Malfeasant Messaging: Clinton’s Secret Emails

10171716_10203327180169609_2514100809921005322_n

At first, it seemed like another overblown scandal. Hillary Clinton was once again the target of conservative bloggers and broadcasters nationwide for using her private email account to conduct State Department business. State Department employees are instructed to use a government email account under the law and thus Clinton’s critics were quick to slam her on the issue. Even though I learned about the law, I assumed that Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal would warrant quotations and would be nothing more than another political stunt to hurt her image going into 2016. However, once I read about Clinton’s private email account, it became clear that this is no hoax.

To be clear, I did not support Clinton before the emails scandal. While I disagree with Clinton on many issues, I never viewed her as an unqualified presidential candidate. Someone that is a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State has the resume for the job. Yes, she had been through scandals, such as Benghazi, but I often felt they were overemphasized and the longer they went on the thinner the case against her became. After reading CNN, Politico, Geekwire, the Associated Press’s lawsuit, and other sources, I now feel Clinton is unqualified to be President of the United States.

First of all, she blatantly violated both the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Under the Federal Records Acts, communications, such as emails, are to be preserved for the public record and through FOIA media outlets and average citizens can gain access to these and other government records. Dan Metcalfe, who was head of the DOJ’s Office of Information and Privacy and now is a Professor of Secrecy Law at American’s Washington College of Law, wrote in Politico that Clinton’s defense was “laughable.” Metcalfe said that Clinton’s use of a private email regarding State Department policy is fine in the 21st Century when she has to rapidly respond to a situation, if those emails are forwarded to a State Department account. Clinton solely used her private email, whether or not an urgent national security threat warranted it, and has since deleted tens of thousands of emails without a single neutral observer checking over them.

Speaking of a national security threat, Clinton’s private email may be the greatest hole in U.S. national security since Obama took office or even since September 11th. Since Clinton’s term as Secretary of State, every foreign government has been trying to read her emails. At the State Department, the United States’s best computer programmers protect classified information contained in bureaucrats’ emails. However, Clinton decided to use a personal email on her own server out of the protected realm of the State Department. Unless Clinton either had the State Department monitoring her server to protect it or hired some of the best programmers in the world to protect her server, it is possible that foreign government spies read all of her emails and the information they contained about our national security. It is possible that Vladimir Putin knows more about her emails than we ever will. Interestingly, renowned Democratic strategist James Carville exemplified Clinton’s corruption on CNN’s Crossfire. While trying to defend Clinton, Carville said that she attempted to avoid Congressman Gohmert from, “rifling through her emails.” In other words, Clinton avoided congressional oversight by using her private email account.

When the president takes the oath of office, he or she swears to uphold and protect the Constitution. In 2007, Clinton claimed, “our Constitution is being shredded [by] … secret White House email accounts,” used by the Bush Administration. By her own standards, Clinton failed to uphold the Constitution. A person that averts federal law, jeopardizes national security, and avoids congressional oversight is not fit to be our president; thus Hillary Clinton lost her qualification.

The Top Five Reasons Israel is NOT an Apartheid State

Israel

In light of recent events, Israel Apartheid Week at American University and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s congressional address, it is beneficial to put forward a few facts about Israel and what apartheid really means. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, apartheid is defined as “racial segregation; specifically: a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa.” The word apartheid originated from the South African segregation movement. Oppressive laws were put into place during this time. Unfortunately, due to prejudice or misinformation, there are people who mistakenly deem Israel an apartheid state. Below are just a few simple facts proving that Israel is not an apartheid state.

  1. Voting Rights

One of the first and most important rights taken away from marginalized minorities is the right to vote. When oppressive groups begin to suppress minorities, they often deprive the right to public representation, as we saw in apartheid in South Africa. Israel has a large Arab population, which is why Arabic is one of Israel’s official languages. Fortunately, unlike an apartheid state, Arab Israeli citizens are guaranteed the right to vote as all Israeli citizens are. In fact, voting ballots are in Arabic and Hebrew to make voting simple and accessible for all citizens above the age of 18. Not to mention, Arab Israeli women had the right to vote in Israel before women had the right to vote in most Middle Eastern countries including, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates.

  1. Public Representation

Not only can Arab Israeli citizens vote in elections, they can also hold public office. Currently Arabs hold ten seats in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament). Abdel Zuabi, the first Arab-Israeli Justice, joined the Israeli Supreme Court in 1999. The first Arab Israeli diplomat, Ali Yahya, was appointed in 1995. For a nation established in 1948, these representation demographics are impressive. It took America 197 years to see its first Senator of Arab descent, James Abourezk. Ultimately, Arab Israeli citizens have an equal right to vote and hold public office in Israel.

  1. Education

Every citizen within Israel has the right to education. The Compulsory Education Law of 1949 required that all children must attend school. Therefore, each child has the right to free education. This right also allows parents to choose which school their child attends. The law resulted in a natural trichotomy of students attending Arab, Christian, and Jewish elementary schools. Each child has the right to an education, and their parents have a right to choose which schools children attend. There are fundamental differences in the teachings of religion, language, and history between the schools, giving parents freedom to choose the most suitable learning environment.

  1. Health Care

South African apartheid barred access to health care. Unfortunately, South Africa is still suffering the side effects of these apartheid laws. According to Kenneth Meshoe, a South African politician, patients couldn’t share a hospital room with members of different races. Again, unlike an apartheid state, Israel has universal health care. Every Israeli citizen, including Arab citizens, has the fundamental right to basic health care. The Save a Child’s Heart facilities are perfect examples of the charitable nature of Israel’s health care system. The Save a Child’s Heart facilities provide free heart surgeries to children of any race, religion, sex, color, or financial status. Therefore, Israel places importance on creating the most efficient and accessible health care for all of its citizens, regardless of race or religion.

  1. Daily Life

During the years of apartheid in South Africa, segregation ruled every aspect of daily life. Much like the Jim Crow era in the United States South, race separated everything in apartheid South Africa. People were forced to use separate bathrooms, water fountains, hospitals, and restaurants. Because Israel is not an apartheid state, this behavior does not exist. Jews and Arabs are not forced to use separate bathrooms, water fountains, restaurants, or hospitals anywhere in Israel.

The five aforementioned aspects prove that Israel is not an apartheid state. People wrongfully deem Israel an apartheid state to slander its nature. However, these people may not realize that by accusing Israel of apartheid, they tarnish the potential for peace in the Middle East. Additionally, these same people are minimizing the horrifying, inhumane, and indescribable real apartheid that countless South Africans suffered. As Kenneth Meshoe, a member of the South African Parliament and victim of South African apartheid stated at Prager University, “I ask those in the United States, Europe and anywhere else in the world who charge Israel with practicing apartheid to please stop doing so. You are damaging the truth, you are damaging any chance for peace in the Middle East, and most of all, you are destroying the memory of the real apartheid.” All prejudices, racism, or anti-Semitism aside, do not label Israel as an apartheid state in respect for afflicted South Africans who underwent true oppression.

Image: http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/israel-guide/

Education is Not a Handout

Obama wants more handouts in a society too reliant on the welfare state.
Obama wants more handouts in a society too reliant on the welfare state.

Obama’s community college subsidy proposal is asinine and destined to fail. While addressing a crowd in Tennessee last month, President Obama claimed that free tuition at community colleges would pave the way for an adept workforce. However, a report from the National Center for Education Statistics claims: “only one in five students who attend community college earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.” Obama’s goal is clear: adding more “skilled workers” to the workforce in order to promote upward social mobility. Liberal pundits believe that subsidies will bolster education; however this is a fallacy because most students in the bottom half of the income distribution are already eligible for federal grant aid. According to a report from the Community College Research Center in 2012, 62% of community colleges paid all or some tuition. The government should focus on reducing the rising costs at four-year universities before handing out more free money.

Interestingly, Obama’s proposal derives from the “Tennessee Promise,” a turbulent statute in the state of Tennessee. For instance, community college graduation rates across the United States are low to begin with. In Tennessee, the average graduation rate is 13%, with some community colleges having as low as 6%. Thus, liberals are right on one aspect: there will be a greater access to higher education; however, it will be unattainable due to the low graduation rates in community colleges. With low graduation rates in community colleges and a national average time until graduation of three years, the American College Promise will fail.

Apart from in-school success, an estimated $60 billion in spending over the next ten years remains unpopular with the middle and upper class. How will free community college alleviate the burdensome costs of attending a four-year university? It won’t. Obama thinks he hit a home run with this proposal, but conservatives view it as striking out. Essentially, placing more students in struggling community colleges won’t significantly increase graduation rates as Obama promises. Instead of lying to the American people, rolling up his sleeves and working with Congress to provide states more flexibility with education is a start.

Why doesn’t the president work to eradicate the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Program? This program has been disastrous in the states mainly because courses in the arts have been deeply cut. As a result, students pursuing careers outside the STEM Program are unable to take classes that would be beneficial.

The United States should always strive to become more competitive in education. Funding, investing in teachers, and placing a focus on state over federal control are what generate innovative educational policies. Rather than expanding the welfare state, where individuals depend on the government for years, the U.S. education focus should be rewarding those who worked extremely hard and achieved exceptional grades in high school. Education is not listed anywhere in the Constitution and is certainly a privilege, not a right.

Email the author @ ss3764a@student.american.edu

Image from: imgflip.com


A Little Humor to End the Week

Hello everyone! After another week grinding out work in college, I think we should all take a few minutes to laugh. After today, it is officially Spring Break, and we should all take this time to have fun and laugh. I recently have learned how important it is to take breaks and giggle for a little while.  Therefore, it would be optimal for health reasons that we all take 4 minutes out of our day to sit back and watch this knee-slapping political sketch from Saturday Night Live.

Being Biden or Being Inappropriate?

Joseph Biden. Former Senator. Two-term Vice President. Everybody’s good ol’ Uncle Joe.

Let’s be honest, we all secretly love JB. Some love him for politics, and some love him for his antics. But lately America’s sweetheart has picked up a new habit; he’s becoming a serial whisperer. While generally creepy in concept, his victims subjects victims of his whisper-attacks show an uncanny correlation.

Let’s see if you can spot the pattern in these three photos:

17-joe-biden-dilma-rouseff.w529.h352   17-joe-biden-mary-mcaleese.w529.h352   17-joe-biden-mcconnell-bikers.w529.h352

SOURCE                                       SOURCE                                           SOURCE

Having some ideas? I’m seeing short hair, but I don’t think that’s quite the one. Maybe three more will bring out the pattern..

17-joe-biden-mcconnell-nieces.w529.h352   17-joe-biden-stephanie-carter.w529.h352   enhanced-24448-1392409593-13

SOURCE                                            SOURCE                                  SOURCE

Okay definitely seeing something here. And it seems like his serial whispering is starting to move into something creepier. I think three more will definitely confirm any suspicions.

17-joe-biden-maggie-koons.w529.h352   B6sMF6oIIAAx6c9   B6sRsA3IMAEQiEy

SOURCE                                   SOURCE                                      SOURCE

Now this is just downright creepy. Biden’s funny whispering habit includes grabbing the women. And not just women, but young girls too. And in completely inappropriate situations.

“Oh no!” So many exclaim and laugh, “It’s just Biden being Biden!” But here is my question, since when did grabbing women become okay?

The most recent example here is with Stephanie Carter. Last week at her husband Ashton Carter’s swearing in ceremony, Creepy Uncle Joe thought it was appropriate to grab and massage Mrs. Carter’s shoulders and whisper in her ear.

1424223956623.cached

SOURCE

I know that this is not the face of a woman who is enjoying having her shoulders massaged and being whispered to. There is not one thing about this picture that doesn’t make me uncomfortable just looking at it.

Between this incident with Stephanie Carter and with Sen. Coons’ daughter in January, this isn’t the first nor, I fear, will it be the last time we see this behavior from Mr. Vice President.

What I find interesting is that Joe Biden (debatably) second most powerful man in the United States and potentially an influential figure when it comes to setting an example for the citizens of this country. And yet, this man, constantly in the spotlight, has not been reprimanded for his behavior. This obviously unwelcome and honestly, creepy behavior is not something that should be ignored or passed over by the media and what seems to be a majority of people.

In this Washington Post article, they call say the incident “hardly seems worth commenting on.” WP writer Nia-Malika Henderson passively describes the Carter incident, as well as two other incidents of Biden being “the world’s most powerful close-talker.”

Passive behavior on Biden “Being Biden” not only sends a message to everyone that we as a people are okay with this sexual threat, but it send a message to men that it is okay to touch or grab women (or anyone for that matter) without permission.

What I find most interesting about this issue, is that the lack of liberal and/or feminist attention. I think that we all, regardless of affiliation, can agree that if this was a Conservative behaving in this manner, not only would liberals and feminists and the media be all over the story, it would be blown up so large, who could imagine the result. And yet, here we are, pretending that this behavior is okay, just because Biden is a Democrat.

 

Our CPAC Predictions

Ted Cruz

Conservative Conscience columnists Tom Hebert and Andrew Magloughlin ventured to CPAC with the American University Young Americans for Liberty chapter. Before Tom and Andrew recount their CPAC experiences, some general notes must be shared. Among potential Republican presidential candidates, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz drew the largest audiences in descending size, respectively. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush also garnered a large crowd; however, he faced turbulence from an organized libertarian protest. During Bush’s speech, more than one hundred faithful Rand Paul supporters marched out of the CPAC ballroom in rank and file. As the protestors exited the room, cacophonous chants of “U-S-A” and “no more war” erupted from the hallways. Multiple disgruntled GOP faithful directed threats toward Bush during his speech. No other candidate faced visible public disconnects. In this analysis, only relevant candidates are included. If you hoped for an analysis of Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, or Donald Trump, Andrew and Tom are sorry to disappoint.

Governor Jeb Bush

Tom: Considering the overt hostility of the crowd when Sean Hannity mentioned Bush’s name in his earlier speech, Bush did quite well. The ultimate battle between rigid ideological purity and pragmatic conservatism was on glittering display here. Self-identifying as a “practicing, reform-minded conservative,” Bush stood firm on his record as governor of Florida, and defended his controversial positions on immigration and education with eloquence and facts. Facing scorn from conservatives, Bush is a known Common-Core advocate. More controversial is Bush’s desire to naturalize the existing eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States after securing the border. Bush claimed that if the United States raises its economic growth rate to 4 percent, there would be more than enough jobs for Americans and immigrants to coexist. Bush flexed his muscle on foreign policy when talking about how to defeat ISIS, much like his father and brother before him. Even amid reports of Bush bussing supporters in, and a sizeable walkout by libertarian-leaning Rand Paul supporters, Bush seemed to win over the lion’s share of the crowd.

Grade: B+

 

Dr. Ben Carson (Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon)

Andrew: The Ben Carson campaign “came out swinging” early Thursday morning with a mass distribution of T-shirts, posters, pins, and collapsible “Run-Ben-Run!” banners. Carson delivered a substantial speech addressing the pressing needs to appeal the Affordable Care Act, support Israel, toughen sanctions on Iran, destroy ISIS, and create American jobs. While Carson isn’t known for his charisma, his passion showed during his speech, and flourished during his meet-and-greet event later that morning. Carson was one of two Republicans to address climate change in a substantive manner. While Carson denounced environmental regulation, he encouraged firms to improve production efficiency. Also, Carson recognized that optimizing the use of natural resources would improve business growth. Carson claimed (roughly, as his meet-and-greet transcript isn’t available): “People think that you can either save the environment or create jobs. It’s not one or the other. Improving efficiency will help business, and we can do so while growing the economy.” While Carson is far from a frontrunner, both of us were impressed. Keep an eye out for Carson as an advisor to Republican medical policies in the future.

Grade: B+

 

Governor Chris Christie

Tom: I take the contrarian position on Christie’s performance. Most major media outlets reported Christie’s twenty-minute exchange with Laura Ingraham as yet another pitfall in a month-long slide for the New Jersey governor. Conveniently, none of these reporters mentioned the electricity of the crowd when Christie recounted his battles with teacher’s unions, or his firm pro-life stance. Christie is not a relevant candidate because of his treacherous record as New Jersey governor, but most of us like the entertainment value he brings to the table. Considering a crowd who probably disdains him as much as Bush, Christie did pretty well at emphasizing his conservative credentials.

Grade: B

 

Senator Ted Cruz

Tom: Senator Cruz gave the most galvanizing speech at CPAC by a longshot. Despite the overwhelming presence of Rand Paul supporters in the audience, Cruz managed to keep the crowd on its feet for most of his speech. Cruz’s trademark fire-and-brimstone rhetoric demanded for removing executive power from Washington and returning it to the people. In addition, Cruz emphasized a federalist approach in dealing with gay marriage and marijuana legalization, and vowed to abolish the IRS if he were elected. Along with most other speakers, Cruz promised to “repeal every single letter of Obamacare,” as well as fight ISIS will all our military has to offer. This principled populism combined with a definite vision of leadership won over the hearts and minds of most in the crowd; Cruz is, without question, the best orator the Republican Party has ever seen.

Grade: A

 

Senator Rand Paul

Andrew: Senator Paul, now a three time CPAC straw poll champion, reveled during his timeslot Friday afternoon. As always, Paul focused on the need to cut government’s influence and establish civil liberties. Included in these liberties is the barring of metadata from the NSA and the right to a fair and speedy trial. Paul, by a large margin, addressed more specific policy solutions than any other candidate, such as his soon-to-be introduced “Read the Bills Act,” which forces congressmen to read all proposed legislation, the largest tax cut in American history, and two constitutional amendments proposing term limits for both federal judges and congressmen and disabling Congress from excluding itself from legislation. Paul then hammered Hilary Clinton for her failures in Libya and demanded her permanent retirement. When Paul proclaimed: “This country needs a new leader,” chants demanding for “President Paul” erupted in the crowd. Most importantly, Paul attempted to abridge his existing gap with the public regarding foreign policy. Instead of avoiding the subject, Paul called for a nimble and powerful military directed by leaders who think before acting. Paul’s distaste for reactionary foreign intervention displayed as he referenced previous failings in the Middle East. Overall, Paul spoke with a compelling sense of urgency. It is yet to be seen whether his foreign policy is still questioned by Republican voters, but if CPAC is indicative of trends, currently, Paul is the clear presidential frontrunner.

Grade: A

 

Senator Marco Rubio

Tom: Oh, how far he’s fallen. Once a darling among the media as a fresh face among conservatives in 2012, Senator Rubio struggled to fake a hunger for the presidency in his speech. Rubio failed to tout his policies for middle-class growth or his foreign policy credentials, both widely considered to be his strongest characteristics as a candidate. It was disheartening for such a young star in the GOP to fail spectacularly at a pivotal moment in his quest for a campaign. Rubio received a lukewarm response from the crowd at best. Also, it is notable that while Senator Rand Paul delayed his 10:00 AM speech to vote in the Senate, Rubio, as he famously does, skipped voting procedure to speak at CPAC. Rubio is disreputable for his voting absences, as he touts the seventh worst attendance record among active senators. Senator Rubio, if you’re going to deliver a lukewarm speech, at least do your job first!

Grade: F

 

Governor Scott Walker

Andrew: Displaying his economic success in Wisconsin, Governor Walker appealed to all sects of the CPAC community. As most candidates did, Walker encouraged securing the border with Mexico, growing the United States economy, and defending traditional marriage. A recurring topic in CPAC speeches was the need for “school choice” and teacher performance evaluation. Scott Walker touted his success in Wisconsin against 100,000 teacher union members to which he refused to comply with when implementing school choice policy. Walker then made an abstract comparison of his battles with teacher unions to fighting ISIS overseas. Whether or not the ISIS comparison bothers the reader, Walker’s success with school choice and his stark opposition to Common Core is convincing. Many Republican Presidential hopefuls share his same education opinions, but lack Walker’s experience. In times of vast economic inequality, school choice may be the answer to eliminating inner-city struggles for education. Overall, Walker is a candidate that appeals to both the Republican establishment and the younger Tea-Party movement. Whether or not he chooses to run, Walker will be highly sought out as a running mate.

Grade: A-

Coronation

Tom: Despite CPAC’s standing as a major event in any GOP presidential hopeful’s campaign, attendees tend to be young libertarian-leaning Tea-Partiers. Consequently, CPAC audiences are not always indicative of the party at large. When looking at each candidate’s position in their respective campaigns, Jeb Bush has greatly surpassed them all. As you read this article, Bush is amassing the best of the best to work for him, and courting Goldman Sachs for financial support. Conservative skeptics of Bush need to look at his record in Florida before writing him off as a moderate; chief among his policy implementations was the first state-wide school choice program in the U.S., in addition to castle doctrine laws and massive tax cuts. Jeb Bush will win the nomination because of his conservative record, moderate appeal, and innumerable donor bases combined with an elite campaign staff. Upstart grassroots candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will cut their teeth on this election cycle, but should sit out for four (or eight) more years to gather experience in the Senate. Bush’s running mate will be none other than Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, whose skirmishes with the teacher’s unions make him a conservative hero to multitudes in the GOP base.

Prediction: Bush/Walker 2016

Andrew: At the moment, Jeb Bush has a general disconnect with the Republican Party. Although many falsely label Bush as a moderate, the Republicans are skeptical of another Bush oligarch. In 2012, Republicans relentlessly searched for “other-than-Romney” options to place on the presidential ballot. To many Republican faithfuls, Romney was an outdated and already-failed presidential candidate. After sorting through Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, and Perry, the Republicans nominated Romney, and sparingly turned out at the poll booths. Andrew sees Republicans attempting the same strategy with Bush; however, there is a difference between now and 2012. Unlike in 2012, the Republican Party now teems with credentialed presidential candidates. If Paul, Cruz, or Walker runs a swift and sturdy campaign, Bush is vulnerable. At the moment, it is far too early to make substantive predictions for the presidency, especially in the midst of healthy competition. For the moment, Andrew’s prediction flows with the momentum.

Prediction: Paul/Carson 2016

Mr. President, ISIS is Radical Islam

21 Christians Executed for Faith
                 21 Christians Executed for Their Faith

After the United States crushed former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s military, former Iraqi soldiers committed to ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. This group of Jihadists merged with al Qaeda militant groups in Syria in April 2013. Since then, ISIS receives global attention for beheading Christians and seizing territory in the Fertile Crescent. Before ISIS gains more control in the Middle East, the Obama administration must implement a military strategy.

Since the beginning of ISIS’s military action, Obama has refused to admit that the United States faces a war on radical Islam because stigmatizing labels damage Muslim communities. How can Obama say that ISIS leaders have no religious motive when they beheaded 21 Christians a few weeks ago? The President’s philosophy on the ISIS issue is deeply flawed. On February 15, ISIS released a video from an Egyptian beach displaying the ruthless murder of 21 Coptic Orthodox Church Christians. The video is entitled: “A Message Signed with Blood to the Nation of the Cross.” ISIS asserted faith as the reason for the genocide. Before they were beheaded, several of the Christians uttered: “Jesus, help me” for their last words. Simply put, Christians are dying because of faith, and President Obama refuses to confront the problem. These heinous crimes are not just acts of terrorism, but they are religiously motivated. Earlier in February 2015, Senator Lindsey Graham said: “We are in a religious war with radical Islamists.” Now is the time to combat ISIS and call the situation what it is: Islamic radicalism.

Similarly, the killing of three Muslims at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was tragic. President Obama recognized this incident as, “brutal and outrageous.” He went onto state, “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.” While President Obama is correct to say that discrimination still exists, he is unjustified in only defending Muslims. The United States has an obligation as a nation to protect religious freedom across the globe. The right to choose one’s religion freely is a founding principle within the Constitution, and I urge the President to use his influence to bringing about collective action to solve this issue. NATO and the UN are two organizations to which Mr. Obama should direct his action with freedom of religion. However, the United States of America must protect all faiths from being persecuted. As a Christian, it is devastating to see our President defend what happened in North Carolina and not show the same empathy towards the 21 Christians that were beheaded in Egypt.

Unfortunately, the cowardice by the executive branch is on full display. Right now, President Obama is sending a strong message to other nations and ISIS that the U.S. will not bring action against those who murder Christians; thus making human rights violations acceptable. In the past two years, ISIS gained significant power and utilized it to the detriment of others. Last year, President Obama told The New Yorker that he believed ISIS to be al-Qaeda’s “weaker partner.” One of the greatest mistakes by the Obama administration is ignoring terrorist organizations.

In 2014, President Obama should have realized the intentions ISIS had to capture members from the West and torture them. James Foley’s story as an American journalist beheaded by the Islamic State is perhaps the most known. The picture that stirred public opinion in America depicted Foley’s chopped-off, bloody head placed where his hands were tied behind his back. ISIS has not only gained the attention at the global level, but it has been able to expand its influence, militant numbers, and territory controlled. All of these expansions of course are unnoticed by the Obama administration. Furthermore, pushing Iraq to tighten its border with Syria would have prevented ISIS from taking over some of the largest cities in Iraq, including Mosul and Baghdad. ISIS is continuing expansion in Iraq and seizing control of major provinces.

According to polling by CBS in February 2015, 77% of Americans favor airstrikes against ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria. In addition, a majority of Americans, 57%, believe sending Americans ground troops to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS is necessary. Currently, about 2,600 U.S. troops are in Iraq. However, the New York Times ran a column last week showing that ISIS is reaching upwards of 31,000 in Syria and Iraq.

In the meantime, President Obama should employ as many drone strikes as it takes to weaken and cripple ISIS. Combat drones are one of the greatest military advancements in the past decade; they reduce the likelihood of American lives being lost. Also, such strikes proved successfully in Afghanistan as prominent terrorist leaders perished when confronted with hellfire missiles. Until Obama recognizes ISIS as a terrorist organization with religious fueled hatred, executions will continue to go unchecked.

Photo: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-condemns-heinous-beheading-21-egyptian-christians-isis-n306721

Email the author at ss3764a@student.american.edu