Political Articles related to Life in the U.S.

In my dailey routine, which includes visiting numerous Websites and Blogs, to get a "Grasp" on what interests people, and of course to educate myself with the numerous opinions of others, I, on occasion run across an article that compells me to write on a particular subject. After visiting a Blog--"Philadelphia Freedom Blog" and reading the Authors article entitled "Will Maryland see a more enlightened justice system?", I realized that I actually knew little about the Death Penalty--I decided to do a little research.

The first individual sentenced to death in America was in 1608. In 1612, an individual could receive the Death Penalty for stealing vegetables, not to mention trading with the Savages (Indians), speaking of Savages-Killing a man for a Tomato! Who can forget watching the Westerns on T.V.? Many "A Hangin" was performed, executing the Bad Guy. Days would be spent building the Gallows, buggies would verge upon the town with people, food and of course--the Yungins ( Kids ). Food, Fellowship, and celebration, for everyone except the Bad Guy--Hopefully, they got it right and He was truly the Bad Guy. Which brings me another point, I wonder how many of Women "Burned at the Stake" were not truly Witches? Hey--just a thought.

I agree that a person should be held responcible for their actions. If one commits a crime, they should pay accordingly, however, I want their punishment to warrant the penalty,to be fair, and an effective measure of dettering others from commiting the same act. I do not find that the Death Penalty meets these requirements.

How can anyone defend the Fairness of the Death Penalty, when you have people like Gary Ridway who is more than willing to take credit for 48 murders, and gets a Life Sentence, while others wait in line to get gassed or zapped, for committing murder also. How many "Would Be Candidates" for the Death Penalty are spared solely because they could afford the high priced attorney, instead of the Court Appointed attorney who may or maynot have the expierience, or sources needed to defend his client.

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990. To me, this statement shows that the Death Penalty has nothing to do with lowering crime, the statistics show nothing to support the argument that the Death Penalty is a detterant in any way.

Probably the most troubling aspect of the Death Penalty, is the chance of the individual paying for a crime they did not commit--paying with their life. Since 1976, 82 inmates have been Freed from Death Row, granted the reasons may vary, however how many removed because the evidence was found to be not conclusive.

I do not condone the crimes that these people have committed, and yes, anyone commiting a crime against his fellow man should suffer for his or her actions. However, Based on the lack of it being a detterant, and the chance that one may pay for a crime they did not commit, the chances of failure of the Legal System (Nothing is Perfect), I find no benefit in something that has such a chance of error, not when we are talking about an Individuals Life.

The waiting is almost over. The changing of the guard is about to take place, and a new "Commander In Chief" will take the reigns of what some consider to be a Runaway Wagon. The time is near, the Man whos platform during the election was simple--A Time For Change.

Obama spoke of change, and people cheered. His words gave hope to many who wish to see a change in the direction our country is headed, and to the masses that wish to live a better life. Numerous people that I have spoken with have had different views of the changes they needed in their life and for the Nation. The majority spoke of an end to their Financial troubles--Obama would put them back to work, cut their taxes, and improve their lifestyle. I hope they are willing to accept that "Change" does not come quickly, and may not come at all.

Obama inherits a deeply troubled America. The War in Iraq has cost a great deal of money and will continue to do so. This expenditure has placed a heavy burden on the Taxpayer, and has had a major impact on the economy. It took years to cause this problem, and it will take years to correct it. Adding to this problem, are the amount of Large and Small companies who are laying off employees, or simply downsizing, in an attempt to "Stay Afloat". Loss of employees equals loss of a Taxpayer, and an increasing burden on an already strapped economy.

The notion of putting people back to work is appealing, to say the least. However, How do you achieve this when the companies cannot absorb the cost of employees and the benefits that come with their hiring. Tax breaks for employers would help, a stimulus Check to the Taxpayers will help also. My question-where do you re-coop the finances needed to support other useful programs that Americans need.

Our new President has a rough road ahead. There are many changes that need to be made, and these changes will take time, if in fact it can be achieved. I hope that the Nation that is waiting for the New President, is also willing to wait for the "Change"

The Cost of the War in Iraq is tremendous. The finacial burden put upon this Country is enormous.The effects this has had on "Our" economy will last for many years to come. One would think that the U.S. Government, knowing the Cost and Hardships associated with this War, would "Clamp Down" on ridiculous spending.
This brings me to a News Article I just read, the subject being the New U.S. Embassy in Iraq. From what I have read, this Embassy is truly a Masterpiece--and very costly!. It actually sounds like something I wish they would build in my neighborhood--but then--I would have a problem with the cost, a cost of 700 Million. I understand the logic behind the idea of having an Embassy in other Nations--However--Do they really need to be this Elaborate, and this Costly. Read the Article, drop me a comment and share your thoughts.

Monday, January 05, 2009
Fox News

After much delay the United States opened its new $700 million embassy in Iraq on Monday, inaugurating the largest - and most expensive - embassy ever built.

The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities.

The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington.

It has space for 1,000 employees with six apartment blocks and is 10 times larger than any other U.S. embassy.

In a ceremony Monday attended by U.S. and Iraqi officials, the U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker ushered in a "new era" for both Iraq and for the Iraqi-U.S. relationship, although critics have said that the embassy's fortress-like design and immense size show a fundamental disconnect between the U.S. and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

"The presence of a massive U.S. embassy - by far the largest in the world - co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in 2006.

"The idea of an embassy this huge, this costly, and this isolated from events taking place outside its walls is not necessarily a cause for celebration," architectural historian Jane Loeffler wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2007.

"Traditionally, at least, embassies were designed to further interaction with the community in which they were built," she wrote. "Although the U.S. Government regularly proclaims confidence in Iraq's democratic future, the U.S. has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future. Instead, the U.S. has built a fortress capable of sustaining a massive, long-term presence in the face of continued violence."

The inauguration of the $700 million embassy compound in the heart of the Green Zone came just days after a security agreement between Iraq and the United States took effect, replacing a U.N. mandate that gave legal authority to the U.S. and other foreign troops to operate in Iraq.

"I think we have seen a tremendous amount of progress, even since September. But the development of this new Iraq is going to be a very long time in the making, and we need to be engaged here," Crocker said.

Crocker's remarks were an indirect appeal for the U.S. to stay engaged diplomatically and politically in Iraq, regardless of the eventual withdrawal of the approximately 146,000 troops stationed here. The veteran diplomat has served before in the Middle East, where a lack of U.S. resolve in places like Lebanon 20 years ago opened that country to meddling from Iran and Syria.

U.S. diplomats and military officials moved into the embassy on Dec. 31 after spending almost six years housed in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace, which they occupied when they captured Baghdad in April 2003.

The grandiose and gaudy palace, with its gold-plated bathroom fixtures, wall paintings of Scud missiles and enormous chandeliers, served as both headquarters for occupying forces and the hub for the Green Zone - the walled-off swath of central Baghdad that was formally turned over to the Iraqi government on New Year's Day.

The palace will now seat the Iraqi government and the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who did not attend the Monday's ceremony because he was traveling in Iran.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani praised President George W. Bush and the new embassy.

"The building of this site would not be possible without the courageous decision by President Bush to liberate Iraq," said Talabani. "This building is not only a compound for the embassy but a symbol of the deep friendship between the two peoples of Iraq and America."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I decided to do a series of articles on the numerous Hate Groups that exist. So--after thinking for awhile--I decided to start with the Ku Klux Klan. A simple visit to their Website, can give you a perfect example of their propaganda, and the methods used to justify their existence. The quotes that i have highlighted are indeed their's!-------

"There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers. "

Until I started doing a little reasearch on the "Klan", I never knew that they were such a Religious group. On their Website--that make statements reffering to the Christian--excuse me--They actually state the "White Christian" way. They speak of Principles, loyalty, good, evil, right and wrong. This is all "Fine and Dandy" to preach about such matters, and to have your Christian Belief's, as the platform you stand on. There I go again--They state "White Christian". I know many Christians who are Black, Asian, From Lebanon and all over the world--many who are not "White". Interesting--so do they not deserve the same Principles that the Klan preaches? Or is that reserved for "White Christians"---I don't really recall Jesus making a distinction based on race or skin color!

"We envision an America in which our children are not confronted by anti-white and anti-Christian propaganda,"

Really!! I envision an America, in which "ALL" children are not confronted by Racial remarks and attacks on their religion solely because they do not believe as you do. But then, I guess I still don't understand the "White Christian" platform. I happen to be white, however I call myself a "Christian"

"We envision an America in which our borders are secure and non-whites who don't share our concepts of liberty find entrance impossible"

Now--ya just gotta love this one. All you Non-Whites who don't believe as I do are not Welcome. Now, does that mean that the Whites who do not believe as I do are? Is that not Racial. So--all you white Folks who disagree with me, hate my concepts of Liberty--Come On In!!! DUH !!!

"Our organization is well known through out law enforcement for being non-violent."

I have absolutely no doubt--"Our organization is well known through out law enforcement" Hell--As far back as 1871 congress had to pass the "Ku Klux Klan Act" because of the "Violence Practised by the Klan"

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (ch. 22, 17 Stat. 13 [codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.A. § 241, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1988]), also called the Civil Rights Act of 1871 or the Force Act of 1871, was one of several important civil rights acts passed by Congress during Reconstruction, the period following the Civil War when the victorious northern states attempted to create a new political order in the South. The act was intended to protect African Americans from violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a white supremacist group.

"We envision an America once again guided by Biblical principles and laws. Whose laws better to follow than those of the creator of our universe? Who has a more perfect knowledge of good and evil, of right and wrong, of pain and pleasure than our creator Jesus Christ? Does it not make sense to then heed his advice and the advice of Biblical scholars inspired by God thousands of years ago?"

I agree, Biblical Principles, knowing the differense between right and wrong, and surely the refferense to Jesus. However I believe in a Jesus that had passion, passion for "All" men, women and children--this alone disputes the K.K.K.s stand on Christianity. As far as the statement on violence--I know no one who has had the Congress of the United States pass a Bill solely for Them, a Bill to prevent violence. Their statement about securing the borders from Non-Whites--who disagree with their opinions---however allows Whites who may not have the same feelings, disputes not only their Christianity--love for your fellow man, but also supports the Bill passed in 1870. The Klan needs to step into the Real World!

By Mike Mount
CNN

(CNN) -- "I can't find the right words to describe when you are homeless," says Iraq war veteran Joseph Jacobo. "You see the end of your life right there. What am I going to do, what am I going to eat?"

War trauma sends many veterans to the streets where they beg for survival.

Jacobo is one of an increasing number of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who come home to life on the street. The Department of Veterans Affairs is fighting to find them homes.

Veterans make up almost a quarter of the homeless population in the United States. The government says there are as many as 200,000 homeless veterans; the majority served in the Vietnam War. Some served in Korea or even World War II. About 2,000 served in Iraq or Afghanistan

Read Article