It’s Not Entrapment If It’s Terrorism…

In the post 9/11 world, there is no question that civil liberty has taken a back seat to national security on multiple occasions at an unprecedented rate.  As America has worked to regain it’s coveted position as the undisputed, untouchable world power, counterterrorism and pro-democracy efforts have become a primary concern for American foreign and domestic policy.  Never will the United States be caught lethargically or inattentively protecting it’s citizens or it’s ideals from enemies, domestic and abroad, who seek to destroy what America stands for, regardless of the measures the government must take for security.

This point of view, although not entirely without validity, is a dangerous position that the government has adopted to defend the controversial and downright illegal actions that have been implemented in the wake of 9/11.  From depriving the basic due-process rights of foreign prisoners to most recently creating terrorists plots with the intention of stringing along participants to ultimately arrest them, the United States is creating a chilling precedent in regards to civil liberties and their importance when levied against national security.  

Recently, the FBI has been facilitating and orchestrating false terrorists plots by identifying possible extremists and using undercover officers and informants to communicate and assist them in developing an attack.  As David Shipler comments, in his article regarding the FBI terrorists plots, “… All these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.”  One would assume such intimate involvement, with seemingly every detail of the planning process constructed by the FBI, would clearly foster a legitimate claim of entrapment.  However, case after case has been deemed constitutional because the shear mens rea to commit such an atrocity has been viewed as warranting punishment.

Though I do not disagree that those who plan to attack the United States or murder innocent people should be punished to the highest extent, I do not believe that this fact alone trumps any constitutional or basic human right that every person is privileged too.  Entrapment was created for the exact purpose of flushing out corruption and solidifying the legitimacy of the American legal system.  What the United States is doing now with these fictitious terrorist plots is threatening that very legitimacy.

The United States cannot continue to coerce or facilitate non-existent terrorist plots in order to “prevent” possible attacks on US soil.  Considering the current foreign threat potential within the world right now, it would be unrealistic and negligent to decrease security.  Yet, as the war on terrorism continues, a serious look at civil right infringement must be taken in order to prevent a tyrannical and obtrusive government from committing further human rights violations and further alienating America from the global community. 

How far is too far?

It would not be a stretch to say that Congress has done everything in its power to interfere or block the majority of President Obama’s legislative initiatives and programs.  When first taking office in 2009, President Obama boasted about bipartisan compromises and uniting a divided Congress.  With such a claim came understandable apprehension from the Obama administration to “ruffle the feathers” of Congress and especially the republican core.  However, as his first term unfolded, President Obama managed to be road blocked by Congress for almost the entire first two years. 

Unable to pass legislation or start nearly any of the programs on his agenda, President Obama has had to face an unfortunate and debatably dangerous realization.  This realization, best characterized by the old cliché “If you want to get something done, you have to do it yourself,” has led President Obama to adopt his new political slogan “We Can’t Wait.”

As Charlie Savage of the New York Times comments in his article Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals,

“… Increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Although progressive and proactive, this new way of thinking has effectively further alienated President Obama from his counterparts in the legislative branch.  Such exercise of executive power has left many on both the left and right side of aisle worried about how far this “flex of muscle” will reach. 

Many are worried that President Obama is extending his powers too far by effectively passing legislation by “bypassing lawmakers.”  However, my argument to this is what else is he supposed to do?  With a republican contingent in Congress hell bent on not cooperating or compromising with anything the administration has put forth, it seems the only logical next step for the President is to start doing it his own way.  Instead of viewing this as an overly aggressive executive branch’s play for extended power, I view this as a realization that if Congress refuses to help or even play an active role in the legislative process, than it is the Presidents duty to do what he feels is best for the country within his powers.  President Obama is pragmatically analyzing the political landscape in Washington and has identified a pattern of stall tactics from Congress.  If he is going to accomplish anything of value by the end of this term, sidestepping Congress to enact his own legislation seems the only way.  

America Earns Party MVP at the Conference of the Americas!

As tensions with Iran continue to escalate, trade issues with China maintain a stagnant pattern, North Korea tests active missiles over the ocean, America’s foreign relations have never been so strained. So when the opportunity for the United States, whom have enjoyed a hegemonic presence within the western hemisphere for decades, had the opportunity to attend the Summit of the America’s in Columbia, mending relations with long time allies and asserting American ideals with in the region seemed like a fools chore. Ah, how wrong we all were.

This past weekend President Obama and members of the Administration visited Columbia for the Summit of the Americas, an international convention attended by the majority of countries with in North and South America. The summit symbolized an opportunity for the Obama Administration to regain footing with in the region and show that the United States is still a prominent and influential member in the international community. However, the Summit took a back seat to an unrelated event involving members of the Obama secret service staff and Colombian prostitutes.

Allegedly, members of the secret service enjoyed the company of a select few Colombian prostitutes during a night off at the summit. Because prostitution is legal in Columbia, the standard protocol that these escorts follow involves leaving an identification card at the front desk of the hotel that must be retrieved before the end of the night because of a strict no guest policy implemented by the hotel. However, when a front desk attendant became aware of one card still present, further inquiry was required. What resulted was the discovery that one of the secret service agents had engaged in an argument over payment for one of the prostitutes. Clearly, there was an issue with the “going rate.” Ultimately, after minor police intervention, the agent paid up and the situation was resolved.

Now, although many would view this fiasco as detrimental and undermining to the United States presence at the summit, I say well done America. Not many countries can have eleven secret service men involved in a prostitution scandal and still show up the next morning to the summit with a straight face. As pictures of Hillary Clinton letting loose at a club in Columbia surfaced, it seems that America made the most of their brief stint in Columbia.

What we have here ladies and gentleman is the classic “sorry for partying” precedent that the Obama administration has chosen to go with. To be honest, the Obama crew is just a little overwhelmed right now and they needed some vacation time to get their heads straight. With Obamacare looking to be ousted by the Supreme Court, the re-election campaign beginning to gear up, a looming Iranian conflict, and the lackluster economic recovery, things have just not gone their way.

It’s not as if we count on them to be a representation of our nation right? They are not held to an even higher standard of scrutiny are they? I would not venture as far to say their conduct at such high level meetings is directly proportional to the political clout they can enjoy during negotiations? No, I would never go as far to say that.

But honestly, get it together guys.

Is the Repeal of ObamaCare the End of the Universal HealthCare Debate?

With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare, creating massive controversy and political unrest in recent weeks, nearly every political pundit, media commentator, and politician has weighed in on the debate. President Obama has vehemently defended his bill, urging the Supreme Court to let the legislation stand, while Republicans and even many Democrats have responded with criticism that this bill provides too much power for the government and infringes on citizen’s liberty.

At the crux of the issue exist three separate but related judicial questions to be decided by the Supreme Court after the oral arguments have drawn to a close that include a question of standing, a question regarding the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” provision, and a question pertaining to the expansion of Medicaid.

Now, although President Obama has dedicated much of his first term and political clout to the creation and implementation of this bill, the reality of the situation looks as though the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional. Due to the repeal of this legislation, the opposition, consisting of many Republicans and some Democrats, will view this as a resounding victory and a message to the American public that Government power is limited and in a Democratic society, citizens enjoy full liberty.

However, is this the true message that this decision is sending? Does this precedent ultimately silence the universal healthcare debate? For the sake of America’s future, I genuinely hope not. Healthcare must become an essential right and policy makers need to continue their zealous battle to create a sustainable, efficient system where that vision becomes realty.

Over 40 million Americans live every day afforded no health insurance coverage. Therefore, whenever a member of this deprived minority visits an emergency room, the American taxpayers foot the bill and the already overwhelmed and inadequately resourced health insurance industry continues to flounder. Consequently, it seems logical the Supreme court, given the current state of the health care industry, would be compelled to push this bill forward but this is not entirely the case.

In order to adequately comprehend the complexities of the three judicial questions the Supreme Court is considering, as step back must be taken to further articulate the issues. First, in regarding the question of standing, because the bill has not been put into effect yet, some argue the constitutionality of the bill cannot be decided. The Supreme Court has been empowered with Judicial Review (i.e. Marbury v. Madison) but the scope of that review extends to deciding issues that have already happened, not potential issues. Second, and most importantly, there is the issue of what has been coined as the “individual mandate” provision. This provision stipulates that those who have neither employer nor government-funded health care must obtain minimum health insurance coverage or face fines from the federal government. Lastly, the judges will decide on the constitutionality of the expansion of Medicaid, which increases benefits and coverage for those deemed to have pre-existing conditions, increases coverage to 30 million Americans through reformed funding from the government, as well as modifies certain aspects of both private and public health insurance programs.

Where the issue has found national controversy lies in the implications of the answer to the second question of the “individual mandate.” Opponents of this argue the government has no right to tell Americans they must buy healthcare. Many view this as a fundamental invasion of American’s civil liberties and a slippery slope for government intervention on individual’s lives. Conversely, the Obama administration, as well as many other countries and international organizations, feel that health care is a fundamental right that should be protected and regulated by the government, just as any other liberties like free speech and the right to privacy have been protected and overseen.

However, the semantics of the Obamacare bill aside, universal health care, which is the true concern, is something this country desperately needs. Adversaries to universal health care claim people should not be forced to pay for others but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that they already do through taxes, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, and higher insurance premiums. Everyone deserves health care and it is the government’s job to take care of the mentally ill, children, the elderly, veterans and the millions of others who have found themselves immersed in a minority class without health insurance or adequate treatment. Health care must find it’s way into everyone’s lives.

With that said, just because the Obamacare legislation may be overturned that does not mean the discussion is over. No matter the outcome, health care reform is the most pertinent and potentially destructive social issue facing the country today. A blind eye cannot be given to this problem; this problem will not fix it self. Only through reform and universal coverage will the millions of unhealthy and ignored Americans receive justice the adequate civil liberties provided to them in the constitution.

Attention! Republican Candidates, Keep Running for President?

I have always supported and advocated for the old cliché: the glass is always half full. Therefore, my inner optimist has to interject and shed some positive light on the ludicrousness that has become the Republican Presidential Primary. However, when considering every debacle that has consumed this campaign season, I found it far more difficult and arduous of an endeavor than I previously prepared for. With that said I was able to find one positive aspect that many of these candidates can hang their hat on, and that lovely word is… resilient? It’s not great, but it will have to work considering that is one of the only positives to be pulled out of this primary season.

Tonight, Mitt Romney swept the Wisconsin, Maryland, and District of Columbia primaries, inching that much closer to the necessary delegate count of 1,144 required to acquire the nomination. The former Massachusetts Governor effortlessly broke the 600-delegate mark, doubling that of increasingly far off contender Rick Santorum and further solidifying his position as the top contender.

With such a staggering deficit facing Santorum and an even worse one draping over the always-eccentric Newt Gingrich, one would assume that a possible resignation from the race would be on the horizon. However, startling both pundits and proletariats within the political landscape, it seems both candidates have pledged to keep fighting. Although this declaration may be viewed by some as commendable, one has to wonder how long will these two underdogs continue to wade in the rising tide that has become the Romney Machine and at what detriment will their persistent participation have on Romney’s success in the general election.

Suffice it to say, the Republican’s need every iota of support and party consolidation possible to beat the tyrannical President Obama. With Santorum continuing to churn the Tea Party bus and rally conservatives everywhere, it would be remiss of the party leaders to not caution against a possible backlash when Romney receives the nomination. The situation could adversely affect the conservative turnout for Romney in the general election and ultimately cost the Republicans a legitimate shot at the presidency.

As the general election creeps upon the constituency, the continually misaligned and disheveled Republican Party could be in for an up hill battle against President Obama. Only time will tell if this potential issue comes to fruition, but for now Santorum and friends seem content with hanging on by a thread.

OPTIMISTS UNITE!