When the United States was formed, the founding fathers put together a document called the Constitution to ensure that the people of America were safe. Because of this Constitution, we have the right–though many might disagree–to keep and bear arms. We have the right to not be searched without reason. We have the right to not be forced to quarter soldiers. So many different rights, thanks to the Constitution, are protected.

One in particular that has always been so important to me as the owner of a political commentary website is the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights. The amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Specifically, the first part that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is important.

The community center–I call it a mosque in the title because people recognize that more–a few blocks from Ground Zero is a place for Muslims to go hang out, learn, relax and in one room of the building, pray. It is a 13 floor community center that happens to include a room for prayer. So, in reality, it isn’t a mosque. There aren’t any minarets. There won’t be a call to prayer. And, in reality, you can’t even see the community center from ground zero. To get there, you have to walk two blocks and then turn right onto Park Avenue. So why, then, is this such an issue?

Islamophobia is spreading throughout the country and it has been since 9/11. The same people that argue so passionately about the need for the government to protect the Constitution for Americans are so willing to turn their backs on the Constitution that protects a certain group of Americans–Muslims. The Constitution specifically says that any religion has the right to practice and the government cannot stop them. There have been instances that the government has created rules such as in the Supreme Court case Reynolds vs. United States–this said that polygamy was illegal–but it created a general rule rather than a rule for a specific religious sect.

Not allowing the creation of a mosque near Ground Zero because a minority of the religious group decided to attack the United States is unfair and it goes against the rights that all Americans–White, Black, Christian, Muslim, etc–are entitled to. Those are rights that are given to us simply because we are American citizens and they cannot and should not be taken away from us because people are “afraid” or, more likely than not, racist and angry.

Instead of allowing our country to become a bunch of bigots and fearful people, we need to step back and evaluate this. First off, this isn’t a mosque as I mentioned above. Secondly, hating an entire group of people because a minority is causing problems only alienates that entire group. Considering there are over a billion Muslims–nearly two million in the United States–in the world, it hurts our credibility as the nation of freedom to be so hateful and potentially unconstitutional to our own citizens. Finally, it hurts our efforts in the War in Afghanistan. How can we be trying to make a better place for Muslims if we can’t even accept them here?

People can argue that it’s distasteful and it’s not appropriate for the community center to be there, but that’s irrelevant when it comes to this. These Muslim Americans have the right to make their community center wherever they want. The fact that it’s two blocks away–and out of sight of Ground Zero–is irrelevant. They have the right to open one right next door if they wanted.

The American people are very good at choosing a group of people and hating them. When the Irish came, we hated them. When the Italians came, we hated them. People hate those from Spanish speaking countries. And because of 9/11, suddenly an entire group of people are wrongfully treated because of the actions of a few. As a free country that honors its Constitution, we can’t start taking rights away from people. If we start taking rights away, then what are we? An unfair, non-free country. I don’t want to be that kind of a country.

As the August 31st deadline for combat operations in Iraq to come to an end, those that are going to take control from the military are civilians. Specifically, it will the State Department that will, come October 2011, assume control of all the operations within the country. Never before has the State Department worked on its own separate from the military, so it will be a decisive situation that will determine whether the System Administrators can really work.

The System Administrators, otherwise known as the SysAdmin, is a term coined by Thomas P.M. Barnett. While the SysAdmin has been going on since the Surge took place–and really, it has been going on since Saddam Hussein’s government collapsed–with the State Department taking over, it demonstrates a clear change from war fighting to stabilization and development. Head over to Dr. Barnett’s site to read up on the SysAdmin.

In a nut shell, the SysAdmin is the second half of the fight. At first, you’ve got the Leviathan–which is the heavy hitting military–going in and defeating the main threat. Following this, you have the SysAdmin military forces go in which handle things such as, “stability and support operations” (SASO), postconflict stabilization and reconstruction operations, “humanitarian assistance/disaster relief” (HA/DR), and any and all operations associated with low-intensity conflict (LIC), counterinsurgency operations (COIN), and small-scale crisis response.” However, we are reaching a point where the military is pulling out and that leads to the civilian take over.

Barnett goes on to say that, “While the core security and logistical capabilities are derived from uniformed military components, the SysAdmin force is fundamentally envisioned as a standing capacity for interagency (i.e., among various U.S. federal agencies) and international collaboration in nation-building, meaning that both the SysAdmin force and function end up being more civilian than uniform in composition, more government-wide than just Defense Department, more rest-of-the-world than just the United States, and more private-sector-invested than public-sector-funded.”

In other words, the military is pulling out and the civilians have to take over. We can see this in the number of soldiers being dropped down to 50,000 soldiers. Combat operations are ending; however, there is still a sizable force in Iraq to continue training their army, providing necessary security and keeping stability until they leave in fourteen months. They’re stepping back and watching as the Iraq Army takes care of more of their own situations.

But, while this is going on, the civilians are going to be working on bring more electricity to the area. While they have a considerable amount of oil that could be used to make electricity, many people in the area might see only an hour or two of electricity a day and then it’s gone. This is obviously a problem for a country looking to get back on its feet after such a long, painful war.

This also is an interesting and exciting scenario for the State Department. Because the State Department has never worked on its own separate from the military, it has a lot of learning to do. Does the State Department want to be the Federal agency responsible for this type of operation, though? Instead, what we might see is a department that can handle the in-between.

As Barnett goes on to say in his first book, The Pentagon’s New Map and on his glossary, the Department of Everything Else will need to develop. You’ve got the Department of Defense that can kick any country’s butt. And you’ve got the State Department that can handle a lot of the diplomatic missions. But, what about the whole rebuilding period of time? Who does that effectively?

Right now, it’s the State Department, but they won’t want to be that department. Instead, it’s going to lead to the creation of another department that can handle it. This department will take resources from both the Defense Department–soldiers and money–as well as the State Department. The Defense Department will see its budget slashed because in all honestly, why do we need so many air craft carriers? Our military will become more specialized and able to handle the specific types of conflict we’ll deal with in the 21st century.

There are two things that might worry people. The first is that if we reduce the ridiculous spending in the Defense Department and transfer resources to this Department of Everything Else, then we’ll be open to attack from countries like Russia and China. So long as we keep our nuclear arsenal, that won’t ever happen. Mutually Assured Destruction has made it possible for us to never go to war with a near peer country–one of those countries that could actually fight against us in a land war–because both sides could use nuclear weapons. No one wants that. It’s the reason we never went hot in the Cold War.

The second thing people might be worried about is more government spending. I am in the same boat and that’s why when this move happens, it needs to be done by taking resources away from the Department of Defense and the State Department. If we are making a department specifically  for this SysAdmin operation, the State Department and the Department of Defense don’t need their own parts to handle it. Let the one agency do it.

While the Iraq War has gone on for a long time, this stage of the conflict is going to be the most lucrative and dangerous. With so many soldiers pulling out, things can quickly devolve in the country. An example is today’s coordinated strike in 13 Iraqi cities. However, that’s going to happen. The Iraqi military and police are getting stronger and will only get stronger.

As the months move forward, we can expect to see the country get a grip with what’s going on. However, one final thing must be done and that’s a government needs to be put in place. If that doesn’t come to fruition, things can quickly devolve. Therefore, the State Department must work diligently to get that resolved or else all of this will be for nothing.

If anyone has the courage and the guts to go head on against the political might of the Congress when it comes to the military, it is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In an attempt to get ridiculous military spending under control, Gates has made moves that have irritated many and have made some politicians worried about their specific districts. However, if there is one thing that we need right now, it’s a military on a really big diet.

The United States is having a problem with the deficit and while defense is an important department to have, it has grown out of control. In the past decade, the Pentagon has doubled to $550 billion. This, of course, doesn’t include the extra $159 billion the Pentagon gets to fight the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If we, as a country, are going to get our deficit under control, we are going to need to trim the debt.

He has already cut a series of unneeded weapons programs which, over the life of the order, will save the United States $330 billion. Over the next five years, the Pentagon has to make cuts in administration and need to increase efficiency to the amount of $100 billion, he ordered.

Unfortunately, this isn’t enough and he recognized that. He closed the Norfolk, Virginia Joint Forces Command. This base was meant to bring the different branches together to together; however, there are others in the country. This would only save about $240 million a year; however, 2,400 civilians and 3,000 contractors will be out of work. Over the next three years, he hopes to see contractors cut by 30% to try and cut costs there. He’s frozen any new employees for his office. And he is going to be cutting 50 posts for admirals and generals, 150 senior officials and closed two agencies that employ 550 people.

However, he has come under attack because these are all jobs in different districts and no politician wants to see jobs lost. When jobs are lost, the individual those people target is the incumbent and in a tight political year, that’s not something they want.

The big savings, though, need to come in health care. Active-duty individuals don’t have to pay for their health care and I agree with that. They are serving our country and shouldn’t have to pay. However, retired individuals get an incredible deal on health insurance that hasn’t gone up in 15 years. The annual premiums are only $460 for a family. Because of how low this is, health insurance costs for the Pentagon have gone from $19 billion to $50 billion a year.

While I totally believe that soldiers should be respected for what they did for our country, as health insurance costs go up, their contribution must as well. Different numbers suggest different amounts saved; however, any amount saved would be incredibly beneficial.

Rep. Barney Frank’s Sustainable Defense Task Force predicts that if the Pentagon makes serious cuts, they can save $960 billion from 2011 to 2020. However, Robert Gates and Congress are going to have to do what it takes to get rid of the ridiculous amounts of money.

Secretary Gates can do one other thing to cut spending and that’s to reduce the size of the Air Force and the Navy. Their influence in warfare is not as great as it once was—we’re fighting against terrorists and insurgent groups rather than near peer foes—so we don’t need such a massive Air Force and Navy. I am not suggesting cutting the entire departments, but there needs to be some trimming because it simply isn’t necessary.

Because of the nuclear weapon, the fear of near peer war should be out of everyone’s mind. China won’t ever attack us because then they’d have to fear a nuclear response. The same can be said about any other country. Therefore, cutting back on the Navy and Air Force—two departments necessary for near peer war, but not necessary for insurgency fighting—would allow for tremendous savings.

We are in a recession and the deficit in the United States is enormous. If we want to stay solvent and start to rise again as a powerful country—economically and militarily—we need to make these necessary cuts. Congress gave the Pentagon free reign after 9/11. Now, though, the government needs to reign the Pentagon back in even if it means people lose jobs. The country simply cannot afford it.

I was personally on the fence about it and finally decided that I was in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Why prohibit corporations from spending their money on candidates? President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

But, it’s not. Instead, the court case was a major victory for the American people. It gave us the power to keep the corporations in check and this happened with Target. Allow me to provide a little back story.

Target Corporation’s CEO decided that it would be a good idea to give $150,000 to MN Forward, a group that is supporting the incredibly right wing Republican candidate for Governor of Minnesota, Tom Emmer. Mr. Emmer just so happened to be adamantly against homosexuals and their right to marry.

A group of Gay and Lesbians got angry at Target for this donation and decided that they would boycott the company. Then other LGBT groups joined in saying that they would boycott the company. Employees of the company got mad because there were people boycotting. They sent complaints in. Soon, average consumers got mad at Target and joined in the boycotts. A Facebook group was spread around telling everyone to boycott.

In other words, Target was being boycotted by hundreds of thousands of people. In an economy as tight as this one and in a business that relies entirely on consumers, this is not the type of PR that any company would want.

Target gave $150,000 to MN Forward, but the news obviously got wind of it and spread it around. That’s the great thing about the Internet and transparency. With everyone knowing and boycotting, suddenly Target was losing more than $150,000 in potential revenue. That’s why the CEO apologized. He realized that he made a massive mistake for his business and knew he needed to try and gain favor.

And here’s why the Supreme Court ruling is so great. It allows the American people to hold corporations—a group that has always had such shadowy power in Washington—accountable for their actions. Now that a corporation, instead of individuals within a corporation, can donate to politicians, the American people can see exactly what those groups stand for.

The same way that the American people can vote out an incumbent if he is not doing what the American people want—within reason, of course, since Democracy is dangerous—the American people can “vote” out a business. Except, this method of voting the business out doesn’t require an election. Instead, it requires a boycott.

By donating to MN Forward, Gregg Steinhafel dictated the political opinion of the company. And by doing that, the American people were able to respond accordingly. This is a very powerful way for us to hold them accountable.

While MN Forward obviously gained an easy $150,000, corporations now know the consequences of their donations. Corporations will think twice before they donate to a politician as radical as Tom Emmer. Otherwise, they run the risk of losing out on profits and the sole purpose of a corporation is to make money.

I’m all about corporate accountability and this is finally one of the ways that the American people can hold corporations accountable. Since I know how they donate, I can choose to shop there. What better way to revolt against their idea than not to buy from them?

With the Bush tax cuts—tax cuts put in place in 2001 and 2003—due to expire on December 31st, it has gone to the politicians to decide what should be done about them. The cuts lowered taxes on income, capital gains and dividends. Overall, it lowered taxes for many people. However, according to some, it has contributed heavily to the debt that we currently carry because the government has not been getting the revenue it needs to operate.

Democrats want to see the cuts expire. Fareed Zakaria wrote an article for the Washington Post in which he said that letting the cuts expire would be an immediate $300 billion to reduce the deficit. While that might be the case, there are still billions of dollars adding to the debt each year. Republicans want the cuts to be renewed again because they argue it is good for the economy. The more money in the people’s hands means more investment money.

President Obama has taken another route when it comes to the Bush tax cuts. He understands that lower taxes are important for growth, but he feels that there still needs to be taxes. So, his plan is to let the bush tax cuts expire for individuals who make $200,000 or more and families making $250,000. However, if you make less than this, your tax cuts will be renewed.

In other words, the people who spend more of their income—the lower income people—will have access to more of their funds. Therefore, the higher income people who don’t spend as much of their income since they don’t need to will be taxed more, but those that need to spend more of their income are taxed less. While this system isn’t perfect, it does provide an attempt at a recovery for the debt.

However, it is simply not enough.

If Democrats want the Bush cuts to expire, they need to first agree that they will cut spending. Getting the budget under control won’t just come by getting rid of these cuts. Instead, it means that the government needs to stop spending as much. Cut programs that are not needed. If a state can do it better, get rid of the same department in the Federal government.

If Republicans want to see some of the Bush cuts renewed, they need to first agree that they will help trim the Defense Budget. At over $600 billion, it’s a ridiculous amount of money invested in bureaucracy. We don’t need programs for near-peer war because we have nuclear weapons. We won’t be engaging in near-peer war, so the budget needs to be trimmed.

It’s so easy for politicians to demand that cuts be renewed or allowed to expire, but when it comes to cutting spending, they are never willing to make that happen. I propose cutting spending and enacting some new taxes.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Britain is a true fiscal conservative. He concluded that if he was going to get his country’s deficit in order, he would need to cut spending and raise taxes. The United States will have to do the same thing.

However, it is imperative that small businesses not suffer from tax increases. Small businesses are what will guarantee our recovery. Therefore, taxes on small businesses should be as low as possible. The lower they are, the more likely our recovery will happen at a faster rate. If we could give small businesses a tax free time, they’d be able to heavily invest; unfortunately, I don’t see our government doing that.

In the end, government spending and taxes need to be dealt with. Those that are most likely to help our recovery should not be punished. Those that spend more of their income should have the ability to hold on to their income. And the government needs to trim programs that are just not necessary. Without making these changes, nothing can possibly be done with our debt and deficit.

Getting rid of or keeping the Bush tax cuts is just one of the steps to a more solvent economy. It will take responsibility by politicians to really make it happen. If they are unwilling to make the necessary changes, our economy will never truly recover.

In dealing with the near war on the Korean peninsula and the constant worry that there are no jobs in America, one of the topics that has come up is the discussion of whether or not there should be free trade agreements. People immediately look at NAFTA and, disgruntled, turn their back on the idea almost immediately. Free trade, though, provides an opportunity to better the economy because as more trade occurs, more jobs appear.

When discussing free trade with a colleague of mine, I asked him what his opinion was. He replied that free anything—whether it is free markets, free trade or a free government—was a good thing. He was hesitant, though, when talking about NAFTA. He said, “a free trade document should be a paragraph long.” If you look up NAFTA, it’s considerably longer.

A free trade agreement with South Korea has been going through Congress for some time now and, there’s a very good chance that it has pages and pages of rules and limitations. That’s not free trade. That’s trade with a bunch of rules.

Despite what people think, free trade is actually an incredibly powerful way of bringing more jobs to the United States. If, for example, we had free trade with South Korea, we would be adding millions of potential consumers to products that are made in America.

People fear that by doing this, what we also do is take jobs away from America because we are buying cheaper goods from other countries. This is true, in some cases. However, the same way as the free market finds a way of balancing itself, free trade finds a way of balancing itself where both parties benefit from it equally. Where some jobs might be lost in the country, others will pop up elsewhere. And, since there is an increased market for goods, more jobs will appear than will disappear.

It can be taken a step farther, though. People argue that it is necessary to be restrictive and to give “subsidies” to American companies. These subsidies come in the form of tariffs. Some people argue that by putting tariffs on goods, the price of that product will go up and people will opt to buy American goods. It makes sense.

The only problem with that logic is that a tariff is two sided. Last Fall, President Obama decided that he was tired of how cheap Chinese tires were, so he put a tariff on it so high that it was no longer cheaper to buy a Chinese tire in comparison to an American tire. Instead of just taking it like many people expected China to do, they turned around and put a massive tariff on chicken feet. In a country with one billion people who happen to find chicken feet to be a delicacy, that tariff was a major economic slap to the American chicken industry.

In other words, by adding a tariff to goods that were sent here from another country, we also lost out on a market to ship our goods. We can, in no way, afford to lose out on markets to sell goods that are made best in America. But, if we add tariffs, we are going to do that. As we add tariffs, other countries will add tariffs and that will result in less trade.

While tariffs are important, we should be more restrictive on how we use them. Free trade should be just that. Free. We will send goods to them, they will send goods to us. We will get cheaper stuff, they will get cheaper stuff. More jobs will come to America because there will be another massive market to cater to.

People think NAFTA when they hear free trade. Unfortunately, NAFTA is free trade with a whole bunch of rules. For free trade to work, it should be a paragraph long and it should simply say what countries are involved and that’s about it. By doing that, the economy of both countries will flourish. It is important to understand that a free market, a free government, or free trade is what is best for our country. Only with innovation can our country grow. And, with a large market such as South Korea, that growth is very possible.

Fortunately, things have begun to cool down between the two countries. While I would love to see Kim John-il out of office, right now, I think we need to be careful about waging a third war. Perhaps in the future, I wouldn’t be opposed to getting rid of him and allowing for a unified Korea. However, that’s something I’d rather touch on at a different time. The important thing to understand is what a war would have looked like on the Korean peninsula had it broken out.

North Korea Attacks

The only probable way a war would break out is if the North made an invasion attempt by crossing the DMZ. With a million man plus army moving down toward the border, this would appear to be an easy cake walk: their army is bigger, so they’re going to win. While the army was mobilizing and moving south, the artillery–13,000 pieces and most likely growing at a monthly rate–would open fire on Seoul as well as military bases along the DMZ.

The ultimate goal for the initial barrage would be to weaken the defenses at the DMZ and cause panic and mayhem in Seoul. A destroyed Seoul would cause considerable damage to the economy of South Korea. Therefore, a successful attack by North Korea would require a very precise attack on Seoul with the artillery while the army made their way toward the border. Because we’re talking mobilized soldiers, it would only take a couple hours to reach the DMZ.

The biggest concern is the type of missiles used by North Korea. Conventional weapons, while disastrous, would not cause nearly as much damage as biological or chemical. This is where South Korea would have to be concerned. Should North Korea use these unconventional weapons–and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t–it could result in far more deaths than just conventional weapons.

While these soldiers were on their way, North Korea’s air force would mobilize. For there to be a successful ground assault, they need very durable and powerful air support. This is one of the big places that they really fall short. While they have around 400 MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21, these are all older aircraft–ones that were flown in the 50s and 60s. They would be going against more powerful, faster and better trained South Korean pilots which leads to the counter attack.

South Korean Counterattack

The counterattack is the most important part to determine the way things go down. Almost immediately, South Korea and the United States would mobilize their air force. Between the two, there are nearly six hundred modern day air craft. The exact number or air to air and air to ground is unknown, but this mobilized air force would be one of the three powerful forms of counterattack.

The first step would be to bombard the artillery on the North Korean side of the DMZ. As long as the missiles and artillery is launching projectiles toward Seoul, South Korea is unable to fight a successful war. Therefore, the air force’s first target would be the artillery. Along with this would be South Korea’s artillery. All hits would be on the artillery.

The second step would be to engage the North Korean air force. Because of how old North Korea’s air force is, this would be a quick defeat. And because of this, the North Korean army wouldn’t have any air superiority to protect the soldiers. Without air superiority, there’s little chance of success for North Korea.

The final step is the South Korean army invading North. Once the war has actually started, there’s no way that South Korea will allow Kim Jong-il to stay in office. They’ll want him out of office as soon as possible and might push for a unified Korea. Whether this is a possibility, though, will require a considerable amount of diplomatic work.

The Chinese Response

Much to everyone’s confusion, China would do very little if a war broke out. They would reinforce their border with North Korea to prevent as many refugees from crossing over. That is their biggest fear. However, they would not support North Korea and back them up. People always argue that, because they were allies in the 1950s, that China would support North Korea. There is little evidence to back this up. The only reason China doesn’t do anything right now against North Korea is because China fears the millions of refugees crossing the border.

All in all, the war would be a quick one. North Korea’s army would suffer far more casualties than South Korea’s; however, Seoul would suffer a large amount of casualties, especially if biological and chemical weapons were used. War on the Korean Peninsula would be dangerous and it would be costly, but it would remove a considerable problem. A unified Korea would allow for more prosperity for Koreans, both North and South.

Last night, in eleven states across the countries, Democrats and Republicans went out and voted for individuals in their party who they felt would be the best candidate to run in the November election. What a primary does for the country is demonstrate how the American people are feeling about incumbents. And, last night, things don’t exactly look good for those that have been in Washington already.

Ed Rollins, a CNN correspondent, said that there were five things on people’s minds when they voted last night. The first three, he said, were the “economy, runaway government spending, and jobs.” However, it was the other two that should have most incumbents worried. They were “fear and anger.” When people are afraid or fearful, they are likely to do things that they might not otherwise do. For example, actually care about politics.

The primaries mean three things for America. The first is that the American people, for once, are beginning to get genuinely interested and angered about what’s going on in Washington. They are tired about the excessive spending and they are tired of the backroom dealings. More importantly, they are tired of the status quo. They want to see things actually being done in America. So, we can expect to see more people getting involved in politics; perhaps even people who are not known running for offices.

The next thing we can expect to see is that incumbents are going to really be hurt. While Lincoln Blanche won last night in Arkansas, that only means that she is going to waste more time running against a Republican come the fall. With so many voters choosing someone new rather than the incumbent, it demonstrates that the American people are tired of the career politicians. While there are many who will keep their jobs because they are in safe districts, there are many who are going to lose their jobs.

The final thing that this primary demonstrates is that neither party is truly safe. While it is expected that the Republicans are going to gain a numerous number of seats, they might also lose some seats as well. By voting out the incumbents, the American people demonstrated that it’s not just the Democrats behaving ridiculously in Washington. The Republicans are as well and while the Republicans might gain more seats, the American people want new Republicans, not the same old ones.

But, what does this mean for the American people?

Probably not very much. The problem with politics in America today isn’t that there aren’t politicians who care. It’s that they are consistently pushed aside for politicians who are going to continue with the way things are. Why try and change something when you’re making all your friends so much money. Are there politicians out there that want to make America great? Yes, you bet, but they’re hidden. They can’t get to the national level because, by then, all the big money that comes from corporations won’t support them.

However, what the 2010 primaries show us is that the American people are angry, they are fearful and, most importantly, they are going to get their voice out. They want their jobs back. They want the economy to get stronger. They don’t want the government to build a debt up to $13 trillion. What they are going to begin demanding is actual good behavior. Politicians can’t be irresponsible with our money. If we can’t just spend without a care for what’s going on, neither can they.

While government in America has continued to grow more invasive, we can expect that this will be met with firm resistance. The American people–with their support for the Tea Party movement and voting out incumbents in the primaries–are tired of the status quo. They want honest politicians. They want those that are really there for the American people. That’s what I want. And, when the time comes to vote in November, those that really demonstrate they are in office for the people and not for other special interests will walk away with a new office to hold.

But, for that to happen, one thing must be done by the American people. They must stay up to date on what’s going on. They must pester their elected officials. Spend a half hour a day reading about what’s going on. Writer an email to your politician. Demand results. And if they are unwilling to do what the people want, show the incumbents what the 2010 primaries means for America: no more incumbents.

On Tuesday, the Senate sat down to hold hearings in an attempt to pass all the blame onto the banking industry for the cause of the economic crash of 2008. Members of Goldman Sachs sat there as they were berated and accused of causing this tremendous economic collapse. Unfortunately, Congress is once again short sighted when they pass blame so easily to these banking individuals. While Goldman Sachs and other banking institutions can be blamed for this by creating mortgage packages and then betting against them, the blame cannot be entirely handed on to them.

Everyone, including the government, American citizens, bankers and China, can be blamed for this. Assuming anything else is an example of unaccountability.

To begin with, the government is one of the chief causes of the recession. They created bills such as the Community Reinvestment Act which urged banks to give loans to areas that were of lower income. On top of that, groups were created such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–which were privately owned corporations sponsored by the government–that bought mortgages from banks so that they could continue offering more mortgages to people. In other words, when the government advocates for more people to be lent money, even though they can’t afford it, problems arise.

The next problem is with the Fed. Because they continued to lower the interest rates from 3.5%-3.0% after 9/11 and then again to 1.00% from 1.25% after the accounting scandals, money was so much easier to be found. Because banks could get access to money easier since it was cheaper, individuals could get it for cheaper too. In other words, with interest at only 1%, banks could afford to offer lower interest loans. The problem was, when the interest rates began to go back up, people were unable to afford the higher interest. The lower interest rates resulted in a bubble where people were buying homes left and right–that leads to a bubble which has to pop sooner or later.

The next group to blame is actually a country. China. China’s efforts to rapidly industrialize and create jobs resulted in an incredible trade deficit. However, more importantly than that, what China did was give money to America to buy goods from China. By doing this, they were able to keep the price of their goods down because not only did they buy the dollars, but they held them. And they bought from the bankers. And they bought from other countries that held American debt. Anyway that China could buy and horde billions of U.S. dollars, they would. This resulted in easy money in America and that, in turn, meant that more goods were being purchased from China. A win, win, no?

Wrong. This leads to the second to last cause of the crash of 2008. The American people. By demanding more and more–and getting it because they were able to get really cheap debt thanks to China–the American people began to accrue massive amounts of debt. But, it didn’t matter because they could pay it back. It was really cheap. By 2008, the national household debt was 97% of the GDP. I’m sorry, David Frum, that’s not all because of people needing to pay for the essentials. That’s because Americans wanted a lot of great things for really cheap. Want an iPod? Okay, buy it. Want a new car? Cool, buy it. Debt is cheap. Credit cards are cheap. Can you blame a lot on the fact that jobs were not paying as well? Yes. Can you blame most of it on that fact? Sorry, but that’s simply not the case. Americans loved the fact that they were getting, getting, getting, but didn’t realize the backlash from it.

Finally, the culprit of it all. Wall Street. They were the ones who created the method in which China could buy a ton of U.S. dollars. They were the ones who lent the money to people to buy houses. They offered very inexpensive credit cards to people. In other words, they were the control over everything. So are they to blame? You bet. They did contribute to a problem. Was it corporate greed? You bet. But are they entirely to blame?

Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. As long as the Senate and the people of America aim their cannon at only one target, they are never going to realize the true cause of the recession of 2008: everything. In the end, everything and everyone contributed to the crisis. And, if we are smart, we will ensure that we don’t do it again. To begin with, we must reduce our debt–both public as well as household–before it becomes a burden on investment and innovation. To do that, we need to get more jobs in America. To do that, we need to support small business and ensure that they have the funds needed to truly flourish. Otherwise, people will have large amounts of debt and the United States will recover much slower than it needs to.

Immigration is an incredibly hot issue in America and rightfully so. According to one article, as many as fifteen million illegal immigrants are currently in the country and there’s a good chance that there are more. Naturally, this is infuriating to tax paying Americans because these are individuals who don’t contribute to society and take resources that would be better allocated to an American citizen.

Arizona, being ground zero on the issue of immigration, in an act of desperation and frustration demonstrated what can happen when something like immigration becomes so heated. By passing Senate Bill 1070, Arizona officially made it legal to stop people who police officers felt were suspicious and had the possibility of being an illegal alien.

In other words, Arizona passed a law that made it legally acceptable to do racial profiling. Their police officers now have the legal backing to stop people if they have a “reasonable doubt” that they are an illegal alien.

There’s only one way to look at this. If a police officer happens across a Hispanic individual, this officer has the right to ask for identification. If, for whatever reason, the Hispanic individual doesn’t have identification, they can be arrested and booked. Granted, there is the argument that there needs to be reasonable doubt, but what is reasonable doubt?

What this bill does is allow an officer to stop anyone who isn’t white. If someone doesn’t “look” like they are a citizen of America, they can be stopped and questioned. The question I have is what does an American citizen look like? Because, since we are the “melting pot” of the world, there is no one look to us. Some might argue that if you are White Anglo-Saxon Protestant you have the “American Citizen” look, but there is so much more to a citizen than that. So, how does one determine what an American citizen look like?

Arizona has opened the door to racial profiling. Cops can stop people based on their skin color and demand to see identification. That’s ridiculous and this is an example of government overstepping their boundaries.

I agree that immigration is a problem. And I agree that there needs to be something done. But, giving this sort of power to stop people based on race is preposterous. Go to the root of the problem and immigration won’t be such an issue. Instead of focusing on the immigrants–who, by the way, will come back even if they are deported–focus on the reason why they are coming in the first place.

Jobs. The fundamental reason why an illegal immigrant makes the journey to America is because of jobs. There are jobs here because there are American businesses who would rather hire an illegal. It’s cheaper and they don’t have to pay taxes on them. What this immigration bill does do is make it more of a crime to hire illegals. I say take it a step further.

If a business wants to get away with hiring illegals, they should be punished far more severely. Fine them more. If they want to take the cheap way out, make it so it is more expensive to hire illegals. If you’re caught hiring illegals, charge them an amount per illegal. While this isn’t pro-business, it’s pro-America. Once the illegals don’t have jobs, they won’t run to America. They’ll stay home or, instead, they’ll opt to become legal.

We’re a country of immigrants. There is nothing wrong with immigrants coming to our country. I would love if more came because with them comes innovation and prosperity. However, I don’t want illegal immigrants coming here. Focus on the problem and they will stop coming. Focus on the businesses who hire these immigrants and the illegal aliens will stop coming.

However, giving police officers the legal backing to racially profile is unconstitutional. There is no reason an American citizen, simply because he or she is brown, should be stopped and forced to show identification. Immigration is a problem and Arizona is feeling it hard. But, this is not the way to deal with it. There’s no way to describe it in any other way than racial profiling. People who look like illegal immigrants are going to be stopped. Most of the time, they’ll be Hispanics. That’s racial profiling at its finest and Arizona needs to do something about this.