new Presidential administration. One that many believe will bring about the change we are seeking and desperately need. The United States has made it a mission to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. However, we have also had our own faults.  Nevertheless, with this historical moment in time and as many across the world celebrate its significance, perhaps we can now truly exemplify the freedoms we have been trying to spread. Jimmy Carter said it best: “The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation”.

Author: Jared Fallon

“We’re entering a brave new world of presidential fundraising.”– Michael Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission 

The 2008 Presidential Race proved to not only be demographically historical, but the most expensive in US history as well, blowing past all previous records. Since January 2007 the 2008 presidential candidates combined have spent roughly $1 billion dollars ($2.4billion if you count candidates other than McCain and Obama) – an increase of over $300 million from the previous record-breaking 04 presidential election. This increase truly is colossal when considering back in the Bush vs. Gore election $250 million sounded like a large sum. Due to the airwave-saturating spending habits of Senator Obama there is a now a precedence to spend up near $33,000 per second just to air a commercial on only one of the big networks (estmiates taken from NBC, CBS, and FOX) during primetime spots. When are the rising costs of US elections ever going to be enough? All-time-high records can be found in virtually all other areas of US political campaigns as well.

It is anticipated the new cost to elect a US president and members of Congress will cost a staggering $5.3 billion. The most expensive congressional race of 08 hails from Illinois’ 14 district, where candidates vying for Dennis Hastert’s previous seat have spent a combined $7.5 million as of October 11 – more recent filings will certainly prove to be higher. As spending goals continue to be significantly greater than the ones before, the psychological effects of such increases may prove to me more devastating than the financial costs. To a large extent the American public already feels that far too many politicians get to their point of servitude by far too many political favors and connections to begin with. Despite the fact that the 08 election year is proving to have very high turnout, I predict that eventually as spending reaches a peak voter turnout will begin to drop significantly. Regardless, it appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending and will most likely see fresh, new waves of proposed legislation in an attempt to impose political spending limits of the sort that can be found in Canada.

To date there are not many proposals on the table. Several of them merely reduce portions of campaign financing (such as individual campaign contributions) while increasing other categories, such as the presidential primary qualifying threshold – even to the tune of 5 times that of current standards. (Ironically) Among its supporters you will find Senator Obama’s vote. The only proposal that aims for an overall guaranteed reduction is Michael E. Capuano’s (D-MA) H.R.2269, which aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Capuano hopes to reduce the $2,000 maximum amount of individual contribution that any person can make with respect to federal offices down to $1,000, and adjusted for inflation after 2010. Thus far he is his only sponsor.

For the sake of debate, although Senator Obama has spent more raw dollars than ever before, a short delve into political campaigns from America past does help put these numbers into perspective, if only in a shallow sense. In terms of real dollars the most expensive campaign dates back to 1896 when $3.5 million was spent to ensure Williams Bryan did not get elected. Adjusted for inflation, that sum was equal to over $3 billion in today’s dollars.  However, this is the most extreme example that one can draw a comparison to. Back then Chinese goods were considered a valuable rarity and John McCain was only 2 years old…my how the times have changed. Most Americans would agree that the amount of spending on elections is getting astronomical, and overall does lend itself towards increased government transparency. Similar concerns have caused other Democratic nations, such as Canada, to place strict limitations on a variety of different campaigns. For presidential campaigns both the time limit and the overall expenditures are capped. Whether or not Canada’s specific approach would work as a model for the US, it’s nice to see that there are other realistic case studies for when the time for reform is demanded (or needed, whichever comes first).

It appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending, but sooner or later public support for political race spending limits (and perhaps campaign length restrictions) will tip the scale for proposed reforms. 

Author: Jared Fallon

To most people’s surprise, the most recent study conducted evaluating the overall increase of higher education costs shows satisfyingly minute changes. According to the nonprofit organization College Board, for the current academic year the average list price increase for four-year colleges is less than 1 percent over inflation – one of the smallest increases seen in the college world in a long time. Additionally, the average financial aid package increased, allowing colleges greater admission rates than will most likely be seen as the financial crisis begins to surface in other parts of the economy. According to the College Board however, the situation is not nearly as optimistic for the future, based on both past costs and expected future trends…reform is needed quickly.

The College Board assumes the average tuition cost to increase by 6% annually, a figure that is notably larger than both the general inflation rate and the average increase in expected incomes. According to the same data set, the anticipated cost of attending a public college/university for four years in 2026 will cost a staggering $81,900, with private institution costs totaling around $313,800 – and keep in mind these costs only reflect college tuition and standard fees. These estimates do not include other significant costs of attending a higher learning institution, such as room and board, books, and transportation. The increasing costs of the already colossal investment of acquiring a bachelor’s degree is intensified when considering that according to the USA Today 52% of college students take 5 years to earn their degrees.

Some of the pending legislation awaiting actions beyond their respective committee statuses aim to reduce the overall costs of higher education in anticipation for the shocking price increases. These increases will soon begin to hit some families beyond the current near-crisis point of nearly having to remortgage their homes. One such proposal has been introduced by Herb Kohl (D-WI) and is hoping to authorize the Education Department to match grants to high schools that establish dual enrollment programs, in the attempt to encourage students to start considering college at an earlier age and help reduce overall college costs by decreasing the amount of time it takes to earn a bachelor’s.

Another interesting proposal deals with a more systemic approach and requires less of an increase in government spending or grant/award programs. H.R.4149’s official goal is to “limit excessive fluctuations in tuition to help students and families plan for college costs.” The bill would require institutions to offer a binding, multi-year tuition and fee schedule for at least four years for the attainment of a degree. The proposal is rightly named the “Truth-in-Tuition Act of 2007” and would be enforced through amending the Higher Education Act of 1965. To discover what other reforms are on the table, follow this link and make sure your opinion is heard.

The future “war on the middle class” is going to get a lot worse if the increasing costs of education are not addressed. Reforms such as these need more dialogue if they are to have any hope of getting passed or, at the very least, inspiring other legislatures to step up to the plate and help combat the greatest outlet for opportunity that our future generations may very well be laregly excluded from. 

Author: Jared Fallon

We all know that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the most profoundest presidential “quoters” in US history. His long list of power-packed comments will be missed by all as the smooth-talking Illinois Senator rises to be the next leader of the “free world.” As Bush passes the torch to Obama there will undoubtedly be a long, long trail of people waiting for the “change” that Obama promised for so long. And yet, ironically, the 6^th longest-running Democratic Senator in US history is never very far behind…

Regardless, President Bush’s wise words to Obama were consistent with many of his world- famous speeches. According to Bush spokesperson Dana Perino, Bush advised “You are about to go on one of the great journeys of life. Congratulations and go enjoy yourself.” Time can only tell whether or not Obama can provide the change he promised, but one thing is certain: the American public is tired of leaders considering the US presidency as nothing more than “one of the great journeys”. If Obama does enjoy himself, let’s just hope that he doesn’t choose to do it Texas-cowboy style…

Author: Jared Fallon

“Regardless of whose property the natural resources and in particular the mineral resources might be, the state has the right to regulate the process of their development and use.” -Vladimir Putin

Current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin realized Russia’s vast political influence potential in regards to energy long before the topic became widely discussed among the general public. Hailing from Leningrad State University Law with a strong emphasis in international affairs, Putin quickly discovered the role increasing energy demand matched with decreasing supplies will have on the future of the world’s major affairs and global markets. Some of the precedents for action Putin set forth in regards to Russia’s political affairs and Gazprom that are already beginning to show fruition. Russia now seeks to create an OPEC-like natural gas organization, an effort that would secure the world’s #1 natural gas supplier as the #1 natural gas  player immediately and deep into the foreseeable future.

Official announcements came shortly after current President (and former Chairman of Gazprom’s board of directors) Dmitry Medvedev hosted OPEC’s Secretary-General last week, securing plans for the Kremlin to coordinate oil efforts with the oil monopoly. The group would most likely include the owners of roughly 55% percent of the world’s known natural gas reserves – Russia, Iran, and Qatar – and may include coordination with countries such as Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, and Venezuela. Plans are expected to be finalized as early as November 18. These efforts are not new. According to Russian news sources the idea had been introduced long ago by no other than Mr. Putin himself.

Putin, pictured sporting his Judo gi in Japan, has been getting ready to kick ass outside the ring. This time his focus is in the area of natural gas and international monopolies. 

Back in 2007 Vladimir was quoted saying “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea. We will think about it” – shortly after denying western accusations of Russia’s use of energy as a lever to attain international political sway. The idea of the world’s second greatest oil reserve owner coordinating with OPEC is frightening enough, but to have a new international coalition outlet for the Kremlin’s natural gas might is even more chilling. This is especially true when considering Putin’s international law-justifying stance on such issues: “Russia’s modern foreign policy is based on the principles of pragmatism, predictability and the supremacy of international law.”

The situation becomes more significant when realizing Putin’s deeper, less rosy stance on such topics. “…the basic strategic tasks for the natural resource bloc involve achieving the transition to a rational combination of administrative and economic methods of government regulation in the sphere of resource exploitation”. The US will undoubtedly be frustrated in its world affairs if Russia begins to step up its natural gas exploitation beyond simply making threats of cutting off pipelines to Eastern Europe. If (and when?) a “gas OPEC” is created confrontation (diplomatic or otherwise) will eventually have to take place.

Presently, the US already has several pending proposals to hold various OPEC counties to laws such as the Sherman Act (S.2976), criticizing lack of competition as a basis. Other proposals go one step further (H.R.6074), seeking to amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to “make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal,”. This stance will simply not be enough if America does in fact choose to extend the same line of thinking to Russian natural gas partnership activity, a Kremlin-admitted cornerstone to the rebuilding of the former Soviet’s crumbled economy. When money calls and natural gas is the realistic translation of both that and heavy international influence, the US will need more than a federal law to change Putin’s (and Medvedev’s ) mind. 

Current President Dmitry Medvedev (pictured left) with former President Vladimir Putin back in 2000. Putin served two terms, endorsed Gazprom Exec Medvedev, and then re-emerged on the political scene as Russia’s Prime Minister.

“In terms of a general conclusion it follows that existing socio-economic conditions, and also the strategy for Russia’s exit from the deep crisis and restoration of her former power on a qualitatively new basis demonstrate that conditions in the natural resource complex remain the most important factor in the state’s near-term development.”– Vladimir Putin 

Author: Sara Hilbert

The time is now. Early voting is steadily streaming in and by mid-week America will know the end of this long presidential race. Until then we wait in high anticipation for this highly historical election. According to Real Clear Politics, the average polling data shows Obama leading by 6.3 points, while others show Obama leading by even more.  Despite the fact that the general public thinks Obama will win, Senator McCain predicts a late-night win on Election Day, believing that the American public will choose him in the wee hours of the day.

Dr. Frank Newport editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll explains in the video below that 1980 proved to be the biggest example of the polling change, where Jimmy Carter was ahead with registered voter by eight points before Ronald Reagan won the popular vote by 10 points. With the lead that Obama has on McCain, it can narrow, but it would be highly unusual occurrence. 

There are so many behind Senator McCain who feel that these numbers unjustly show the reality and strength the candidate has for victory on Tuesday. Jeffrey Lord is one of them, a former Reagan White House political director and author, who claims the answer was clear back in August: McCain. Billy Kristol also gave his predictions of the election in favor of McCain this past Friday on The Daily Show. Lastly, Andy Martin, legendary author and Internet columnist, spoke against Obama’s intense advertising to then praise McCain for taking command saying, “John McCain is going to win the presidency, (but only) by a whisker.”

Republicans need not to cross their fingers, The Mack is back!

Author: Sara Hilbert

It’s those hot summers days in July where everything is dressed in red, white and blue it is hard to feel anything but overwhelmingly patriotic. However, for the rest of the year, what does it really mean to show your love and appreciation for your country? The freedom that is so prevalent in America would make you think of the limitless possibilities to show your American Pride. Surprisingly, though, some in Washington irrationally view patriotism to one right way of expressing it, their way.

Chief sponsor, Paul C. Broun (R-GA) introduced HR 6783 in August of this year that would punish all who do not follow his line of thinking. This bill will withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English. Mr. Broun feels this is a guillotine-approach will “protect” American culture and patriotism. In addition, he is gathering a large crowd of followers; there are currently 12 co-sponsors to this bill. All with the same message: get rid of all your pro-diversity programs and anything else that might suggest these sub-cultures are anything more than below “American.” I give them a little credit for recognizing “that the vast majority of Americans are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, respectful of their ancestral home, but also proud to be American.” However, everything about this bill unjustifiably denies equal ground for unity.

I liked Scott Summer’s a fresh comparison on the subject. He said:“Does [HR 6783] consider the needs and abilities and requirements of those who rely on American Sign Language? Are we to deny federal fund to school’s for the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem through ASL rather than English?”

If this bill passes and our institutions omit minority content in curriculum, I fear the repercussions that will follow. This is indeed oppression, unjustified discriminatory treatment of one group. Where is our responsibility for the truth that all men are created equal?

Ask yourself, what makes us American? Is it through our race, ethnicity, religion, traditions, or language? Does our shared unity encompass something bigger? Is it an idea even bigger than a free-America? Richard M. Ebeling a professor of Economics at Hillsdale College in Michigan feels that being an American has lost its meaning. He wonders what happened to the time when we could say, “I’m proud to be American,” and it did not have seem “arrogant, domineering, and stupidly chauvinistic.”

Pride in being an American meant pride in a belief in and respect for the freedom of the individual. It meant believing in a self-governing nation, in which the primary self-government was the liberty of each person to manage his own life in peaceful and voluntary cooperation with others for mutually beneficial improvement of their material, intellectual, and spiritual lives. It meant the hope that through the practice of freedom, America and Americans would serve as an example for other peoples in other parts of the world to want to emulate. That was a noble idea. It was a bright ideal to offer as a hope for the world. It is too great a loss to bear. We can regain it. We can, if we want it and are willing to try. Will we?

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With the prices of gasoline at the pumps, one would almost assume that many people would be excited. One would think that the way people drive would revert back to the familiar ways of yesteryear. Finally, I can afford to fill up my tank again! Well, we are all probably relieved by the prices at the pump; however, people are still playing cautious. Many of us have changed the way we drive and the way we live our lives in order to save a few bucks here and there. I know I have and I probably won’t be changing my cautious ways anytime soon. With the very close upcoming presidential election, the weight of the current financial crisis is currently on every voters mind.

Throughout the campaigning, especially within the recent months, it has become a major concern and focal point. Both John McCain and Barack Obama backed President Bush’s $700 billion rescue package for the financial industry. Both believe in more tax relief for the middle and working classes; however, McCain and Obama differ in the taxation of high income earners. Obama would like to revoke the tax cuts that Bush made for those higher incomes, while McCain believes that is not necessary. Either way, the financial problems are definitely not going away any time soon.

America is not alone. The financial crisis has clearly become a global concern, with its impacts leaving no corner of the world untouched. Over the previous weekend of October 25, there was the annual Asia-Europe meeting, or ASEM. The ASEM is an informal process of dialogue and cooperation that brings together the member nations of the European Union and the EU Commission as well as sixteen Asian nations and the ASEAN Secretariat. The ASEM allows for these nations to debate informally over a variety of issues. At the ASEM, Premier Wen Jiabo of China called for new rules to guide the international financial system, following a call by Asian and European leaders for the International Monetary Fund to intervene and deal with the ongoing global financial situation.

According to Premier Wen Jiabo, “[w]e need to draw lessons from the crisis…We need financial innovation to serve the economy better. However, we need even more financial regulation to ensure financial safety”. No one denies that something should be done to help fix the world’s struggling economy. Current French President Sarkozy said that the ASEM summit was “helpful” for the promotion of efforts to tackle the problem. China appears ready on all counts to step up to the plate and take a lead role in fixing the credit crisis. If China does indeed decide to intervene it will be interesting to see if they honor their word or not, granted if other nations allow the proposal at hand. China has been a huge exporter of cheap consumer goods to the United States and other nations, beating nearly all other manufacturers around the world. With the economies of these nations on the fritz, China needs to begin turning its spending ambitions internally. An editorial in the New York Times claims that, “ To get China’s consumers to spend, the government will need to spend more at home, investing in public work projects and providing more social benefits—including health insurance and pensions…This is clearly Beijing’s interest, though China’s leaders are still clinging to the old export strategy”.

Author: Jared Fallon

The reasons for the US entry into war in Iraq are often debated, generally leaving people with the conclusion that we shouldn’t have entered in the first place. Whether or not critics believe the US entered the war mostly for oil interests there is one current US policy to help reinforce the notion: the 1980 Carter Doctrine. One pending proposal in the House seeks to prevent future Iraqi oil developments without amending this doctrine in the pursuit to “prohibit certain activities relating to the petroleum resources of Iraq…”. While this bill may be too little too late it will be interesting to track its outcome and the possible precedence for US foreign policy it implicates.

Carter Doctrine Background

The Carter Doctrine was born off of the heels of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan amidst concerns over possible lack of access to Middle East oil. At the time, most of the US’ current and near future expected source oil flowed through the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, located right in between Iran and the Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore, the strait is the only sea source for oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to be transported through. According to the US government, the percentage of oil reserves held in the Persian Gulf had risen from 54 to 65 percent since 1961. The Soviet’s efforts brought them nervously close enough to this oil rich passage that Jimmy Carter believed the Soviets aimed to pose a “grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.”

At this juncture, as the Cold War tensions continued to escalade, Jimmy Carter decided to find a means of justification for military intervention in order to ensure that the US could continue to rely on a stable flow of oil from various sources around the world and thus, the Carter Doctrine was born. Among the Doctrine’s most alarming inclusions was that “any attempt by outside (Soviet) force to gain control of the Persian Gulf will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and…will be repelled by any means necessary including the use of force.” From this quote on a long series of recurring “coincidences” for future US wars were set in stone. The US now began to have a legal justification for military intervention across the globe, as long as the actions taken on the part of an “outside force” were determined to be justifying US national security.

Some critics believe that the Carter Doctrine is obsolete due to increasing Chinese energy demands and the Asian monolith’s emerging influence in the Gulf. To the contrary, after reviewing US military deployments and investments over the past 28 years it is clear that the Doctrine is still needed. The US’ strong military and economic presence in the Gulf is helping occupy a country that the US Government’s Energy Information Administration places very high on the priority list in a 2007 report. “Iraq has the world’s third largest proven petroleum reserves and some of the lowest extraction costs, although just a fraction of its known fields are in development.” The Carter Doctrine, if explored for its potential, is clearly still in play in terms of US Military efforts.

A Senator’s proposal for a new precedence

To no surprise, Senator Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) is proposing H.R.6710, a bill “To prohibit certain activities relating to the petroleum resources of Iraq,” Dennis’ bill came not long after his proposal to impeach President Bush of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, a move that allowed him to deem himself the bravest Senator in America. The 8 page proposal outlines the plan to create the “Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008” allowing penalties to be set for a US citizen or entity to manage any level of responsibility for petroleum development in Iraq, including contracts or various business transactions.

In the bill’s text Senator Kucinich outlines several justifications for the proposal. They include the claim that the “Bush Administration has aggressively pressured the Iraqi government to privatize its oil resources” and that various United States oil companies have secured oil contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government, claiming that the said companies have pursued influencing former administration officials to use their sway for such contracts. Kucinich then proceeds with his criticism of the Bush Administration by stating Bush’s benchmark inclusion of a national sharing revenue plan under the disguise of a “hydrocarbon act”. And it gets worse.

One of the US oil companies cited for creating newly established oil contracts include Dallas’ Hunt Oil Company, of which Kucinich alleges the CEO of being a $35 million contributor to President Bush’s previous campaigns. Furthermore, the then CEO of Halliburton Richard Cheney extended an invitation to the same generous Hunt Oil CEO to be on the Halliburton Board of Directors. The bill’s text continues to offer a wealth of information, including the former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle’s resignation from his various chairmanship activities when more and more sources began to question his US oil company ties to the war of which he is cited as “being an early advocate of invading Iraq and as an Iraq War Architect.”

Due to the above reasons and the abundance of conclusions from “coincidences” of Iraqi contract-receiving US oil companies, it is no wonder that Kucinich is proposing such a plan, although it is a sure bet that Big Oil will try to shoot down the bill as fast as possible. Still, one is left to wonder why the Ohio Senator is not pursuing the foundational policy justification used to engage in such wars aka the Carter Doctrine. Regardless of whether or not Dennis’ proposal is simply reinforcement for the dialogue towards impeaching President Bush, at least one senator is brave enough to, at the very least, publicly announce the wide breadth of “coincidences” that have occurred between US oil company contracts with the Iraq Government. This bill is definitely worth tracking, and worth reading through to understand the gravity of the situation Kucinich is directing his efforts towards.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With about one week to go in the Presidential Races, Barack Obama is still the preferred candidate. According to the Gallup Polls on October 21, 2008, Senator Obama was in a seven to ten point lead against Senator McCain.  The poll is based on likely voters, voters voting intentions, and past voting behavior. Although international opinions from countries around the world seem to play a significant role in this presidential race, there is little evidence as to how much impact their opinions truly make. However, the Gallup Poll reveals that in about seventy different nations, there is a near four to one preference for Senator Obama over McCain.

One has to remember that statistics are just statistics. Until the fateful day of the election, no one really knows who will be elected to office and no one really knows how well that particular candidate will do in office until he gets there. This past Sunday, Colin Powell interviewed on Meet the Press, announcing his endorsement towards Barack Obama. He admits to being close friends with John McCain and that both candidates are qualified; however, McCain would be just more of the same ole’ same ole. He described Obama as more of a “transformational figure”. Powell stated that “[b]ecause of Obama’s ability to inspire…the inclusive nature of this campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities…he has both style and substance—he has meet the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president”.

Powell even referred to his own party as being discriminatory. Apparently, some Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim, and has possible affiliations with terrorists. According to Powell, Obama is Christian. I don’t know if Powell’s endorsement really means much, especially so close to the election. However, Powell does raise a good point. Even if Obama was a Muslim, what is wrong with that? What is so wrong with being different? If we were all the same, the world would be a dreary place to live (and politics would be a lot more boring). I wonder how many voters will go and vote just because Obama is black or because McCain is white. I wonder how many of those voters will deny the reason for their vote is based on color. We have come a long way in America, but the taint of discriminatory thoughts and actions still linger. Perhaps its human nature this judgment of character before we even get to know a person.

The idea in electing a President should be based on what each candidate stands for, their past records, etc. For instance, Obama co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1492, which sets out to develop the quality of federal and state data on ease of use and eminence of broadband services while giving the Nation more affordable services at the same time. McCain co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1810, amending the Public Health Services Act. This allows for better information and services to patients who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Obama wants to raise taxes. McCain believes in expanding alternative energy technology. These are just some of the issues we should be taking into account. The amount of challenges facing the presidential candidates this election truly are daunting, and will prove to become even more so as the current financial crisis is experienced more and more in all other parts of the economy, and in our personal lives. 

Author: Jared Fallon

It seems that increasing oil revenues is the only reliable component of the US corporate world we can depend on. 2008 has brought some of the most challenging oil prices America has ever endured and yet oil companies continually make increasingly greater profits. This will probably come as no surprise, but needs to be stated: the second quarter of this year has again proved itself to be the most profitable in history for Big Oil. The leader of the Western six pack – Exxon Mobil – raked in an excess of $1.7 billion, surpassing its own records to yet again have the title as the highest-ever quarterly profits earner for an American firm. Bravo Exxon Mobile – none of us saw it coming.

For the most part, there are not many pending bills on the legislation front that attempt to provide additional regulation for oil companies and/or oil price increases. The central bill of interest does not seem too likely to pass although it would be fun to watch. The bill’s only advocate so far is the sponsor – Janice D. Schakowsy (D-IL) – a risky position for a lone politician to take against such an influence-packed group of monoliths. Her bill – H.R.6653 – aims “To provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices,” H.R.6653 proposes a 4 part strategy that denies oil companies tax deductions, conforms tax treatment for foreign tax credits, imposes a windfall profits tax on major oil companies, and establishes an Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund. In addition Schakowsy wants to amend the Sherman Act to prevent foreign states to act with each other to limit the production of oil, set energy prices, or take any actions in restraining free trade of energy sources. This bill will be interesting to watch (and Schakowsky’s future endorsements for that matter) – follow this link to find the most up-to-date information on this and other pieces of pending legislation available on the web.

Author: Jared Fallon

Once again the Bush Administration’s bull-headed, hegemonic principles are driving our country further and further to a foundational precedence for hard knocks. H.R.7081, proposed by sponsor Howard L. Berman, (D-CA), will prove to be one of the United State’s largest historical blunders when it comes to its nuclear policies and agreements. The bills’ title states the notion to “approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy” – an extremely rosily painted picture for a bill that slaps both signers and non-sponsors of the Non-Proliferation Treaty directly in the face. To date only four nations have not signed the treaty, including India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea. The implications of the approval of the bill should make one nervous.

In terms of internal implications, the timing of the bill is extremely unique for a period where Americans are most concerned by the looming financial crisis, failing stocks, and largest bailout packages ever issued by the US Government. The bill was initially proposed on September 25, 2008 and signed by President Bush less than 2 weeks later, on October 8, 2008 – amidst worsening conditions that rival only the Great Depression. Second, the bill received only 8 cosponsors – a relatively low number of supporters for such a major trade policy. Even more shocking is the total number of recorded minutes of debate, totaling a whopping 40 minutes. Lastly, the timing of the bill seems nothing but rushed. With the United State’s Election Day less than one month away and India’s coming in a few short months it appears that the current administrations were determined to get such a bill passed – (coincidentally, of course) at a time where Americans would pay little attention to the bill even if it were not undergoing a financial meltdown.

The international implications for such a bill are a bit more troubling. The United States has held a thirty year ban on all nuclear trade with India – an internationally justifiable run considering that it makes it very clear that the US will not reward non-participants of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. But yet as India has recently announced plans to build a minimum of 30 nuclear-powered energy plants President Bush makes no hesitation in allowing the world’s largest democracy to move onward – a move enough bold to allow US companies to take advantage of emerging contracts similar to accusations of Head Oil Company and Halliburton’s oil contract sprees with the Iraqi Government. The bill explicitly outlines allowances for India to purchase US nuclear technology – a benefit that the Confederation of Indian Industry estimates could produce roughly $27 billion in US investment for only 18-20 new plants; while independent estimations hover right around $80 billion. Why would we expect other Non-Proliferation signers (such as Russia) to not act in the same direction with other nations with nuclear energy interests (Pakistan)?

For just as much interest that United States citizens are not taking one can find an equal proportion of criticism on the international stage. The new trade policy has set fire to a series of controversy within India, most notably in regards to national sovereignty. There is no doubt that China has silently observed the recent actions of the US to take part in nuclear investments so close to its border, while Putin is plotting the possible courses of action this new nuclear trade agreement could mean for his own efforts. This opportunity will most certainly give Russia an easy conversation topic at the next UN Security Council meeting, most likely leaving the US with more wise words from President Bush trying to avoid the parallels that can be drawn from this bill to Texas oil company contract engagements with the Iraqi Government (see the “Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008”). Another page has been written in the international book of nuclear developments. Ensure that you can stay on top of the newest US legislation proposals and help keep government transparency about the latest US nuclear agreement actions.

Author: Jared Fallon

Amidst the increasing concerns and negative effects of the United State’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels proposed legislation to ease the pain at the pump and on national security risks are increasing. One of the most interesting proposals yet hails from Senator Louie Gohmert (R-TX). In his H.R.6882 he outlines his plans to create the “Electricity Prize Act of 2008” – a lamely entitled proposal but one worth looking into none-the-less. The bill’s text hopes to mandate the National Science Foundation to award a prize of $300,000,000 to the first group or company that can “develop the ability to store multi megawatt electricity for 30 consecutive days with less than a 10 percent decrease in the electricity stored.”

While Gohmert’s idea to lure free-market forces to work towards a sizable goal is not unique, it does outline several unique ideas. According to H.R.6882 dramatic advances have been made for the development and storage of fossil fuels and various forms of alternative energy, but not in the “manner and means of storing electricity, so electricity, when produced, must flow and be used promptly or lost.” Gohmert believes that if the 30 day storage minimum can be met drastic national security and energy benchmarks would be achieved, including satisfying America’s energy needs almost entirely by solar, increasing the chances of capturing lightening for energy use, and would free the US from reliance on foreign energy.

The Senator’s proposal thus far has only reached committee status, where it has been tied up since September 17. The 4 page proposal overall is sound but does not offer any sort of timetable, deadline, nor runner’s up prizes – characteristics that are rather unique for this sort of monetary-incentive plan. Due to the large sum of money Louie is requesting it’s a sure bet that the lack of specifics will be the most heavily debated aspects of the proposal, followed closely by his briefest of brief reference to a completely unexplored idea of energy , stating that his plan “may even lead to capturing lightening.”

Author: Crystal Fontaine

It boggles the mind to see people driving down the road while doing things other than completely paying attention to their surroundings. I suppose we all have the ability to multitask, right? Despite our confidences in doing more than one thing at a time, your risk of having an accident skyrockets if you are trying to drive while doing tasks such as applying make-up. We’ve all made excuses: I’m careful, I can still see what’s going on, I know this road like the back of my hand, etc. You may know the road well, but the drive isn’t exactly the same every day. Perhaps that is why there is an increasing, overwhelming concern for drivers talking and texting on their cell phones.

Several states have taken the initiative of banning talking on the cell phone and text messaging while driving. Recently, California Governor Schwarzenegger signed a law, SB 28, banning text messaging while driving. The bill was introduced by Senator Joe Simitian (D-CA). The legislation specifically prohibits the use of any electronic wireless communications device “to write, send, or read a text-based communication”. Motorists will be fined twenty dollars for the first offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offense. A previous Californian bill passed in July requiring that motorists who use cell phones must use hands-free devices. In addition, drivers who are under 18 are not allowed to use their cell phones period. California is not alone in their quest to make the roads just a bit safer. For example, the states of Louisiana (SB 137), Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington have all passed similar legislation.

However, there are some that believe the law is a bit excessive. It treads on people’s right of choice and the ability to make the decisions they feel are necessary despite what consequences may arise. Republican lawmakers have argued that the measure is another illustration of adding superfluous legislation to the Vehicle Code when there are already adequate regulations on the books. Assemblyman Chuck Devore, R., stated that there is “…already a blanket law that says reckless driving is illegal and if you cause an accident while recklessly driving, it’s a misdemeanor”. Regardless of opinion, no one is completely focused on their driving or, more importantly, on the other people driving around them when they are talking on their cell phone or sending a text message.

Over 200 million people in the United States use cell phones. In a 2004 MIT survey, it is just one invention that no one can live without…even if you hate it. The cell phone offers a variety of features that are fantastic and coincidently annoying, especially when you receive that 3 A.M text messaging from the Democratic Presidential nominee. However, we rely heavily on that little communications device despite its faults. As many have questioned before, is it really necessary to create a law banning it or certain features while driving? How easily would the law be enforced, especially since so many of us use the cell phone in our cars? What has the world come to if there is a need to make laws on simple, common sense issues?

Author: Jared Fallon

The new and (improved?) proposed bailout package aiming to help prevent the US from a complete financial crisis is not only shallow in its creation but contains no mystery as to why it received little criticism from either presidential candidates. The bill, H.R.1424, has been wildly criticized for allowing companies to have a soft landing on the backs of US taxpayers. Many people waited in anticipation for both McCain and Obama’s reaction of the proposal but most should have been left disappointed. The central reason for the lack of debate? Both candidates received major financial contributions from the ever-generous Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

There are many different figures available to find the exact amount each candidate has received, but it appears that the most accurate data shows that for the current election John McCain received $169,000 between both companies and their affiliates. Obama received $122,850 directly from various PACs and Mac/Mae employees. Both senators voted for the bill, while pointing towards the future for true accountability for the companies’ actions. Obama stated “There will be time to punish those that set this fire, but now is not the time to argue about how it got set…Let’s do what’s right for the country at this time, because the time to act is now.” This statement was a part of Obama’s speech to beg colleagues to help pass the reform. With Election Day coming and closer and closer it is unlikely that either senator will increase any measure of criticism for the two monoliths. Fortunately, two legislatures are stepping up to bat as we speak.

Both Peter Welch (D-VT) and Benjamin Nelson (D-NE) have proposed 2 plans for accountability – one to prevent golden parachute payments for Mac and Mae execs (H.R.6907) and one resolution to express to the Senate “that the former chief executive officers of Fannie Mae should not receive lavish severance packages at taxpayers’ expense.” (S.RES.658)  Will either of the proposals pass? It is highly unlikely, but the Chief Sponsors’ efforts shouldn’t go unnoticed – trying to a push accountability and criticism in a system that has too much money to receive it from the next President of the United States. 

Russia. No other country in recent past has had so many confirmed near-nuclear experiences, discolored alliances, and bitterly cold disputes with the United States. Many signs are clear that Russia wants its reemerging global presence to be known to all – while the United States is increasingly receiving pressure to slow down its rapid military spending habits and hegemonic pursuits. Many critics believe that since 2007 Russia announced its newest military doctrine the page has finally turned for the two rivals. Russia’s stance on NATO’s eastward expansion and the US’ presence in the region has never changed, viewing the moves as “reckless”, “dangerous”, and “not unnoticed.” Russia’s 07 doctrine outlines what its commanders should be preparing for if the nation were to get into war. This of course, coupled with Russia’s recent and worrisome Venezuelan agreements should have Americans questioning McCain’s and Obama’s plans for US-Russian relations.

In a consistent manner with most of the world Obama, in general, is seen with much higher favorability than his Republican opponent. The general perception that we hear is based on McCain’s warnings of “dangers posed by a revanchist Russia” and a sense of urgency to increase political pressures on the quickly strengthening Moscow. It is clear enough that the Arizona Senator’s plans for Russia will not be viewed favorably by both Putin and Medvedev. In addition, more recent comments from Palin in reference to Russia make it clear that no matter how foreign policy will be decided Russia will not appreciate the Republican Party. But what about Barack Obama? Despite the general American perception that Obama would be much more…tender, on Russia the reality is that no matter who wins November’s election affairs between the US and Russia can, and will become much, much more intense. How much more intense should be at the forefront of the respective countries’ citizens, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Senator Obama so far has played his overall stance on Russia down, allowing criticism to be directed at the Republican Party. But yet the facts point to a much more hard-line policy that leaves Moscow unsettled. Instead of Obama criticizing Bush’s lack of hard-line actions towards Russia Obama stated that the President “…proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power.” As the conflict between Georgia and Russian heightened Obama cited Russia has having no possible justification for the attacks, explaining further that Russia should not move towards a “regression to conflicts of the past”, ignoring the recent developments that NATO has taken closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Each of these developments received sharp criticism by most Russians in political circles. Shortly afterwards, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, compared Putin to Hitler – a risky move against a Prime Minister that continues to hold great sway over the country and its affairs. Furthermore, Stanford University Professor and Obama’s senior advisor on Russia, Michael McFaul, is viewed by Russian political officials as being “consistently harsh on political developments in Russia.”

McFaul is not only considered “Obama’s top Russia strategist” by Russian political officials, but is known for his sharp criticism of the Kremlin – especially in the area of foreign affairs. McFaul is deeply respected in the US for his council on Russian affairs and democratic policies around the globe but ironically shares many of the same views as McCain. Whether or not you believe Obama would take drastic measures on Russia, his political party affiliation must be taken into account as well. Despite the fact that Republicans are proving themselves to be extremely talented at long, drawn out wars, Democrats are not all as hug-friendly as Clinton was. The three biggest conflicts that shaped the 20^th century as we know it were all initially overseen by democrats. Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry Truman and the Cold War. Another interesting dimension is to remember Obama’s 6^th longest serving Senator in US history, Joe Biden. Biden’s subtle but strong criticism of Russia’s recent conflict with Georgia should not go unnoticed simply because he isn’t as obnoxious about the Alaskan Governor with no US-Russian relations experience.

If Obama does indeed take the presidency escalating urgency for improved affairs with Russia will not be as rosy as most Americans like to believe. Setting aside whether or not Obama follows in the footsteps of Democrats past, as Russia continues to show its reemerging presence time will only tell the degree to which the US will need to respond. The interesting factor is that it Russia will most likely not be able to tell the difference between McCain and Obama, which partially explains Russia’s latest bold military moves so close to Election Day. The lack of US foreign policy flexibility will prove to be a drastic problem for America as Russia gets back on its feet and starts running. Russia is simply becoming too great of a power with too many strings attached around the globe for the US to continue along its same lines of action. Sooner or later, as the US non-so-allies continue to strengthen relations with Russia, there will be a tipping point for change. We simply cannot remain on the same tedious tight rope we are balancing on right now. Either way, when examining Obama and McCain’s stances on Russia it becomes abundantly clear that Americans simply do not have much of a choice for this election unless something changes significantly within the next month. For further examination of these views, look up Obama’s most recent actions towards Russia or Google his support of NATO expansion and development.

Missouri is only ranked 47^th in the country in regards to higher education funding; students struggle with paying alternative education loans because federal scholarships, grants, and loans do not cover the insurmountable cost of colleges and universities around the state. Graduating from the University of Missouri-Columbia in 1980, U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof is familiar to the numerous problems within higher education programs. He wants to help fix these kinks by better equipping and supplying school administration, which will give more students the opportunity to reach higher education and, in turn, will boost Missouri’s economy as a whole.

One plan Hulshof is a part of is the establishment of the ‘Missouri Prosperity Initiative.’ It is a partnership that will strengthen programs within science and math as well as designing new programs for more efficient research. He believes that the specific branches of study that will be most effective to the state of Missouri are those in math, engineering, biotechnology, and chemistry. Better funding is an absolute necessity for students studying in these areas in order to thrive. This initiative includes higher accountability measures and increased funding for those in need of scholarships.

Hulshof also supports the ‘Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative.’ This program has raised $335 million for Missouri’s higher education for the benefit of students without raising the state tax. He believes that through good administration and the feedback of the schools that receive this new support many goals will be accomplished; he truly understands education is something worth investing in.

Evidence of Hulshof‘s interest in education reform is enhanced by the fact that he has recently been taking the time to go to colleges and universities around the state to speak and share his visions. This month one of the colleges he visited was Hannibal La-Grange College in Hannibal, Missouri – partaking in the 150^th sesquicentennial celebration the college was holding. Hulshof was the guest speaker and shared with the students his ideas while congratulating the institution for its efforts. Hulshof stated, “I’m less concerned with what my approval rating is going to be at the end of my term, but graduation rates, how many new start-up businesses have we had, how many plant expansions have we had, how have our math scores improved, how about higher education are we making progress.” He also spoke on a more personal note, telling the audience of his childhood, and how he is the, and I quote, “black sheep” of his family by following a career in politics.

Also, although Hulshof is putting much emphasis on higher education, he has not forgotten K-12. He has in mind to hire better math and science teachers around the state as well as make it easier for a student to apply and study at technical and community colleges. He does not want someone to miss out on an education due to financial reasons. According to Hulshof, this is going to aid the economy of the entire 21^stcentury. For more information on legislative bills concerning higher education in Missouri, click here.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Recently, the issue over Iran’s goal of pursuing uranium enrichment technology within the nation’s borders has stirred a commotion. The Head of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that Iran has no foundation to engage in such uranium enrichment programs because there is a surplus abroad that is available to them. However, Iran insists on nuclear self-sufficiency. They do not want to be reliant on foreign supplies due to United States trade restrictions. In his last speech to the UN, President Bush accused Syria and Iran of supporting terrorism. He also advised the UN General Assembly to implement sanctions on Iran and North Korea over their Nuclear Programs. There is a fear within the governments of the United States and Europe that Iran may put their nuclear capabilities to sinister use, such as creating weapons. Iran insists that the only reason it wants to refine uranium is for electricity.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency they cannot determine if Iran is holding back on some of their nuclear activities. Iran has been delaying the investigative probe from the IAEA in the name of protecting itself. According to the Iranian government, the query could expose non-nuke military secrets (excuses, excuses). Some believe that the United States is using the UN agency for its own purpose of a confrontation with Tehran. The agency has been hijacked by Washington to carry out an anti-Iran campaign, according to Ali Ashgar Soltanieh. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for some) the uranium enrichment process has gained momentum in Iran. According to David Albright, former UN Nuclear inspector and physicist, it takes a minimum of 1500 pounds of enriched uranium to produce the 45-60 pounds it takes for a simple nuclear bomb.  Iran has produced nearly 1,000 of those pounds of low-enriched uranium.

The U.S has slapped sanctions on Iran time and time again. Bills S. 3227, S. 3445, and H.R.3390 all impose sanctions on the country. S. 3227 amends Iran Sanctions of 1996 and subjects Iran to various economic sanctions. H.R. 3390 imposes sanctions on Iran and other nations for assisting Iran in the development of a nuclear program. In addition, the U.S inflicted sanctions on IRISL and 18 affiliates for supposedly bestowing support for Iran’s Weapons and Nuclear Program as well as fabricating documents. These sanctions prohibit U.S citizens from carrying out any transactions with them. However, Iranian’s president claims that there is wide-spread support in the international community for Iran’s nuclear position except the United States and some of its European pals. He also warns that if anyone is to target his nuclear facilities, then do not expect for him to sit idly by.  He blames the U.S for global financial problems, stating that its military interference in other nation’s affairs is the cause.

What is Iran’s real intention? Perhaps they really are just building up their nuke program for electricity, getting on the “green” band wagon. Politics is never simple. McCarthy cried “communist” during the tensions of the Cold War. Many believed him even though his accusations were unfounded. Maybe we too are crying “wolf” where we want to see one although he is not there.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/quest-nuclear-independence-iran/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/marijuana-legislation-hr5842 http://www.statesurge.com/news/marijuana-legislation-hr5842#comments Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:12:01 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=124 1. The founding fathers liked ganja

I am neither Democrat nor Republican and personally have attempted to avoid all of the hub-bub in regards to the 08 presidential candidates because the press tends to be redundant, occasionally biased (who’s ever seen equal coverage??), and, at times, just plain exasperating. However, the media has continued to taunt me with snippets of Palin’s speech since the day I missed it and has tweaked my interest. Due to intrigue, I have managed to find the official text and see what all the excitement was about. During the Republican Convention, Sarah Palin proved herself to be an eloquent speaker. She stated all the right things we all want to hear. She’s a smooth one alright, spewing words to inspire, uplift, and make your toes tingle.

Palin’s acceptance began with praise of McCain, quickly leading into a humbling portrait of herself and her family. She spoke to our hearts as she told of her three month old son who has Down syndrome -the portrayal of a motherly, down-to-earth kind of woman that many of us can relate to. She goes on to discuss her experience as a small-town mayor, stating that she always sticks to her story, revealing that she never supported the Bridge to Nowhere and against lobbyists. This point raised red flags in my mind. According to various sources, Palin did support the Bridge to Nowhere at one time as well as hired a lobbyist that secured $27 million for Wasilla, Alaska while she was Mayor.

Governor Palin believes it is necessary to break “our dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart” by increasing our domestic oil supply specifically through drilling in Alaska. As much as I am for breaking our addiction to foreign oil, I disagree with drilling in Alaska. I believe that preserving the natural beauty and environment of the state is very important. It is virtually impossible to increase drilling and not harm the environment in some way. I do agree, however, on the importance of moving forward with alternative sources of energy. We are in a time of great energy demand changes and as more people are using more energy the concerns over global warming are skyrocketing.

As with any political campaign, one cannot leave out a little bashing of their opponent. According to Palin,Obama’s plan is to “make government bigger…take more of your money…give you more orders from Washington…and to reduce the strength of America”. “How will we be better off if these types of policies are made?” she asks. This is a valid question. The same could be asked of a McCain-Palin administration. Palin answers this by stating that McCain will use his career to promote change, mentioning his honorable journey from prisoner of war to Oval Office. McCain’s story is powerful and moving – a sound strategy for the Republicans. “For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds”. Leave it to the ever eloquent Palin to portray McCain as America’s hero.

Despite some twists of truth (what Politician doesn’t?), Palin made a valid argument for a McCain administration. Her words weigh heavy on our hearts, gaining my attention and millions of others. Perhaps I’ll become a Republican?

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-powerful-speech/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/going-beyond-textbooks http://www.statesurge.com/news/going-beyond-textbooks#comments Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:52:24 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=108 This moment in time has never been more fundamental for education reform. Innovative information is opening up to parents and their communities in order to compare public school rankings and overall student performances among school districts. As these changes occur, more and more failing schools are being reformed. But at what cost should the price be on change?]]> Author: Sara Hilbert

This moment in time has never been more fundamental for education reform. Innovative information is opening up to parents and their communities in order to compare public school rankings and overall student performances among school districts. As these changes occur, more and more failing schools are being reformed. But at what cost should the price be on change? According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, US citizens are paying more per student for K-12 public education than nearly all other economically advanced countries. The importance of education is indisputable. Still, we doubt increased spending because we it does not significantly improve performances of students in the American public schools system. Looking into the future, combined with the current economic downfall and the increasingly fierce international competition happening around us, it has never been as important to embrace education reforms in our collaborative efforts to create a well-educated society.

There are two pending bills that have a great impact on the interest of education; the Head Start for School Readiness Act (S.556) and SPEAK – Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids Act (S.224). The first, under Chief Sponsor Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), provides a plan to increase children’s knowledge in language, preliteracy, premathematics, emotional, and physical skills through Head Start programs. It also provides adequate training and programs to include children with limited English proficiency and those referred by child welfare services. The SPEAK Act, sponsored by Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT), is an amendment to add science to the mandatory biennial national and state academic achievement assessments. The information included on these assessments will increase content standards in mathematics and science to reflect the knowledge students need to enter college and apply in the workforce to compete in the global economy. Whereby, recent statistics have shown that the United States education significantly lags behind their industrial peers. This is more than a need to reform, this is a call for serious analysis of stagnate results, overreliance on standardized testing, and a new combination of successful programs. It is striking to see other countries like China, South Korea, and Japan score higher in education; maybe we should start taking some lessons.

While the powerful combination of these two bills using head start programs and effective goals for assessments are strong enough to move forward, it is only the beginning to a long road ahead.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Regrettably America remains ignorant concerning international affairs. We are so focused on our American lives that sometimes we tend to forget about the increasingly globalized world. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t always give us the full picture or even a much needed background of an issue we may all be unfamiliar with. Due to this, I wonder how many Americans actually know the details of the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Or, perhaps an even more compelling question, where in the world Georgia is even located? No, I am not speaking about that lovely state on the East Coast. Let’s broaden our horizons, shall we?

Georgia is a small nation in South Western Asia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia. One might say this small nation has been a thorn in Russia’s side. What has triggered the recent crisis? A series of clashes between Georgia and South Ossetia had prompted Georgian forces to react with force, launching attacks on August 7th. Georgia kept its grip on the capitol city of Tskhinvali for part of the next day. Russia reacted with bombing raids over the province and other targets throughout Georgia. It is unclear whether Russian forces entered before or after the attacks. On one hand, Georgia claims they attacked due to intelligence that a large procession of Russian amour was making its way to South Ossetia. Russia, on the other hand, maintains that they were only acting to defend Russian citizens in the area as well as Russian peacekeepers. Many civilians have escaped the South Ossetia area and traversed into the Russian Republic of North Ossetia. More than half or South Ossetia’s 70,000 citizens are said to have taken Moscow’s offer of Russian citizenship. Until recently, Russia said it appreciated Georgia’s territorial integrity. It was only looking out for Russian citizens. Putin announced it was unlikely for a South Ossetia-Georgia reunion.

The South Ossetia and Abkhazia areas both represent important territorial regions. In South Ossetia, there are crucial pipelines that carry oil and gas, while Abkhazia has some key tourist areas and important ports. South Ossetia fought for independence in 1991-92. It usually runs its own affairs. On August, 26, 2008, the Russian president announced it recognized S. Ossetia’s independence. The Ossetians are a distinct ethnic group, initially from the Russian plains south of the Don River. In the 13th century, they were forced southwards by Mongol incursions into the Caucus Mountains, settling along the Georgian border. The South Ossetians would love to reunite with their counterparts in North Ossetia. Georgia rejects the notion.

In recent years, Georgia has become a close ally to the United States. In recent years Georgian troops have worked closely with American troops in Iraq. The U.S, in turn, has helped train and arm the Georgian Army. Furthermore, the United States support Georgia’s goal of becoming a member of NATO. Recently, a resolution by the U.S Congress has been introduced concerning Georgian membership. H.CON.RES.409 supports awarding membership to Georgia and Ukraine in the December 2008 meeting. Congress believes that the expansion of NATO will bring more effectiveness. Also, Congress recently introduced the bill, H.R. 6851, which would provide assistance to Georgia with recovery. Both the United States and Europe have condemned the move for independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. According to NATO, the Russian declaration violated numerous U.N Security Council resolutions that Russia had initially supported.

The fight for independence and the widespread recognition of that independence is no stranger to America. As I am not an authority on the subject, I cannot say that the events in Georgia were right or wrong. Nevertheless, I will leave you with some food for thought. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .” (Declaration of Independence, 1776).

It seems this Presidential election will bring about some firsts in United States history: a black man as president or a woman as vice president. The announcement of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain’s Vice President has definitely evoked a strong reaction throughout the nation. Perhaps that is what the “maverick” was looking for? It has been highly noted that Palin lacks experience with only two years as Governor and before that a Mayor. Despite her lack of experience in foreign policy and such, Palin does have much experience with the general public, especially those in Alaska. What the real question we should be asking does not involve experience, but where does she stand on the issues.

Senator McCain announced Palin as someone “who can best help me shake up Washington”. Palin took office on December 4, 2006 as the first woman Governor of Alaska. As Governor, her top priorities have been transportation development, public health and safety, education and workforce development and resource development. The Palin Administration invested five billion dollars in state savings, implemented the Senior Benefits Program, and overhauled education funding. Governor Palin is well known for her advocacy in drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska, specifically the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Ironically, McCain and Palin have differing views concerning the topic. McCain opposes drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, while his opponent Obama supports the idea. Governor Palin agrees with Obama about completion of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. Also, Palin fought against legislation, sponsored by Senator Lieberman, which intended to designate the Artic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. She created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, which provides oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment and facilities.

Although a bit of an outsider in the Republican Party, Palin has shown fearlessness throughout her years as Mayor and as Governor. She has gained a reputation of political purity, trying to clean up the mess of corruption. For instance, she resigned as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission due to the deficiency of ethics moral principles in other Republican members. Palin left frustrated after her complaints of conflict of interests and legal violations within the committee. Governor Palin has served as chair of other committees as well. She currently serves as chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, promoting the preservation and effective recovery of domestic oil and natural gas while still protecting the environment, public safety, and health. Recently, she was appointed chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resource Committee. The committee pursues legislation to guarantee state needs are considered as federal policy is created in the areas of energy, environmental protection, agriculture, etc. She has passed two major pieces of legislation to overhaul state ethic laws and a completive process to construct a gas pipeline. In addition, Palin submitted the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. The legislation is to act as a medium to get natural gas pipelines built and bring state’s extensive gas reserves to the market.

John McCain is known as the “maverick” in this campaign for presidency. Perhaps that is the very reason he chose Governor Palin to be his running mate. Together, they may indeed be the ticket to shake up Capital Hill and even the nation. “Leaders don’t wait. They shape their own frontiers. The bigger the challenge, the greater the opportunity” – Anonymous.

Author: Sara Hilbert

The McCain Campaign not only recently announced their vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin this Friday, they shocked us with it. Over these last view days America has searched, googled, and gossiped about the life of this Alaskan Governor.

Sarah Palin was born February 11, 1964 in Idaho and raised in Skagway, Alaska. Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho and married a lifelong commercial fisherman Todd. Nevertheless her most important role is being a mother of 5 children; Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Her involvement in the lives of her kids lead to her first major political move. Beginning at local PTA meetings, then moving on to city council, where she served two terms in 1992 and 1996 in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. She was then elected Mayor of Wasilla for two consecutive terms in 1996 and 1999. In 2006, Palin was elected Governor of the state of Alaska, becoming the states youngest and only female governor. But how will Palin handle the change of small town responsibilities to leading a country of 300 million? Once sworn in office, will Sarah Palin be following McCain around wondering what to do? This is not a sexist comment, but rather a question regarding her experience. The stage lights are a lot brighter in Washington than Juneau. Regardless of her good judgment and morale, Sarah Palin will be silently sitting in her inexperience at the defense meetings. Instead of bringing solid expertise and knowledge, she will try to take her backwoods data and weigh it to the country.

An additional point of question is the relationship between John McCain and Sarah Palin. The president and vice president don’t have to be the best pals; however, in order to be the most effective, they must be a comfortable and highly compatible combination. Compared to other choices like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, and Joe Lieberman, it is hard to convince us that this is a running mate that John McCain desired.

This claimed maverick reformer exploded this week at the GOP convention with a strong confidence. Palin made sure we knew she was not here to get a good opinion column from critics, but to stand up for the American people. With little known about her past records and law making, I wonder if she knows that she can’t clean house in Washington when they do not agree with her.

Does the Republican party really believe in her? Do they hope her small business background and same-as-us attitude will bring a more balanced approach to the candidate? Or has this become a poor strategy to win leftover Hilary votes? We have to look further down the road and ask, if in Washington will Governor Sarah Palin be ready?

Author: Jared Fallon

On August 27 South Korea’s President Lee Myung Bak announced a bold plan to “significantly reduce the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels” and at the minimum, quadruple the use of renewable energy by the year 2030. In this paradigm shift, South Korea’s plans include increasing the use of renewable energy sources by an average of 38 times the current level, the construction of 10 new nuclear power plants, a massive increase in the nation’s oil self-sufficiency, a boost in the development and production of fuel-cell cars, and improved energy efficiency grading systems for both the public and private sectors. Specific highlights of the new program include increases in:

- The amount of solar energy use by 44 times above the current level, biofuels by 19, and geothermal power by 51

- The nation’s self-sufficiency in oil and gas from 4.2 to 40 percent

- The amount of nuclear power used from the current 15 percent to 28 percent of the total expected energy consumption by the year 2030

In addition to the obvious benefits achieved by achieving significantly greater energy independence, the South Korean government expects the renewable and alternative energy sector to see the creation of 950,00 new jobs by the target date.

How does the US measure up?

While the current energy policy plans outlined by Congress are not even close to being temerarious enough, several legislatures as of late have been quite active in proposing legislation. Even though the current proposals do not rival South Korea’s most current policy in intensity, if such bills are indeed passed they would help form large waves of change in America, helping to pave the road to a more grounded energy policy. One such bill, S.3044, aims to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices. The bill is being sponsored by one of the most highly rated legislators (Harry Reid; D-NV) and is currently cosponsored by 23 other state senators.

Other pending bills of interest include H.R.6545 – a bill that would require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues and Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) S.3126 – a bill that would encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

Whether or not such bills are passed, it is irrefutable that the US does need a renewed sense of passion – a desire to achieve groundbreaking milestones of entrepreneurship, innovation, and excitement in regards to energy policies. As of late, amidst all of the increasing complaints of rising oil prices, politicians have pulled the “green card”- utilizing alternative and renewable energy topics at the forefront of their platforms. Will these long winded speeches ever equate to policies with substantial reforms? They need to, and they need to quickly if we are to have any hope for keeping up with other countries’ developments in the energy sector.

Author: Jared Fallon

On August 28, 2008 Russia’s General of Staff stated that “Despite the apparent strength, the NATO naval group in the Black Sea is not battle-worthy,” adding that Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO’s fleet “within 20 minutes”. Rising tensions between the US and Russia have diverted most of our attention to the Georgia/Russia conflict despite the fact that tensions are still incredibly high in the oil-rich Black Sea. For some time, US ally Turkey has been conducting extensive research with BP to explore the possibility of investing great sums of money within the region in its pursuit for greater energy independence. Security within the region is obviously a high priority.

To no surprise, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has pushed S.3001on the Hill in order to “authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy…”. As oil sources are coming under increasingly greater demands it is no wonder that such bills are being proposed – and of no coincidence that Senator Levin would like to expand the Department of Energy’s jurisdiction. Levin’s experience in such military and energy policies are quite extensive and include his current positions as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For Levin’s extensive record in serving the people of Michigan, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

In a recent report conducted by the General Accountability Office (GAO) it was found that roughly two thirds of US corporations found ways to avoid paying federal income taxes between the years 1998 and 2005. Additionally, it was found that 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the United States partook in the same exercise. The report was initially requested by Senators Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and Carl Levin (D-MI). Many people believe that it is unfair for these corporations to avoid such a tax but considering the complexities and time spent on complying, why wouldn’t they?

Despite the fact that the United States is home to one of the friendliest business climates in the world, it also is known to have one of the most complex federal tax codes that can, at times, encourage corporations to spend large sums of money to discover methods of tax evasion, rather than encourage innovation. The US increasingly causes both individuals and corporations to bare this monolithic burden that can, and should be made easier. Amidst the developments and changes that are matched with the newest waves of globalization, the US needs to figure out ways to help it become more welcoming not only for US entrepreneurs but foreign corporations as well. A simplified federal income tax code would help accomplish this and in turn, create more competitive benefits for America.

Author: Jared Fallon

The word “change” has become one of the most paramount and beaten to death aspects of the 2008 Presidential Election. Given the average American’s view of President Bush and the War in Iraq, for most people it is no wonder that such a simple slogan could literally be the one-word brand that reminds everyone of Barack Obama – a man of many firsts. Aside from landmarks such as being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and the first African American nominated for President by the Democratic Party, the dimensions Obama brings to this Presidential race are deep. The intriguing thing about Obama’s strategy for running predominately on the concept of change is that his VP pick is exactly the opposite of the kind of change that many Obama supporters desire.

Joe Biden is a seasoned product of the Hill that began his political career as a Delaware Senator when Obama was only 10 years old. Since then he has made many landmarks – most of which are not “change”, but a reincarnation of what many Obama supporters are avoiding the Republican Party for. Biden was not only awarded the “Face for the Future” by Time Magazine his first senatorial term but now stands as the sixth-longest serving senator in history. To get some insight into the long list of legislation Biden has been involved in, click here. For Obama and Biden dual-sponsored bills, click here. Is this the type of “change” Obama’s supporters are looking for? Obama might have just killed his chances.