Memorial Day Weekend is now underway, and Monday is a federal holiday to remember the American soldiers who have died in combat. But what did they die for? Did those who have died die in vain? Or is there actually a purpose to all of this violence? Let’s analyze it war by war.

Revolutionary War: This is the first war American soldiers fought in, and is by far the most justified. Back in 1775, the British king ruled over the American colonies. The British tyrant taxed us without representation, took away our guns, and much more. Eventually, patriots had enough and began a revolution. This led to the drafting of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, which attempted to ensure that the government could no longer reign in tyranny. Unfortunately, with the government taking away our guns by force and taxing us exactly like the British did, we are drifting further and further away from that ideal of liberty.

However, this was the true beginning of the liberty movement, even if nobody called it that yet. The American soldiers who died during the American Revolution were true heroes fighting for a noble cause. It is up to us whether we want liberty in this country, or whether the tyranny our current government perpetrates shall get worse and worse. As long as we have freedom in our country, the deaths of the American Revolutionaries shall not be in vain. However, if this country turns into the same tyranny we were under the King, then those deaths will have been for nothing.

Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls pick them every one.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

- “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” lyrics by Pete Seeger

American Civil War: Figuring out who the “good guys” in this one are is very difficult. Clearly, the Confederacy was wrong to own slaves. There is nothing more anti-liberty than owning another human being. So, was the United States right to use military force to prevent the South from seceding? It’s not that simple.

According to the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of  Rights, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Article IV, Section III of the Constitution clearly outlines how states are admitted to the Union. This power is clearly designated to Congress, so the Tenth Amendment does not apply. States cannot be admitted to the United States without the consent of Congress, in a very specific matter. However, no part of the Constitution outlines how states leave the Union. In light of the Tenth Amendment and the very specific language concerning how states are admitted to the Union, it could be concluded that secession is a right given to the states. In such a case, the North would have been wrong to prevent such a thing, even if it was done for horrible reasons.

Furthermore, even if President Lincoln was right to use military force against the Confederacy, he also did many other tyrannical decisions during the war. For instance, he suspended habeus corpus for the entire country, North and South. This atrocious violation of the Constitution is inexcusable from any President, whether it’s Lincoln or Obama.

It is debatable whether the United States was justified in starting the Civil War to prevent secession. Even if they were justified, the government did many other things that were not justified.

But clearly the South is not simply a champion of states’ rights, so we should not applaud their soldiers either. Let us not forget what specific right those states were fighting for – the freedom to own another human being. Certainly such a thing is not acceptable for any libertarian.

So both sides were wrong here in many ways. Perhaps the war had a point. But it’s not as simple as it is often made out to be in history class.

Where have all the young girls gone, long time passing?
Where have all the young girls  gone, long time ago?
Where have all the young girls gone?
Gone to young men every one.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

World War I: So much is wrong with American participation in this war. This should have been a European conflict. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, which started a war in Europe. This was not our problem in any way whatsoever. It was a regional conflict, and did not have much of a point even in that region. Unfortunately, tensions had been boiling over for years, and the assassination just provided a spark in the powder keg. But it was certainly not the USA’s problem. This was arguably the first example of pointless American intervention overseas. Sadly, it would not be the last.

Where have all the young men gone, long time passing?
Where have all the young men gone, long time ago?
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers, everyone.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

World War II: Many libertarians cite intervening against the atrocities Nazi Germany as perpetrating an exception to non-interventionism. After all, it’s one thing to intervene in random regional or intra-national conflicts everywhere in the world. But this was not simply an ordinary conflict. The Nazis were killing massive amounts of Jews and threatening the security of critical political and military allies. So the soldiers must have been fighting for a just cause, right? Perhaps; but again, it’s not that simple.

While Hitler’s army was rounding up Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others and shipping them off to concentration camps, the American government was hardly innocent of action against minorities. Many Japanese were sent to internment camps out of fear that they were going to bring harm to the country. This, incidentally, was the exact same argument Hitler used to justify rounding up the Jews. Both assertions were false and were used simply to urge hatred against minorities. They also caused the public to largely ignore the action taken against the minorities. Although America’s internment camps were not comparable to the death camps in Germany in terms of fatalities, conditions were not good there either. More importantly, in both cases, minorities were detained indefinitely because they “might” be a threat simply because of their ethnicity. It was clearly wrong when Hitler did that to the Jews. So it must have also been wrong when America did it to the Japanese.

Furthermore, America’s attacks on Germany were clearly targeted to damage the country’s industry rather than reduce the harm of the Holocaust. Thousands of bombs were dropped on Germany. None targeted the concentration camps, although even a single strike could have destroyed all the gas chambers at one of the camps and saved the lives of prisoners who had not yet been shipped there. An easier possibility would be to simply attack the rails that carried the victims to the camps, destroying the link and preventing more people from being shipped to their death.

But instead, the American military focused on major cities and industrial and military targets, clearly hoping to make the country suffer. If America’s main goal was really to stop the Holocaust, there are many ways the military could have helped. But they did none of them until the very end. Clearly the United States had other goals in this war.

And where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards, every one.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

Vietnam War: Many Americans who were alive in the 1960s remember Vietnam, and most do not remember it proudly. But the truth is even worse than most people believe. Prior to the war, South Vietnam was ruled by a corrupt and cruel, but capitalist dictator. On the other hand, North Vietnam was ruled by a communist, but far more gentle, leader. Contrary to the American government’s assertions that North Vietnam’s government was cruel, the exact opposite was true.

The people of South Vietnam wanted to hold elections to decide whether to join North Vietnam under their communist government. The South Vietnamese government did not want this to happen, because they knew they would be defeated. They appealed to the United States for help. At the time, we believed in the “Domino Theory’ meaning that if South Vietnam fell to communism, other countries would follow like dominoes. In other words, South Vietnam would be first, then Japan, then Australia, and then the United States. And we could not let that happen. So, the American military intervened yet again, supposedly to support freedom and democracy. In fact, this could not be further from the truth. If we really wanted to intervene to support freedom and democracy (which we should not have done in the first place) we should have intervened against the South Vietnamese government and supported the rights of the people to hold elections. We might not have liked how the elections went, but if we truly cared about promoting democracy abroad, as opposed to American supremacy, that is how we would have intervened. Unfortunately, the government did the exact opposite. This may have been the most unjust war our country ever fought. It was worse than pointless interventionism – it did the exact opposite of promoting freedom.

As many as 3 million Vietnamese were killed, a fact that is often overlooked or ignored in favor of reporting the American casualties. Many of our soldiers were not there by choice, due to the draft, so their actions are somewhat excusable. The actions of the American government are not, on the other hand. They send young men overseas to die, supposedly to promote democracy but really to support tyranny. Although not their choice in many cases, they died in vain.

Where have all the graveyards gone, long time passing?
Where have all the graveyards gone, long time ago?
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered in flowers every one.

The present day: Unfortunately, the bloodshed and deaths continue. Casualties exist on both sides – American soldiers die, in most cases not fully understanding what they actually died for – fighting out of ignorance rather than hate. On the other side, innocent citizens of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya are killed for no reason other than that they live in a country that hates America.

Some wonder whether the people of these countries actually hate the United States. The answer to this question is simple when you think about it. I would most certainly hate Pakistan if they sent their army to this country, and their soldiers broke into my house and killed my family in front of me. If I lost my limbs in a strike by a Pakistani military drone, I would harbor a great deal of resentment for that country. So while most residents of the countries we have attacked probably do hate our countries, it is mainly a result of what we have done to them, not a cause as the government claims.

In the past 20 years or so, the United States has been involved in countless conflicts, mainly in the Middle East. Now, the war drums are beating with Iran and North Korea as well. Have we not learned our lesson? Interventionism only leads to bloodshed. After Vietnam, we should have learned to stop sending soldiers overseas to die.

But you can help. Unfortunately, Sen. Richard Blumenthal does not allow constituents to call his office and talk to him about his policy. As an elected official, this is horrible. But Connecticut residents can contact him through the web here. You can call Sen. Chris Murphy’s office at (202) 224-4041 or you can contact him through the web here. To contact your House representative, go to http://www.house.gov and enter your ZIP code in the box in the top right corner.

Urge your elected officials in Congress to honor soldiers who have lost their lives in the most appropriate way possible – ensuring that no more soldiers lose their lives unless it is absolutely necessary. More importantly, tell them that no military deaths since at least the end of World War II, and possibly much longer, were truly necessary. Soldiers are dying in Afghanistan for no reason. While it is sad that soldiers lose their lives in such pointless wars, it is far worse that we continue to let it happen. We should have learned this lesson a while ago. Sadly, we have not.

When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

In March, President Barack Obama signed House Resolution 933, more commonly known as the “Monsanto Protection Act”, into the law. A single resolution buried within the seventy-three pages of the bill was a piece that protected bio-tech industries from any form of litigation.

House Resolution 933 goes so far as to protect organizations like Monsanto from prosecution even if someone were to die from digesting a genetically modified organism and the cause of death could be directed right back to that particular GMO and its manufacturer.

A little bit of hope to make a positive change came from Independent Senator of Vermont Bernie Sanders as he introduced an amendment to the “Agriculture Food, Jobs and Reform Act of 2013”. This amendment would have allowed the states to decide if they wanted foods to have GMO labeling or not. Senator Bernie Sanders made an official statement to the Huffington post regarding why the bill should be passed:

“The concept we’re talking about today is a fairly commonsense and non-radical idea,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the sponsor of the amendment, said shortly before the vote. “All over the world, in the European Union, in many other countries around the world, dozens and dozens of countries, people are able to look at the food that they are buying and determine through labeling whether or not that product contains genetically modified organisms.”

Unfortunately, the amendment was voted down by an overwhelming vote of 71 to 27 and two members of the Senate abstaining. The Chief of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan, said that ”[t]his particular amendment would interfere with the FDA’s science-based process to determine what food labeling is necessary for consumers”.

“It’s also important to note that around the world now we are seeing genetically modified crops that have the ability to resist crop diseases and improve nutritional content and survive drought conditions in many developing countries,” she added. “We see wonderful work being done by foundations like the Gates Foundation and others that are using new techniques to be able to feed hungry people,” she said, although it was not clear how labeling would affect such efforts.

There are 64 countries around the world that require labeling of GMO products, and furthermore it’s hard to tell exactly what other countries out there (besides the United States) have legislation that protects GMO Companies from being sued if someone dies from using their product.

Works Cited

McAuliff, Michael. “GMO Labeling Bill Voted Down In Senate.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 May 2013. Web. 24 May 2013.
“U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home Votes Roll Call Vote.” U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home Votes Roll Call Vote. U.S. Senate, n.d. Web. 24 May 2013.
“Obama Signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Written by Monsanto-sponsored Senator – RT USA.” Rt.com. Russian Times, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 May 2013.

In 2007 at the American Enterprise institute, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich argued that not securing the border will simply pave the way to granting another wave of amnesty to illegal immigrants with a nearly never-ending process. Some of those present agreed and some disagreed, while others shrugged the issue off.

On the 22nd of May, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed S744 (the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act), which is amnesty legislation set to tackle illegal immigration created by the “Gang of Eight”. Many Americans are concerned about the contents of the bill; many who lived in 1986 wonder how this bill might be different from the 1986 amnesty bill passed under Ronald Reagan.

Major sections of the bill are as follows:

• Title I, Sec. 1102 (a) – Not later than 2017, the Secretary shall increase the number of trained U.S Custom and Border Protection by 3,500 compared to the current number.

• Title I, Sec. 1103 © (5) – construct checkpoints along the southern border to bridge the gap to “long term permanent checkpoints” (note- this is in reference to National Guard operations, not U.S Customs and Border Protection).

• Title I, Sec. 113.( Department of Homeland Security Border oversight task force) – A task force composed of 26 members “appointed by the President with credible expertise” in such field from Elected officials, local law enforcement, civil rights advocates, business representatives, higher education representatives, representatives of a “faith community”, and representatives from the U.S Custom and Border Protection.

It gets more interesting.

Title II, Sec. 245B. (Adjustment of status of eligible entrants before Dec. 31 2011, to that of registered provisional immigrant).  Exception- An alien who departed from the United States after December 31, 2011will not be considered to have failed to maintain continuous presence in the United States if the alien’s absence from the United States are brief, casual, and innocent whether or not such absence where authorized by the Secretary.

In other words, even if an illegal alien left America after the date of reference, they are still considered eligible for amnesty if they came back illegally a second time with a “special or casual circumstance”.

One other story of great concern is one that broke from both WIRED and Breitbart about a biometric database of all adult Americans hidden in the immigration reform bill. The intention, according to its philosophy, is to curb employment of undocumented immigrants, yet privacy advocates fear that this could lead to creating a first ever National ID system – one that the America Civil Liberties Union and the Competitive Enterprise Institute  are greatly concerned about according to the interviews done by WIRED.

One question still remains – is this similar to the amnesty passed during the Reagan Administration in 1986? The answer is simply yes.

Sec. 245B. (5) (A) (Adjustment of status of eligible entrants before Dec. 31, 2011, to that of registered provisional immigrant) – IN GENERAL- The commissioner of Social Security shall implement a system to allow for the assignment of a Social Security number and the issuance of a social security card to each alien who has been granted registered provisional immigrant status under this section.

This means that those granted amnesty will get a social security card and its benefits without even being a full fledged citizen in the fist place.

Amnesty from the one in 1986 to the one being proposed operates under the system of assumption: assuming the illegal alien granted amnesty, also known as being a “provisional immigrant”, will get citizenship by following the process of becoming one. In the previous amnesty implementation, it was believed that a number of illegal aliens granted “provisional immigrant” status (2/3rds) never became citizens, but could not be deported and still obtained benefits that would be normally given to regular citizens. If this is true, would it happen again? More importantly, nowhere in this legislation does it say anything about creating a border fence besides a vague reference of constructing a “double layer and triple layer fencing”, contrary to Operation Jump start, the initiative by the George W. Bush Administration intended to create a modern border fence. This initiative ceased continuation a while back.

In the same week that the Senate Judiciary Committee passed S. 744, the GOP controlled house made clear that they want to reform the current immigration system, but they also say that they will reject the Senate’s version of amnesty and come up with a different version of their own. Whether or not it will pass, there is little difference from the amnesty of 1986 to the one that is currently being proposed besides increasing the number of border agents. Even then there is no assurance that this will deter illegal immigration, as we saw the Department of Homeland Security release more than 3,000 illegal alien detainees in an action claimed to be a consequence of sequestration.

In November of 2012, Pearson, a world renowned education firm, released an eleven page report called “The Learning Curve”. The report rated 40 different countries in education. The report ranks the United States 17 out of 40, with Finland and South Korea taking the number one and two spots. The report takes in numerous factors, including calculated data and other forms of research from leading educational professionals from all around the world, with some of the data dating as far back as 1990.

Nevertheless, it has been apparent for quite some time that there is a need for education reform in the United States. One organization was able to meet these standards and swept the nation, which has caused concern for a lot of people. This Organization set for the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The Common Core Initiative’s mission statement is as followed:

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.

However, Common Core has met opposition on all sides of the political spectrum here in the United States. A lot of conservative activists are worried that adopting the Common Core Standards will allow for social engineering in the schools that will push more of a liberal agenda. As of yet, there is not enough comprehensive research that shows this to be the case. The reason behind this is that even though Common Core Standard states have to keep to federal guidelines, the materials used in a school can vary from school to school even if they are within the same district. In fact, while performing some first-hand research I was able to find that social engineering with a left-wing outlook existed prior to the adaptation of Common Core Standards in the State of Florida, a state which adopted Common Core in 2010. Florida will not have the Common Core plan completely in effect until 2014. However, the information conducted is not enough to represent the entire state of Florida. Another common concern for conservatives is that the standards will infringe upon the autonomy of school systems and will not allow teachers and schools to address issues within their own school due to having to adhere to federal standards.

Members from both sides of the political spectrum have agreed that Common Core puts too much emphasis on standardized testing, which is its way of making sure that students are actually learning the material. Both sides are worried that the added pressure of standardized testing could lead to low performance grades, and teachers could be the ones held responsible. There is also the argument that standardized testing does not effectively rate the abilities of the students. In fact, Finland, a county that constantly ranks number one in the world when it comes to education, only has one focused standardized test throughout a normal academic career. With that, all other testing performed in Finland remains with low-stakes tests. Finnish students, on average, perform higher on international standardized tests than American students..

Another issue with standardized testing is that is has been proven to have some sort of race-bias, with Caucasians and Asians expected to score higher than their Hispanic and African-American counterparts. The tests do not have a purposeful, inherent racist bias, but it cannot be denied that no test is truly “unbiased”. Differences in education quality across the United States and race demographics, along with their correlations with socioeconomic status in families, plays a big part in the education an individual receives. Some educators believe that holding all students to the same standard is unfair because it’d hold some children back and other children would not be able to keep up. The report filed by Pearson states that there is no true cause behind being economically poor and not receiving an education as long as the learning environment remains positive.

That’s the issue: the learning environment is affected by the socioeconomic status of an individual and the area he/she lives in. It’d be very difficult to hold standardized testing as a benchmark for success when the needs of the student population are so diverse.

The kind of pressure and educational stagnation brought by standardized testing and social engineering is not beneficial to actual educational reform. The report conducted by Pearson explains how to create true education reform in five simple steps:

1. There are no magic bullets: The small number of correlations found in the study shows the poverty of simplistic solutions. Throwing money at education by itself rarely produces results, and individual changes to education systems, however sensible, rarely do much on their own. Education requires long-term, coherent and focused system-wide attention to achieve improvement.
2. Respect teachers: Good teachers are essential to high-quality education. Finding and retaining them is not necessarily a question of high pay. Instead, teachers need to be treated as the valuable professionals they are, not as technicians in a huge, educational machine.
3. Culture can be changed: The cultural assumptions and values surrounding an education system do more to support or undermine it than the system can do on its own. Using the positive elements of this culture and, where necessary, seeking to change the negative ones, are important to promoting successful outcomes.
4. Parents are neither impediments to nor saviours of education: Parents want their children to have a good education; pressure from them for change should not be seen as a sign of hostility but as an indication of something possibly amiss in provision. On the other hand, parental input and choice do not constitute a panacea. Education systems should strive to keep parents informed and work with them.
5. Educate for the future, not just the present: Many of today’s job titles, and the skills needed to fill them, simply did not exist 20 years ago. Education systems need to consider what skills today’s students will need in future and teach accordingly.

These concerns have brought worry to states that are deliberating over whether or not to actually incorporate Common Core Standards into their existing school system. States like Michigan and Indiana have hit the pause button on Common Core legislation, while Texas, Virginia, Nebraska and Minnesota are not adopting Common Core at all.
While there is still an extensive need for education reform, it seems as though the Common Core State Standards are not the reform that this country needs and is becoming even more irrelevant as the education reform we, as the people, don’t want.

Works Cited

“The Learning Curve.” Pearson. Pearson, 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 23 May 2013. .
“Mission Statement.” Common Core State Standards Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 May 2013. .
Soave, Robby. “Common Core a Common Enemy for Some Conservatives and Liberals.” The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller, 02 May 2013. Web. 23 May 2013. .
Moore, Linda. “Finland Has an Education System the US Should Envy – and Learn from.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 23 May 2013. .
Rooks, Noliwe M. “Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests.” Ideas Why Its Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests Comments. Times, 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 23 May 2013. .
Smith, Mary L. “Put to the Test: The Effects of External Testing on Teachers.” Put to the Test: The Effects of External Testing on Teachers. Educational Research, n.d. Web. 23 May 2013. .

North Carolina is known for its fair share of frivolous laws. One law states that it is illegal to use an elephant to plow your field. However the fatuousness of the elephant law doesn’t compare to the provision of NC marriage law that allows first cousins to marry. The State of North Carolina will allow you to marry your cousin, but it will not allow loving, committed couples their civil liberties and the right to marry.

Before the passage of North Carolina’s Constitutional Amendment One, on May 8th, 2012, marriage had already been defined as between one man and one woman. The amendment stipulated that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” North Carolinian voters approved the amendment 61.04% to 38.96%, which is no surprise for such a socially conservative state. Amendment One supporters felt strongly about their stance on gay marriage and it showed at the polls. Although a majority of the Tar Heel state’s citizens supported the amendment, did that give them the right to impose their belief of marriage on the less fortunate  minority? Simply put - no. Our founding fathers did not intend for our nation to be run by mob rule. Such “mob rule” is a clear violation of their rights as human beings who are entitled to make decisions in their best interest.

Since the dawn of government in human civilization, the elite have tried to control other people’s lives for many various reasons. What our founding fathers sought was equality under the law and for no one group of people to control another group of people. Individual rights should never be put up to the fickle public vote, and the rights of a minority, no matter how small, must always be accepted. We must as a nation learn to be accepting of one another. Abraham Lincoln once said “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. As a nation, we cannot remain divided by our differences. It will surely work to our disadvantage. Nobody is truly free until there is true equality – a product of liberty above all. As citizens of a representative democracy, we must work to find the balance between government and personal freedom and between the will of the people and the ideals of liberty – what we know is incontrovertibly right..

Earlier today, President Obama delivered a speech on counter-terrorism at the National Defense University. In his address, President Obama defended his policy on dealing with terrorists, including his controversial drone program and the assassination of the American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

President Obama opened with a summary on ending the war in Iraq (a conflict he believes to be a folly in the pursuit of terrorists) and “relentlessly [targeting] Al-Qaeda leadership”. He went on to state that the previous administration implemented questionable surveillance tactics at home that raised concerns about privacy rights. One can only assume he was referring to the PATRIOT Act, legislation that Obama protested but is still in effect. The President continued, “I believe we compromised our values…in the torture of our enemies. We have worked to align our policies with the rule of law.”

The President promptly reminded the audience that the threats of today are quite different from the threats of 2001. He cited recent incidents such as the Boston Bombing and remarked, “We have serious questions to ask ourselves…the decisions we are making will define the type of nation we leave our children.” President Obama urged the nation to find a balance between security and privacy to stop threats and prevent new terror groups from arising.

“The core of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Today, we are seeing the emergence of Al-Qaeda affiliates” the President lectured, “Most are focused on operating within the countries or regions in which they are based.” The  speech swiftly turned to homegrown terrorists as the President referred to incidents like the Fort Hood and Sikh Temple shootings.

President Obama suggested that the war on terror cannot be won by military and police forces alone; the government must extend its influence to alter the will of individuals who advocate destruction in the name of ideology. The President declared the War on Terror should not be thought of as a global conquest but a precise, direct action against those who seek to commit violence against Americans. He asserted the sharing of intelligence between countries will be a major contributor to the capturing and prosecution of international or homegrown terrorists.

On the ever increasing ability to assassinate individual targets, Obama commented, “For the same progress that gives us the technology to strike half-a-world-away also demands the discipline to restrain that power or risk abusing it.” President Obama then boasted that his administration has established a network to govern the distribution of such force against terrorists.

This network of assassination governance does not allow the indiscriminate use of drone strikes. President Obama insisted the highest level of precautions were put in place yesterday by signing the “Presidential Policy Guideline” to decide when and where it is appropriate to use a drone strikes. Minimizing civilian casualties was listed as a top priority. The President expressed his regret on the hundreds of civilian casualties in past drone strikes but then quickly contrasted, “As Commander-in-Chief, I had to weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternative”. He conveyed the struggles of dealing with governments who refuse to take action against United States terror targets.

Obama then redirected back to homegrown terrorists and informed the audience, “Our laws constrain the President of the United States, even during wartime. And I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States…Congress is briefed on every strike America takes…every strike, which includes the one where we targeted an America citizen.”

President Obama then reported he has ordered the declassification of the Anwar al-Alawki assassination and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes in an effort to “facilitate transparency.” He went on to say he believes, “The [government] should not assassinate American citizens with drones, or a shotgun for that matter, without due process.” The President also stressed he is of the opinion that no armed drone should fly over American soil.

The President then offset this statement by declaring American citizenship should not be used as a shield for active terrorists anymore than it should be in domestic situations with an imminent threat and a responding SWAT team. President Obama listed the evidence against al-Alawki as justification for his assassination. He also informed the audience that the assassination was approved by the Department of Justice and Congress. Obama closed his remarks on al-Alawki with, “The decision to use force against individuals…enemies of the United States is the hardest thing I do as President”.

Obama then expanded on the theoretical processes of approving drone assassinations, one of which included joint efforts with the judicial branch of the federal government. Another method: an independent oversight board within the executive branch. The President went on to assert his belief in expanded oversight of the drone program.

The President concluded the drone assassination segment of his speech with the statement, “A perpetual war…will prove self-defeating and alter our country in troubling ways”.

The United States Constitution declares in the 5th and 14th amendments that ‘[no] person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’.

References

“Congress, Politics, Booksand American History.” C-SPAN. N.p., 23 May 2013. Web. 23 May 2013.

Taylor, Robert. “PolicyMic.” PolicyMic. N.p., Oct. 2012. Web. 23 May 2013.

Until its effective date of January 1, 2014, states across the nation have a choice about how they can accommodate the Affordable Care Act’s 2014 Medicaid expansion programme and whether to adopt it or not.

It is alleged by many publications, democratically controlled legislative bodies and agencies, and supporting Republicans that ME 14s’ costs will be matched by federal appropriations of 100% in the first three years, ending at the close of fiscal year 2016. From fiscal year 2017 onward, the matching rates will decline as follows:

• 2017:  95%
• 2018:  94%
• 2019:  93%
• 2020:  90%

Notwithstanding the promise to match Medicaid expansion funds at declining rates up to 2020, the federal government’s promises to appropriate funds for local, county, and state public works projects should not be taken lightly when you consider the following:

• The estimated national debt for fiscal year 2013 is approximately $17.5 trillion – a number that is rising by $3 billion daily;
• The federal deficit is $744 billion;
• The government’s annual spending tops $3.8 trillion.

Thus the federal government’s promise to match the cost of states’ Medicaid expansions with federal funds is audacious – when it is already spending far beyond its means – and begs the question: will the match in funds for the currently 26 ME 14 supporting states lead to a budgetary implosion? Or will we see a follow-through in funding promises?

On Thursday, the “Pine Tree State” joined the nation-wide protest against the costly ME 14 by making the decision to opt-out of the programme.

Maine’s Governor, Paul R. LePage (R), vetoed Legislative Document 1546 – a bill that would extirpate $484 in state hospital debt while at the same time expanding MaineCare (Medicaid.)   According to bill’s summary – line 36 to line 41 – Part C of the bill would (in a nearly across-the-board standard for all adoptions):

“[Expand] medical coverage under the MaineCare program to adults who qualify under federal law with incomes up to 133% of the nonfarm income official poverty line, with the 5% federal income adjustment for family size, and qualifies Maine to receive federal funding for 100% of the cost of coverage for members who enroll under the expansion. Adults who will be eligible are those 21 to 64 years of age beginning January 1, 2014 and adults 19 and 20 years of age beginning October 1, 2019.”

In his press release, Governor LePage offered a more economically viable solution, as opposed to expanding Medicaid within the state this year:

“I have filed a Governor’s Bill today reflecting the parts of LD 1546 well all agree on – paying the hospitals and ensuring the liquor business provides the best return for the state – without the forced expansion of MaineCare. The Legislature will have the opportunity to vote up-or-down to pay the hospitals – I trust you will do the right thing.”

On the tenth of May 2013, We Are 1776 released an article detailing that $1 Million was going to be awarded to the Sheriff of Palm Beach County to start up a “Prevention Intervention” Unit. This “Prevention Intervention” unit was Palm Beach County’s Sheriff Ric Bradshaw’s way of enacting preemptive strikes on incidents like the Newtown, Aurora shootings and the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The Unit encouraged citizens of Palm Beach County to call in if they hear anything suspicious about their neighbors, and the person reported would be met with police officers and mental health specialists. Nevertheless, the “Prevention Intervention” Unit caused concern for the Palm Beach County citizens as Sheriff Ric Bradshaw had a history of alleged accusations of corruption and abusing the powers given to him by the people of Palm Beach County.

There has been a glimmer of hope, however, that has eased the tensions of the law-abiding citizens of Palm Beach County. Florida Governor Rick Scott has used his line-veto powers in order to stop the $1 Million program.

Works Cited

Dickey, Karl. “Fla Governor Rick Scott Vetoes Sheriff’s Snitch Program.” Examiner.com. The Examiner, 22 May 2013. Web. 22 May 2013
Bell, Ryan. “Florida Legislation Grants $1 Million to Palm Beach County for “Prevention Intervention” Unit.” We Are 1776, 10 May 2013. Web. 22 May 2013.

By Ryan Bell, We Are 1776, Contributor

The unconstitutionality of drones has been a hot-key button for quite some time and there is still no clear directive on how drones will be used in the United States under the Obama Administration. This issue, however, has made positive turn in the state of Florida, as Governor Rick Scott has signed the “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act”, an anti-drone bill, into law. The bill itself was written by Florida State Libertarians and introduced by self-described Libertarian Senator Joe Negron. The two-page bill clearly defines a drone as a powered aerial vehicle that:

• Does not carry a human operator;
• Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
• Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
• Can be expendable or recoverable and;
• Carry a lethal or non-lethal payload.
Further on, the bill clearly defines law enforcement as any established local or public agency that is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of penal, traffic, regulatory, game, or controlled substance laws. Now, people might be concerned with government agencies using third parties in order to obtain evidence. Nevertheless, there have been incidents in our past when third party agencies are used at the discretion of law enforcement agencies. At these times, these agencies are presumed to be an agent or instrument of the government and thus would have to follow the Bill of Rights and other laws and regulations.
The bill also states that the use of a drone in order to obtain evidence is strictly prohibited. There is, however, an exception to the use of drones in the state that could leave wiggle room. The exception does not prohibit the use of drones in order to counter a high-risk terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a high risk.
Attempts made to contact Florida State Senator Joe Negron in order to obtain a statement on this piece of legislation were unsuccessful. This bill does make Florida one of the first states to have an anti-drone bill.
The bill will take affect 1st July 2013.

References

Negron, Joe. “Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act.” Florida House of Representatives, n.d. Web. 22 May 2013.

“Searches by Civilians and Police Agencies.” Almenda County District Attorney’s Office, n.d. Web. 22 May 2013.