Tuesday 7th February 2012
The First Week
Economics / Elections / North Korea / Opinion / Politics / The Executive Branch

The First Week

Jonathan Veal on January 25, 2009 with 24 Comments

The beginning of a new era for America has been, to say the least, interesting. According to a gallop poll our new president has a 68% approval rating. Let us look at some of the major policies he is working on and analyze them.

The first big change was a notable one. Obama froze the pay of his staff. Making a cut for the economy and a brilliant gesture that helped get many in the nation on his side. Also putting some restraints of the lobbyists. Not only reducing their influence on politics, but also giving himself more power over congress and other agencies. But although both of these policies are of some repute I think that there might have been some additional changes that would have further bettered his approval rating and would have been good for the nation.

First, he could have cut his staff. He frankly doesn’t need a thousand plus staff. This is something that Bush should have done as well. Abraham Lincoln went through the civil war with a small staff of two. Even FDR had a staff of only a couple hundred during WW2. There is no need to have that many people in the executive branch. Although a wonderful gesture, freezing funds will do little to help the smothered economy. But cutting the bloated staff would have been a great way to streamline the Cabinet.

The second big change was not nearly so pleasant. Obama announced to the world and many pleasantly surprised terrorist groups, that he is closing Guantanimo Bay for “national security reasons”. What he forgot to mention is where we will put them. Coincidently, this story was highlighted by the fact that the last guy we released from the Detention center went and promptly blew 16 people sky high. Apparently not getting the message of the Saudi “Jihad rehabilitation center” that he attended.

So where do we send them? To another country? How about France? Imagine the headlines. “Mob attacks French prison. Terrorists mysteriously missing.” It would be Bastille all over again. Or maybe to the Saudi’s rehab for terrorists? Or to Yemen, where terrorists “inexplicably” disaster from prisons.

How about the US? Well, there are several reasons why bringing them here would be a national security disaster. First, if they break out, were in deep trouble. (To say the least)  Second they get the same rights as an American citizen. So if they get a good lawyer, a couple of them could go scott free. Even though they are unlawful combatants. And where would we let them go? Here? I would not sleep a wink for months. The last reason I don’t think sending them to your local county prison is that we don’t need to be setting up terrorist “cells” in the US. These prisoners could get the opportunity to converse with each other, or worse US prisoners who will do anything for money. We could inadvertently have people who we would never expect being converted to jihad and helping with terror activities

I would like a better explanation from Obama what his national security reasons are. If they have to come here though I think we should send them all to San Francisco and Manhattan. If they have to be in the US, let the Obama lovers have them.

The next thing was the economic stimulus. Here’s a Lesson in economics. You don’t go into more bad debt to boot up an economy. That is basically what this stimulus does. Also interesting is the pork that is in the bill. For instance the Billions in the original bill that went to contraceptive devices. How does that help the economy? It is really simple really. Just cut taxes. That is the best economic stimulus. Ultimately it is the government’s duty to serve the people, and to protect the people from itself. And they can’t do one without doing the other.

Finally the most disturbing change was on the life issue. In an effort to make the world a better place, Obama reinstituted the “Mexico city policy.”  The funds aid organizations that do abortions in other countries. In addition to being yet another abomination of human rights, it takes my money and uses it to allow human traffickers an easy way to hide their dirty work, and continue to oppress woman.

On the same topic he also cleared the way for the useless, wrong practice of stem cell research. Many scientists have already found that adult stem cells are effective when embryonic ones are not. It makes not sense to do the unnecessary when we are talking about creatures that are just like what we once were. Many who would have grown up to live healthy fruitful lives if they were allowed to live. Liberals hate doing testing on animals. So why people?

In conclusion, Obama has made some good choices, and some not so good ones. On one hand he is not ending the war on terror. But on the other he is making it harder. He is decreasing government corruption. However he ignores much good advice too. I will admit I am not one of the 68% that approve of Obama first week as our leader.

Discussion 24 Comments

  1. Nikki Swartz January 29, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Have you ever heard of the Geneva Convention?

    Reply
  2. Jonathan Veal January 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Yes, the Geneva convention specifically states that unlawful combatants such as these jihadists are not subject to the same laws as soldiers from a country. They can be treated as the country that cap trued them sees fit. I assume that was your question. Let me know if you had any others.

    Reply
  3. Nikki Swartz February 1, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    You made that up. It doesn't say that anywhere in the Geneva Convention.

    Reply
  4. Jonathan Veal February 3, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    This is according to FindLaw.com http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html The Administration's response to this problem is to deem the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters unlawful combatants who are not entitled to anything better than indefinite detention. As we have seen, the contention that these fighters are unlawful combatants is based upon a plausible reading of the Geneva Convention. Indeed, it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion when applying the Geneva Convention's four-part test to al Qaeda fighters.

    Reply
  5. Vanessa February 5, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Wow. I didn't realize (for some reason) that the Cabnet had gotten to be that huge. Serious issue. And what are the benefits to have Guantanimo Bay closed? Anything?

    Reply
  6. Jonathan Veal February 6, 2009 at 12:33 am

    I honestly can't see the benefits in closing the facility. I think that we are owed a better explanation then that we have gotten. I have heard that Obama is considering sending them to Yemen. I certainly hope that is false, but we can't really know yet.

    Reply
  7. Kylie February 12, 2009 at 12:19 am

    Soo....fire people, leave everyone alone, and send all the terrorists to two cities because we don't want them together. Genious.

    Reply
  8. Jonathan Veal February 12, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    Sorry, I should have been more clear. Sending them to San Francisco and Manhattan was sarcasm. I explained in my article that I don't want them here. I don't want them anywhere but Guantanimo. That was Obmama's idea to close the base. Not mine. My point was if we are stuck having them here, I certainly don't want them in my county prison. But that is what people voted for.

    Reply
  9. Samuel Tran February 12, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    Isn't it dangerous to put them anywhere else than Guantanamo Bay? Where should these people be housed if not there?

    Reply
  10. Kylie February 12, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    So...since we don't want them here, we should keep them on Cuban land where no one will ever find out we're putting them through?

    Reply
  11. Jonathan Veal February 13, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    These men need to do what they have to. So they can find out important information that can save our lives. And actually, their have been several research studies done by the government about Gitmo. The humanity with which we treat them is unprecedented in comparison with the way most unlawful combatants are treated. The bottom line is. We need to know where we are going to put them before we decide to move them. Why move them? They committed their lives to killing people like us as well as Iraqis. Their are about two hundred prisoners their. All of which are high profile terrorists. We can't let them go. But that is exactly what is being proposed. And may happen.

    Reply
  12. Kylie February 16, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    OK, hon, you seem knowledgable on this subject...but you REALLY need to check up on that grammar....:P And sorry, but the conclusions of the GOVERNMENT made by a study done by the GOVERNMENT on the actions of the GOVERNMENT does NOT reassure me in anyway.

    Reply
  13. Kylie February 16, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    *in any way ;)

    Reply
  14. Jonathan Veal February 17, 2009 at 11:34 am

    Do you feel that the Government would lie about the treatment of the detainees? I think if they were about to lie, they wouldn't have admitted they were water boarding those they needed information out of. The people that brought the issue to our attention in the first place were people like John McCain and others from the government. And I don't see how anything short of letting them go will make them any better off. Or sending them to a Muslim nation. However, I think your concern is not to be ignored. We should treat people humanly. I just don't see significant evidence that we are not. But I also think that under the circumstances, we have to protect our citizens by keeping them off American soil. Or the soil of any nation but Cuba. *The longer my comments get, the more I risk a grammatical error. ;)

    Reply
  15. Kylie February 23, 2009 at 12:18 am

    I feel that the government would, and does, lie about a lot of things. And it's always possible that they uncovered some things to keep our eyes off of other issues. (I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything...well, maybe I am ;]) Why Cuba? What did Cuba do to be the only nation deserving to hold terrorists? You say that we should protect our citizens by keeping them in Cuba...are Cubans any less important than Americans? Why is one life considered less than another?

    Reply
  16. Jonathan Veal February 23, 2009 at 11:34 am

    The Government lies often. To protect its people it will keep information from the public. However, From what evidence we have that we know is true. The terrorists are being treated in a decent way. But why Cuba? Because if they escape they have nowhere to go. Not to mention we already had a military presence there. Terrorists have no grudge against Cubans the way they do against the US. If they escaped in Cuba. The Cubans would still have a lot less to fear from them verses their own government.

    Reply
  17. Kylie February 25, 2009 at 1:53 am

    What evidence do we have, other than the word of those who were imprisoned there? And, we have no right to be in Cuba at all, especially not to imprison others there, no matter who they are.

    Reply
  18. Jonathan Veal February 25, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Cuba didn't have the right to let the USSR try to set up missiles there. We already had a base in Cuba to make sure that never happened again. If any country deserved to have a base there, Cuba does.

    Reply
  19. Kylie February 26, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Oh, 50 years ago you mean? And of course, other countries aren't allowed to do anything "dangerous", or make alliances....but of course, the USSR having missles in Cuba is BAD, even though WE had missles in Turkey...

    Reply
  20. Jonathan Veal February 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    The bottom line is Americans felt safer if we had some way of making sure Communists didn't set up bases in the western hemisphere. The Cold War was a war against forces of evil that killed millions of innocents and forces that wanted to stop that expansion. If we had missiles on turkey that doesn't mean that we need to have terrorists within our own borders now.

    Reply
  21. Kylie March 4, 2009 at 1:37 am

    Double standards.

    Reply
  22. Jonathan Veal March 4, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    The soviet union killed 25 million people. Most of them their own people. I don't blame our citizens for not wanting them near.

    Reply
  23. Kylie March 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    How many people have we killed? Civil war? Our own people. Meaningless wars we fight oversees? Oh my, our people die. But regardless, we can't judge them by one standard and ourselves by another.

    Reply
  24. Kylie March 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    overseas* wow I'm out of it...:P

    Reply
Leave a Reply