Many of the left-wing and some right-wing people alike were anxious and excited about a new beginning; a change in American politics that so many of us had awaited for so long -- or at least the past eight years. But what exactly does "change" mean? As the definition states: Change: to make or become different. So to what extent of the definition is taking place in D.C. currently? Unfortunately for us, (you the reader, me the writer, and the society of America) many people voted to elect President Barack Obama based on ignorant factors: race, "change" (of what many people didn't look further into) and based on the state of our country given the past president. So what happens now?
Let's go back to some of the beginning promises that President Obama originally campaigned with.
The vast majority of the LGBT community rallied for, stood behind, and voted for Barack Obama, and, as the vast majority of the community is progressive, it would only make sense for his vote to be sealed from their end. During his campaign, Obama promised to fight for the equality of all, including the LGBT community and gay rights. So what exactly has he done to keep his promise?
On September 21, 1996, as public law number 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced as new federal law. This law has two effects:
1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2) The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
To reiterate, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama campaigned with promises of equal rights for the LGBT community. How does one define "equal?" I would assume it would be defined by everyone as the definition states, without any incentive-based reservations. Maybe I'm wrong.
"If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
Interesting, don't you agree? Just one promise that has since been retracted.
Many other promises have been retracted as well, including Government reform of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" act that President Clinton signed into law in 1993, however, it wouldn't be fair to only include issues that primarily affect the gay community.
So let's focus on the original questions of this article. Where is the state of American politics headed?
President Obama has adamantly been campaigning for a public healthcare option in America, as part of attempts for an American Healthcare reform. Is a public option what we need for reform? Maybe we need more of an Insurance Company reform, on a national level. People who are for this public option base their vote primarily on the fact that they themselves, or a close friend or family member, have experienced illness or injury while being uninsured and have had an astronomical amount of bills to pay. Thus, people tend to think that a free public healthcare option would be the answer to all their medical wishes. News flash: the cost of your healthcare will be taken from your pocket with or without a public option; with or without insurance. Regardless, we do need reform. But is this the way? Maybe it is. However it does give the President another strike on claims of his socialistic ways.
Today CNN reported of the resignation of presidential adviser Van Jones, "following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans. . ." It is only natural for CNN to vaguely add in their sentence of Jones' recent comments about Republicans, without elaborating on such. Granted, CNN does post links to a video of Jones giving his opinion on the right winged party, but the title of the story is "Presidential Adviser Quits amid 9/11 Controversy." Reportedly Jones signed a petition in 2004 "calling for an investigation into whether government officials deliberately allowed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to occur" as CNN reports. Whether or not this petition is essential to his resignation, this is what CNN reports.
Glenn Beck from Fox News took the investigation into Jones a little deeper. Naturally, Fox news not in favor of the Obama Administration, would dig deeper to find any sort of flaw against it. Beck had interesting facts to report. From a speech in March of this year given by Jones, Beck airs segments of which Jones talks of change in the way "we treat others." In his speech, Jones speaks on many levels of radicalism under socialistic views. Unfortunately many people would like the reports of Beck to be false, however, the video speaks for itself: "Jones in his own words."
The differentiation of reports between CNN and Fox isn't of any surprise as they're often in opposition politically; however, the extra details reported by Beck aren't of impossible findings. The video can be googled, and could be found prior to Beck even reporting it. Now, however, YouTube has exploded with videos of Beck's report, and Jones' original speech alike.
The new developments of the resignation of Jones following the report of Beck are interesting and questionable. Did Jones resign for the good nature of his party? (Given he is a capital America democrat). Did Jones resign because he couldn't handle such scrutiny? Or maybe Jones resigned out of fear that the American people would educate themselves on who he really is (if Beck's opinions are on key).
Regardless, the resignation of a Presidential Adviser who now has factual-supported claims of social radicalism against him, which coincides with a socialistic proposition of American Healthcare reform raises a lot of questions in Americans who put Obama into office. But hopefully we can take the President for his word that he "didn't pay attention" during the 20 years of attendance under the religious, radical preaching of Jeremiah Wright.
I guess we will have to wait and see where we are headed, and hope that the President has the fundamental tactics of our Founding Fathers within him.
Essentially, all we want is Freedom and Justice for All, right?
© Jeff Kelleher
Sunday, September 6, 2009.
Political Assignments
No comments:
Post a Comment