Where do we draw the line?

As the Robert Mueller investigation continues to receive recognition throughout the nation and in the media, we notice the almost neutral position that our legislative branch is taking. In the past, Congress has always been keen on intervening when it comes to corruption and ethical dilemmas within a Presidential administration, but with our current unified government, this task is not so easy. Can Congress separate their own ambitions of party unity, in order to ensure national security. While this remedy might not be easy, both parties need to treat the threat of foreign interference as a bipartisan issue, rather than attempting to stay ignorant. The only way that this can happen in a situation, like the government is in now, is by addressing the individual rather than their party, and also if their party takes a larger role.    

Donald Trump is not the only one of our forty-five Presidents to come under investigation when it comes to possible corruption taking place during a Presidential administration. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and now Trump, have all faced similar scrutiny over their ethical behavior during their Presidencies. What I find so interesting though is, unlike the three Presidents mentioned prior, Congress had held an almost neutral attitude toward the Robert Mueller investigation, and the risk of Russia’s possible interference with the 2016 election. In the past, Congress has often taking a larger role in calling out the executive branch out on their unethical decisions, forming tribunals in order to get to the truth out of the administrations proceedings. Some of these even leading to the impeachment of a President, such as Nixon and Clinton. The difference that we see now though, is that unlike Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton, President Trump is the only one who is experiencing a unified government in his Presidency. The fact the we currently have both a Republican executive branch and a legislative Republican majority puts a government in a very sticky place.

Out of the three Presidents, the only one who’s situation is similar to Trump’s, is President Ronald Reagan in the Iraq-Contra incident. It wasn’t about another state messing within our democratic system, but the United States messing in another state’s democratic system. In the latter half of his Presidency, Reagan had been supplying a rebel group, formally known as the Contras, with weapons and later with money in order to topple the socialist Nicaraguan government. During this time in Reagan’s Presidency, it was the Democrats that held the majority in the House and the Senate, so when the President had continued to provide “under the table” assistance to the Contras, after Congress had already ruled that Reagan did not have the authority to encourage and assist terrorists to topple a government, it left Congress no other alternative then to put a tribunal together. The President, and those that were also involved, were brought fourth for questioning by Congress. The purpose was to address the ethical issue of supplying terrorist, but also the President’s complete disregard for the law enacted by Congress, that made it clear that he could not do this. Our breech into Nicaragua’s national security caused our Congress to enforce consequences.

The same concern could be said for the current investigation on the unconfirmed Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, but this time we are facing a potential breech in our own national security. If the Russians were able to have the ability to change our democratic system, then this is something that should be very troubling to both Democrats and Republicans alike. The security of our nation, should be the greatest importance, and party loyalty should I know way “trump” that importance. At the end of the day, we are American’s first, before Republican or Democratic. That’s why this lack of involvement on Congress’ part, party seems to be “trumping” our need to hold power, over the country. I think the only remedy that we could have, is for the Republicans to take on a larger part in a tribunal itself, and separating Trump from being put just put under the Republican political ideology. I think it gives us power as a nation, by dealing with the ethical dilemma, and if Russia was involved in messing with the Democratic system, it calls them out the rest of the world about more solid evidence of their corruption. If Congress tries to avoid addressing the Mueller investigative process, despite Congress’ similar intervention during the Iraq-Contra development, it could be worse for Republicans in the end.

Nuclear and Ballistic Missiles by All Means

Just south of Africa lies the magnificent republic of Mozambique. The country has its edges beautified by Indian Ocean a feature that encourages fishing and its beaches attract many. The fish industry in Mozambique may not bring in as much revenue as it did a few years ago but is still an activity the country prides itself with especially with its many offshore fishing grounds. This activity seems to have caught the attention of North Korea Leader Kim Jon Un.

North Korea and the Republic of Mozambique are reportedly taking part in an illicit joint fishing venture. CNN journalists report that they spotted Susan 1 and Susan 2, Pyongyang’s vessels manned by North Korea crew members, at the port of Maputo, Mozambique. These vessels are defined as no ordinary vessels but are the sanction-bustling trawlers. The United Nations has implemented sanctions against illicit joint fishing ventures between countries. Additionally, the United Nations and the United States came up with tougher sanctions aimed at stopping money from flowing into North Korea’ Leader, Kim Jong Un’s “notorious nuclear slush fund, known as Office 39”. These funds are needed by the regime to keep the nuclear and ballistic missiles program functioning.  According to CNN reports, North Korea has taken to Mozambique to tap in the much-needed cash. This is just another sanction violation North Korea is caught in. Apart from the joint fishing sanction violation, North Korea has also been criticized for violating other UN sanctions such as participating in trade of commodities banned for exportation and illegal exportation of coal.

Mozambique Foreign Minister Maria Lucas rejected the existence of a joint illicit fishing venture between the two countries citing that Mozambique has no interest to cooperate with the North Korea leaders and are complying with the United Nations to prove that they are not in violation of the US and UN sanctions.  She stated that the only relation that the Republic of Mozambique and North Korea have is nothing but political.

The threat of North Korea obtaining nuclear and Ballistic Missile is a great concern to the international community and especially the United States.  This explains why the current administration has taken upon itself to toughen the sanctions aimed at hindering North Korea, Kim Jong Un and his regime, from finding means to fund his program. Seeing that a special panel was set up to monitor sanctions imposed because of the Pyongyang’s illicit nuclear weapons program, it is arguable that there is evidence that North Korea is determined to enrich its nuclear and ballistic missiles.

The president of the United States and the leader of North Korea are known to be at odds on most occasions especially on social media. Threats to attack each other have been made with each leader making claims that their weapons are more destructive compared to that of the other, and each of them stating their readiness to launch theirs.

Three parties are involved in this mess. Mozambique argues that there are no sanction violating activities involved in its waters a claim that only the visit by the sanctions panel can rule on its correctness. North Korea has been in violation of several sanctions placed on it by both the United States and the United Nations, so should we really rule out the probability that they are involved in this illegal activity? If they really are involved a number of questions can be asked; what should the US do? What does Mozambique get for their cooperation with North Korea? Are there any sanctions that would make it impossible for North Korea to keep adding to its nuclear and ballistic missile program? All these are questions that are not easy to answer. The United State has in its foreign policy agenda a goal to stop the flow of money into the program efforts that so far seem to be failing with North Korea determined to obtain

North Korea is a threat to the international community and to the United States. Whatever the reason for North Korea to want to make their weapons any stronger, the United States is incentivized to intervene. The United States should consider what sanctions would stop North Korea’s activities which should probably involve, and if Mozambique is found to have been an asset to breaking the sanctions, the UN should take disciplinary actions aimed at deterring other nations from aiding North Korea to get funds to for the nuclear and ballistic missiles. Since North Korea has decided to get the nuclear and ballistic missiles by all means, maybe  the US should stop the nuclear and ballistic missiles by all means.

The Aftermath of Cutting Funding to Palestine

Most Americans want their tax dollars to go toward funding domestic programs for their own peers and for their own children. We can all respect the desire for American money to go to American programs and services. As an economic powerhouse, the United States has continued to be one of the largest donors to many international programs that help citizens of foreign countries as opposed to our own. For the duration of 2017, the United States was giving $360 million annually to U.N. Relief and Works Agency according to Scott Anderson who works with the UNRWA.[1] However, under President Trump’s administration, it was decided that the funding would be cut dramatically by 83 percent, as stated by Anderson.

This is all in President Trump’s plan after having declared Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in December of 2017, after prior administrations had avoided officially supporting Jewish sovereignty over that of the Arab people. Palestinians are already up in arms about losing Jerusalem as the United States plans to move its embassy into the city. Now, they face losing millions of dollars of benefits from the UNRWA that help keep their already horribly impoverished area somewhat stable. Ever since the Arab-Israeli war, the UNRWA has been assisting the people of Palestine and the surrounding nations keep education, healthcare, and security alive despite being a war-stricken area.[2] To defund the majority of that as a way to emphasize one’s support for moving favor toward the Israelis is asinine at best.

It is not in President Trump or his top advisors’ interests to show any concern for refugees. In his campaign run, he was quite strict on ensuring no sanctuary cities would gain funding and his dream of a border-wall is not yet dead. It is not wise though, to take away from an already suffering region not only their political power but now also their only means to gain an education or the opportunity out of oppression. The ethical issues are quite obvious; to take away from starving, poor children their main hope to receive healthcare or food is truly immoral. Yet, politicians rarely are concerned with morals unless their actions would lose voters’ support. To truly get the message across to President Trump just how important it is to continue to give funding to the UNRWA, you must use a fear every leader since George W. Bush understands: the threat of terrorism.

It is often discussed in urban areas with high gang prevalence like Chicago, how dire it is to continue funding after-school programs even when the state is well into debt. When children have access to activities that keep them occupied outside of school hours, they are less likely to join gangs and continue the menacing cycle that is all too familiar for anyone who watches the local news every night. Just as we face domestic forms of terrorism in our own neighborhoods, so do the people of Palestine and its surrounding nations. When children no longer have access to even a rudimentary education and basic healthcare, they are easily persuaded by the promises radical groups use to gain recruits. It is much easier to promise someone amenities, success, and a happier life when they have none of the above. While the UNWRA does not make living in a war-stricken impoverished area automatically wonderful, it does make it significantly more tolerable.

Chris Gunness serves as a spokesperson for the UNWRA and spoke to The Guardian about what would happen if President Trump continued to defund supplies and services to the children of Palestine and its adjacent nations. He believes that the “half a million children across the region,” would have nothing to do except be recruited by “extremists,” in the local area.[3] The greatest way to truly help the United States in the fight against terrorism is to be proactive and continue to fund the UNWRA. Showing support for the people of Palestine, especially those who are younger and impressionable, is one of the greatest ways to prevent these individuals from joining extremist groups one day.

---

[1] Anderson, Scott. “The Unintended Consequences of Trump's Palestinian Budget Cuts.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 2 Feb. 2018, foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/02/the-unintended-consequences-of-trumps-palestinian-budget-cuts/.

[2] Holmes, Oliver. “'It's a Death Sentence': Palestinians in Jerusalem Brace for Trump Aid Cuts.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 Jan. 2018, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/jerusalem-trump-aid-cuts-shuafat-israel-palestine.

[3] Holmes, Oliver. “'It's a Death Sentence': Palestinians in Jerusalem Brace for Trump Aid Cuts.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 Jan. 2018, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/jerusalem-trump-aid-cuts-shuafat-israel-palestine.

Syria’s Use of Chemical Weapons Must be Stopped

       We have previously warned Syria to stop using chemical weapons on their people, but there have been constant reports of their use, and we’re getting tired of warning them. Our Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, has issued another warning to the Syrian Regime. The United States has acted after a previous chemical attack, so they should be cautious. We are aware that they’ve continued to use chemical weapons during Trump’s administration, but we are trying to find more evidence of its use on the battlegrounds. Our administration has to find a way to exterminate Syria’s use of chemical weapons because it’s inhumane, and the regime broke an agreement created during the Obama Administration. What can the United States do?
        In early April 2017, our government launched missiles towards a Syrian base. It wasn’t just a single missile; it was 59 missiles. First of all, that was an excessive use of our weapons for a single base attack. If our objective was to destroy the base along with weapons, I believe we should’ve attacked more bases and used an even amount of missiles to attack each. Syria has over a dozen bases spread out along their country, so if we attacked every base, we’d get more done. Trust me, I’m not a fan of using missiles to attack foreign nations, but it’d help to exterminate some of their weapons. Our current administration has placed a concern on this issue, and if they want to gain more popularity, they should attack to destroy their power.
        The Obama administration wanted to ensure that the regime wasn’t creating more chemical weapons, so OPCW(Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) were in charge. They visited 21 sites and made sure the weapons were dismantled or destroyed, but they weren’t able to visit two additional sites. They weren’t able to reach two of the sites because it put their lives in danger and they guessed that the weapons were dismantled. There’s no evidence that those chemical weapons were destroyed or anything, so the Syrian regime may have continued their creation. Our Security Council attempted to create a resolution for the joint investigative mechanism, which would investigate Syria’s use of these weapons. We failed to come with a collective agreement, which means we failed to protect Syrian civilians. This administration has to pass a deal for investigating chemical weapon usage and invest a lot of time to ensure that there’s no materials to make them.
         If we want to minimize any casualties, we should turn to the source of the weapons. Who’s giving Syria chemical weapons? Russia, who’s also used chemical weapons to attack Syrian civilians. Although we’ve destroyed most of Syria’s chemical weapons, Russia continues to supply chemical weapons, and we have to negotiate something with them. They continue to lie about their actions and there should be consequences for them too. Although there’s evidence that they meddled in our elections, our administration refused to impose sanctions on Russia. Russia’s current regime can be compared to Stalin’s regime, a regime that continuously broke promises. During the Obama Administration, Russia promised to stop using chemical weapons on foreign nations. Unfortunately, Russia continued to attack Syrians, and they will continue if no one intervenes. Trump should attempt to speak to Putin and al-Assad about this issue and come with a resolution.
         Since he has no trouble threatening Syria, he would warn them and give them potential consequences if they fail their agreement. The agreement should include discontinuing the usage and creation of chemical weapons, banning the use of sarin and chlorine entirely, and stopping the exportation of weapons from Russia to Syria. Also, Russia should remove themselves from the conflict in Syria, and we will deal with problems that arise. If there’s evidence that one of them breaks it, there should be consequences. Trump’s top officials should advise him to impose sanctions on Russia because Russia isn’t and never will be a good friend of ours.
       Bashar al-Assad needs to stop attacking his people and we are one of many powers that can work to stop him. These type of leaders don’t deserve to be in charge of an entire country, and the civilians deserve better. While scrolling on Facebook, I’ve seen dozens of Syrians yelling with excruciating pain, and their suffering brings me to tears. Many Syrians have fled away from this regime but not everyone has the resources to flee. ISIS is no longer the greatest threat in Syria, it’s al-Assad with Russia. It’s time to step up and be tough towards Russia.

Deportation: Not Just an American Phenomenon

     We all have that one house guest. The one that just will not leave. We all know the feelings of fatigue, frustration, and even guilt when forced to confront the personal conflict that one faces when their dear friend or relative will simply not see themselves out. Unfortunately, this happens on an international level as well, however, the stakes are much higher and the reasons for wanting to push people out have much more to do with prejudice than simply needing to spend some time alone to recharge one's metaphorical battery. The fatigue and frustration of behalf of the "hosts, aka the state leaders, is quite prevalent and the guilt is nowhere to be seen. Who are these terrible hosts? Believe it or not, the culprit here is Israel, the land founded on refugees fleeing persecution. Who are the "annoying house guests"? Tens of thousand of Africans from Eritrea and Sudan after a 2005 Egyptian crackdown forced these people to abandon their homes and seek shelter in another state. It is now that these people will, once again, be forced out of their current lifestyle and sent off to another country or face imprisonment due to what can only be bias toward those who do not practice Judaism. As an American living at the heart of a land based on openness and diversity, I ask the world, when will this religious persecution end? I am not saying that religious tolerance is blooming in America, but that fact that our Constitution provides safety for those who practice Christianity, among other religions, is proof that the government should know its limits. It should be apparent that no one has the right to grant or deny someone the right to live in their country based on their religious affiliation.
      So why is Israel, the same Israel that provided sanctuary for the Jewish people fleeing the Holocaust, so adamant to deport these non-Jewish refugees? Well, according to Israel, the reasoning is purely economic. There have been many complaints that foreign workers are turning the bustling city of Tel Aviv into a slum. I understand that job displacement is real. Citizens have the right to work and support themselves and any threat to this concept is something that any politician should domestically try to modify. Israel however, while trying to play off as job displacement, is not wording their concerns very tactfully. Enter Interior Minister Aryeh Dery, who tweeted, "In contrast to the fake news, there is no danger to the labor infiltrators we are deporting to third countries". I would like to point out, among this, the use of the now infamous infamous "fake news" phrase, the fact that Dery called these migrants "labor infiltrators". These words are nothing short of pure ignorance. What Mr. Dery fails to understand is that these people did not willingly come to Israel. The only reason that they are fleeing there is because, if they stayed in their respective homelands, they would be tortured and imprisoned. Surely this is something that an individual of Jewish faith can and should understand.
      It is here that I would like to elaborate on the fact that this situation positively drips with irony. Those who practice Judaism are, as I have stated clearly, all too familiar with exile and persecution. There are multiple holiday, as a result of this persecution, to celebrate the strength and resilience of the people who have been treated unfairly. The fact that they would deny those who face jail time and torture in their native countries a safe place to live and prosper should not bode well in the international community. Refugees should not be subject to the same treatment as illegal immigrants and their faith should be completely left out of it. As long as the refugees go through the process to become citizens and pay their taxes, their personal faith should not be central to the argument on whether they should stay or face deportation. It is now up to the world to put aside any personal prejudices and share this earth, as it was intended for all humans.

A Plea for Infrastructure

Within the last seven weeks, there have been three significant Amtrak crashes that have resulted in the injuring, and in some cases deaths, of hundreds of Americans. Although the causes of these accidents were a mix of human error as well as infrastructure failure, these accidents do bring to our attention of how outdated our public transportation systems are. Compared to other industrialized countries such as Japan, home of the bullet train, our crumbling infrastructure is not only disgraceful but has ruined the lives of American citizens. If our country believes that we are the best place in the world, then the American people need to demand that their elected representatives invest more funding to revitalize our crumbling infrastructure.

The environmental movement has advocated for the use of public transportation, such as trains, to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere. The more people who use public transportation, the less vehicles on the road that will reduce greenhouse gasses. This model only works if commuters believe that it is safe to use the public transportation at their disposal. With all these horrific accidents continuing to play out in the news, the public will become more hesitant to use railroads for their daily commute. If they are too afraid to use the train networks, then our climate will become even worse. The United States is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide gasses in the world, so our actions affect countries all over the world. Almost every other country in the world has put in the effort to reducing carbon emissions and implementing green policies to try and protect the environment. These efforts go to waste if one of the largest problem countries doesn’t opt-in to protect the planet. We Americans need to be aware of how our domestic policy decisions to have an impact on the international field. Once this is accomplished, the American public will be able to move forward and hold their elected representatives accountable to achieving these goals.

We are living in an era where technological advances are being accomplished faster than the speed of sound, yet our public infrastructure has been excluded from this rate of development. We pride ourselves for having the world’s top innovators creating and reinventing within the private sphere, yet we do not utilize this brainpower to revolutionize the way millions of Americans travel to and from work every week. Japan has had high-speed railways since the 1960’s, yet we are still trailing behind implementing this Cold-War Era technology in our own country. We should follow the example of our international allies and implement this technology. The technology is there, the only obstacles from implementing this technology is politics and money. Granted, infrastructure is not a “sexy” or controversial policy area. Which is why it doesn’t receive the attention of the media and American public. Despite this, the American people need to demand that their elected representatives address these issues that affect tens of millions of Americans daily.  

Furthermore, addressing and resolving America’s train problem is just good business. If protecting the environment isn’t on your priority list, the practicality of having faster, safer trains is good for local business. Cutting down on transportation time and cost can lead to more productivity at work. The less time a commuter spends traveling, the more time they can spend earning a profit for employers. Additionally, it is well aware that longer commutes lead to more stress on the individual. Thus, it only makes sense that having faster trains can lead to happier and more efficient workers. Also, improving commuter transport can encourage businesses to locate themselves in highly populated metropolitan areas. Such as Amazon’s HQ2, where their executives outlined the standards they are looking for to locate their second headquarters: one of which being “quality transit options.”[1] If policy makers wish to credit claim for promoting economic opportunities, then the clear route to do so is by investing tax payer dollars in infrastructure programs that directly benefit the American people.

In conclusion, the Amtrak train accidents have pointed out America’s flawed transportation system that is in critical need of improvement. The American people need to hold their representatives accountable for improving and maintaining efficient and safe public transportation for its environmental and buinsess benefits. The time has come to revolutionize the way we travel.

---

[1] Monica Nickelsburg, “Amazon HQ2 deadline day: Everything you need to know about the biggest headquarters contest ever,” GeekWire, published October 19^th, 2017, accessed February 5^th, 2018, https://www.geekwire.com/2017/amazon-hq2-deadline-day-everything-need-know-biggest-headquarters-contest-ever/

The Weak State of the Union

State of the Union: Weak

            On the 30^th of January, President Donald Trump gave his State of the Union address to the nation. In it, he said that the State of the Union was strong. I contend that it is actually weak.

            For much of the past year, Trump has made headlines seemingly every day, usually because of something he tweeted or a comment he made. Despite his insistence that the Union is strong, we have seen more public divisiveness than ever before; white supremacist rallies took a huge upturn last year, as white supremacists felt that they finally had a President who thought the way they do. Trump has held the nation hostage in order to get funding for the U.S./Mexico wall that he built. Trump has touted that he is “Making America Great Again” by pulling out of important agreements like the Paris Climate Accord, just so he can push dirty fossil fuels like coal, which only add a few jobs in the grand scheme of things, while putting our environment, and our future, at risk.

            One of the things I think foreigners look at when looking at our country is the strength and cohesiveness of our government. Sure, no government is perfect, however, even with that, ours is a mess. With political partisanship guiding almost every decision, we are unable to solve our own problems, which makes handling foreign affairs that much more difficult, especially if Trump is on an “America First” track; how can we help other countries when we can’t even help ourselves?

            Continually, Trump has referred to the issue of illegal immigration by using terms that lump both good and bad immigrants into one group. Instead of talking about how many illegal immigrants are here illegally simply because the legalization process takes too long, he instead decides to focus on the few bad ones that traffic drugs, kill American citizens, and sexually assault innocent people, thus making it look like those who reject his ideas are supporting rapists, drug dealers, and murderers.

            Trump has chosen to pull out of agreements like the Paris Climate Accord, an agreement that ex-President Obama was all for. Trump pulled out of the agreement because, according to him, it was unfair to Americans. Why? Not sure. Ex-President Obama went into the agreement due to its stance on the environment, and with the goal of reducing our contribution to global warming. Trump, however, only saw how he thought it would affect jobs, jobs in an industry of fossil fuels, the same fuels that have contributed heavily to global warming. Trump pulled out because he felt that the few jobs that could be created by not being part of such an agreement outweighed the clear dangers to the environment and future of our country.

            Recently, the stock market dropped in record numbers for a single day, dropping over 1600 points, possibly partly due to Trump’s tax plan that was recently released, partly because of the flop that was the Nunes memo, and partly because of all the lies he spewed at the State of the Union finally sinking in. Also, with how influential our stock market is in relation to the global economy, when our market takes a hit, the world economy takes a hit, and foreign countries are more likely to look at us in a negative light.

Is a military parade wise?

             Early this week the chairman of the joint chief of staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, has confirmed that planning for a military parade, as suggested by Donald Trump, is now underway. This sort of parade will not be just a celebration of the soldiers but the military itself. This means the parade will include tanks, jets, helicopters, and possibly even missiles. President Trump has shown an interest in this sort of parade since witnessing the parade in France on Bastille Day last year. While the planning has begun it is still in its infancy. The problem with holding this kind of parade is that while it may send the citizens of America one message, the rest of the world may end up receiving a different one.

            The difference between The United States holding a military parade and France holding one is that The Bastille day parade is one that is built on French tradition.  America has never had any kind of tradition like Bastille Day. The last military parade was in 1990 to celebrate the end of the gulf war and even then it was mainly soldier and a few jets and helicopters flying overhead. Had America held parades like this for years to celebrate the end of the revolutionary war or some other important day in American history it might make sense but that is not the case. Rather than this being compared to the French parade, it is more similar to the parades held in North Korea or other dictatorships. Because of this comparison, other nations of the world might see this parade not as a simple celebration of our military but as a threat or a warning. Other nations could see this display of our military as a reminder to the world of our military’s strength. While our allies might not care so much about it, chalking it up to Trump’s arrogance, but other nations who may view America as a threat, such as North Korea or many Middle Eastern countries, may see it as a personal message to them which could lead to these countries being less likely to want to do business with us. One such country that may view it as a threat is Iran. With President Trump’s talk of wanting a new nuclear deal it would not be surprising if this parade pushed them further towards wanting to sever ties with The United States.

            Not only would this harm diplomatic relations it will also be a massive waste of time, money, and manpower. It would be very expensive to build whatever was needed to be built or move whatever needed to be moved, not to mention the paychecks of all the people working on the parade. The possible real purpose of this parade is to encourage patriotism and to encourage support of the military. This would be a massive waste of time as a majority of Americans already support the military. This parade will also require many roads to be closed down for it, leading to massive traffic problems and many people could end up late for work.

            Holding a military parade such as the one President Trump is suggesting is simply a foolish and possibly even dangerous waste of time and resources.

Memogate: Freedom of Information - Kevin Conne

Memogate: Freedom of Information

These two memos, both the Republican and Democratic, have become a major sticking point in terms of American domestic politics. However, the irony is that the content of the Republican memo is not all that relevant, but the decision on whether or not to release it is the core of the political debate. At the core of this debate is government transparency. There are several sides to this argument about whether or not the first memo should have been released, which is the Republican memo. However, this memo did get released. There was much controversy surrounding this decision, however I believe it is largely pointless since the document has already been released.  I feel the real question at this exact moment is whether or not the government should release the second memo, which is the Democratic one. I feel in terms of political equality and putting the country ahead of political partisanship, I would like to see the second document released.

When confronting these issues of government transparency and freedom of information, a major role is oftentimes played by the news media through their abilities to conduct investigative reporting and the networks willingness to give the public a largely unfiltered view of the controversy.  This has allowed the public in a sense to hold its own(court). However, in this courtroom, officials get to respond to allegations and attempt to prove their innocence. But they are not appealing to a judge and jury, nor are they required to use the same formalities. These interviews do help with transparency and allow the public to see their representatives being questioned about potentially unethical decisions.

However, I feel that this issue stems from a larger question of political transparency in our democratic form of government. I feel that this is a modern transformation of an issue that is always plagued, not only our democracy, but any democracy as to how much information shall be given to the public.  If the representatives are truly there to represent their constituency back home, then shouldn't everything be public knowledge. Of course, there are obvious and sensible reasons why certain things relating to national security cannot be given public access. However, most matters of government do not contain national security issues, but still take place in closed door meetings. This is contrary to the fundamental ideas of democracy. If we are going to make claims in our Constitution about a government by the people, then we need to allow the people to inform themselves about just what is going on within their own government. Whether or not people want to read all the government documents is irrelevant. This would not only improve accountability between representatives and the people they are supposed to represent, but also give them more time to spend governing and less time worrying about who is being truthful.  This country was formed under the idea of freedom and democracy. If we are not free to interpret the information on how our government officials are conducting themselves, then we cannot make properly informed decisions when it is time for an election. If elections simply become not about what a representative has done, but entirely dependent on ad campaigns, then our entire election process is called into question. At that point, the most important thing to getting elected is not your qualifications, but how much money you have to run a campaign. Overall, I think it is important to us to understand that this issue of the memo goes a whole lot deeper than the memo itself. In many ways, it is fundamental to our ability to be a democracy. Fortunately, we've seen this issue before and have successfully navigated our way around it. While I do oftentimes feel that a lack of political transparency is a problem in United States, I feel that our news media has become a major safeguard against politicians who feel that partisan politics are more important than transparency. 

Should Dreamers really leave if the DACA deal isn’t reached by Congress?

     After our most recent government shutdown, Congress pushed back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) deadline to March 5. The reason why we had this shutdown in the first place is that the Democrats and Republicans couldn’t come to an agreement on whether DACA was going to get funded or not. The shutdown only lasted a couple days until both sides decided to buy themselves some time and set a later date for this deadline. Both sides are supposed to make counter-offers to their original proposals to try and reach some middle ground. However, we don’t really know if that is the case. Meanwhile, we have a little under 700,000 young adults who have their future’s in the hands of these Congressmen. DACA is a program Obama and his administration came up with to let these young Dreamers who were brought here as children by their parents to stay and try to live productive goal-driven lives. Under this program, Dreamers don’t have to live in fear of being deported to their country of origin. They can live and thrive as young adults should. They can have the opportunities to go to college, get a job, and become productive members of society. However, if this program gets denied on March 5th then these dreamers can be in jeopardy of being deported. This is why some dreamers are thinking about leaving the country before this even happens. My response to these dreamers is, don’t.

     These dreamers were brought to the U.S at a very young age by their parents. Some of them were just infants. They don’t have hardly any memory of the country they were born in. Dreamers also never got a say in whether they could come here or not. It’s not like a 4-year-old has a say in the decisions their parents make in fleeing their country. So, why are we punishing these kids on the decisions their parents made? Matter of fact, why would these dreamers want to go back to a foreign land they have little to no memory of? Where these young men and women were raised and grew up was in the United States of America. Their lives were spent growing up on American soil. Many of these dreamers don’t even speak the language of their native country. All they know is good ole USA. So it would make no sense for these dreamers to want to leave their home. I know they are scared of whatever outcome Congress comes up with on DACA, but that doesn’t mean they should flee. This is their home as much as it is mine. Most of these dreamers are productive members of our society. They have stable jobs, they go to school, they pay taxes, etc. so they should therefore be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country. This is why dreamers shouldn’t make ant hasty decisions based on the current political climate we are in. They shouldn’t take matters into their own hands and leave to go to a country they have no bearing to. Instead they should let this decision play out and hope for the best possible outcome.

     Congress on the other hand, should take action and let the DACA program stand. If they decide to do away with this program, it will be one of the worst foreign policy stances on immigration ever. These dreamers are not killers or gang members as some would have them pegged out to be. They shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a few outliers and bad apples. Dreamers are good people who have been raised and taught American values. It would make no sense for Congress to potentially send back hardworking young men and women to foreign countries they don’t even no. What would this say to the rest of the world if we forcefully removed 700,000 hardworking individuals to places they don’t even remember. We are supposed to be a loving country that aids people in need and these dreamers qualify under this notion. We as Americans cannot sit ideally by and let this travesty happen. Congress should decide to keep the DACA program intact and let these dreamers live out their lives in peace; like every person in this country should.

The Olympics Should Not Be Politicized

The modern Olympic games have been around for over 200 years and were inspired by the Greek’s Olympics thousands of years before us. It’s a time when states across the globe bring their best athletes to compete with one another. International competition at it’s finest. It’s a symbol of cooperation and states willingness to put politics aside for something that is greater than themselves. With the prevalence of social media in the everyday lives of people across the globe, our leaders can communicate with one another minutes after something happens. This makes it significantly easier for our governments to politicize everything through quick responses and the ease of access to the world’s flow of information. In order to retain the purity of this ancient tradition lasting thousands of years, the politicization of the Olympics needs to stop before it is allowed to grow.

               On February 5^th the IOC officially refused to allow 15 Russians to compete in the 2017 winter Olympics even though they were cleared of doping. 13 Russians and 2 coaches were refused their request to compete by the International Olympic Committee even though their lifetime bands were overturned by the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport. The CAS ruled that there was “insufficient evidence to show that they had broken doping rules during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.” The IOC then stated that “the privilege to be invited requires more than just the absence of a sanction.” What if not being the best athletes in your country do you need to be accepted into the Olympics? Especially after being cleared of all doping charges due to insufficient evidence. Vladimir Putin himself has responded to this refusal and stated that the problem of doping in the Olympics is an international one, not one that resides primarily in Russia. While Putin isn’t the pinnacle of integrity, I think this statement has some merit to it. Putin himself is likely one of the reasons that the IOC refused to allow access to these Russian athletes. Their refusal is a prime example of the beginning of politicization for the Olympic games that will only grow if there are not stricter regulations on the committees who approve athletes with concrete assurances for unbiased decisions regarding admission, regardless of whatever country an athlete calls home.

At a time when tensions are on the rise between the United States, Russia, and especially North Korea, the Olympic games can provide a much-needed release from international politics. The IOC’s refusal to allow the Russian athletes to participate is an example of how politics has begun to leak into every aspect of our lives. The North Koreans are even going to compete under the same flag as South Korea. This is one example of positive benefits that the Olympics can have on foreign relations. The Olympic games provide an opportunity for countries of varying political ideology and culture to come together for pure competition with one another. North and South Korea hadn’t spoken for years until authorities under Kim Jung-un’s regime contacted South Korea to discuss participating in the winter Olympics. This is an important step in rebuilding the relationship between the two countries and can help the leaders of both to put aside their differences for however brief a period of time. In order to maintain this level of purity at these international competitions, any number of strict regulations and changes may have to be implemented into the process.

While I’m no expert on the admittance of athletes into the Olympic games by any means, it’s clear to me that from what just happened with the Russians, that there are some problems with the process. I think that in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening more and more frequently, with whatever country is having domestic or international issues at the time, the IOC should be forced to implement more rules on the admittance process. I think that one way to do this is by using IGOs like the U.N. to giver recommendations on who should be in charge of the athlete admittance process or let them do it themselves. I think that this would work because even if international organizations have no enforcement power over international affairs, the Olympic games isn’t anything that would violate the sovereignty of the state that’s hosting it. With the games being hosted by different countries each time, the rules would be temporary oversight from whatever international organization is approving the people who approve athletes. The responsibility could even be transferred from different international organizations depending on the region that the games is taking place in. If it’s somewhere in Europe, then the EU could do it. If IGO’s were allowed some authority on who is appointed to approve athletes admittance, then the legitimacy of the Olympic games could be withheld and the polarization process frozen. 

By: Spencer White