One of the purposes of the United States’ border policy is to protect the citizens of this great country from non-citizens who intend to harm or acts of violence against those within its borders. A main goals of this policy is to know, at all times, who is inside the massive national borders that stretch all the way from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, covering thousands of miles of land. About one million immigrants arrive to the United States legally every year. Yet every year there are also an estimated 800,000 people who enter this country illegally, or illegally overstay their visa (“Immigration and the Border” par. 4). This means that nearly one out of every two immigrants that is in the United States is here illegally. There is basically no record of where they are and what they doing here. This could potentially have a tremendously negative effect on what the United States is so proudly known for: a strong economy, a safe home for its citizens, fair and equal employment, and a free people. With so many illegal aliens within our borders, it is unclear how safe the American people really are since it is unclear what these alien’s intentions are in United States. The United States currently has a very poor immigration policy that is in desperate need of a change. Particularly, The United States needs to reform its border protection policy under the plan of presidential candidate Barck Obama in order to create safer borders for its citizens.
The Iraq war was declared by George Bush on March 20, 2003. This war is also known as the Second Golf War, the Occupation of Iraq, and The War in Iraq. (Wikipedia) The war is a response to the attacks on September 11th and the belief that Iraq had amassed Weapons of Mass destruction. Their was a belief that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and that the United States needed to act immediately to eliminate this threat. Since that day we have lost over 4,000 soldiers (icasualties) and it has cost the United States $565,308,329,744 and is getting higher (national priorities). On the contrary, we have removed the dictator Saddam Hussein from power and forced the Al-Qaeda terrorist group into hiding. Now that it is election time, our candidates need to decide what their plan for our future presence in Iraq if they are to be elected.
Certainly when it comes to the 2008 presidential election senator Barack Obama is at the top of the list. Barack Obama was the fifth African American senator in the united state’s history and the only African American currently serving in the United States Senate. Senator Obama had just served three years in the Senate in Illinois before his announcement to run for presidency. But after November 3, 2008 America Brought about change and for the first time in American history elected the first African American president, Barack Obama. In my opinion he is a highly motivated speaker and is an advocate for better America. President Obama was a candidate that branched out to all political parties. Upon reading me Obama book CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN I came across some interesting policies and political challenges that we as Americans are facing in this critical time. The main political view that drew my attention was that precedent’s Obama plan to strengthen civil rights and fight for a fairer justice system, end racial profiling and protect the right to vote just reminded ones self of all the injustices that we as a nation still have to overcome. The American people could have not nominated a better man. Barack Obama’s record speaks for itself. President Obama has worked to promote civil right and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights attorney, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination and voting right cases. As a senator Obama passed one of the countries first racial profiling laws he has been a leading advocate in protecting the rights to vote and helping to re authorize the voting rights act and leading opposition against discriminatory barriers to vote and will work to enforce civil right laws.
Inspiring a Vision – In-depth Analysis of “I have a Dream” I see a dream; I see the dream of Martin Luther King as he graphically describes his shared vision. I see that inspiring a vision is not easy to reach. But I can see that a leader with great credibility will be capable of such superiority. Such as influencing their followers or even convince their advocates to pursue in the same dream through encouraging and expressive speeches. Martin Luther King is an example of a great leader who was able to use his credibility as a leader and inspired people to share a common vision for the future. His famous “I have a dream” speech expressed his dream and vision for the African American population of America. The idea of using no violence to restore basic civil rights and equality to African Americans in America was desirable among his people and had not been done before, which made it extra exciting for those who can relate through his aspiration. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech demonstrates how he inspired a vision by appealing to others to share an exciting futuristic dream, he also exemplified the “big picture” of what he aspired to accomplish and he spoke with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and principle of his belief.
Two editorials by The New York Times discuss the talks that the Obama administration has planned with Iran; “Mr. Obama and Iran” does not explain thoroughly how Washington should interfere but in the other article “Talk to Iran. Then What”, it states that there is all this talk about having ’talks’ with Iran but nothing specific has been planned and imposes the question of how much should we compromise to come to an agreement. In the editorial titled “Mr. Obama and Iran”, the editor writes that former president Bush failed policies in Iran has led them very close to mastering the skills needed to build a nuclear weapon- the skill of mastering nuclear fuel production. The writer backs up his claim by stating that Iran’s scientist have already advanced by putting a satellite in orbit which is a huge sign that their missile program is moving forward. His other claim is that there has to be a mixture of incentives and sanctions to take away Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He goes on to say that the Bush administration never made any attempts to offer the Iranian government any incentives. However, he gives no evidence to support that for sure that Bush never made any attempts.
“The idea of global distributive justice is utopian, incompatible with our natural partiality towards compatriots and irreconcilable with state sovereignty”. Discuss We are now living in a global village. When the distance between countries is shortened by the fast development of transportation, interdependence brought by the growing international political and economical collaborations, the notion of “global justice” is becoming major in the study of international relations and political philosophy. However, such globalization does not necessarily bring global prosperity and integrity. According to the Human Development Report 2006, the poorest 20% of the world’s people, roughly corresponding to the population living on less than $1 a day, account for 1.5% of world income (UNDP, 2006: 44). Over the past few decades, many scholars are advocating the idea of global distributive justice, a principle that goes beyond the nations, in pursuit of developing a just and peaceful world. However, in practice, there are still many concerns that have to be taken into account. This essay examines the main arguments given by cosmopolitanism and utilitarianism before addressing some crucial disputes. In the end this essay will evaluate this idea from two principal dimensions of global justice: political and economical which implicate that amplifying the idea of global distributive justice is utopian in this global village in this century.
IntroductionThere is a tendency for research on processes of regional economic integration to be built on national-based paradigms and levels of analysis. Even those approaches that move away from intergovernmental processes of state-led regionalism and instead emphasise non-state directed regionalisation are often concerned with integration between two or more national economies. But, in many cases, real integration is taking place below the national scale. This is reflected in the growing number of formal agreements between subnational political administrations, and also by the uneven geographic spread of international economic relations in many states.

What are the advantages and disadvantages in using a comparative approach to politics?

Contemporary politics is being shaped and transformed right before our eyes. The way citizens interact with the state, its very definition, the source of its power and scope of its authority is being constantly challenged (Gieben, Lewis, 2005, p. 65). The growing influence of the media, changing social values, unbelievable technological advancements and far-reaching impacts of globalisation are but a few factors political writers cite as the driving force behind this transformation. But different countries react to change differently. Not in the least because no two are ruled in exactly the same way. Comparative politics seeks to understand the origins of the changes and compare the range of political responses in order to begin to offer explanations for why certain developments took place and to make a prediction of the future development trajectory. In this essay I will assess the merits and problems of the comparative study of politics to help me illustrate my argument that comparative approach can be a very helpful tool as long as it used to address the right question and the writer realises its limitations and potential pitfalls.
Every state wants to be sovereign and self regulating like America, but today invisibly and imperceptibly America is looking no more sovereign , because of too much influence and interference of Israeli lobby in US. As two conservative American political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt writing an article in 2006 about the influence of Israel lobby in American politics, say and warn that “its decisive role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran”. In 2006 former UN weapons inspector in Iraq “Scott Ritter” claimed that certain Israelis and pro-Israel elements in the United States has been trying to push the Bush Administration into war with Iran. Recently a leading American scientist Stewart Nozette has been arrested and charged with espionage .He had been working in Top Secret clearance which included nuclear weapon design information at the Department of Energy. The US Justice Department said that he had been tried to pass on top secret information to an Israeli Intelligence Officer. As in past Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal which is also known as the AIPAC espionage scandal which claims that information regarding United States policy towards Iran was passed to Israel through staff members associated with American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which directly lobbies the legislative branch of the US Government. Besides the fact that two former AIPAC employees has also been accused but US officials have been constantly stressing that Israeli government has not been involved in it. While as a matter of fact the US government’s current operating budget is dependent on foreign financing and money creation.
Carl von Clausewitz: War and the Role of Military Philosophy Introduction: Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) is considered to be the father of war. His works can be considered as the corner stone for contemporary military theory. In this paper a biography is presented at first for a better understanding of his background and afterwards his basic ideas presented in his major work “On War” are presented. The significance and influence of these ideas nowadays is also examined under the scope of their presence in the military realm.