Blog Stage 8

Our neighbors to the North legalized recreational marijuana. Canada now is the largest nation in the world to do that. In the United States, only nine states allow it but when midterms were around the corner, this was a major issue on the ballot in Michigan and North Dakota. Is nation-wide pot legalization in America’s future as well? Reading Austin Garland’s article, I would say that he believed legalizing marijuana is beneficial to the country’s economy and it would open infinite doors. So, should America follow Canada’s lead on legalizing marijuana? Is it a good idea? In my opinion, a quick answer for that is no, and the country would be sorry. Fortunately, we have a crystal ball in this case because we can look five years later at what happened in Colorado for instance, which legalized marijuana. By every metric, it was a failure; teen drug use is the highest in the country; drug driving is off the charge, doubled with marijuana-impaired driving; homelessness is up; emergency room and missions; and the black market is flourishing. Most people are for medical marijuana. It is when it is recreational. There was a poll on whether recreational marijuana should be legal in the U.S. or not.. 62% said yes and 34% said no it shouldn’t. President Trump moved forward with an entire new agenda, focusing on treatment and prescription of legal opioids because it leads to addiction. Why would we introduce, recreationally, a brand new drug and open the floodgates, particularly to young people? Legalizing marijuana will let big marijuana be what big tobacco is today. 

Trump's Executive Order To End Birthright Citizenship

President Trump considered a radical change to American Immigration law, and that was just ahead of the midterm elections. In an interview with Axios website, the president said that he wants to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th amendment to the constitution, with an Executive Order. Recording to PolitiFact, 30 other countries offer birthright citizenship. There was elections a week away and the president was talking about this… Was that a serious policy proposal by the president or was that something he wanted to get in a big constitution to debate about for a week to keep the focus on a topic he thought would work for him politically? Many people believed it was something that he wanted to do. Politically, he wanted to keep all of the emphasis on sending troops to the boarder to guard the caravan of Central American migrants, which hit the boarder recently. 

     We have a 14th amendment which states clearly that if one is born here, on U.S. soil, then he/she is a U.S citizen. President Trump says “I don’t even need to go to Congress to change this, I can use my Executive power to do it.” When it comes to immigration, trump believes that he can and he will even though some tell him that he can’t and he shouldn’t. In August 2015, the president rolled out his immigration policy and he said that he would do that, he wanted to end birthright citizenship. This has been a part of his plan on immigration for the very beginning. If it has been a part of his plan the whole time why did he bring it one week before the elections? Has he not been able to do it? 

     House Speaker Paul Ryan said that President Donald Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an Executive Order. They didn’t like it when Obama tried to change immigration laws via Executive actions and obviously as conservatives, they believe in the Constitution. As a conservative, Ryan believes in following the plain text of the Constitution and thinks that in this case, the 14th amendment is pretty clear. What Trump is trying to do would involve a very lengthy constitutional process.  On the other hand, Ryan agrees with the President in getting at the root issue which is unchecked illegal immigration.  

     Trump’s decision is based on politics. He knows immigration animates his base, and the harder line he takes on it, up to and including ending birthright citizenship, the better it’ll be received. It might work as a political strategy, but in terms of the chances of Trump actually ending birthright citizenship, there’s no chance. 

Trump's Executive Order To End Birthright Citizenship

On October 31, 2018, Ayoub Kajjaj talked about Trump’s aims to end the birthright citizenship with an Executive Order. In the article, Kajjaj mentioned that Trump announced that the United States of America is the only country that offers citizenship. Kajjaj didn’t point out the following, but I must disagree with Trump’s statement as there are 30 other countries that do offer citizenships such as Canada, South American and European countries. Does the President have legal authority to change this? The majority of legal and constitutional experts would say that he doesn’t have the power to do this. On the other hand, there are few conservatives who have been arguing over the past several years that there is a right that the constitution isn’t being applied correctly. The 14th amendment was meant to apply only to citizens and permanent resident of the US. It doesn’t apply to those who are on temporary visas or unauthorized. As a US citizen who’s parent is a non-citizen and got the chance to give birth in the US, I find this very interesting as the constitution is very explicit. It doesn’t give any caveats in terms of if they’re a citizen, it says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Kajjaj also mentioned that dictators come to power in democracy if one gives the green light to do so. The question is who else is demanding this? Why is this becoming an issue and why is Trump trying to do this? To “make America great again"? Kajjaj described Donald Trump as a “Subtle Fascist” as Trump is trying to implement these new decision into our community. The president should know that he can’t change the 14th amendment and what he’s doing is an attempt to divide people and incitet an issue. Also, if his order is signed, there will be legal challenges.

Military spendings and Investments

    On January 19th, the Department of Defense published a summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy; the first National Defense Strategy published in a decade. This document determines how the Department of Defense will contribute to Trump’s National Security Strategy. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis remarked on National Defense Strategy. Mattis’s speech discussed the objectives of National Defense Strategy which include building a more lethal force by modernizing key capabilities, strengthening the alliances, attracting new partnerships to the other nations and reforming the department’s business practices.

    In an interview with Government Matters, Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center of Strategic and International Studies, said that that was one of three documents that were going to guide the Department of Defense. The unclassified summary of the strategy failed to mention how it plans to fund its objectives. Mark said that some of the highest priority investments to look up for on a budget are missile defense and modernization. Is military spending enough? Or should it be increased?

    Gallup conducted polls to determine views on Military and national Defense. When discussing whether one thinks the amount of money the government in Washington is spending for national defense and military purpose is too little, about the right amount, or too much, 34% chose for the spending to be too little, 33% chose for it to be too much, and 31% chose for it to be just about right. The people who chose that the spending to be too little encourage to increase the spending as they believe the world is becoming more dangerous daily and it is important to increase the spending on defense and cut in the areas of health, welfare and education. One can’t expect success fighting tomorrow’s conflicts with yesterday’s weapons or equipments. They must invest in modernization of key capabilities through sustained budgets and investments would focus on layered missile defense as well as restoring warfighting readiness and fielding a lethal force. People who decided the spending was too much believed the The United States was spending way too much money on the military and not enough on education. They believed spendings should increase on social welfare, health and education as it would give the country lasting benefits that would help achieve a brighter future.

Jamal Khashoggi's fate casts a harsh light on Trump's friendship with Saudi Arabia

    The article on The Washington Post gives a discussion of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi that has become an international crisis. Written by Brian Klaas, who is an American political scientists and columnist at the Washington Post, the article shows Klaas’s concerns and everyone else’s about the reality of Saudi Arabia and Donald Trump, and whether Saudi Arabia is responsible for the murder/disappearance of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

     Jamal Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian Journalist with an American residency and a critic of the Saudi Arabia’s government. Opinions appear to be turning against Saudi Arabia as the Turkish government has audio recordings showing that Khashoggi was killed and tortured by 15 Saudi men. In the article, Klaas sends a message regarding Donald Trump and his actions to the incident.

    The article discusses the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Donald Trump. With Trump’s business interests, it may be impossible for him to cogitate the right punishment if Saudi Arabia is guilty. Klaas does a good job supporting that statement as he mentions the benefits Saudi Arabia has provided to Trump; companies, hotels, and bailing Trump out when he was $900 million in debt. It was also Trump’s first foreign trip, as mentioned in the article. Klaas highlights the partnership as a possibility that Saudi Arabia will get away with murder because Trump is beholden to Saudi money. Klaas uses words such as “disturbing,” “endangering,” “barbarism,” “despotic,” and "pitiless" to represent or give an idea of the Saudi Arabia leadership and their brutal actions toward their citizens and critics.

    Overall, I find the article very interesting as Klaas gives a substantial amount of information. It really shows that Klaas is concerned about the incident and wants justice for Jamal Khashoggi as there has to be consequences for crimes that are committed.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Is An American Hero

    “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter,” said Martin Luther King, Jr. In the article “Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Is An American Hero”, which is written in the Huffington Post, Jessica Luther, a freelance journalist, an author and a co-host of the feminist sports podcast “Burn It All Down,” addresses Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as an “American hero” as Blasey refuses to stay quiet and talks about her experience with sexual harassment from Brett Kavanaugh, infront of all the Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In this article, Luther mentions women’s power and their courage to face the world and speak about their stories about abuse and violence. The article is organized as Luther begins with talking about how Blasey and her husband were pushed to go into therapy by her desire to have two front doors in their home because of what has been haunting her for more than thirty years, Kavanaugh’s sexual assault. Then, she talks about all the other courageous women such as Ida B. Wells, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ann Richards, Shirley Chisholm, Carmita Wood and Maya Angelou, and their similar experiences and impact on people The article is very effective as Luther makes sure to show how Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was persistent to let her credibility be strong and earned. The overall value of the passage is to show how women are heroes and they'll never stop growing.

On Politics With Lisa Lerer: A Moment for Women

Anything you do, women can do as well. A very true statement, yet a statement many look down upon. On September 19, 2018, Lisa Lerer, a national politics reporter, shared her thoughts in an article about Hillary Clinton. Lerer made sureto cover Clinton’s campaign from the beginning to the very end. 

The article written in the New York Times explains how Mrs. Clinton’s loss wasn’t the end, but the beginning of a national movement of women. I believe this article is worth reading because as a woman, I admire and encourage other women who have strong beliefs and opinions and are willing to get politically involved. 

Women's political participation results in a more sustainable future. They tend to focus more on education and health, and the positive impact of women in politics is unquestionable as they have different priorities depending on their different experiences and concerns.