May the 4th be With You

Carly Fiorina, the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, will be joining the presidential race as of May 4.  She is the only Republican woman who has declared her candidacy.  Having already spoken at an Iowa forum, she discussed her points of criticism towards Hillary Clinton.  May 4 will be a busy day as Ben Carson is also supposed to announce his candidacy for the 2016 election as well. (Link to article)

I think it's great that more women are running for president, but I honestly have no stance on this topic.  I have no idea what her platform or stance on issues are, therefore I cannot create a proper opinion on this topic.

#WakaForPresident

Just kidding.

Life is Death

Katherine Seelye discusses a poll taken in Boston regarding the Boston Bombing of April 2013 (link to article).  After a public poll was taken in Boston this past month regarding the situation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, otherwise known as the Boston Bomber who, with his brother, injured many and killed 4, the public stated they would rather have Tsarnaev serve a life sentence in prison instead of being put to death.  62% agreed on a life sentence without parole, while 27% wanted the death penalty.  Though Massachusetts has abolished its capital punishment in 1984, Tsarnaev is facing death because he is being charged under federal law.  

I think I would rather have Tsarnaev rot the rest of his life in prison.  He doesn't deserve to go quickly after what he did to those people.  I would agree with the higher percent in the poll - life sentence without parole. 

Crime or Saving grace?

Stephen Collinson's "GOP Warns Iran and White House" discusses the letter 47 senators signed and sent to the Iranian government regarding the nuclear program (Link to article).  47 Senators of the GOP signed a letter to thwart Obama's deal-making with Iran, something many, including most of the Democrats, are calling "unprecedented."  The letter informed Iran that the deals Obama is planning are possibly useless because he will be leaving office in a little less than two years. 

This is huge.  The GOP is looking for a total shutdown to the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons, and some feel Obama is realizing they will create weapons anyways, therefore offering them money for limiting different uses for the nuclear program.  The question at hand is did 47 senators break the law?  It is unprecedented, but since I don't follow this much, I cannot say.  But I do know one thing: Iran with nukes = a very bad day for the United States of America.  I think we all know one of the first thing Iran will do with a nuclear weapon - sending a "care" package to either the US or Israel.  This needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

Assembly es Muy Bueno

In the article “Protesters interrupt McCulloch during SLU Law School symposium on Ferguson” by Danielle Scruggs and Chris Regnier, the freedom of assembly was seen in action on February 20, 2015 in a speech by St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch.  The post-Ferguson was interrupted by protesters three times, claiming McCulloch was guilty of obstructing the justice system in the Michael Brown case.  The protesters put on a mock-trial of the case, sang a song regarding Michael Brown, and chanted “black lives matter.”  The protesters were escorted out of the building and the whole event remained peaceful.  The group of protesters consisted of students at the SLU Law School.

If the freedom of assembly was not protected, then this whole ordeal would most likely not have happened.  The protesters also would have been at risk of danger also because they would not have been allowed to say or do anything that they did at McCulloch’s speech.  I feel that this article shows how protected the freedom of assembly is.  The college allowed a small hearing for the speech to be on its campus, and there were no violent actions.  Protesters and those listening to the speech practiced this freedom and it was a good thing to see in the media.

(link to article)

Nay Marriage (Get it, it's supposed to be "Gay" but it's not, thus resulting "Nay")

The chief justice of Alabama stated his opinion of his state trying to implement gay marriage laws in an article on February 12, 2015 (link to article).  Chief Justice Roy Moore told the media that he would fight same-sex marriage efforts, even if the Supreme Court will favor the change later this year.  He stated "he will follow the law as he interprets it" because if it is an "unlawful mandate you can refuse to mandate it."  The Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage on Monday, but Moore told the lower courts not to implement a federal court ruling.  Moore states Alabama recognized the "divine" nature of the definition of marriage.

I feel that Chief Justice Moore is correct in his stance on the issue.  His beliefs and interpretation of the law represents a man who cannot be changed by changing times, which can be good or bad depending on the issue.  But Alabama allowing gay marriage?  Really?  I was surprised by this article, and I seriously thought this would be one of the last states to legalize it.  But, as it is now, I feel that Moore should continue his fight against it.

DOWN WITH ISIS

In the article "Fight Against ISIS Needs Troops to be Effective, Michael Morell Says," the former No. 2 of the CIA stated what he believes to be an effective measure to take against the terrorist group (link to article). Morell stated that the only way for a response to occur is if the "coalition is willing to put more ground troops in Iraq and possibly into Syria, or ISIS."  After the release of the graphic video of the Jordanian pilot burning alive, Morell says there is not a will to commit such a large group of troops (100,000) that exists in the U.S. or Western Europe.  Word has reached the media that ISIS now holds an American woman captive as well.  The United States would be willing to spend the money and use the resources to find her, but there is a chance she may not be alive anymore.  Another possible strategy that exists is to take out the leadership, since the organization is hierarchical.

I think Morell is correct: we NEED to take action against ISIS.  There are reports of ISIS contacting freshman... let me repeat that - FRESHMAN - in the United States to start a terrorist attack.  Now I think 100,000 troops is extremely unnecessary, but I do believe a large amount should be fighting for not only our peace, but for those in the Middle East as well.  These savages who are controlling that area now need to be wiped off the face of the earth.  First off let me clarify by large amounts of troops.  I think the Arab nations should put together a large fighting force to begin the attack on ISIS. Then, the U.S. can contribute some troops to assist the cause.  There are several reasons why I am so fired up about this.  First, this weekend I watched "American Sniper" and it was fricken good. Second, I watched the murder of the Jordanian pilot and I can honestly say I've never been more sick to my stomach/pissed off in my whole life (sorry for the language).  Finally, I'm tired of people living in constant fear of another terrorist attack.  Yes, it's impossible to completely get rid of terrorism, but we do have the power, if other nations help, to rid ourselves of an issue that can be snuffed out with diligence.

Lethal-Rejection

The article "The Humane Death Penalty Charade" by the Editorial Board in the NY Times discusses the constitutionality of lethal-injection and capital punishment as a whole (link to article).  The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Warner v. Gross lawsuit that is fighting lethal-injection as it puts the inmates at risk of pain and suffering.  Warner was convicted of rape and murdering an 11-month old child in 1997.  His execution was scheduled for April last year but was postponed due to a botched lethal-injection of Clayton Lockett right before his.  Lethal-injections have been deemed constitutional in the past, but currently there have been several cases against its humanity and possibility of inducing suffering and pain.  Those against capital punishment do not want to find more "humane" methods, but those who support it don't care what a condemned person is going through in his final moments.

I find this to be quite interesting.  As Catholics, we are supposed to fight for all lives no matter who the person is, but when I read an article discussing what sickening deeds someone does, such as Warner, makes me all for capital punishment - for certain people.  I think those whose crimes are bad enough to be put on death row are there for a reason.  I do feel humanity is an important part of how you kill someone, but for those who dislike lethal-injection, I find it to be possibly one of the quickest ways to get the process over with.  If lethal-injection is so bad, then heck, why not go back to using the electric chair?  The process is faster, and the person wouldn't feel anything that long.  Honestly, I have mixed feelings from this article.