After Brussels: Solidarity in a World of Fear

    

        Just under three years ago, I travelled to the beautiful city of Brussels. In the eyes of an American tourist, it seemed as if there could never be this type of tragedy in such a serene city. When visiting Brussels, the only aspects of the city I witnessed were the stunning architecture, positive vibe, and delicious food. What I did not see at the time was the sharp division present in the city. In European cities, such as Brussels and Paris, Muslims are often marginalized and tend to live in close-knit communities. 
        Throughout the ongoing Syrian refugee crisis, there has been a large influx of Muslims in Europe. While a number of countries have been very accepting of these refugees fleeing violence and terror, others have not greeted them with such open arms. The alienation and lack of assimilation felt by many Muslims in Europe, I believe, is one of the central reasons why such violence as was seen this week.
        On Tuesday, the terrorist organization, ISIS, carried out two deadly attacks at two separate locations in Brussels, the capital of Belgium. The first attack occurred at 8:00 a.m local time in the departure hall of the Brussels International Airport, killing 10 people and injuring many more. The second took place around an hour later in the Maelbeek subway station, not far from the headquarters of the European Union, in which 20 more were killed. Both attacks were carried out in highly populated locations, with at least 30 people killed and more than 230 wounded. Eight hours after the attacks, ISIS claimed responsibility for these acts of terror.

        Since the Brussels Attacks, our nation's politicians have responded in a number of ways. First, there are politicians, like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, who continue to call for action to be taken against ISIS. Cruz, in an attempt to further his presidential candidacy, stated that President Obama has been far too lenient in regard to the threat ISIS and that this country needs to take action in order to combat radical terrorists. Similarly, Trump condemned the government's current strategy for combating ISIS, and he continues to call for limited immigration into the United States. On the other hand, candidates John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders' responses were more centered around mourning for those who died in Brussels and solidarity with European nations.

        How politicians react to tragedies such as the Brussels Attacks can often define our attitude as a nation toward these events. How we respond can also guide the ways in which we take action to combat terrorist groups like ISIS. The first approach, taken by both Cruz and Trump, seeks to incite fear in the public. This approach attempts to provoke the public's emotions so that the government will be forced to take action in order to combat terror threats. This approach, though, was notoriously taken after the horrible attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. 
        After this tragedy took place, the United States made a rash decision to go to war in the Middle East, and many political leaders now acknowledge how much of a mistake this was. The more appropriate way to respond to terror attacks is to, first, mourn and to, then, take action. Because of the growing prevalence of fear-inducing responses to terror attacks, the nation as a whole is more fearful of terrorist organizations. This should not be the case. The actions of radical terrorists should not define who we are as a country, and they should not make us fear because that is, in truth, the goal of terror groups, such as ISIS. In this case, we must acknowledge ISIS' presence and take appropriate action without giving them unnecessary power through fear.
        Finally, the only way that the world will defeat ISIS is if we unite behind a common cause and work together to extinguish this hateful ideology. While the United States' current strategy against ISIS has proved to be working, to some extent, there is still more we can do to put down the threat of this terror group. One of the reasons why ISIS has spread so much is its message which appeals to Muslims living in a world of people who fear and express hatred toward their religion. Islam is often utilized as a scapegoat when dealing with terror, and this has been a prevalent problem here in the United States. When Muslims, most of whom are very peaceful, witness people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz say that their religion is one of violence and one that hates America, they are inspired to join ISIS. Politicians calling for bans of all Muslims from the United States, surveillance systems in Muslim neighborhoods, and national Muslim databases do not give our nation a positive image in the face of the Islamic world. 

        Therefore, how we, as a nation and as a global community, treat Muslims directly impacts the spread of radical terrorist organizations like ISIS. If we are able to unite as a nation and not incriminate the entire Muslim population for the actions of a small minority, then we may be able to drive ISIS back and rid the world of their violence and hatred. There will always be mourning after a tragedy as that which took place in Brussels, yet we cannot allow this sadness to translate into fear, because that, in truth, only enforces the goals of ISIS. As President Obama stated the day of the attacks, "This is another reminder that the world must unite. We must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism."

Why Hillary Clinton Will Likely Be Our Next President

     

        Eight years ago, it seemed as if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had solidified her bid as the Democratic Party's nominee for president. This opportunity, though, was taken from her by a lesser known, African-American senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Now, it is truly her time, and there does not seem to be anyone who is going to stop her. 
        Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign is a non-stop political machine whose only goal is to reach the White House. Clinton, hailed for her decades of political experience, is the front-runner for the Democrats, most of whom have accepted the fact that she will be the party's nominee. Clinton has carried a steady lead for some time over her Democratic opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who holds waning support from the party's base. Sanders, a progressive looking to take on big business, while exhibiting more strength than expected, does not have the support to beat powerhouse candidate Clinton. For many Democratic voters, Clinton provides a reliable choice, exhibiting her ability to lead through a strong record as Secretary of State. While some argue that Clinton has made too many missteps and others that she is not trustworthy, she has demonstrated time and time again her capability of accomplishing change, as was seen when she successfully restored America's role as a global leader after the Bush years. 
        Additionally, Clinton is a genuinely strong candidate. Her polls have continued to rise throughout the primary cycle, pushing her opponent, Sanders, further and further behind. She has won 1,630 delegates over the course of this race, while Sanders only has 870, roughly half of those Clinton possesses. Likewise, Clinton has consistently carried a lead over Sanders in polls, recently beating him by nearly ten points in a CBS News/NY Times poll. There are many reasons as to why, at this point, Democratic voters have favored her over Sanders.
        First of all, while Sanders pledges to drastically change the way the government is run, Clinton looks to continue the legacy of President Obama, which makes for a convincing argument in the eyes of many Obama supporters. In addition, Clinton appeals to more moderate Democrats, as opposed to Sanders who, for the most part, garners support from the far-left of the spectrum. Her moderate stances and ability to work across party lines will allow her to carry on the slow but steady progress of the Democratic Party in a government with a great deal of Republican control. Sanders' plans for America are simply to one-sided to actually constitute progress, which makes Clinton's moderate views all the more appealing. 

        Besides this, Clinton would be fairly likely to beat a Republican candidate, such as Donald Trump, in the general election. Trump, an outspoken, anti-establishment candidate, holds stances which are simply too radical to maintain in contact with the views of the American people. His campaign relies on those who are not satisfied with the current state of the nation and possesses a desire for the government to return to the way it used to be. Clinton, instead, conveys a message of hope for the future of the country. If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president, she will provide opportunities for future generations of Americans and sustain the role of the United States as a global leader. This positive message is one of the many factors pushing moderate Republicans away from the bigotry and anger of Trump. 
        Unlike Trump, Clinton will have the whole Democratic Party backing her candidacy. She has obtained a great number of endorsements from those within the party, as opposed to Trump, for whom the Republican Party has illustrated clear disdain. Certain members of the party, including Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, have gone so far as to publicly condemn Trump's hateful speech. As well as this, Clinton's campaign contains many top-notch staffers who have worked for past Democratic presidential administrations, such as those of Presidents Clinton and Obama. Not only is Clinton's campaign more likely to triumph over that of Trump in a general election, but Clinton also possesses a far more diverse group of voters, in contrast to Trump, who relies on a more homogeneous body of voters for his support. 
        Trump's mere 30-40 percent of support amongst Republican voters may, in fact, result in a brokered convention taking place this summer in the Republican Party. If Trump were to not gain enough delegates to be guaranteed the nomination, the Republicans may decide to hold a brokered convention, during which the party would choose its nominee. In this case, Trump would probably not win; the party would, instead, presumably choose a party favorite such as Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or the establishment candidate with little support, John Kasich. In the event of a brokered convention, after which Trump would likely be robbed of the nomination, there is a considerable chance that Trump would run as a third-party candidate or, if not, simply take away a great number of votes from whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate. Therefore, under the present circumstances, the Republican Party is likely going to lose this election, whether it chooses to install Trump as its nominee or replace him with a candidate more in tune with the party's values. 
        Hillary Clinton is truly the best candidate in the 2016 race, and she is, out of those currently running for president, the most likely to win. She possesses undeniable experience, having been Secretary of State, a U.S. Senator from New York, and the First Lady for eight years. She has, as well, proven her capability to achieve change and lead through her strong record in politics. Clinton will presumably defeat any candidate who goes up against her due to the circumstances of this election, and her election will guarantee a better future for the American people.

President Obama's Supreme Court Short List

        Following the sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama announced his plan to nominate a new justice to fill Scalia's seat as soon as possible. Numerous Democrats have noted the essentiality of having nine justices on the Supreme Court and have cited the U.S. Constitution to justify the need for an appointment. Obama, though, has received a great deal of opposition from the Republican Senate, which would have to confirm his nominee in order for he or she to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Many Senate Republicans have commented that they will vote against any nominee the President puts forward, instead desiring that a new justice not be appointed until a new president is elected this November. 
        While many do not support the President's choice to nominate someone for the position, Obama is, nonetheless, compiling a list of possible appointees. According to Reuters, Obama has recently narrowed his shortlist down to three people: Sri Srinivasan, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Paul Watford, a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

        First on the list, Sri Srinivasan, is a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. He was born in India and is 49 years old. He attended Stanford Law School and, if appointed, would become the first Asian-American justice and the first Hindu justice. After graduating from law school, Srinivasan worked as a clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He then worked for the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General for several years, later becoming Principal Deputy Solicitor General in 2011.
        In 2013, he was confirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals by a 97-0 vote. As is evident by this, Srinivasan is popular among both Democrats and Republicans, which would make him a prime choice for the nominee. Likewise, he is widely viewed as a moderate. These elements and the fact that he is widely liked in Washington would make it difficult for the Senate to reject his nomination. However, he is also fairly young, which would be a deterrent from his nomination due to how long he would be able to serve as a justice.

       Second, Paul Watford is a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (California). He is originally from Orange County, California and attended UCLA Law School. He is only 48 years old, even younger than Srinivasan, and he would become the third African-American Supreme Court Justice if appointed. Early in his career, Watford served as a clerk for both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski. He later served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles and worked for Munger, Tolles & Olson, a California-based firm. In 2011, he was nominated to the 9th Circuit Court by President Obama.
His nomination witnessed significant opposition from Senate Republicans, as he was only confirmed by a 61-34 vote.
        While Watford is considered a moderate by most, his nomination would likely receive more resistance in the Senate than those of Srinivasan and Garland. Besides this, some criticize his eligibility due to his lack of judicial rulings. Nonetheless, it is clear that Watford would be a solid choice for President Obama due to his respected stature and reasonable nature. 

        Finally, Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, was born in Chicago and attended Harvard Law School. He is 63 years old, making him older than the average Supreme Court appointee. Garland served in the Justice Department for a number of years under President Bill Clinton and as a clerk to Justice William Brennan. In 1997, he was appointed by President Clinton to the D.C. Appeals Court, later becoming the Chief Judge of this court.
        Most consider him a judicial moderate; therefore, he could possess a greater chance of being affirmed by the Senate. He also possesses bipartisan popularity, an often key aspect in a nominee for the Supreme Court. Garland is also significantly older than Srinivasan and Watford, which makes him more appealing to Republicans, who do not wish to see a Democratic-leaning justice maintain a position for too long. In total, Garland appears to be a safer nominee for President Obama, yet he is neither as young nor as unique as the other possible nominees.


        This nomination could potentially impose a major partisan shift in Washington, which conveys the critical nature of who President Obama chooses as his nominee. Although he is receiving a great amount of resistance, Obama continues to push for the nomination of a ninth Supreme Court justice. Some sources say that his decision may come as early as next week.

Sizing Up a Super Week

        This week was a turbulent one for the 2016 presidential election due to the great number of primaries and caucuses that took place on both Super Tuesday and Super Saturday. For the Republican Party, primaries occurred in states such as: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maine. In the Democratic race, the only states other than those already listed that held primaries were Colorado and Nebraska. This week witnessed solid leads for both parties' front-runners, and it also raised doubts about some other candidates' campaigns. In total, both parties' front-runners took home pivotal wins this past Tuesday and Saturday, yet there is still much more to come in this year's primary season.

        To begin, in the Democratic Party, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to hold a considerable lead in delegates over Senator Bernie Sanders, despite her losses to Sanders in a number of states. On Tuesday, Clinton won the majority of primaries which took place. Sanders slipped by with wins in a few liberal states; he won in Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont on Tuesday, Kansas and Nebraska on Saturday, and Maine today). Sanders, however, is struggling to keep up with Clinton's high delegate count, especially that which includes her plurality of Democratic superdelegates (unpledged delegates who can support any candidate they want). At this time, Clinton has received the votes of 1,129 delegates, while Sanders possesses those of only 498. Evidently, Clinton has been dominating the race thus far; therefore, if Sanders is to have a real chance of beating the powerhouse candidate that is Hillary Clinton, he is going to have to seriously consider a new strategy in order to widen his appeal to more moderate voters.
        Moreover, the states that Sanders has won so far have been those which are more liberal; he has had a great deal of trouble, though, receiving votes in more moderate states, in particular those in the South. In a number of Southern states, such as South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, Clinton has won 70 percent or more of the vote. These strong wins indicate the fact that Sanders does not carry a wide appeal among African-American voters, which, as history proves, is a key factor in winning Southern states. While Sanders appeals to a great number of young voters, Clinton's base is much more diverse. Furthermore, Sanders' narrow appeal and far-left stances will eventually bring about his downfall as a serious presidential candidate. Many of his positions are highly idealistic and focused on changing the way the government is run, as opposed to Clinton, who is much more pragmatic and centered on receiving support from the Democratic establishment. The primaries will continue for Clinton and Sanders in Michigan and Mississippi in Tuesday, and the two candidates will be debating tonight in Flint, Michigan.

        In the Republican field, Donald Trump has continued to dominate throughout the nation. On Super Tuesday, Trump was victorious in all but four states, typically winning in between 35 and 45 percent of the vote in those states which he won. His significant lead over the other Republican candidates in most states has recently sparked a serious dilemma within the Republican Party. For some time, many Republicans have assumed that Trump's lead in the polls would not persist into primary season, yet he continues to lead over the other candidates and has even gained more support in some states. The Republican Party now understands that its future may be in considerable jeopardy if Donald Trump continues to lead by such a substantial margin. While there are still three other candidates in the race, none of them have proved to be serious threats to Trump's campaign. Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have been battling for second place for weeks now, but neither of them have exhibited any significant shift in popularity until this week, when Cruz pulled ahead to win five states, leaving Rubio in the dust (he only won Minnesota). The fourth candidate in the running, John Kasich, has not exhibited any rise in support, and he has not yet won any states in this presidential election.
        It seems as though the only way that another candidate will be able to beat Trump is if the race is narrowed down to two candidates. If all four Republican candidates remain in the race, it is not likely that Cruz will take a solid position in second place. In this week's primaries, though, Cruz has proved to be a concrete choice for those who do not favor Trump as the GOP nominee. He has accumulated the votes of 300 delegates, and Trump, while still ahead, has only 84 more. Although Cruz is known to be one of the most disliked members of the Senate, most elected members of the Republican Party have said that they would favor him over Trump, who, if nominated, could completely tear apart the Republican Party as it is currently operated. In addition, Marco Rubio, after a disappointing debate performance on Thursday, is beginning to fall behind his competitor, Ted Cruz. The two were very close for several weeks, but it now seems that Rubio's wide support among establishment Republicans may not give him the wins he desperately needs to receive the nomination.
        To sum, this week's primaries have shown that what was once seen as a joke has evolved into the true possibility of Donald Trump being the Republican nominee, with his overwhelming number of victories being undeniable evidence of his viability as a candidate. Many of the opportunities that the Republican Party has had to stop his momentum have passed, and its only hope may now lie in the hands of one of its other potential nominees. Next on the Republican election trail are Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, and Mississippi on Tuesday, March 8th.