President Obama on Gun Control in State of the Union

Recent massacres such as the Sandy Hook shooting in Newton and the “Dark Knight” shooting in Colorado have raised awareness on gun control in the United States. Liberals feel as if new laws should passed as to which kinds of guns are legal to sell. On the other hand, conservatives see to it that restricting which guns they own affects their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Despite the debate between parties,the country does recognize that something must be done to prevent such shootings in the future. Christina Wilikie’s article in the Huffington Post reports on President Obama’s State of the Union speech in which he addressed the issue of gun control in America.

To begin his assertion, President Obama stated that this is not the first time the United States has labeled gun control as a concern. In spite of this, he declared that the Newtown shooting in which 20 innocent children and 6 adults werekilled demands that subject must finally be dealt with accordingly:

“Overwhelming majorities of Americans -– Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.”

One of the ways Obama is trying to manipulate gun control is by placing a ban on all military-style weapons, such as automatic weapons that carry extremely large magazines. However, the National Rifle Association feels as if their Second Amendment rights would be violated if such a law were passed. The Amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The text obviously supports that weapons can be possessed, but the argument arises from what the text does not say; there is no indication that all arms are legal, nor any sign that certain weapons are prohibited. The liberal side to this argument is that simple changes are eligible to be added that can simply imply restrictions to which arms can be owned. The flip side of the argument (the conservative side) cherish their right to own any weapon they please. As long as they pass the standard background checks, or even more intense improvements to the background checks, there is no reason they should be stripped of their assault rifles.

President Obama, being a liberal democrat, wishes to restrict the weapons that can be owned. The president’s point of view is clearly controversial, but through one speech, Obama “disarmed the argument… that no law can eliminate all gun violence,” Wilikie wrote. Obama was able to dismantle the opposing opinion and gain significant amounts of supporters by exploiting Neustadt’s theory of a president’s power to persuade. As Neustadt declared in his book “Presidential Power”, a president is able to use his “status and authority to yield bargaining advantages.” Obama, knowing he would have the nation’s full attention, focused the majority of his State of the Union speech on gun control. After addressing the issue at large and his solution, Obama made an emotional appeal about one of the many victims of gun violence:

“One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.”

President Obama receives a standing ovation at the conclusion of his State of the Union Speech

Obama’s telling of Pendleton’s story was an excellent method of executing Neustadt’s theory. He enflamed emotions throughout the audience, which left people yearning for change. The touching anecdote resulted in a standing ovation and overwhelming support for Obama’s gun control bills. Through his words, he was able to convince his people that protecting the children is more important than owning a fancy gun.

While Obama’s State of the Union speech undoubtedly put pressure on Congress to vote on new gun control bills, the debate still fumes as a conclusion has yet to be reached. Meanwhile, the nation impatiently awaits a contentious resolution to the gun control issues that are plaguing many cities in the United States.

Gun laws, Debt ceiling, whats next?

Source: NY Times

Over a week ago President Obama gave a major speech, The State of the Union address. Within this speech President Obama spoke about major things he is going to concentrate on during his next 4 years. The speech varied all the way from things like The creation of a China task force to monitor trade violations, to problems about the current debt. A few things that really stuck out during the speech were when he mentioned gun laws, the debt ceiling, and taxes. As everyone in the world knows at the end of 2012 the United States was supposed to go threw something called the fiscal cliff. Both parties worked together to try to avoid these massive cuts, and eventually something was worked out, well what was worked out is just going to push this back until March. Obama went in to detail about something called the Buffett rule which states a minimum 30% tax rate for individuals whose income exceeds $1 million. No tax increases for anyone earning less than $250,000. Personally I think that is a fine idea and would work out great but it’s still not enough money to bring down the debt ceiling we are talking upwards of 16 trillion dollars, raising taxes isn’t nearly enough. Budget cuts are going to be critical if the US is going to get out of debt, the one major problem, the political parties. If the US cannot get both political parties to work together the debt will just keep increasing. Making it nearly impossible for us to bring down our debt, this must be something both parties are  going to have to loose something on.

Source: Media Matters

The next big thing everyone is worried about are the gun laws, Obama has said he will use his executive power to set laws if the parties can’t come to an agreement. As the President doesn’t have the direct power to do this he has many ways of convincing the right people. I agree with the majority of the Americans that something must be done with guns, no gun is worth a child dying. In 2012 the NRA did a study relating firearm deaths to motor vehicle deaths in 10 different states, the results were horrible. In every single state studied the death by firearms exceeded the death my motor vehicle, this information is appalling to hear and see.

These few things I took out of the Presidents speech were the things that stuck out to me and felt had a large influence in class. The Taxes and fiscal cliff problem were things I would of never considered researching or worrying about but being in Government it has really opened my eyes about what happens in the news, and really helps to explain things.   For all of the things being said about gun laws nothing is really happening yet, and after the SOTUS Obama really showed that he will use his power as President to make things happen in Washington. Without Government class this year I think many of the major things that have happened throughout the world and the states regarding politics would still be in the dark for me. This class has also help me form opinions about many things that are happening in the news and in D.C. as it hasn’t forced me into a position to pick a political side I think that it has really helped broaden my perspective on politics and really give me an overview that I would have never been able to receive if the class was bias towards on political side.

A Country Without Borders

Illegal immigration has become one of our nation’s biggest and most controversial issues today. Obama’s immigration reform has been almost the same since 2007 comprised of three main parts, “enforcement, legal immigration, and the status of illegal immigration.” Illegal immigrants come to the U.S. simply for freedom and opportunities. Not all countries are fair like the U.S. as many countries keep their citizens poor in order to control them. They have also realized that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”(Amendment 14, Section 1).

Several years ago, there were three groups that became seriously involved in the debate on immigration: the people who became angry at the fact that the U.S. had not come in control of their borders, business groups that were bitter at lacking immigration system that did not satisfy labor markets, as well as humanitarian groups who fought on the side of illegal workers affording them a legal status and a way to citizenship.

I find it humorous how each group chooses to pursue their own agenda. What they don’t get is the more these groups take sides, the further and further they get to coming up with a balanced reform that satisfies all three parties. A balanced reform will come through working together and trying to appeal to as many people’s needs and wants as they can. No one group will get everything they ask for and they need to realize that what’s done is done. What we now need to focus on is the future and do whatever we can to help it. America is an awfully large country where there are approximately 256 policemen for every 100,000 people, finding and hunting down an illegal would simply take too much time, and frankly, it’s not worth it. That is why enforcement and security are two of my biggest concerns, because like I said earlier, what’s done is done, and we need to focus on bumping up security and start bringing down the hammer on what is to come. If that means doubling or even tripling the number of border patrol officers on duty, then thats what we will have to do. Oh, you think it’s unnecessary government spending to pay all these extra border patrolmen? The federal government alone made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008. At least a fourth of that could have gone to the $9.8 billion that was allotted in 2008. According to the article, “substantial security investments since 2006 have led to a steady decline in illegal border crossings.”

Honestly, I think its ridiculous how we can get to the moon, but can’t keep mexicans and other foreigners from invading our lands. Like the author stated, I believe the key to a successful immigration plan is for the President to be 100% committed. Without a committed President, there is no committed plan, and with no committed plan, more and more immigrants choose to flock to the United States to take our jobs and money. Commitment is a huge part in the process of a successful immigration agenda and in the end will be the deciding factor whether the plan strives or fails. George W. Bush is a prime example of a President that was committed to his immigration plan, sticking with it until the end of his eighth term. In 2006, Bush gave the first ever primetime presidential address on immigration and then proposed a five-part plan to reform the immigration system. A plan that is much clearer and much more agreeable than Obama’s.

The article talks about Obama saying “has more time and a greater ability to get things done. But, as he appeared to recognize in the State of the Union, this will require him to promote the core objectives of each major interest group, going beyond campaign-style events aimed at his base.” Like I said earlier, in order to reach a final agreement, Obama must appeal to every group. I’m not saying that he must incorporate every part of every group’s plan in his reform, but to incorporate pieces of each to where the three groups can agree and create that balanced reform that our country and its government has strived to reach.

This particular topic relates back to our class of Government in the way that Obama plays as Chief of State. The role of the Chief of State is significant in the fact that Obama is considered the representative for the people, in which he leads the country in the way the people want it to go. He also acts as the leader of our country and makes the decisions necessary for our nation to strive. For that, he is making a balanced reform that satisfies all groups of people. It’s simple. Commitment, security, and enforcement are, in my opinion, the three keys to a successful immigration reform.

 

Taking the Power to Persuade Too Far

We have studied in our Government class the powers of the Presidency. The modern presidency requires use of different powers that are not outlined in the Constitution. He uses this power while in office communicating to Congress and the House, but he also needs to use it while communicating to the public. The President must use the Power to Persuade in order to gain the support of the American people. During speeches, addresses and debates he has to appeal to the public’s needs. With his power to persuade he is able to rally and gain voters and supporters.  Although I understand it is necessary to do as much as you can to please voters, I do not think stretching the truth should be an option.

The President has to appeal to his supporters and the majority of the citizens in the US. With that, there is a chance that he may stretch the truth in order to please the majority. Sometimes, “The president sets soaring expectations, but doesn’t meet them. His broken promises, failed veto threats, and reversals…” (Chandler).  Not only can a President promise things that will not happen, but he also can exaggerate or even say the wrong thing in front of the whole United States.

Regarding my topic I wanted to find parts of Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address where his words, facts, and numbers were not completely right. As I read through two articles [Washington Post and Fox News] I noticed that even the smallest change in words can alter the whole context of what the public hears. There are many cases where President Obama does not say what is actually correct because he phrases his speeches, debates and addresses in wrong context.

Obama giving his State of the Union Address 2013

For the first example fact Obama states in his address he mentions jobs. Obama says, “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs.”

Obama is generally telling the truth but he counts the number of new jobs from the point in his first term when job losses were at their highest. He ignores the around 5 million job losses up to his first term. With regard to other factors and elements he technically had an increase of 1.2 million jobs.

Next, Obama states that, “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.”

The drastic assumption that Obama makes is not right. We are not even close to doubling the distance we go on a gallon of gas. The deal that the Obama Administration made with automakers will create an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. So, Obama is definitely stretching the truth in this statement.

Obama also says that, “We buy … less foreign oil than we have in 20 [years].”

There really is nothing that relates the decline of foreign oil consumption to Obama’s presidency. If anything the decline started 2 years before Obama’s presidency. To show the decline Bloomberg says, “In 2011, the U.S. relied on imports for 44.8 percent of its petroleum consumption, down from 60.3 percent in 2005, according to EIA data.”

The United State’s citizens listen and learn from what the President says and promises. I feel it is the job of the President to provide facts, numbers and statements that are true to the entire United States. How can we grow as a nation when we are not given the correct information from our own leader? US citizens are becoming less informed and interested in government and Andrew Romano says, “Most experts agree that the relative complexity of the U.S. political system makes it hard for Americans to keep up.” Citizens definitely do not have to know everything about government and the system but they need to be informed about the state of the US and what challenges we are facing. Because the President is a main source of information it is necessary that the info he says is accurate and reliable. Pleasing the public with what they want to hear does not help the United States as a whole and can cause confusion and agreement to decisions that can harm us as a nation.

When President Obama is addressing the United States’ Citizens, should he please the people by saying the things they want to hear or should he stick to the cold hard facts. Obviously he has to persuade voters by saying the things people want to hear, but does that hurt the US as a whole? Is it the job of US citizens to know about all the topics that the President talks about and decipher when he is not exactly telling the truth or says something wrong? Overall, I definitely think the needed use of  persuading the public and voters can cause a skew in the line of fact and truth being told the public.

President Obama Campaigning: Persuading Voters

A Time to Lead

Source: Politico

Gun violence, and the movement for gun control and how it relates to the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution has been a simmering issue in our country for decades.  It was not until the tragic school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut that this issue received an emotional burst and was thrust back into the national debate.  There is no doubt our country’s divided political ideology prevents most from taking an objective approach to the complicated problem of gun violence.  I believe our Nation’s culture needs to change in order to solve this problem and, from what I have learned in our Government and Economics class; sometimes it takes a true leader to break through the national political scene to make positive changes for the future of our country.

The mere fact that the Newtown shootings sparked the gun control debate, enflamed gun rights and 2^nd Amendment advocates as they believe the more liberal gun control advocates politicized this tragedy. As a means to push for tighter gun restrictions, the American public may be more vulnerable and quick to get behind a so-called solution that would only cause people to “feel better” but yield no meaningful results.

Parties from both side of the gun control debate cite compelling statistics often times taken out of context to bolster their respective arguments.  According to factcheck.org gun murders are at their lowest rate since 1981, gun aggravated assault are at the lowest rate since 2004, gun robbery is at the lowest rate since 2004, non-fatal gun injuries are at the highest rate since 2008 and gun suicides are at the highest rate since 1998.  What do these figures mean?  How does gun violence in our country related to other countries?  Regardless of what statistics are used or how they used, it seems evident that both sides of the debate refuse to think more broadly in an effort to make our country less violent while protecting our Constitution.  Does gun violence alone account for the violent crimes in our society?  Is anyone interested in how we care for the mentally disabled, how we embrace the violent nature of our movies and video games, how parents have lost control of their children?  Are our problems related to broken families, poverty, ethnicity, and people unwilling to be held accountable for their own actions, people who do not value human life.  Where is our leader?

Source: Illinois Public Media

Great leaders present a vision and develop a compelling reason to change the culture of a Nation.  Our President had the opportunity to show the Nation and world he has the characteristics of a great leader during his recent State of the Union Address.  He had the opportunity to begin to change our Nation’s culture by outlining his vision for widespread change with regard to violence in our country.  He had the opportunity to compel people to collectively begin answering the many questions posed above.  He had the opportunity to transform the gun violence issue from that of a purely political matter to a problem that only Americans could solve, not a single political party. Unfortunately our President missed that opportunity and chose to take the easy way out: to be a politician. When President Barack Obama gives his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, “gun violence will be center stage, both literally and politically” (Bresnahan and Gibson). He invited several victims of gun violence to be his guest during his speech.  He then framed the portion of his speech that addressed gun violence by saying “Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource – our children. “ He then went on to use the victims of gun violence to call for a vote from Congress to pass certain measures related to gun control.  He named certain victims and events, then, in a campaign chant meant to evoke applause from his political party, repeated that each victim “deserved a vote”.  The obvious ploy was to gain popularity for his gun control plan (his party’s gun control plan). As usual, “Obama’s remarks were short on evidence that his gun control proposals would work.”  His evidence mainly was “sorely lacking” (Carlson).

One of the cornerstones of the success of our country is based on the debate of differing opinions, in an effort to compromise, gain consensus and develop laws and policies that are best suited for most Americans.  How we act as a people, our culture and values cannot be negotiated in the political process.  We need to be inspired to act better, do better, live better and treat each other with more respect.  Our President missed an opportunity to be impactful and the American people will most likely be the victims of such inaction.