The withdrawal doesn’t mean that the U.S. presence has ended. As CNN points out: “The United States will still maintain a presence in Iraq: hundreds of nonmilitary personnel, including 1,700 diplomats, law enforcement officers, and economic, agricultural and other experts, according to the State Department. In addition, 5,000 security contractors will protect Americans and another 4,500 contractors will serve in other roles.”

The U.S. embassy in Iraq is the largest in the world despite the two countries having little in common culturally or economically. They don’t even share a border. Why we need over 11,000 people to man an embassy is anyone’s guess (I think you can surmise why we are still there), but should a civil war occur, a lot of Americans will be in harm’s way. It is almost begging for another Iran hostage crisis to happen.

The latest ad specifically claims that “America’s economy is hanging by a thread” thanks to “reckless spending, a failed stimulus and a $14 trillion debt.” The ad goes on to say that it is time to stop giving President Obama a blank check. The message of the ad is clear: Obama is the reason that we have a beleaguered economy, a large (and rising) national debt, etc.

The only problem, of course, is that it is not true. President Bush and Republicans in Congress racked up $5.07 trillion of debt from tax cuts for the rich, wars, a Wall Street bailout, Medicare prescription drug bill, and other spending. During the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the federal budget increased by an average of 3.81% per year.

The nation’s debt is not a product of President Obama. The 2010 budget passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama was an increase of only 1.4%. Emergency measures that he did take were only temporary. When he entered office the nation was losing nearly a million jobs a week and he took action by passing the Recovery Act, which created as many as 3.6 million jobs. This is his largest contributor to the debt to date.

The healthcare reform bill that passed in 2010 was paid for, despite repeated lies by Republicans that it added to the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the “Affordable Care Act”, which Republicans love to call “Obamacare”, will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the course of the next two decades. Again, that is a reduced deficit thanks to the actions of our president and a Democratic Congress.

Republicans might not like the numbers, but they don’t lie. The bulk of our country’s debt problems lie on the shoulders of George W. Bush and a Republican Congress that went on a spending spree at the same time that they unloaded the Treasury Department with tax cuts for the wealthy. Now they hold our economy hostage, claiming that President Obama is spending too much money, when they themselves are the main reason that we have a deficit problem.

That was then. Today, the Speaker of the House in New Hampshire, William O’Brien, is calling young voters “foolish”. I would imagine that Mr. O’Brien would view the young men that made the decision to go off and fight for their country in Afghanistan and Iraq to be just naive as well, since they clearly aren’t capable of voting, at least in his mind. His motivation, of course, is political. President Obama won college students 2-to-1 in 2008 and will be key to his re-election strategy. But denying people their right to vote so that your party can win an election? Well, I guess you can say that is Republican tradition these days, or as O’Brien was quoted in the Washington Post:

“Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack “life experience,” and “they just vote their feelings.”

New Hampshire House Republicans are pushing for new laws that would prohibit many college students from voting in the state – and effectively keep some from voting at all.

One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there – requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from. Another bill would end Election Day registration, which O’Brien said unleashes swarms of students on polling places, creating opportunities for fraud.

That’s their crime: not voting for Republicans. It’s a sad commentary on the state of the Republican Party when their electoral strategy is based on crushing unions and denying the right to vote to college kids (which would also affect veterans that come back home from war and attend college). They have basically given up on winning votes of their non-core voters and are instead hoping to buy elections with corporate dollars and disenfranchisement of voters.

An Election to Remember – $7.99 $4.00
The James Bond Movie Guide – $7.99 $4.00
International Political Economy: Free Trade or Fair Trade? – $2.99 $1.50
Detroit: A City on the Brink – $2.99 $1.50
The Slavery Debate in 19th Century America – $2.99 $1.50
The Sanctuary Movement – $2.99 $1.50

Also, don’t forget to check out the Game Freaks 365 Video Game Guide series:

Game Freaks 365’s Video Game Guide 2011 – $7.99 $4.00
Game Freaks 365′s Nintendo DS Review Guide – $7.99 $4.00
Game Freaks 365′s PS3 Review Guide – $7.99 $4.00
Game Freaks 365′s Wii Review Guide – $7.99 $4.00
Game Freaks 365′s Xbox 360 Review Guide – $7.99 $4.00
Game Freaks 365′s PSP Review Guide – $4.99 $2.50

No matter the outcome of the midterm election, it is indisputable that the last Congress was one of the most productive ever. For all of the Pelosi haters out there, Speaker Pelosi accomplished a great deal in the past four years, including many things that Republicans would have supported in the past (such as tax cuts). Her image as a “San Francisco liberal” did not make her many friends in the nation’s mid-section and President Obama rarely defended her, despite the fact that she was carrying his bucket in the House. Here are just a few of the many accomplishments that Pelosi managed when she was House Speaker:

*Extending unemployment benefits. The roughly 10-15% of people unemployed in this area (depending on which county you live in) would not have unemployment benefits if the GOP had their way.
*Expanding health care coverage to all Americans by 2014 (unless Republicans de-fund it, which is quite possible)
*Regulating the banks to make sure that future bailouts do not happen.
*Ending the bank bailouts from the Bush years.
*Increasing funding for financial aid to college, including Pell Grants and reducing the cost of student loans.
*Creating an estimated 3.7 million jobs with the Recovery Act

I would stand by that record any day of the week. The Republicans got us into the ditch and the Democrats got us out. It wasn’t easy and times are still tough, but we are on the path to recovery. Going down the Republican path of de-regulation and tax cuts for the rich will only ensure a future economic collapse.

The judge’s decision mirrored arguments that I outlined in March, arguing that the equal protection clause of the Constitution guaranteed these rights. The law was challenged under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Judge Walker writes that: “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The fundamental idea behind the 14^th Amendment is to protect against arbitrary uses of power. If the government (or in the case of Prop 8, a voter-passed initiative) takes away certain rights, “the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny.” Judge Walker noted that the Supreme Court has held that marriage is considered a fundamental right that is protected by the Due Process Clause. Judge Walker points out that race restrictions were once placed on marriage and that the Supreme Court recognized that “despite their historical prevalence, [they] stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.”

The next question before the court was the issue of Equal Protection under the Constitution. Judge Walker wrote that, “The court defers to legislative (or in this case, popular) judgment if there is at least a debatable question whether the underlying basis for the classification is rational. … The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation.”

He notes the Lawrence case from 2003 where the Supreme Court rejected a Texas law banning sodomy: “Indeed, homosexual conduct and attraction are constitutionally protected and integral parts of what makes someone gay or lesbian.” Ultimately, Prop 8 is unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds because it “targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex.”

The legal history of gay marriage in California is quite lengthy. Voters approved a ban on gay marriage in 2000 with Proposition 22. San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom challenged this by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. These licenses were invalidated by the California Supreme Court without issuing a ruling on whether the ban on gay marriage was constitutional or not. The city of San Francisco filed an action in state court to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage. The argument was that the ban was expressly against the constitution of California. The trial judge agreed, stating that it violated the state’s equal protection guarantees. An appellate court reversed the decision until the California Supreme Court ultimately decided in May 2008 that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

This is what led to Proposition 8. Petitioners sought to include in the state’s constitution a ban on gay marriage. They successfully got the requisite number of signatures for the initiative to be placed on the 2008 general election ballot. Ultimately, voters passed Prop 8 by a 52 to 48 margin on the same night that voters across the nation elected the first African-American president. Attempts to once again have the ban overturned failed. The California Supreme Court allowed the 18,000 marriages that occurred between the initial May 2008 ruling against the original ban and Prop 8’s passage modifying the California Constitution.

Now that a federal court has ruled on this issue, the next step will be to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. It is known as one of the more liberal in the country and will in all likelihood uphold the ruling of Judge Walker. It is worth noting that he was appointed by a Republican president, George H. W. Bush. The trial court case lasted for roughly a year. It is unlikely that an appeal will conclude any sooner. The final step would be an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, gay marriage will either become legal across the country or current bans will remain in place.

The James Bond Movie Guide
An Election to Remember: Obama, Clinton and the Never Ending Primary
International Political Economy: Free Trade or Fair Trade?
The Slavery Debate in 19th Century America
Detroit: A City on the Brink
Game Freaks 365′s Nintendo DS Review Guide
Game Freaks 365′s Wii Review Guide
Game Freaks 365′s PS3 Review Guide
Game Freaks 365′s Xbox 360 Review Guide
Game Freaks 365′s PSP Review Guide

Happy 4th of July everyone!

“Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” the former US President nonchalantly admitted to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids in Michigan. “I’d do it again to save lives.”

This is not a minor matter. Torture is not only illegal under international law, namely the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal under United States law as well. During World War II, we convicted Japanese and German soldiers that used waterboarding. For those that will say that waterboarding does not fit the definition of torture, I point to the definition set by American law, specifically Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 2340:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths,
territories, and possessions of the United States.

It could not be any more clear than that statute. By taking the oath of office, the President of the United States swears to uphold the laws of the land, not to pick and choose which ones he likes. President Bush has admitted to breaking the law and treaties (which have the force of law), committing an illegal act in the process, soiling the image of our nation and putting the lives of Americans at risk. Nothing is a greater motivational tool for terrorists than this policy. I am glad that President Obama has put an end to torture, but it is his duty to uphold the Constitution by prosecuting the criminals in the Bush administration that ordered this.

You can purchase An Election to Remember at Smashwords for $4.99.

In other words, while Democrats will have to defend their vote in tough districts, nearly double the number of Republicans find themselves in similar situations. Worse yet for the GOP, there is evidence that support for the bill is significantly improving from where it was just a couple months ago when Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

President Obama’s approval rating on health care stood at 36-54 opposed in January (according to CBS) and was up to 41-51 by this past weekend before the vote took place. That’s a shift of 8 points in about a two month period and that is before the House even passed the bill. Undoubtedly, those numbers will continue to improve as the positive coverage from the bill’s passage continues. The president’s overall job approval is at 49-41 positive, an improvement from 46-41 in January.

What these numbers show is that the negative feelings towards this bill have peaked and the positive feelings are on the way up. As various aspects of the bill begin to be felt relatively quickly, such as kids being able to stay on their parent’s insurance plan until age 26 or the ban on pre-existing conditions, approval will continue to improve. Americans will realize that the Armageddon that Republicans literally said would take place after the bill passed was nothing more than scare tactics.

Not only are calls for repealing the bill ridiculously unrealistic (President Obama would veto any repeal), they also will ring hallow in November. Voters will question why the Republican Party is campaigning on a platform of repealing a ban on pre-existing conditions, filling the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, extending health insurance to 32 million Americans and reducing the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Let’s get back to those 32 House Republicans that voted against health care in districts that President Obama won. Below is a list of all of them:

Judy Biggert IL-13
Brian Bilbray CA-50
Mary Bono Mack CA-45
Ken Calvert CA-44
Dave Camp MI-4
John Campbell CA-48
Anh “Joseph” Cao LA-2
Michael Castle DE-AL
Charles Dent PA-15
David Dreier CA-26
Randy Forbes VA-4
Elton Gallegly CA-24
Jim Gerlach PA-6
Mark Kirk IL-10
Leonard Lance NJ-7
Tom Latham IA-4
Frank LoBiondo NJ-2
Daniel Lungren CA-3
Donald Manzullo IL-16
Thaddeus McCotter MI-11
Howard “Buck” McKeon CA-25
Erik Paulsen MN-3
Thomas Petri WI-6
David Reichert WA-8
Mike Rogers MI-8
Peter Roskam IL-6
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FL-18
Paul Ryan WI-1
Lee Terry NE-2
Patrick Tiberi OH-12
Fred Upton MI-6
Frank Wolf VA-10
Bill Young FL-10

Two are running for the Senate, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware. Both of those districts are favored to be won by Democrats. Representative Cao sits in a heavily Democratic New Orleans district and was only elected because the sitting member was a convicted felon. He voted for the House bill last November, but opposed it on Sunday. You can count him as a lame duck. Democrats are sure to win that seat back.

Go down the list and you can see some vulnerable names in Democratic or Democratic-trending districts: Peter Roskam and Judy Biggert in the Chicago suburbs, Jim Gerlach whose failed bid for governor has undoubtedly put him behind the game in his suburban Philadelphia district, Dan Lungren of California went from 62% support in the 2004 election to 49% in 2008.

With the right challengers facing each of these vulnerable Republicans, Democrats have a good chance at winning a few of these seats. The Republican takeover of Congress that conservatives are talking about seems a long way away when you add that to the Democrats which are already favored to pick up Mark Kirk’s seat in Illinois, Mike Castle’s in Delaware and Cao’s in Louisiana.

Despite phony concern coming from Republican leaders over the political impact that health care reform would have on Democrats, most evidence suggests that passing the bill enhances their chances of retaining majority status. The Democratic Party in Congress and President Obama have, without a single Republican vote, passed historic legislation to provide universal health care coverage for Americans. This goal has eluded every president since Tedd Roosevelt over 100 years ago. It’s an achievement that puts them in the history books and on safer political ground than they would have been if Republicans succeeded in killing the bill.

Let me be clear that I do not mean to say that Democrats will gain seats in the midterm election this fall. I believe that we will see modest losses in the House and a handful in the Senate. This falls well within the political history of the president’s party losing seats in a midterm election. Democrats won in places in 2008 that we normally wouldn’t have: conservative districts in Alabama and Idaho, among others. These are likely lost causes in 2010. But the talk of a takeover of both the House and Senate by Republicans is overblown. They will not win either chamber for a long time to come.