Should Congress propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?

As a deal appears close to getting done in the ongoing debt crisis, many Americans are wondering what we can do to ensure that our country never faces this situation again. For many, the answer lies in a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Essentially, a balanced budget amendment would guarantee that the government would have to live within its means. Under a balanced budget amendment, the government could not spend more than it takes in. There is no doubt that excessive spending, by not only this administration, but previous administrations as well, has put us in this perilous position. Responsible American families live by a budget, so why shouldn't the government as well? Let me just say that I am all for balancing the budget, but I do have one concern with a balanced budget amendment. If such an amendment were to be ratified by the states, it would effectively make it illegal for the government to go over their yearly budget. What's wrong with that you might ask? What do we do as a nation if we have reached our budget limit, and we experience a national crisis or emergency? God forbid we have to go through another 9/11, but if we do, and the budget limit has been reached, would we be unable to effectively defend our country because we can't allocate any more money? What do we do in the case of a tornado, a flood, a hurricane? Does the national government simply turn their back on states who suffer these disasters because we just don't have the money? I know that our government has not shown that it can spend money responsibly, but in my view, a balanced budget amendment could possibly put the safety and security of Americans in jeopardy. I think we all can agree that our government needs to spend less. I am just not convinced that a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution is the best way to make it happen.

Is there trouble "brewing" for Republicans in 2012?

As we enter the 2012 election season, trouble could be brewing for Republicans in the form of the tea party. Tea party members were swept into power as a result of increased frustration with what Americans viewed as big government and too much spending back in 2010. But could the tea party be the demise of the Republicans in the 2012 presidential election? There is no doubt that the rise of the tea party has led to division within the Republican Party. Traditional Republicans view the tea party as not conservative enough for their liking. I have no doubt that traditional Republicans and tea party members are on the same page when it comes to ideology, but when it comes to putting that ideology into practice, there within lies the problem. We need to look no further than the current debt ceiling debate to prove this point. Speaker of the House John Boehner had to meet with tea party members for hours on end, not to mention changing the Republican debt plan, just to get them to go along with his ideas. Tea party members were not satisfied with Boehner's original plan because they felt that it didn't cut enough government spending, and it did not include a provision for a balanced budget amendment. If you have difficulty convincing members of your own party to adopt your ideas, how can you expect to gain widespread support for those ideas in a general election? In my view, this is the problem that the Republican Party faces heading into 2012. I am sure many Democrats are hoping that the tea party remains viable at least through next year. If so, there is sure to be even more division within the Republican Party. Can the Republicans overcome the current fragmentation within their party? Perhaps they should listen carefully to the words of one of their own who famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Jerry Litton... The greatest president America never had?

August 3rd, 1976. That date may not mean much to those outside of the state of Missouri, but for those of us from the Show-Me-State, it is a date that will never be forgotten. It was on that night that Jerry Litton, along with his wife and children, died in a tragic plane crash in Chillicothe. Litton had just received word that he had secured the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate. He and his family were on their way to Kansas City to be interviewed by KMBC news anchor Larry Moore on election night when the tragedy occurred. Those who knew Jerry Litton best would tell you that he was on a fast track to become President of the United States. Jerry Litton was first elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1972, and was considered a rising star in the Democratic Party. Jerry Litton's success in politics was due in large part to the fact that he never forgot where he came from, much like another popular and famous politician from Missouri who went on to become America's 33rd president. Many Missourians appreciated how accessible Litton was as a politician. His television show "Dialogue with Litton" gave voters a chance to address key issues with the congressman directly. One of his guests, former President Jimmy Carter (who at the time would have been future President Jimmy Carter), shared the belief of many Americans that Jerry Litton would one day be President of the United States. We sure could use Jerry Litton's leadership in Washington today. Had Jerry Litton been elected President of the United States, I have no doubt that our nation would be much better off today. Litton understood that as a country, we could not spend more than we took in. Today's political leaders should take a lesson from one of Missouri's most beloved politicians. As we approach the 35th anniversary of Jerry Litton's death, let us never forget the legacy that he left. Due to his popularity and achievements in politics, Jerry Litton is considered by many to be the greatest president America never had.

Reflecting on the "Forgotten War."

Yesterday marked the 58th anniversary of the Korean War armistice. Some out there may not know that the Korean War never "officially" ended. A formal peace treaty was never signed. The armistice simply ended the fighting on July 27th, 1953. Technically, the Korean War, is still to this day an ongoing war. The United States still has soldiers stationed in Korea in case hostilities resume. Historically, the Korean War has come to be known as the "Forgotten War." This nickname is the result of the war's outcome. The Korean War ended in a brutal stalemate along the demilitarized zone (38th parallel) after four years of fighting between the North and South Koreans. U.S. intervention in Korea became necessary after the government's adoption of a policy of containment at the beginning of the Cold War. Our policy of containment simply stated that the United States would do all that it could diplomatically and militarily to stop the spread of communism after World War II. So on June 25th, 1950, when communist North Korea invaded the free, democratic south, the United States had an obligation to intervene on behalf of South Korea. Two days later, on June 27th, President Truman sent the first U.S. forces to Korea.  Years after leaving the presidency, Harry Truman was asked what his most difficult decision was as president. The answer may surprise some, but Truman's response was, sending U.S. troops to Korea. Truman asserted that sending U.S. soldiers into harm's way is the most difficult decision that any president can face. Although the Korean conflict has come to be known as the "Forgotten War," it is important that all Americans let our Korean War veterans know that their service to their country is anything but forgotten.

Should the U.S. government tax junk food and soda?

In an effort to make Americans eat healthier, the U.S. government is considering a tax on junk food and soda. With obesity rates on the rise in America, supporters of the tax suggest that it will force some in the United States to make healthier food choices due to the increased cost of fast food, junk food, soda, and other unhealthy food items. Critics of the tax say that it is one more example of too much government control of their lives. The question I have is whether such a tax would actually make people eat healthier? We have seen the government place a similar tax on cigarettes. While the tax on cigarettes has led some smokers to give up the habit altogether, others continue to smoke just as much, if not more despite the higher cost. Will we see the same result with a tax on junk food? I personally think that we will. While a higher tax on junk food will discourage some from purchasing those items, others will continue to buy junk food and soda no matter what the cost. If the government wants to get serious about obesity in the United States then they should find a way to make healthier food choices more affordable for all families in America. Many families simply can't afford to eat healthy. It seems to me that we have it backwards in the United States. Higher costs on healthy foods discourage families from eating healthy, while more affordable prices on foods that are not as healthy encourage families to eat poorly. Will a tax on junk food and soda cure America's obesity problem? Of course the answer is no. Will it discourage Americans from engaging in an unhealthy lifestyle? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Has compromise become a dirty word in Washington?

Having watched President Obama's speech to the nation last evening, along with Speaker John Boehner's response, I have to ask myself, has compromise become a dirty word in Washington? President Obama and congressional Democrats have refused to budge on the issue of increased revenues in the form of tax increases and the closing of tax loopholes, while Speaker Boehner and congressional Republicans have stated that tax increases will not be a part of any plan to reduce our debt and deficit. With a current national debt of $14.3 trillion dollars, you could completely eliminate medicare, social security, and defense spending and we still wouldn't be out of the hole. Cuts in spending will not solve this problem alone. With the crisis we are facing, everyone will have to share the burden if we are serious about solving this problem. Polls have shown that a majority of Americans support a balanced approach (tax increases combined with spending cuts) to help reign in the debt. The American people seem willing to compromise, so why not our elected officials? In my view, politicians today are only concerned about making the other side look bad. It is shameful to think that members of both parties care more about winning the next election than winning legislative victories for the American people. Neither side wants the other to achieve success for fear of losing majorities in one or both houses of Congress, and for fear of losing the presidency. As a result, compromise has all but vanished from today's political landscape. Today's political leaders should take a lesson from the likes of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. These are examples of leaders who were able to put partisan politics aside and truly work on behalf of the American people. Perhaps America would be better off if we all reminded our leaders in Washington that compromise is not a four letter word.

America... The world's humanitarian leader?

It is no secret that the United States has been a leader of humanitarian missions all over the world for decades. Despite this fact, many would argue that the United States should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries. I would contend that U.S. intervention in other parts of the world is justified under certain circumstances. By no means would I advocate the United States violating the sovereignty of another nation, but if we are aware that atrocities such as genocide and ethnic cleansing are taking place, don't we have a moral obligation to respond? I believe that we do. Our nation has a long history of intervening in these types of situations. We saw it during World War II and the Holocaust. We saw it in the 1980's with the mass killing of Iraqis and the subsequent military operations to rid the country of Saddam Hussein . We saw it in 1995 with the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, and we are currently seeing it in Libya as U.S. and NATO forces try to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. Given our caring and compassionate nature, it is only natural for other countries to seek out our help and assistance when these unfortunate situations arise. Thankfully, here in America, we don't have to worry about the mass killing of our own people by our government leaders. However, if we did, wouldn't we hope for the support and intervention of other countries on our behalf?

The closing of Walter Reed marks the end of an era

Walter Reed Army Medical Center will officially close its doors on September 15th. Former and current patients, along with staff members will say their goodbyes on Wednesday in front of the main hospital complex. The closing of Walter Reed marks the end of a storied chapter in American History. Opened in 1909, the hospital was named in honor of Major Walter Reed, a famous Army physician who treated troops and Native Americans living on the frontier. The hospital has cared for wounded veterans for over a century. Several significant leaders in American History have died at Walter Reed including, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, General John J. Pershing, and General Douglas MacArthur. In the rose garden of the complex, some nurses from the Vietnam War era were said to have married their patients. The memorial chapel at the hospital is where President Harry S. Truman went for his first church service after taking office following the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Presidents from William Howard Taft to Barack Obama have greeted wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. After learning of the closing of Walter Reed, Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of the former president said, "Frankly, I will say it's with a heavy heart that Walter Reed closes. I don't know. I know that there was a process for that decision, but we've lost a great, important part of history." Mrs. Eisenhower, as someone who greatly appreciates the significance of Walter Reed,  I echo that sentiment. We have, with the closing of Walter Reed Army Medical Center lost a great, important part of history.

Is social security really secure?

As the debt ceiling negotiations continue on Capitol Hill, one segment of the U.S. population is becoming increasingly nervous with each passing day. Approximately nine million Americans age 65 and over rely on social security checks as their main source of income each month. If the United States government defaults on its loans, the president has said that there may not be enough money in the coffers to send out next month's checks. If this were to occur, it could be devastating to those who depend on social security. When an individual reaches the age of 65, they shouldn't have to worry about where their income is going to come from. At the least, a guaranteed check from the government in the form of social security should be their reward for a lifetime of hard work. That guarantee is in real jeopardy if a deal does not get done in Washington. A number of proposals have been considered to ensure that social security is around for future generations. Some in Washington are suggesting that the retirement age should be increased from 65 to 69. Other politicians have called for the privatization of social security to ensure its survival. None of this will matter if our elected officials don't come up with a compromise on the deficit and debt. Some have suggested that President Obama is trying to scare seniors by claiming that their August checks may not go out. Critics of the president say there is enough money to fund social security for the next several years. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. As a country, we owe it to the elderly, senior citizens, and social security beneficiaries (such as single mothers) to make sure that they are taken care of. With the threat of cuts to social security looming large, perhaps those in Washington should consider the words of Mahatma Ghandi who famously said, "a nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

Will "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" soon become history?

A recent report from the Pentagon suggests that Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, will officially certify that homosexuals may serve openly in the military. The move by Panetta is not a huge surprise since Congress approved, and the president signed in to law a measure that would repeal the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. According to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," if an individual is openly gay, they are not allowed to serve in the United States military. When "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" became law in the early 1990's, the concern was that heterosexual soldiers would be uncomfortable serving alongside someone who was homosexual. Many believed that morale would also be affected if gays were allowed to openly serve in the military. Panetta's decision to certify that homosexuals can serve openly comes as a result of top military leaders agreeing that repealing the seventeen year-old ban will not negatively affect military readiness. In my view, if someone was openly gay and serving honorably alongside me, I could care less if they are homosexual. Why should that person's sexual orientation affect the way I look at how they do their job? If they are a good soldier, and are committed to defending their country, isn't that the most important thing? I applaud Congress, the president, and Secretary Panetta for ending, through the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," what is blatantly a discriminatory policy.

Do tax cuts really stimulate economic growth?

In order to cut the deficit, President Obama has supported the idea of raising taxes to generate much needed revenue. This proposal has drawn the ire of lawmakers on the other side of the aisle who claim that tax increases will cripple an already ailing economy. Republicans claim that tax cuts are needed to grow the economy, but is this really true? Do tax cuts really stimulate economic growth? The long standing argument for tax cuts is that they put more money back in the pockets of Americans, who in turn can spend that money on goods and services. The more that people spend, the better businesses will do, and therefore will need to hire more employees to keep up with the new demand. I don't dispute this particular theory of economic growth, but I do believe it is somewhat flawed. This theory doesn't take into account those individuals who don't take their tax refund and invest it right back into the economy. What about those individuals who take their refund and put it into a savings account or a money market account? By saving or investing, these individuals are not contributing to the growth of the economy, at least not in the short term. I know that if times were tough, like they are now, and the government gave me a tax refund, I wouldn't immediately go out and spend it. I would set that money aside so that I could put myself and my family in a better financial situation down the road. By saving or investing, the money given to me by the government in the form of a tax break would be making money in the form of interest. This makes the most sense to me. Tax cuts will only stimulate the economy IF people spend that money. To say that tax cuts will promote economic growth is not a completely accurate statement. In the end, it is up to those who receive tax cuts to decide whether or not those tax cuts will improve the economy based upon what they decide to do with that money.

Will migraines become a real headache for Michele Bachmann?

A recent article in the conservative publication, "Daily Caller" stated that Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann suffers from migraine headaches that can incapacitate her for days at a time. If this is indeed true, one has to question from a medical standpoint, if Bachmann is fit to be President of the United States. The revelation that Representative Bachmann suffers from migraines could definitely be a game changer in the Republican primary campaign. Those who may have been inclined to support Bachmann, now might not do so. Throughout history, we have seen examples of presidential and vice-presidential candidates who have suffered from certain medical conditions. President Franklin D. Roosevelt suffered from polio, and was confined to a wheelchair most of the time. Despite his physical limitations, Roosevelt went on to become one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history. Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack prior to his second term in office, but was still elected in 1956. Former Missouri Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate Thomas Eagleton was replaced on the Democratic ticket in 1972 when it was revealed that he suffered from depression and had undergone electro-shock therapy. It is my belief that voters are more willing to look beyond one's physical limitations rather than one's mental limitations. Physical limitations have very little impact on one's ability to make decisions for the country. If a presidential candidate suffers from an incapacitating condition, how can they govern effectively? Obviously, Mrs. Bachmann has every right to prove to the American people that her migraines will not inhibit her ability to lead, and she will no doubt attempt to do so on the campaign trail in the weeks and months ahead.

Do America's public schools deserve a failing grade?

Having recently watched the documentary, "Waiting for Superman," I felt compelled to write about the current state of public education in America. This issue is also close to my heart as I myself am an educator in one of our nation's public high schools. Those who have seen the film know that it is highly critical of America's public schools, but is this criticism fair? I will be the first to admit that the education system in America needs to improve if we are going to keep pace with the rest of the world. Year after year, the United States has fallen in the worldwide rankings of education. Given the current state of education in America, one might ask, how do we improve America's schools? As a teacher, I think the solution requires a collaborative effort. A child cannot receive a quality education if only that child's teacher is involved in the educational process. Likewise, a child cannot receive a quality education if only the child's parents are involved in the educational process. Real success in the classroom depends on parents and teachers, along with the child, working together to ensure that child's success. Too many parents today simply are not involved in the education of their child. Many parents of children in America's schools do not send their children to school ready to learn. Many children in our public schools come to school tired and hungry everyday. How can a child expect to learn if they can't stay awake and if their stomach is constantly growling? Teachers deserve some of the blame for the state of America's educational system as well. I am not going to defend bad teachers. There is no room for poor teachers in America's schools. Every child deserves the best possible teacher, and teachers owe it to their students to give them the best possible education each and every day. Why do bad teachers continue to remain at the head of the class ? In my opinion, poor teachers remain in place due to a provision in their contracts known as tenure. Once a teacher reaches their sixth year of teaching, they are granted this privilege. Tenure provides teachers with an automatic contract renewal every year thereafter, regardless of job performance. Teachers can be fired for poor performance, but for tenured teachers, it is very difficult to do so. In my view, tenure needs to go. I believe that if schools get rid of tenure, teachers will have no choice but to put forth their best effort in the classroom every single day. As sad as it is to say, there are some teachers out there who are there only for a paycheck. Our kids deserve better and our nation deserves better. If fundamental changes are not made within our educational system, how can we expect our kids to compete in an ever changing technological world?

The Fighting 54th

It was 148 years ago today that the Massachusetts 54th regiment solidified their place in history with the assault on Fort Wagner on Morris Island at Charleston, South Carolina. Many would not even know about the legacy of the fighting 54th if not for the 1989 academy award winning movie, "Glory" starring Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman. After the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863, many former slaves in the south fled to the north and joined the union army. One of the first colored regiments to organize was the Massachusetts 54th commanded by 25 year old Robert Gould Shaw. After months of training and preparation, the Massachusetts 54th was ready for combat. However, the regiment would only be used for manual labor in the early part of 1863. With morale low among his soldiers, Colonel Shaw pleaded for an opportunity for the 54th to show what they could do. That opportunity would come on July 16, 1863 when the 54th repelled an attack on James Island. Two days later they would march into history with the assault on Fort Wagner. During the assault, nearly half of the regiment was killed, captured, or wounded, including Colonel Shaw. The fort was never taken. Due to the bravery and courage shown by the Massachusetts 54th, additional black regiments would assemble to fight for the union throughout the remainder of the war. President Lincoln credited the 54th with helping to turn the tide of the war. So today, on the 148th anniversary of the assault on Fort Wagner, we honor the service of America's first colored regiment, the fighting 54th.

Should Welfare Recipients Face Mandatory Drug Testing?

America's welfare system has been under intense criticism for many years now. Many Americans have a real problem with their tax dollars going to support a system that is used and abused by so many. In order to be fair, for all those who take advantage of the welfare system in America, there are those who desperately need the services that the system provides. What about the single mother who works two jobs while trying to raise her three children and still can't get by? The system was designed specifically for these types of situations. In these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever to curb wasteful spending in all entitlement programs, including our welfare system. In order to cut wasteful spending within our welfare system, many have advocated mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Some suggest that welfare benefits should be rescinded after one positive drug test, while others support an incremental approach. I for one am not opposed to drug testing those who receive welfare benefits. I believe that most, if not all of the entitlement programs our government provides are needed, but greater regulation of these programs is also needed. At least with our welfare system, mandatory drug testing of recipients would provide the type of accountability that most Americans would like to see. As of right now, drug testing of welfare recipients is nothing more than a possibility. The real question is whether or not that possibility will one day become a reality?

Leader-In-Chief ?

In the on-going discussions between leaders from both parties on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, one important question needs to be examined. Has President Obama been a leader on this issue? Critics of the president would obviously answer with a resounding "no." I happen to believe that the president has shown extraordinary leadership in dealing with this situation. First and foremost, the president, from the beginning, has been willing to compromise with congressional republicans on key issues within the Democratic Party such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The willingness to compromise, the willingness to give up something you want (spending on these entitlement programs) to get something that would be of benefit to the entire nation (reducing the national debt and deficit) is the mark of a true leader. I can't necessarily say the same for congressional republicans who have yet to offer any compromise in return. Republican leaders have repeatedly said that tax hikes (which the president supports in addition to spending cuts), will not be a part of any deal. The age old argument against tax increases in poor economic times is that tax increases will kill jobs. Spending cuts alone will not solve our nation's huge financial problem. Revenues must increase as well. For those who say tax increases will not help the economy recover should study the presidency of Bill Clinton. Inheriting a recession in 1992, President Clinton not only cut spending, but increased taxes as well, and the country experienced the greatest economic growth it had seen in 50 years. Why can't this work again? Perhaps the greatest example of President Obama's leadership on the debt ceiling issue is the fact that he himself has said he is willing to lose his job to ensure the national government doesn't default on its loans. Someone who is willing to risk it all, including his own political future has my respect and admiration. We just don't see very many politicians today willing to do what is tough, what is difficult. This president, throughout this process has  shown a willingness to do just that. With both sides unwilling to budge, Democrats and Republicans are taking a huge political risk. If a deal is not reached, and the nation does default, many will blame the president and it could indeed cost him his job. On the other hand, if a deal does not get done, many will blame congressional republicans for their unwillingness to work with the president. The President is banking on the latter. As a student and teacher of history, my experience has taught me that elections are all about perception. At this point, the president likes where he's at in the battle over public perception. The president believes when all is said and done, the American people will see that he is the one who has been willing to work on behalf of the American people, the one who has been willing to compromise in order to get a deal done. A recent MSNBC poll asked viewers who they would blame more if a deal doesn't get done. 48% said congressional Republicans while 34% said the President. Is the truth in the numbers? The President sure hopes so.

Is childhood obesity considered neglect?

The latest proposition by the U.S. government has many Americans outraged. No, I am not talking about proposals to raise the debt ceiling, but rather the government possibly taking obese children away from their parents and placing them in foster care. It might sound outrageous, but it quite possibly could happen. With obesity rates rising in the United States, especially among children, many are beginning to raise the question of whether or not parents should be held accountable for their child's weight. Let me just say that I am not in favor of the idea of government taking children away from their parents unless parents have abused or neglected their children. Does obesity constitute neglect? Should parents be held responsible if their children are morbidly obese? We know that malnourishment of a child is considered neglect, so why shouldn't obesity be considered the same? Is providing a healthy diet for your child just as important as providing health care for them? Should parents require their children to get off the couch and get outside to exercise? In my view, this is exactly why childhood obesity rates are on the rise. Too many parents today simply allow their children to sit in front of the T.V. or Xbox and don't encourage them to get outside and play with their friends in the neighborhood. When I was growing up, I came home from school, did my homework, and then went outside to play with my friends until mom called us home for supper. I understand that times have changed, and many parents are concerned for their child's safety if they send them down the street to play. However, don't we owe it to our children to provide them with the healthiest lifestyle possible? No one wants to have their children taken away from them. Hopefully, the possibility that children could be taken from their parents if they are obese will serve as a wake up call for both children and parents alike.

South Sudan... The World's Newest Nation

Having recently celebrated the independence of our great nation, I find it fitting to address the topic of independence today, just not ours. Last week, the world welcomed it's newest nation, South Sudan. Like most independent nations, the fight for freedom was a difficult one for this small African country. The black African tribes of South Sudan and the mainly Arab north battled two civil wars lasting close to fifty years. Nearly two million natives died in the latest war lasting from 1983-2005. Several countries around the world, including the United States and Great Britain, have already publicly recognized South Sudan as a free nation. President Obama called South Sudan's first day as an independent nation, "a new dawn after the darkness of war." There is something special about a nation rising up out of the shadows of tyranny and oppression. The world has seen this script play out thousands of times over the years, and each time, the world rejoices in the fact that a new generation of people will be able to experience the wonders of liberty and freedom. Congratulations to the people of South Sudan as they have achieved something far greater than they ever imagined possible just a few short years ago. They have achieved a new life for themselves, and a new life for the world's newest nation.

Is the fight for gay marriage today's civil rights movement?

The legalization of gay marriage has long been a controversial issue in the United States. Currently, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont have passed measures legalizing the practice in their states, with New York being the most recent state to do so. Traditionally, marriage has been an issue that has been handled at the state level of government, which is why, in my view, President Bush made very little headway when he was pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide in the early years of his presidency. Many would argue that because marriage has been a state issue throughout the years, individual states should decide whether or not they want to legalize same-sex marriage in their state, rather than allow it in all fifty states. There is a part of me that can't help but compare the struggle that same-sex couples are going through today to that of African-Americans in the 1950's and 1960's during the civil rights movement. What were African-Americans and African-American leaders fighting for? The answer of course is equality. What are same-sex couples fighting for? You guessed it, equality. So why do we want to deny them equality just because their sexual orientation might be different than ours? I fully understand and appreciate the views of those who want to protect the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. However, in viewing gay marriage as a civil right, I just can't see how in good conscience we can deny that right to one person while providing that right for the next? I also appreciate the moral and ethical arguments against gay marriage. I am addressing the issue merely from a constitutional standpoint. Constitutionally speaking, I think that same-sex couples would have an excellent legal argument under the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The fourteenth amendment provides equal protection under the law. Are same-sex couples equally protected under the law if they are denied the right to marry? Thurgood Marshall cited the equal protection clause during his arguments before the Supreme Court in the famous school desegregation case of Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education. A case which was won by Marshall and the NAACP. In drawing comparisons between the struggle for gay marriage today and the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, I will close with this question: Is the fight for gay marriage today's civil rights movement?

Gerald Ford: America's 38th President

With the funeral of former first lady Betty Ford taking place today, I thought I would take a look back at the presidency of her husband, Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford has the distinction of being the only Vice-President and President in U.S. history not to be elected by the people. Congressman Ford was selected by President Richard Nixon to replace Vice-President Spiro Agnew who resigned after being charged with bribery in October of 1973. Just ten months later, Ford would unexpectedly attain the nation's highest office as a result of Richard Nixon's resignation due to the Watergate scandal. While president, Ford faced staggering inflation at home, and the perils of the Vietnam War abroad. President Ford survived two assassination attempts in 1975. The two attempts on the president's life would occur within three weeks of each other. Lynette Fromme and Sara Jane Moore served extensive prison time for trying to kill the president. One of the first decisions made by President Ford was no doubt one of his most controversial, and the one he will most likely be remembered for. On September 8, 1974, President Ford granted a full, free, and absolute pardon to former President Richard Nixon. The pardon of Nixon essentially guaranteed that Nixon would never face criminal charges for his involvement in Watergate. Gerald Ford went on to narrowly win the Republican nomination in 1976, only to lose in the general election to former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. Many believe that Ford's controversial pardon of Richard Nixon led to his defeat in  1976. Gerald Ford continued to be actively involved in politics following his presidency. Gerald Ford died at his home in Rancho Mirage, California on December 26, 2006 at the age of 93. President Gerald Ford is buried on the grounds of his presidential museum in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Homeless Vets... A Black Eye for America?

After watching "60 Minutes" last evening, I wanted to address the topic of homeless veterans in America. "60 Minutes" did a story last night on a program designed to give hope to veterans that have been on the streets. The program is called "Stand Down," and it was created by Jon Nachison, a former Vietnam veteran. "Stand Down" is part job fair, medical clinic, and sobriety check. The three day program is designed to give homeless veterans the means of getting back on their feet during troubled times. It is important to note that "Stand Down" is not just available during poor economic times. Mr Nachison has been running the program for the last thirty years. He is aware that most, if not all veterans will not overcome their troubles in a matter of days, but does believe the program can assist in helping veterans adjust back to civilian life. Many veterans will say that they wind up homeless upon returning from military service because they don't have the same structure in their lives that they had while serving. The VA has reported that there are already approximately 9,000 homeless veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nachison has pointed out the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are becoming homeless at a much quicker rate than their predecessors, Vietnam veterans. For many Vietnam veterans, it took nine to ten years before some of them would become homeless. Today's veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars usually wind up homeless within a year upon returning to the United States. In my view, this is a huge black eye for America. If there is anyone who deserves the best possible care and treatment in this country, it is those who have served this country. In these difficult economic times, with so much spending being cut from the budget, it appears as though returning veterans, along with those who are homeless, will not receive the financial support they need to begin their lives again. What responsibility does the United States government have in assisting homeless veterans? If our government doesn't take care of these individuals, who will? I wish I had the answers to these questions. My heart goes out to those veterans who call the street their home. With a list of worries a mile long, shouldn't we make every effort as a nation to ensure that homelessness for returning veterans doesn't wind up on that list too?

Is there justice in America's judicial system?

In light of the recent Casey Anthony trial and verdict, I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at the structure of the U.S. judicial system. Under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, those charged with a particular crime have the right to a speedy, public trial, by a jury of their peers. As most people probably know, during a trial, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution while it is the job of the defense to prove that there is reasonable doubt in the case the prosecution is presenting. According to this standard, I personally believe that prosecuting attorneys have a much more difficult job than defense attorneys because it takes very little to prove reasonable doubt. In listening to a recent interview on one of the cable news networks, one of the lawyers for the prosecution stated that jurors might have had reasonable doubt that Casey could have killed her daughter because Caylee was capable of opening the back door to the home she shared with her grandparents and could have accidentally fell into the pool on her own and drowned. Although this most likely didn't happen, if this scenario is presented in court to a jury, you can see how this could create doubts in the minds of some jurors that Casey was responsible for the murder of Caylee.  If there is any sliver of doubt in the minds of jurors, they have a responsibility not to convict according to the U.S. Constitution even though in their hearts and minds they believe she is guilty. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the decision of the jury, but I do believe they did their job to the best of their ability as they understood it according to law. Whenever a jury in a high profile case reaches a verdict that is unpopular in the eyes of the American people, questions will always arise as to whether our system is fair and just. I can sympathize with those who feel as though justice was not done for Caylee. Cases such as this put America's judicial system squarely in the spotlight and under a great deal of scrutiny. Is trial by jury the best way to determine one's guilt or innocence? If trial by jury is not the best way to determine one's fate, what is? Despite the injustice of the verdict in the eyes of many, it is always important to never lose sight of the fact that we live in a wonderful nation with so many freedoms, not the least of which is to have our fate placed in the hands of our peers rather than a ruthless dictator.

Remembering Former First Lady Betty Ford

Today, the United States mourns the loss of former First Lady Betty Ford who died yesterday at the age of 93 surrounded by her family in Rancho Mirage, California. Betty Ford was one of the most admired and respected former first ladies. Much of this admiration and respect was the direct result of how Mrs. Ford handled her very public battle with drug and alcohol addiction in the late 1970's.  Many people across America gained both hope and inspiration from Mrs.Ford as she dealt with these struggles. As a result of her own experiences, Mrs. Ford decided to open the Betty Ford Center as a way to help recovering drug addicts and alcoholics. Over the years, many celebrities have been treated at the clinic, including, Elizabeth Taylor, Johnny Cash, and Billy Joel to name a few. Betty Ford's public battle with breast cancer also became a source of inspiration for women all across the country. There is something to be said about the character of someone who is able to turn a negative situation in their life into something positive, not only for themselves, but for so many others as well. This will be the legacy of Betty Ford. She will forever be remembered for her kindness, generosity, and compassion for others. Mrs. Ford will be buried next to her husband, former President Gerald Ford at the Gerald Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

"Is it the economy, stupid"... for Obama as well?

"It's the economy, stupid." Who can forget this unforgettable line uttered by Clinton aide James Carville during the 1992 presidential campaign? President George H.W. Bush looked as though he was well on his way to reelection in '92. The President's prospects in 1992 looked good due in large part to major foreign policy victories including overseeing the end of the Cold War and Operation Desert Storm. Despite these accomplishments abroad, Americans were hurting at home. The economy was experiencing a recession and unemployment numbers were on the rise. In the end, it was the economy that did President Bush in. With the release of the latest unemployment numbers, many are beginning to wonder if President Obama will suffer the same fate as America's forty-first president. Unemployment currently stands at 9.2% in the United States. When President Obama took office in 2009, the unemployment rate was approximately 7.8%. It is no secret that the stimulus package that the President supported has not created the jobs he and his administration had hoped for. With time running out, the President will have to make great strides in the area of job creation to have a legitimate shot at winning in 2012. It is not unheard of for a president to win reelection with poor employment numbers. Ronald Reagan was reelected in 1984 with an unemployment rate right around 7.2%. As the old saying goes, all politics is local. I'm sure those critical of the President will be more than happy to remind him of this as the campaign season gets underway. Who knows, President Obama may even be greeted at certain campaign appearances with those now famous words, "It's the economy, stupid."

Does the end of the space shuttle program mark the final frontier for U.S. space exploration?

Tomorrow marks the end of an era for the United States Space Program. At approximately 10:30 A.M. central standard time, the space shuttle Atlantis will leave the launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center marking the official end of the shuttle program after a thirty year run. The end is indeed bittersweet for most Americans who have fond memories of America's travels into space. The program has been marked by both triumph and tragedy throughout the years. As is the case with important events in our nation's history, we often times forget about the triumphs while the tragedies are forever ingrained in our memories. As a matter of fact, my first memory of a major historical event was the explosion of Challenger in 1986. I was at home sick that January morning and remember watching the launch on T.V. The Challenger launch was closely followed by many Americans due to the fact that Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher in space was on board. I also clearly remember the morning of February 1st, 2003 when the shuttle Columbia exploded upon re-entry into the earth's atmosphere. Despite these horrible moments, America has a lot to be proud of when it comes to space exploration. After the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957, the United States quickly found itself in the middle of what came to be known as the "space race." In order to keep pace with the Soviets, President Eisenhower led the charge to create NASA. The space program became one of the most important priorities for the Kennedy administration when President Kennedy boldly asserted that the United States would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Neil Armstrong's one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind was perhaps the highlight of the U.S. space program. The importance of space exploration continued under the watch of President Richard Nixon who helped to launch the shuttle program in 1972. Columbia was the first shuttle to be launched in 1981, and as we prepare to see the final shuttle launch tomorrow, the irony is certainly not lost on me that the next time U.S. astronauts visit the international space station, it will be on board a Russian space shuttle.

Will a Deal Get Done?

  
  As I contemplated my first topic to blog about, I couldn't think of one more important than the national debt. President Obama is set to meet with Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle tomorrow to try to hammer out a deal concerning the debt ceiling. If a deal is not reached by the August 2nd deadline, the U.S. Government will default on its loans. If this were to occur, the results could be disastrous. You might ask what the consequences of inaction could be? Failing to reach a deal could lead to higher interest rates, and an even worse economic situation than we are currently facing. It is clearly evident that both Democrats and Republicans will have to give up some of what they're wanting to make this thing happen. Entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid that are key elements of the Democratic platform are facing serious cuts. The President has shown a willingness to work with the other side by agreeing to these cuts as a way to help get the national debt under control. Republicans have said that they would like to see even more spending cuts on top of the trillions that the President has vowed to make. In addition to spending cuts, the Government is going to have to find a way to raise revenues as well. This is where the situation becomes extremely difficult. The President would like to see revenues raised in part by increasing taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year. Republican leaders have stated that tax increases will not be a part of any deal with the President. So how do we raise the necessary revenue that we so desperately need if we don't raise taxes? Don't get me wrong, if I made more than $250,000 a year, I wouldn't want to have to pay more taxes either. Most people would argue that raising taxes in a tough economy is the last thing that the Government should do, and I understand that. However, if I had to pay more in taxes knowing it would help to reduce the deficit and make our country stronger in the long run, as painful as it might be, I would be willing. I don't envy President Obama one bit. All Presidents are faced with difficult situations, and this has to be one of the most difficult. I am hopeful that our elected officials in Washington, D.C. will be able to put their differences aside, and in doing so, will put the interests of all Americans at the forefront of their ongoing discussions over this extremely important issue.