Obama pardons nine people

President Barack Obama has granted the first pardons of his presidency, to nine people convicted of crimes including possessing drugs, counterfeiting and even mutilating coins.

No one well-known was on the list, and some of the crimes dated back decades or had drawn little more than a slap on the wrist in the first place — such as the Pennsylvania man sentenced in 1963 to probation and a $20 fine for mutilating coins. The mutilation of coins occurred when a young Marine made dimes out of pennies, cutting the lip off, to use the coins in vending machines.

The White House declined to give details on the cases or comment on why these particular people were selected by a president who previously had only pardoned Thanksgiving turkeys.

One of those pardoned, Ronald Lee Foster of Beaver Falls, Pa., was sentenced in 1963 to a year of probation and made to pay a small fine for mutilating coins.

"Well, we were only making only $82 a month. We were using them in the washing machines, the dryers, the cigarette machines and the pop machines on the base in our barracks," he said. He was given a year's probation and made to pay a small fine.

Foster, now 66, said he wasn't aware that he even had a felony conviction on his record until he applied for a gun permit in Pennsylvania five years ago and was denied. After getting out of the Marines in 1966, Foster returned to Pennsylvania and spent 27 years as a supervisor at a ceiling plant and also served on the local zoning board. He also spent 35 years as a volunteer firefighter.

He was told about the pardon earlier Friday by his lawyer, who applied for it on his behalf about 18 months ago.

Presidential pardons often come in the holiday season toward year's-end, but they can sometimes be extremely controversial, such as when Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich at the end of his presidency.

President George W. Bush drew heat for commuting the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, in the case of the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. But Bush rejected Cheney's vigorous urging that he later pardon Libby as well.

"The president was moved by the strength of the applicants' post-conviction efforts at atonement, as well as their superior citizenship and individual achievements in the years since their convictions," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. The White House announced the pardons Friday as Obama was in the air on the way home from a surprise visit to Afghanistan.

Obama has received 551 pardon petitions in the course of his presidency, of which he's denied 131, according to the Justice Department. Another 265 petitions were closed without presidential action.

commentary on Ms. Hausmann's post

In her latest post, Ms. Hausmann dissected the ongoing gun-control problems that have plagued our country and other parts of the world, making points on the founding fathers and how we have interpreted the amendment stating that we have the “right to bear arms”, which she describes as being a part of “America’s Backbone”.  Although most of Hausmann’s post was unbiased, it did seem that she was in favor of guns being available to the public after the appropriate measures are taken, as opposed to guns being controlled by the government. Towards the end of her argument, she states that “The amendments were created to give us permanent rights and freedoms, and now people want to take them away?” As I said before, Hausmann is somewhat biased towards guns being available to the public, but she also raises an excellent point; in any other instance, we would just love to say that our constitution is the absolute source of authority in the country. However, when the government feels that something doesn’t need to be brought before the eyes of the constitution, it will stay obscure, as the gun-control problem has. Hausmann brings up another strong argument (in my opinion) for guns to be available to the public; although guns are indeed dangerous, guns themselves don’t kill people, people kill people. Hausmann also argues that making guns inaccessible to the public will only cause more deaths than before; without other means to defend against criminals and muggers, innocents will be unable to protect themselves.

I think that although her post included some biased views on gun-control, it also made a strong case for her views with facts, showing that Ms. Hausmann can defend her views with facts instead of personal experiences or supposed facts.

Commentary on Mr. Mowry's editorial

After reading Mr. Mowry’s informative editorial on the staggering amount of national debt, 14 TRILLION dollars,  a hefty 96% of our GDP, I too felt a slight chill creep up my spine as I envisioned the amount of trouble and hardships that this huge debt could bring for my generation. I’ll admit that before reading his post, I had not looked into national debt or the rate that it constantly increases at, so reading through Aaron’s post left me with some knowledge that I didn’t have. The most interesting bits, including the parts about our debt multiplying by a factor of 10 in only 30 years and our national debt finally edging out the GDP by NEXT year, really got me to sit up and pay attention to what I was reading. Although it was certainly informative and well written, I felt that it lacked something ; after reading the “most interesting bits”, I was looking for Aaron’s personal take on the debt, I wanted to know what he thought could or should be done to remedy our ailing debts. I may be the only person who thinks this, but I think that if Mr. Mowry had included more of his own thoughts on the matter, it could have been a much better editorial. 

Ohio McDonald's gives voting advice in paychecks

In Columbus, Ohio, Several Mcdonald's employees recieved a little something extra along with their most recent paychecks; handbills that directly suggested that they vote for three republican candidates in the upcoming November election. It reads, "If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not." The distribution of these handouts has fallen solely on the shoulders of Canton franchisee Paul Siegfried, with the Mcdonalds headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill quick to point a finger at Siegfried and claim innocence in the matter.

Mcdonald's general manager for the Ohio branch immediately responds to the incident with a public address, "We wholeheartedly respect diverse views and opinions, and our employees' right to vote. Our position is that every employee should make his or her own choice."  As Allen Schulman, an attorney to one of the employees states, this goes against both state and federal laws for corporate advocacy in elections. The secretary of state in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner, launched an investigation into the matter, feeling that the incident may violate Ohio election laws. She later states,"Voter intimidation is a form of voter fraud. It is a serious offense requiring a strong response."

After reading this story, I was suprised by the strong reaction that the Government had for Mcdonalds. I wasn't expectingany action to take place for at least a few weeks, as with everything else that the government deals with. I feel that their response was appropriate; the secretary of state in Ohio issued a serious general warning to the state about voter fraud, which is a federal offense, which is precisely why the man whose idea this was, immediatly responded to the incedent with a public apology to mirror that of his superior, that Mcdonalds general manager in Ohio.

Jackson Diehl: Chávez likely isn't a real threat, yet still hard to defeat

Hugo Chávez, president of venezuela, has folks in Washington debating on whether or not he poses any serious threat to the United States or, as The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl suggests, a "buffoonish nuisance who is best ignored." The Obama administration initially intended to "engage" Chávez, which I suppose suggests some kind of military or political pressure on Chávez , who is apparently supported by less than half of Venezuelans, which is odd because Venezuala is supposed to have a Democratic government, something that the public is supposed to want. However, their Democratic government is really just Chávez pulling the strings to make it impossible for any others to come into office, and he creates restricting laws to strip them of their powers, and creates other authoritative establishments to remain in charge on essentially everything. Although these are internal conflicts, Chávez has the potential to become a threat to the security of the U.S. at some level; former State Department Assistant Secretary Roger Noriega publicly brought forth evidence that paints Chávez as an "active collaberator in Iran's nuclear program", which is a cause for alarm if it stands as the truth. Jackson Diehl, a reporter for the Washington Post, believes that although there is possible evidence that points toward Chávez indirectly aiding Iranian Nuclear arms production, he also believes that the Obama administration has played a part in Chávez's rise to infamy; a lack of action or even apparent care about this new information defines the government in their response, and this makes sense to a degree, Diehl argues, "International inspectors have reported no evidence that Iran  has received supplies from Venezuela, though that would be a violation of U.N. sanctions. But Noriega points out that the United States and European Union have already blacklisted an Iranian-owned Venezuelan bank for supporting the Iranian nuclear program and that the two countries have signed an agreement to collaborate in the nuclear industry." Although I don't know all the details, I agree with Diehl, I think that acting only once we can actually see consequences could be a huge weakness, but I also believe that taking actions against the president of another country based on partially unofficial information could be hazardous for our reputation as a country.

Boehner backs tax cuts limited to middle class

House Republican leader John Boehner agreed to support tax cuts only for those deemed "middle class", which he says isn't exactly what he would have put in place. Instead, he would rather make such tax relief available to Americans with a higher rate of pay as well as the middle class Americans. These tax cuts, initially the idea of former president George W. Bush, were meant to end next year, have become an area of dispute between President Obama and Republican Lawmakers, namely, Republicans believe that cutting back on some government spending should be the main focus of efforts to balance the federal budget.