The Hypocritical Gun Rhetoric

     I am taking a moment and offering my condolences to the families of the slain journalists of WDBJ news station in Roanoke, Virginia. I will not attempt to make a political case for/against guns…but I will make points regarding the gun debate in the United States. Hopefully, within the near future we will finally have a grip on the reduction of gun violence in America.

     President Obama continues to push for more common sense gun legislation during his time in the White House. He signed legislation allowing guns to be carried in National Parks, which the NRA never addresses. He advocates for the second amendment. His support for Congress to act on gun control by passing legislation to expand background checks is gaining support. Even within the circles of the NRA, 74% of members support background checks (this is according to the Washington Post and an overall 89% of Americans support the idea as well). I always consider background checks to be an essential part of gun ownership as it serves as a sort of liability insurance for the owner of their gun – and it serves the best interest for both the owner and the general public respectively (example – it protects the gun owner financially in the case of being criminally negligent regarding homicides if their gun is used and it benefits the victim’s family regarding funeral costs). If it is stolen or used illegally, the owner would be fined and would be suspended from buying a gun during a certain amount of time (my personal preference is five years). Better yet, if you own a firearm and it is abused, then you should be fined – it would be called the firearm tax. That would allow responsible gun owners to continue to obey the laws and only hinder those that break the law. This ensures the second amendment is still protected.

     I’ll make another observation: two journalists were killed, Church members in South Carolina were killed, a theatre in Colorado, and a elementary school in Connecticut has children lose their lives due to gun violence…a military recruiting station in Tennessee was a place where four lives were lost due to gun violence. Why is it that the only place that had citizens step up and protect the members of the military? If you want to help the military and veterans, hold members of Congress that vote against their interests like housing and veterans assistance regarding work, education, etc. I don’t recall after any of the other tragedies that citizens got so fed up that they took up arms and started protecting theatres, churches, schools, news stations, or shopping malls. We want to stand up and patrol our [southern] border with guns but we don’t want to stand up and patrol our parts of our communities that benefit everyone within it – unless it’s a military recruitment station? I know we can protect both without being hypocritical – not to mention we can hold members of Congress accountable if they don’t vote in the interests of military members (veteran, active, and reserves), teachers & school personal  (current and retired), emergency services that assist in such tragedies, etc. One final note about those that decided to “protect” the military recruitment stations, the U.S. Army sent memos to all recruitment stations to be on the lookout for these vigilantes and “keep their distance and alert law enforcement of their presence” according to Lt. Gen. Mark Brilakis, the head of Marine Corps Recruiting Command, and also advised troops not to support the "armed citizen" volunteers in any way.

     Some of my ideas seem extreme, but at least I’m talking about the issue head-on and coming up with solutions instead of playing the blame game that occurs whenever a tragedy happens. Common sense gun laws are necessary to ensure the safety of all citizens – just like taking steps to ensure guns don’t get into the hands of those that are not mentally competent operate them. I think it is ludicrous to talk about Gun Control & Mental Health as two separate issues when there have been multiple incidents and a direct correlation can be found.

     I hope at some point the United States will join the rest of the world and reduce its gun-related deaths by at least 20% within the next 50 years. In order to do this, we need to get serious about the issue and determine which one is more important: clinging onto our “guns aren’t the problem” mindset or common sense gun legislation that protects and saves all lives of United States citizens.

           

The GOP losing to Donald Trump = Democratic Win in 2016

Well, a lot has happened within the last post.  I am going to really strive to post every other day about the political happenings going on in the United States; and, I might even touch on some international areas of consideration.

            If you missed the first GOP debate, please be sure to DVR the next one – It will take place on September 16, 2015 on CNN. There were way to many candidates for everyone to get ample time to answer questions – not that any of the candidates (except one) really answer the questions. There were two main disagreements between Governor Chris Christie & Senator Rand Paul (which proved that Paul can take on aggressive candidates without missing a beat) and Businessman Donald Trump & Senator Rand Paul (which also proved that Paul doesn’t even understand why Trump is a candidate if he is willing to destroy the party is aligning himself with). I do think it was a good debate performance for Senator Paul even though he sort-of got a little heated at times. I’m not the biggest fan of Rand Paul (mainly because I’m a registered democrat) but his performance was the second best. In fact, he does better in a small crowd and on a one on one conversation. Full disclosure, I did meet him in South Carolina at one of his “Pints for Liberty” rallies. He can really turn out the crowds & can sway the minds of those that can read into his rhetoric.

            Donald Trump is just a big pain in the GOP’s side with his insane rhetoric and outlandish statements. IF he were not in the race, I can almost guarantee that Senator Paul would be number one in the polls. Sadly, Trump is leading all the polls with his hard lines on immigration, the national deficit and jobs, the economy, and even social issues – which make no sense and I can’t fathom why Republicans are so wild about him regarding those issues. Even his rude behavior towards Fox’s Megan Kelly went unchallenged by the GOP. The arguments were that she was “too hard” on her questions towards him – which I always thought if you want to be the Commander-In-Chief you should get the tough questions, but then again… - and only fueled the unclaimed notion that the liberal media was taking over the country. If that is indeed true, where will Republicans get their news from now that Faux, er, Fox News has gone liberal. I don’t recall Shepard Smith or Bill O’Reilly resigning in protest. Trump is actually drowning out the other Republican candidates who seem rational in any other election year. If Trump breaches the 40% approval rating, Senators Paul, Cruz, and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson will drop out before the Iowa Caucuses finish on Caucus night.

            The best game-plan right now is for the GOP to call out Donald Trump for what he really is – an adult crybaby with a temper tantrum if he doesn’t get his way. He is indeed demanding he get the nomination otherwise he will threaten the party with a third party bid (which has never worked so I hope he realizes that at some point). Seriously, Trump has the “kiss my ring or else” mentality.  Last I checked, Democracy doesn’t work like that. Trump is behaving like North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un, with worse hair! The GOP need to band together and declare that he does not represent the party. Meanwhile, the Democrats need to stop sitting down and taking his jabs and stand up and go toe-to-toe with Trump. Politics is dirty, so both parties need to have a bipartisan effort to show Trump how the game is played. If you want to play with the big kids, you need to learn how to master the game instead of trying to buy out the referees of the game – yes, the referees are the American People.

            If Trump were not in the GOP primary, then Senator Paul would be first, followed by Ohio Governor John Kasich (who is the only true Republican that even comes to a Reagan Republican), then Governor Scott Walker. It is still too early, for most people, to determine the nomination ticket for the GOP, but there is only one clear ticket that I know could attempt to blindside the Democrats next year. Can you figure it out? Stay tuned…

Me & Kentucky Senator, and GOP Presidential candidate, Rand Paul

"Pints for Liberty" Rally

Columbia, SC

Clooney for Senate? Makes Sense

With the ongoing speculation as to whom is going to run, and potentially win, the junior U.S. Senate seat from California in 2016, there is one name that is overlooked. In fact, this individual might give Kamala Harris a run for her money (pun intended).  This individual is well known throughout the state of California and the country. He has already proven that he can play the part of a political candidate, and play it very convincingly. The person who should run for the U.S. Senate seat, which is being vacated by Barbara Boxer in 2016, is George Clooney.

            Now I’m sure it is just wishful thinking on my part, but the case for him to run makes sense. There are many factors that have influenced the reasoning as to why I think George Clooney should run for the Senate…and potentially win the seat. Consider the following observations:

1.     As People Magazine – and many other media outlets – has made a big deal about the event, the fact of the matter is that George Clooney is no longer the most eligible bachelor in the United States.  With his marriage last year, he would be suitable to run for office as it sets the “electable family values” stage if he were to run as a Republican and a “for all families” if he were a Democratic candidate. It is important for political candidates to be in some kind of relationship to demonstrate standing values of relationships and likeability.  The only candidate to ever be single while being a candidate is President Woodrow Wilson; but, even he courted a woman during his term and eventually got married. It gives the sense of a “traditional American value” of being committed to someone and starting a family. Notice I said starting a family, not having kids. There are many Americans that are only married and choose not to have kids. In addition, the word “family” is not just defined to hetero-normative ones, but all kinds of family normatives.  That is one of the American ideals that have changed over time for the better of all citizens.  Mr. Clooney supports all families in the country and would represent that value that has encompassed so many people living in the great state of California;

2.     George Clooney, like many other famous actors, has always been politically active. This is true when it comes to issues relating to the continent of Africa, with an emphasis on Sudan.  He also is involved with foreign relation matters in the Middle East and Europe. Due to his involvement in the United Nations as a goodwill ambassador and being involved on Capitol Hill with certain committees on events going on in both Africa and the Middle East. Furthermore, he is very philanthropic and a great humanitarian;

3.     The “geographic challenge” for George Clooney will be trying to get out of the “southern California/Hollywood” bubble. Since Kamala Harris is running for the Senate seat, she will gain a lot of support from Northern California. As the state’s attorney’s general, she will have contacts all over the state; however, Mr. Clooney has been in the California limelight for over twenty years. Given this information, it will allow him to reach a broad majority of Californians, not just those in Southern California and Hollywood.  George Clooney would not be the first person to enter politics from Hollywood (and I don’t think he would run for President or Governor of California as he is more of a utilitarian mindset on a national level of politics); and

4.     Whether you live in Kansas, Florida, Ohio, or North Carolina, you know the names of the following people: Bush, Clinton, Romney, Kennedy, and Clooney.  George Clooney transcends all generations and is known in all fifty states and throughout the world. This is mainly due to his career in the movie industry and of a successful Hollywood lifestyle. Based on that fact alone, his ability to potentially raise an enormous amount of money from any American family (and even donations from other nations). It will usher in many individuals who want to help out a “changing of the guard” campaign. While it will not be a “glass ceiling” campaign for George Clooney, it would be for Kamala Harris.  By him not announcing whether he will run for office anytime soon would play into his favor as he would be generating support “behind the scenes” and laying the foundation of a potentially successful 2016 campaign.

The overall point of George Clooney running for Senate would not only to prove that he is capable to do the job, but also potentially mix up California politics for the 2016 cycle. Even if George Clooney decides not to run in 2016, he would set the groundwork for him to run in 2018 – provided that Diane Feinstein will retire (which I believe she will). Regardless, if George Clooney decided to run in either 2016 or 2018, I believe he would get elected and would be an outstanding United States Senator representing the great state of California.

2015 is here! Yay!

   Well, I can't believe it has been two months shy of a year since I've written a blog piece. I guess that is what happens when life catches up with you. Anyway, since April [of last year] I have worked in a hotel and I also was a part of the best political campaign team in the United States for a midterm election cycle. While the midterms are not the best of times for Democrats, this election cycle seemed to drive that point home. If Democrats would show up at the voting booth each year and not just on Presidential years, we would still have control of the Senate and we would have at least picked up at least seven seats in the House of Representatives.  The other thing is that Democrats need to actually not back down from a fight. If it is one thing Republicans have been able to use as their "go-to" mode of winning elections, it is the rhetoric of fear and rally-around the flag. There will be many that will claim that the Citizens United Ruling also heavily weighed on the midterm elections. Of course money always helps an election, but it certainly doesn't buy them. The main argument I will use is this: If money does indeed buy elections, then Mitt Romney should be President right now as he outspent President Obama nearly three-to-one.
   Speaking of former GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, I called it weeks ago  that he was not going to run for office next year. Romney has the same problem that Senator Marco Rubio and former Texas Governor Rick Perry has: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Let's just look at the facts really quick: President George H.W. Bush is from Massachusetts (knocking out Mitt Romney), the rest of the Texas Clan lives in Texas so all of their donors will support Jeb…and also, Jeb Bush was the former governor of Florida so that knocks out Marco Rubio. In fact, it also knocks out Senator Ted Cruz, provided anyone takes him seriously - not that he could run legally as he was born in Canada and I am certain many would want to see his birth certificate since karma has a funny way of making itself known at times such as that. The only possible way I can see Rubio getting serious is so he can position himself to be the Vice Presidential nominee so the GOP 2016 ticket will be Bush/Rubio (to cater to the hispanic voters in a lame attempt to assume that all latinos think alike, all latinos are Cuban, and that all latinos will magically forget the horrible proposals presented by the Republican Party with regards to immigration.

Either way, the race for 2016 started as soon as Election Day 2014 ended. ANNNNNND, they're off!

Money & Politics

     With the Supreme Court ruling on a 5-4 consensus which allows any donor from donating any amount of money to a campaign, it seems that democracy has we know it is indeed dead.  Democracy should be representative of all people, not a select few. While I disagree with the ruling, I also know that it is not the end of democracy because while money is very influential in politics, it does not buy elections or a person’s right to vote.  Should we all hold those that run for office accountable? The obvious question is yes. How do we ensure they remain accountable to us – their constituents? Yet it is another easy solution: We vote!

     If you remember this conversation regarding donors pouring unlimited amounts of money into campaigns and a court ruling in the Citizens United case stating the corporations can contribute as they are people (which could become a whole new discussion, but I won’t digress now), then you will understand why this court ruling is important but not a “nail in the coffin” for Democracy. If it were, then the words “President” and “Romney” would be an official title, not just words that happen to share the same sentence.

     The fact of the matter is that the Republicans outspent Democrats 2:1 in political ads, thanks again Citizens United case (the lead ruling that is wrong for 21^st century America), yet they didn’t win.  It doesn’t matter how much money a campaign has that counts (thought it does help), it is how the candidate resonates with voters and it is their TURNOUT to vote for that candidate that wins an election.  So while the Supreme Court of the United State issued a ruling to strike down campaign finance laws and paved the way for more money to flow into campaigns, it doesn’t affect the overall process of democracy in America. Besides, if you want to contribute more to a campaign but are financially constraint, then donate time and effort instead of money. A campaign needs all levels of volunteerism, not just on the financial front.

     I am torn with this decision. I understand both sides of the argument. I do feel that just because someone has more money they should get influence; but that is what people think will happen and I don’t see that as a valid argument. There are ways to strengthen the law elsewhere when one law is struck down. Not to mention, if a part of the “American Dream” is to make money and spend it on whatever you want to, then those that have “made it” have the right to throw their money at whichever campaign they choose to associate themselves with while they are alive.  The other thing to consider is that if constituents don’t like the idea that their potential elected officials are taking money from certain people and not others while running a campaign of “for the people” then they need to be held accountable. 

     While this ruling paints a “doom and gloom” version of what events MIGHT become, let us focus on what it means now, how we can combat it (if we disagree with the ruling), and work to strengthen our Democracy…which I believe is what the Supreme Court has done with striking down this law relating to campaign contributions. The main thing to remember is that money will always be in politics whether it is coming from a voter of  “middle class America” or “high class America” because all classes of America vote when it comes to elections.

Time for the Next Generation of Politics

Next year will be my ten-year reunion from high school. At twenty-seven years old, I’ve been apart of many campaigns, have attended two inaugurations, have attended a political convention, and have demonstrated in a major Supreme Court case that ended in the favor of which I was demonstrating for given the case. I have also run for, unsuccessfully, office twice.  I do like campaigns and I do like fighting for what I believe what is right; at some point I will be elected and when I do, I hope that I will able to make the decisions that represent all of my constituents. Until then, I will continue to work on campaigns and be hold an active role in shaping the political landscape, both on the state and national levels.

     It really don’t surprise me that Congressman John Dingle, democrat representing the constituents of the twelfth district of Michigan, is retiring from the United States House of Representatives. He was first elected to congress back in the 1950s…1955 to be exact.  To date, this retirement marks the ninth one for the democrats and the republicans are not immune to retirement, as eleven of their members will not see re-election. While some will be missed for their service, if not all of them, it paves the way for the up-and-coming generations to take their place.  Another important point is that it provides opportunities for Congress to truly be more representative of the country. With all of these retirements unfold, and I don’t believe they are over as I image at least five more members will not seek re-election, it will only boost the profiles of women, Hispanics, and other minorities (of both race and beliefs) will be elected to office.  In fact, we are already seeing “the establishment” starting to evolve into younger and more diverse candidates and their points of views regarding the best course for the United States.  In fact, states are even breaking traditions and we will see by the end of the night of the 2014 Election Day. Hopefully, there will be more candidates elected to office that are of a third party as the current political parties can’t seem to agree on anything except no raising of taxes and continuing resolutions.

     The midterms will hopefully break up the “lame duck” status that has frozen Washington into a stalemate. Since Congress is unwilling to work with the President (which is interesting because the past shows that Congress manages to work with the President regardless of administration) and trying to say just enough to get re-elected, it only make sense for this President to use his Presidential authority to get things done that benefit the people he represents. The republicans can’t afford to jeopardize their already minimal relationship with the general public; furthermore, they cannot go into upcoming presidential election cycle with high partisanship and old century ideas. The democrats could also learn that partisanship is just as bad for them as their friends across the aisle – the best course is to talk and explain one’s position instead of looking at someone and going, “well, they are a republican so they must be stupid and don’t (or won’t) understand my position on this issue.” Going back to the republicans for a minute, they have to understand that not every American is living in the earlier part of the previous century.  In the twenty-first century, people are tired of partisan bickering. They want real solutions to the problems facing the country they live in and are proud of since their childhood. Let the new generation of politics come crashing in by the end of the 2014 midterms!