The Right Choice For San Jose

            The mayoral race in San Jose is getting a lot more heated as we approach the November 4^th election. There is little more than a month left and both sides are in crunch mode. The attack ads have been flooding mail boxes city wide over the last two weeks. While both candidates are democrats, they are divided by stark differences. A slew of key issues and each candidate’s stance will determine the outcome of this critical election. Whichever candidate wins more voter support will win the title of mayor and get to decide how San Jose will move forward to grow as a city and confront its problems. An article published by Mike Rosenberg in the San Jose Mercury News on September 28^th suggests that while many issues are being considered, one in particular is likely to define this election.

            The primaries were very close and competitive and showed that clearly this would be a tough race. With the two top candidates now decided, Sam Liccardo and Dave Cortese are neck and neck in the recent polls. The biggest difference between the two democrats comes down to the pension reform Measure B that was passed in 2012. With rising pensions and no clear plan of how to pay them, the city council, led by Mayor Chuck Reed, made a difficult decision to cut back on public workers’ pensions in a last chance attempt to keep our city out of debt. As a councilmember during this time, Sam was one of the 7 out of 10 to favor this much needed reform. Alongside the city council was the support of 70% of the voters. Dave Cortese believes that this reform has led to a decrease in public safety by forcing police officers to join other departments to keep their pensions. He is running his entire campaign on the promise that, as mayor, he will repeal measure B to fix what he believes are rising crime levels. On the other hand, Sam realizes that repealing Measure B will do nothing but send San Jose backwards. He believes that we can spend smarter without spending more money to rebuild our police department.

            Many reputable individuals and organizations have come out and publically endorsed Sam’s campaign. He has received support from the San Jose Mercury News; four former mayors, including sitting Mayor Chuck Reed; six former vice mayors; and virtually every single sitting city councilmember. It is clear that Sam has the support of the public and not only specific special interests. Mr. Cortese, however, has the endorsement of the labor unions that represent the city workers who are unhappy with Measure B, as well as five former police chiefs. If we take things at face value, we can clearly see that Dave’s biggest supporters are those that want to repeal Measure B as he promises to do. The reality of the situation our city finds itself in is that repealing Measure B with no plan of how to pay off the extremely high costs of rising pensions will ultimately lead to a crippling deficit. While there is clearly more to be done in order to completely restore our police force, repealing Measure B is equivalent to taking a step backwards.

            Sam Liccardo is the right choice for mayor of San Jose. He will move our city forward through a series of innovative plans and policies that will restore us to proudly being the heart of the Silicon Valley. Councilmember Liccardo had proven through a lucrative career that he has what it takes to make the tough decisions necessary to get San Jose back on track. He plans to take care of the homeless issue by taking advantage of the many unused motels throughout the city. He has suggested that our police force actively work with the public to use their privately owned security cameras to help solve criminal cases. Sam has many more creative plans to restore safety, spend smarter, broaden access to high-wage jobs, and confidently move our city forward safely and smartly into the future.

Rosenberg, Mike. "San Jose Mayor's Race Heats up as Candidates Battle over Key Police Issue." San Jose Mercury News. San Jose Mercury News, 28 Sept. 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_26626118/san-jose-mayors-race-heats-up-candidates-battle>.

            

Secret Service Takes A Hit

            An article by Michael D. Shear that was published in the New York Times on September 20^th, 2014, stated that the secret service is being reviewed due to a breach in white house security last week. The agency responsible for protecting our commander and chief came under fire in the last few days following an intruder entering the white house. A man was able to climb the white house fence and even entered the white house through the front door before being apprehended by agents in the grand entryway. This is the same door that the president regularly uses to greet foreign representatives. Luckily, the president and his daughters had left the white house a few minutes prior to the occurrence for a weekend vacation at Camp David and Mrs. Obama was not home either. Agents had begun running towards the man as soon as they saw him within the perimeter, however they held their fire due to the fact the man wasn’t visibly armed. While the agency has said that it is not out of the ordinary for people to make it over the white house fence, none have made it into the building.

Criticisms have poured in from those in congress, as well as different agencies and citizens all over the country who hold the firm belief that this intrusion is entirely unacceptable. In response to the incident, the Secret Service has launched a thorough review to revisit their protocol and determine how to prevent similar threats in the future. They plan to conduct a series of interviews and a survey of the location involved. The hope is that the Secret Service will be able to learn enough from this event to prevent any more people illegally entering the White House grounds. The decision by the agency not to use any form of potentially lethal force against this man sharply contrasts the actions taken by the local police force. It was just a year ago that local police shot and killed a woman who had crashed her car into the white house gate. The woman was not visibly armed but did use her vehicle in a threatening manner. While the killing of the woman received mixed reviews from the public, the threat was handled in a way that was seen as justified at the time. It seems fair to presume that anyone who is sprinting towards the white house does not have good intentions and is a definite threat to the safety of the president.

 The agency declared that although they are happy with the arrest of the infiltrator, he should have never been allowed to get close enough to the house to enter the premises. This presents a rather difficult issue for the agency to resolve. Currently the agents are told not to fire if a trespasser is visibly unarmed. It appears that the practiced policies of the agency are not adequately serving their purpose. It may be time to consider using lethal force against trespassers. The threat of lethal force would likely prevent any further attempts at trespassing on White House property. On the other hand, perhaps it is time to look at alternatives to lethal force such as the methods used to protect our foreign embassies. There are many options available for subduing perpetrators that would not result in fatalities. Many embassies have had success using electric perimeters and rubber bullets. The Secret Service should really consider looking into these alternatives as they would likely produce substantial results. In addition to expanding the methods used to keep trespassers out, the agency should consider having more men patrol the perimeter. It is my strong belief that if they can take advantage of alternative options while having more agents on the ground, they will be able to hinder any more intrusions and keep our president much safer.

Shear, Michael, and Steve Kenny. "Breach Prompts Review of White House Security." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2014. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/politics/intruder-white-house.html?ref=politics&_r=0>.

The Long Road Ahead

Over the period of the last two weeks Secretary of State John Kerry has been traveling all over the Middle East as the United States seeks to form a coalition of countries to rise up and face the Islamic State. An article by Michael R. Gordon published in the New York Times on September 14^th, 2014 has stated that due to Mr. Kerry’s efforts, ten Arab countries have signed on to join the fight against ISIS. Several of the ten countries have committed to directly assisting in the military efforts against the terrorist organization with many of them even promising to conduct airstrikes of their own. When President Obama gave his speech last Wednesday announcing a broadening of American efforts and a larger scale offensive that would be conducted by the USA, it was unknown how many countries would consent to participate. Since then, Secretary Kerry has been all over Europe and the Middle East rallying support for this newly established coalition with the hope that ISIS can be eliminated through a multinational military campaign.

While many Western Europeans have signed on to take part in this new offensive, their level of commitment remains questionable. The scope of contribution is not very well defined as some countries such as Germany do not want their military involved at all. Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that while Germany would be willing to help arm opposition forces, it would not conduct airstrikes of its own, nor would it be willing to put German boots on the ground. However, France’s president, Francois Hollande, stated that they would be willing to conduct airstrikes, but only on the Iraqi side. The United States government has stated that there are many different methods to contribute, from simply training or arming opposition forces, to conducting targeted airstrikes through military force. Although the US has seen growing support and willingness to participate from other Western nations, it is a relief to hear that these 10 Arab States have now signed on as well.

Having countries from the same region willing to participate in the alliance against the Islamic State will provide an advantage for the United States and its western allies. These countries know the region more than we do and have a much better understanding of the culture, the politics, and the driving forces. With their support we will be in an improved position to attack and ultimately destroy ISIS. These countries are very close to the land the Islamic State currently holds so the first logical step would be having the surrounding countries prevent any further land grabs. If we can surround them and stop their territorial growth then I believe we will be able to eliminate them much faster.

The new Iraqi government has been warmly welcoming any aid from other countries willing to give it. Their own military is substantially small, not very well trained, and loosely organized. It is likely that without arms and aid from friendly countries, the Iraqi forces would soon see defeat from the growing ISIS force. On the other side of the border the Syrians have been questionable to say the least. President Al Assad initially warned foreign countries from conducting airstrikes on Syrian soil so there remains the possibility that Syrian forces could shoot at American aircraft which would result in retaliation and further complication of the situation. This threat has made many countries refuse to conduct airstrikes on the Syrian side of the IS territory which could ultimately slow the takedown of the Islamic state. Despite the fact that the United States has a growing amount of foreign support for embarking on this mission, there is still much that needs to be figured out as well as a lot of organization that needs to take place. President Obama has stated that he believes this conflict will surpass his presidency and likely consume the next presidency and possibly the one after that as well. Even though we won’t walk it alone, the United States has a long road ahead.

Gordon, Michael. "Arab Nations Offer to Conduct Airstrikes Against ISIS, U.S. Officials Say." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Sept. 2014.

Facing The ISIS Threat Once And For All

            President Obama is scheduled to speak to the American people on Wednesday, September 10^th about expanding US involvement in defeating the Islamic State. An article by Julie Hirschfeld Davis published in the New York times on September 7^th stated that while the president is likely going to expand the United States bombing campaign, he will not permit US troops on the ground. This administration has been very clear about not entering what they believe could turn into another Iraq War. They hold the firm belief that the nation is still war weary and has no interest in engaging in another foreign conflict while the country is plagued by enough problems on the domestic front. This President has long tried to remain committed to his campaign promises of getting United States forces out of the Middle East and ending the prolonged conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the nation has watched as more and more conflicts systematically erupt overseas. It is time for this administration to recognize the current state of global affairs and step up to the plate. As the most powerful nation in the free world it is our moral obligation as well as in our own national interest to take more action against the Islamist State before they become so powerful that putting boots on the ground becomes our only option.

            President Obama has found himself in a very tough position where his reputation as President is on the line. He has tried exceedingly hard to stay true to the vows he made during both of his campaigns but the world has had other plans for him. His international strategy of leading from behind has slowly allowed deadly forces to gain power while we have sat back and watched. The Islamic State is currently the biggest foreign threat to the national security of the United States and this administration needs to realize that. Initially, before IS began taking large amounts of territory from the countries of Iraq and Syria, the President dubbed them not a threat and went as far as to call them amateurs. In recent weeks with the terrorist state making serious advancements and beheading American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, it appears that the President may have miscalculated. The Islamic State is a real threat to the United States and a few targeted airstrikes have not done enough to seriously cripple their ability to make war. The President is correct in his steadfast belief that troops on the ground is not a good idea at this point in time, however, the country needs to do more.

            If the United States is truly committed to keeping our soldiers out of the Middle East then we must step up our game. This administration needs to more effectively plan airstrikes that will target weapons caches as well as dense areas of IS fighters. We need to fund and arm the opposition forces such as the Kurds and possibly even the Syrians. While Bashar Al Assad remains a threat to the United States it may be in our best interest for the time being to help his regime defeat the Islamic State. If IS takes over the countries of Iraq and Syria then rather than having a small threat to our national interests, we will be faced with a much larger threat on both foreign and domestic fronts. If we can commit to stepping up our involvement in this conflict then we can adequately defeat the Islamic State by wiping them off of the face of the earth. I fear that if we continue to launch minimal airstrikes we will only fuel the fire that is their anger and hatred towards the west. We will be empowering their propaganda and driving more Muslims to radicalization against the rest of the free world. Let’s take a larger stand before it is too late. Let’s keep American troops out of the Middle East and decimate the Islamic State while it is still a rising power. I am confident that the administration is finally getting the message and I believe that in the President’s upcoming speech he will announce a new effective strategy to take the right steps towards defeating IS once and for all.

           

Davis, Julie. "Obama to Present Case for Broader U.S. Mission Against Militants." The New York Times. The New York Times, 7 Sept. 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/us/politics/obama-to-present-case-for-broader-us-mission-against-militants.html?_r=2>. 

A Call To End Immigration Reform Delays

            An article released by the New York Times on August 29^th by Michael D. Shear stated that a delay in immigration reform by the Obama administration is highly likely due to the upcoming midterm elections. With November closing in it appears as though the President is acutely aware of the threat of Republicans taking both chambers. He has begun acting carefully so as not to harm the chances of democratic candidates with his hope being to maintain a majority Democratic senate. President Obama promised immigration reform in the mid-summer after he expressed extreme frustration with the gridlock in congress and their apparent inability to solve this pressing issue. Naming the cause of the lack of legislation to be the fault of Republican house leaders and their refusal to compromise to get anything done, the president assured the American people that reform would occur even if he had to take executive action by acting alone. Given current global instability and the growing threat of the Islamic State, the United States must act hastily to secure its borders and avoid any chance of economic or violent repercussions.
            There remains a growing domestic issue with illegal immigrants taking advantage of the broken immigration system by exploiting the countries sympathy and high moral conviction to do what is right for their own gain. Floods of people have stormed the border to escape dangerous conditions and poverty that plagues many Central and South American countries, leaving the United States forced to find a way to deal with them. The illegal immigrants have been placed in the hands of federal authorities that are in turn relying on state resources to handle this national issue. With the probability of a delay in immigration reform from the administration, the country faces further challenges of dealing with the recent surge of illegal immigrants with its own money and its own resources. It is clear that the nation can wait no longer and must secure the border immediately before dealing with those who have already entered the country.

            Along with the growing economic threat of illegal immigration by citizens of Central and South American countries, there is a substantial threat of Islamic State jihadist extremists taking advantage of our unprotected borders to conduct terror attacks against the country. It has been suggested by law enforcement officials in recent weeks that leaders of the Islamic State are looking at the Mexican-American border to enter the United States and cause widespread harm to its citizens in protest of its recent airstrikes against IS fighters. Last week a laptop belonging to a member of the IS was recovered and found to contain several methods of how to conduct terror attacks on urban cities. The laptop included a wide variety of methods including traditional bombing attacks as well as biological warfare tactics. The world is currently the most unstable it has been in the since the cold war and domestic terror threats are probable to say the least.

            While the administration is smart to be cautious about upsetting voters through controversial legislation, the need for immediate reform to our broken immigration system is a national security necessity. Partisan politics have clearly outweighed the consequences of delaying the promised reforms, which has upset many immigration advocacy groups and potentially put American citizens in danger. I believe that this country would be thoroughly devastated if a terror attack occurs due to this delay, or if more waves of illegal immigrants continue to cross the border in mass numbers. This country has far too much to lose and nothing to gain by a continued delay but unfortunately we will likely be forced to wait until after November 4^th before we see any extensive and thorough changes made to the broken immigration system that disservices the American people.

Shear, Michael. "Obama Weighing Delay in Action on Immigration." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 3 Sept. 2014.