The United States has engaged in numerous invasive efforts all over the world in the past couple decades to quell foreign threats to the nation. None more influential and costly than the invasions of Middle Eastern nations in order to continue our efforts in combating terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Ever since September 11, 2001 the United States has been combating threats in different parts of the Middle East such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But there needs to be a certain amount of intelligence and information that needs to be gathered and when there are high profile targets being captured, its almost an unlimited amount of information that could be gleaned.
While this sounds like it's wonderful news, the fact that the United States has information to be used, it must be obtained in some form or fashion. This is where things start to get a little scary. Ever since United States forces entered foreign soil there has been the necessity for prisons and interrogation facilities for high profile terrorists; or at least that is what the public is told. The public has been told that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques or EIT's are what are used to obtain information about certain threats. The general public now knows these techniques fall under a different sort of criteria, this being torture. The history of torture tactics being used has been quite rich in the fact that it is very graphic and incredibly disturbing. Reports from the main interrogation sites including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have shown that inhumane conditions, procedures, and a multitude of other humane rights violations had been committed at least one hundred times over and this makes for one of the absolute most horrifying cases of human desecration in the history of mankind.
Now coming to the real issue at hand, why was there no evidence to be seen? Once the images that were released in 2004 were viewed by the public eye, general outrage was sparked and the United States government now had to scrutinize its staff closely in the Middle East and had to monitor more closely how their prisoners were being treated and handled. There were hundreds of hours of this torturing that was documented on tape and in pictures but the CIA interrogation tapes were all destroyed and no one seemed to know by whom. The order was given by a lead CIA operations officer by the name of Jose Rodriguez but the actual destruction of the tapes was never documented, they just "disappeared" never to be seen. The effect of the public seeing the tapes would have been far worse than the reaction to them hearing about the existence of these tapes. The situation is ongoing and there are still investigations occurring but the only action that can be taken is against those who were documented taking part in the events and contributing to the illicit activities. The documentation of these torture tactics continue to spark public outrage and most likely will continue to do so.
Again and again same sex marriage has had a way of working it's way into the spotlight of mainstream media as well as mainstream politics. Now it could become apart of our nation's mainstream social policy which is an incredibly big step in the positive direction for same-sex couples. In April the Supreme Court has allowed the hearing of landmark marriage cases regarding the ban of same-sex marriage that some states have set in place. The court will hear these cases to determine the constitutionality of these state bans.
Now starting at the arguments origin. Arising from the four states in the Sixth Appellate District there are two distinct issues. One being whether or not the 14th Amendment can be utilized for requiring states to recognize the right for same-sex couples to marry. But the last issue is a real kicker because it deals with whether or not a marriage conducted in one state is permitted to be recognized in another state that may or may not recognize gay marriage.
As the legal system sees it there are three options that available. One is that the Court will decide to add a new right to the Constitution via the Fourteenth Amendment. This could go over because the Court could find the states in violation of the privileges and immunity's clause. The only other time the court has ruled on a marriage issue since the ratification of the Constitution has been the 1967 Court ruling on interracial marriage. Traditionally the rules on marriage have been state controlled.
Another option is just to say no to both issues that are presented. If the justices are to do so they would be ruling on the idea that there is no constitutional right being violated. They would also be saying that the states have enough power and enough credit to take control and make decisions for themselves and be independent of federal government involvement.
A last option that is available to the court is to say yes to one option and no to the remaining options that have been presented to them. The Court would be stating that there is no constitutionally delegated right to same-sex marriage and that states have the power to regulate marriage laws. But in the same instance the Court would also be requiring states to uphold the full faith and credit clause of Article IV which mandates states to uphold every public act conducted by states including marriage.
The gay marriage debate has been a long and lengthy one but there could be a light at the end of this long tunnel. In my personal opinion either option one or three would be the best courses of action because if the court's rule out of favor with gay couples and gay rights supporters then this could lead to a nationwide uproar. The importance of this Supreme Court ruling has never been seen or felt since the fight for civil rights in the 20th century.
In the next week, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that is landmark for the Gay Marriage struggle. Even if it is going to the Court, most Americans have given their opinions on same-sex marriage and the general consensus is there is no turning back on the issue. This new feature of society will continue to move forward no matter what people say otherwise.
So far the highest Court in the land has elected to not rule on the issue with a clear decision. This issue has arisen once again with gay couples filing petitions for the Court to make a federal ruling on the decision. Considering the disagreements that the lower courts have had on the issue this would make it so much more harder for the Supreme Court to stay out of the game and instead force them into the picture no matter how reluctant they are to rule. Now a ruling on either side of the issue could infuriate millions of people with controversial views about each side of the conflict, but for most they believe that this issue will progress forward. Previously in June of 2013 the Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 which meant that the Court had stopped very short of making same-sex marriage a basic right to those that chose to take advantage of it.
Some have compared the fight for gay marriage rights with the Civil Rights fight of the 1900's. These rights were fought for and won. Will gay marriage rights be attained in the same fashion?
It's not like it hasn't happened before, political officials take bribes and it makes the government look bad. But when the individual is indicted for 14 counts of illicit activities, mostly accepting bribes for the exchange of favors from a wealthy eye doctor friend and political donor named Salomon Melgen. When bribery and debauchery is projected onto a political scale it seriously becomes a big deal.
The individual in question is Senator Robert Menendez. Allegedly since he began in the Senate in 2006, he had accepted close to 1 million dollars in gifts and campaign contributions from Melgan. Menedez accepted these gifts in exchange for helping Melgan bring girlfriends and mistresses across the border from the Dominican Republic and other Central/South American nations. Menedez helped Melgen's cause by supporting visa's for the women as well as lobbying on the doctor's behalf when he would have any Medicare financial interest disputes. Lastly, Melgen has a port security contract in the Dominican Republic, no secret now as to who (Menendez) helped him with it. The indictment started with the 2006 action and continued into 2012. Reports eventually were leaked that when Menendez and his close associate Melgen were not having women flown in from exotic places, they were going there themselves, most of the trips that the men took were way above Menedez's pay grade. The Senator had reportedly taken many flights aboard Melgen's private jet and repaid Melgen by doing him many lobby favors as well as supporting him on financial issues with the government.
So all in all, this political figure is doing some really illegal and really inappropriate activities. Senator Robert Menedez has been pushed to resign from his position, but has favored instead to fight the charges and is using an obscure "Speech and Debate Clause" within the Constitution to defend himself and not answer questions. While it has been working with mixed success most political scholars are stating that Menendez will not have long before he is in very hot water with the legal system. The Clause, when put into layman's terms, says that Sen. Menendez has immunity to his felonies and speaking about them until "smoking gun" evidence is found. This is quite a large Congressional issue because it shows where the weak points with our Congressional members are. It affects the integrity of the Senate and also affects the integrity and trust of our Congress members as a whole. Events are still playing out so the final result still has yet to be seen and developed. As a final question to be posed, what does the Senator's (former) wife think about all of this?
If you were in the position of negotiation with a foreign prime minister, and progressive peace talks were starting to roll smoothly, wouldn't you find it irritating if that certain prime minister said a few objective things, collaborated with your opposing political party and absolutely halted any chance of progression in peaceful negotiations? Oh and adding to the fray wouldn't it be irritating if this was your ally? As of right now this is the situation between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A few weeks ago the Israeli Prime Minister came to the United States and gave a speech to many Congress members. This visit and speech had been suggested by Speaker of the House John Boehner. This invitation was intended to demonstrate that foreign relations were excellent with Israel. Unfortunately, this also wasn't exactly kosher as any visit like this has to go through President Obama first. Republicans also didn't help the Netanyahu-Obama situation by sending a letter to Tehran, threatening to terminate negotiations over a Palestine two-state solution, and Iranian nuclear negotiations. These are the two issues that Obama and Netanyahu don't exactly see eye-to-eye on. Front and center is the Palestinian two-state solution that Netanyahu has done a total about face on, this makes this extremely awkward as the basis of the peace negotiations on the American side is a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel. So as of right now, President Obama is not exactly satisfied with what Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying and doing.
If anything is to be done with Israel and the United States, Obama and Netanyahu have to get along. Not watering this down to the point where it becomes kindergarten type cooperation, but these two heads of state need to start cooperating so that action can be taken and things can actually be done. Unfortunately Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been historically uncooperative with Obama because of his stance and his party stance on international issues, and instead has been more cooperative with the Republican side of things. There is a bright side to this though as Netanyahu has been showing signs of support and cooperation for President Obama on other problems, this could mean future agreements and forward action to get the ball rolling with other pressing issues.
Political ad attacks usually hit home with many viewers and the people that they target; very soon people will be seeing them everywhere. This being said, the first ad to go after 2016 election cycle Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, was released this weekend and is planned to air in between Sunday and Tuesday news hours. The ad is yet to be seen by most viewers as it is was released under a small advertising buy of around $200,000.00. The political group that created the ad is a small neoconservative group that has shown incredibly strong support for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. This ad comes in light of another ad that was released by the same group, only this one was released via the Internet; the web ad (below) is extremely critical of President Obama and his administration as well as Hillary Clinton and their involvement with talks about Iran's nuclear program.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in strong disapproval of Iran's nuclear progress and this view sits well with a number of Republican party members. One of these Republican party members being John Boehner, who had invited Benjamin Netanyahu to the United States to give a speech addressing the House and showing his support for the Republican Party. Going back to the advertisements though the web ad made sure to include how "weak" the Democrats seem when it comes to foreign policy posing the question "Where is Hillary?". These two ads have started off the 2016 election cycle with a bang, already showing the battle lines that have been drawn between the parties. The power of the ads is a strong indicator about how and where political ads are spread and what information is included in them. The invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu has been put into the public eye as a sort of "peaceful gesture" and a display of how strong Republican foreign policy could be, as it shows that already Republican ties with Israel are "secure". While things may seem good for the Republican Party not many seem to agree with what they have done, this invitation and the follow up media have stirred some controversy. First off, the invitation of Netanyahu was not run by the President for his approval nor was he made aware of the whole affair until it was already planned and the information for the address was released to the media. Secondly, many of the House Democrats are with President Obama and do not approve of such a visit or a speech; this has led many to state that they will be boycotting the speech and hope others will follow suit.
In my personal opinion I do believe that the political ads released have all the right criteria to be effective in the political world. The ads are harsh, they have a clearly presented target and have issued a challenge to the Democratic Party. However what these ads are supporting isn't necessarily something that the entire public agrees with. This could affect how viewer opinions as well as approval of Republican political action. 2016 is a year away and the Presidential race is looming closer and closer as things start to heat up.
A touchy and sensitive issue may start becoming less sensitive and more open as of right now. Public opinion on gay marriage has started to change and almost has a "revolutionary" view on it. For example, in California public view on gay marriage has changed drastically as more and more couples have started to come out. According to the Pew Research Center a cause for this sudden public approval is many people have relatives who have come out as gay and have confided that they have partners as well. This has led to a change of heart for many Californians as well as people out of state.
According to the Pew Research Center the majority of registered voters (61%) on the California state level approve of allowing same-sex couples to marry. Only 32% reported that they opposed. This shows that in a state as diverse and large as California, there is an increased interest in changing views on a major American issue that has always been sensitive for most and the idea of a gay couple getting married was never thought of up until the past few years. Now moving to the large scale public view of gay marriage. Nationwide, people between the ages of 18-32 the public approval of gay marriage stands at 70%. While this is significant, the most interesting part of the nation poll has to be the increase in approval of gay marriage in the over 65 age group, this approval rating has gone from 13% to 31% from 2003 to 2013 when the poll was taken. As in California, the driving point that helped change public opinion was the fact that many people knew or were related to someone who was gay. The personal relationship that people have seems to be the significant driving factor and since its a typically close relationship many people start to readily approve of gay relationships and marriages.
In my personal opinion I believe that the progress being made with the approval of gay marriage is excellent. It is a public opinion issue on the state government levels which makes it all the more crucial because it could set excellent precedents for other state governments whether to approve or disapprove of gay marriage. I believe that equal marriage rights for all would be the best solution and that it should be legalized and recognized by the States that oppose this issue. When public opinion is swayed one way or another then political action is sure to follow. This higher public opinion for approval of gay marriage is a step closer for total marriage equality.
Everyone may be tired of hearing about it but Same-Sex Marriage arguments are still going on in the political world and they are as strong as ever. But the battle lines are becoming a little more clearer now, the majority of Democrats favoring an equal right to a recognizable marriage for all while the Republican majority believe the exact opposite; only a traditional "man and woman union" is to be recognized. Recognition of marriage is important because of social security benefits and for the marriage to be recognized by the government in order to secure more benefits as a married couple.
A continual battleground for this issue has been North Carolina. As of right now a referendum has been passed which has amended North Carolina's state constitution so that it explicitly states the only legal civil union that it recognizes is between a man and a woman. The referendum is the States first constitutional amendment and is going a step further than what the state already has done, which is make same-sex marriage illegal. This step is making it nearly impossible for any legislation to be passed which would make the recognition of a married same-sex couple legal. Democrats in the state have agreed that this referendum is a setback but will continue to fight for equal rights. Republican legislature has stated that they will be sticking to what they have presented and will continue to fight for what they believe is right in the eyes of the law and for the better interests of society in North Carolina.
In my personal opinion I believe I would side with the Democratic party on this issue. It is a constitutional issue on the state level which makes it all the more important because it could set examples for other state governments whether to approve or disapprove of gay marriage. I believe that equal marriage rights for all would be the best solution and that it should be legalized and recognized by the States that oppose this issue with a passion. Also the law regarding how a marriage is defined in the eyes of the state law is also a gray area which is why some states are making steps, like North Carolina, to make it a more black and white issue. More information can be found at:
