It is designed to help maintain stability among the people. There are supposed to be no barriers according to the book. Everyone is eligible to be liable and no one, or case for that matter, can be overlooked. Of course, this may not always be the case for all of the world’s citizens. Just ask the African Americans in the South during the 1960s or Catholics of Northern Ireland. It was cases like these where the law chose to play favorites and treat these individuals with less respect. In University Heights, Ohio, while maybe not as extreme as my previous examples, there is a group that faces this same injustice: the attack on college kids.

Students experience interference with the University Heights Police Department 24/7. During the week, they zone in like vultures on the smallest of parking violations, slapping ridiculous fines on the struggling young scholars of John Carroll University. Their biggest prey is on the weekends. It is the time when we go for those lovely happy-go-lucky strolls on the streets in search of a little relief from our long weeks of unpaid work. Once again, they are there, stealthily waiting for the proper moment to strike. They are interested in the contents of your backpack, just assuming that these containers of learning material suddenly are cloaks for mischief. There is no need to discuss the legitimacy of UHPD’s accusations. What matters more is that they must realize what is important and stop singling out JCU students.

It is true, by Cuyahoga County standards, University Heights has a lower crime rate than other cities. But there is still other crime that must be given notice. For one example, I have noticed several adult drunk drivers out on the road on the weekend nights. The vast majority of these actions are given the blind eye, all because the police are in a big rush to catch the next house party. Another time, I remember a buddy of mine had his car broken into and was later mugged. Not only did the police fail to take action, but they also claimed that he was exaggerating the whole story. Of course, if a JCU student so much as stumbled on a sidewalk, they would rush to him and give him a Breathalyzer test.

The police may hold this notion that because it is a relatively safe suburban town, college parties are the biggest problem. Let it go! Who cares if the taxpayers yell at you for your minimal level of work? I have friends who go to a school almost identical to JCU in Connecticut, in a town that makes University Heights look like Detroit. However, the police there realize that they look pathetic spending their time harassing college students. Plus, it should be wise to remember, the more you tell kids to not do something, the more likely they will do it, far more recklessly as well. Leave us alone, and the trouble becomes far more contained.

All I can say is, I will be living in an off-campus house next year. Of course, there is the strong possibility that I will throw a few social gatherings every now and then. Likewise, my house-mates and I would be sure to keep our affairs contained inside our house. If this is successful, why would the cops opt to bring these activities to the neighborhood by raiding through and kicking everyone out?

All I am saying is, UHPD can start acting like real police and not overbearing parents to JCU students.

President Barack Obama has gone through several transformations during his political career. He started off as an Illinois congressman. Next, he gained recognition as a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. At the time, he was running for senator, a seat that he would easily capture. I remember watching him when he made this speech, with an emphasis on the need to evaporate what he felt to be a divided America.

I had to admit, he was quite an orator.  Somewhere far back in my mind, I may have registered that this man had the potential to win the presidency. On the other hand, I would have never predicted it to be a mere four years later.

By 2008, the first-term Illinois senator suddenly captured the nation’s eye. His election that November allowed the American public the chance to meet the man and candidate Obama. Now all that was left to do was meet Obama the president.

Now we fast forward another four years, and the American voters have met the president. The record has been observed and reactions remain mixed. According to a recent Gallup poll, his approval ratings stands at 41 percent.  At first glance, this seems to be bad news for the president.

This is by no means great, but at the same time it can be absolutely obsolete by November. Generally, these ratings are typical for incumbent presidents in office over the last 50 years at this time (Johnson & Reagan being exceptions). All of this means that now is the time for the president to determine what he will be up against.

First of all, he will want to know who his opponent is. Although he may benefit from a divided opposition, it is also vital for him to know the character of the man, which was a trait that certainly was beneficial four years prior.

Best bets are on Mitt Romney, who holds a significant lead in delegates. Running through the checklist, any character attacks are most likely out, as well as past history votes referring to national decisions, which was beneficial in attacking John McCain. There will be the questions regarding Romney’s understanding of common America and his ability to reach out to all ideologies.

Furthermore, the potential of Romney’s proposed fiscal conservatism will be brought to light, with Obama trying to make clear that his liberal economic goals are far more official. It is through efforts such as these that will bring back the candidate Obama. The other half will have to be based on his record as president until November, which would help to determine.

As for now, all that can be done is sit back and watch.

Still, the Republican nomination is undecided. There is a chance to defeat an incumbent president and the opposition still cannot choose whom to get behind. This is the worst thing that can happen in politics, right?  Depending on how you look at it however, maybe there is an upside.

In recent years, politics has seemed to lose some of its flair and excitement. Sure, we have politicians who behave in bizarre mannerisms and voice absurd rhetoric unseen before, but that is not what draws me.  Where is the competitiveness, the months of long anticipation?

Presidential nominations always seem to get wrapped up so quickly nowadays.

United States election history reveals facts about famous conventions that could not pick a winner. When a decision was not reached, they chose dark horse candidates. These were relative unknowns, some of whom would eventually win and become famous presidents.

Now, I seriously doubt that this will reoccur, but there are lighter examples to take from. Trying to gain an understanding of events such as these, I turned to my father.

He recounted his only memory, when he was 12 years old watching the 1976 Republican Convention with my grandfather.  Their support was split, my grandfather bolting for Ronald Reagan, my dad remaining loyal to President Gerald Ford.

Although my dad’s choice won, he nevertheless concluded that it would have been just as thrilling had the outcome been different.  Taking away my personal partisan feelings or candidate preference, I must say that I could feel this same way today.  The closest I could remember was the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton contest, but even that drama never fully bloomed.

As I said earlier, there are a couple ways of looking at this.

One way is that a potential open convention would be fascinating for my generation of political junkies. On the other hand, this does have the potential to perhaps reinvigorate the Republican Party and its image for voters by November.

Another example is from 2008, when the Democrats fought until June to finally decide on a nominee. This left time for the Americans to already learn of the Republican nominee and grow tired. Meanwhile, when the Democrats did finally decide on Obama as the nominee, it brought a fresh face to the election. By the time November came along, the American people still had not had enough of Obama.

History has a chance to repeat itself again in this election year, only this time it could be for the other side. That being said, as it may not be good for the Republicans at the same time, it is a pendulum that tilts two different ways.

But regardless of what this could potentially do for the outcome in November, I cannot deny that this could be what makes politics fascinating, right into the 21st century.

The last few weeks of this campaign, the American people have really seen Santorum take charge in the polls.

But during this same time, they have been able to witness the politician side of him as well.

Some Republican voters in the primaries may welcome this, but it will not carry out to the general election.

On the campaign trail, Santorum, 53, has been the biggest advocate for social issues. In my opinion this has been the biggest mistake of his campaign. I have stated this in my previous column and will probably have to state it again, but the issue of campaign 2012 pertains to fiscal matters.

It does not do any good to campaign in states such as Arizona and Michigan, talking about birth control when these citizens are more interested in which candidate is going to give them an opportunity to work. Constantly referring to issues such as this often comes across as if the candidate does not understand what the common American individual has to go through.

The few times that he does make the economy an issue, it goes along with the status quo rhetoric common with conservatives. When I listen to him speak, it seems as though his thoughts on the economy are obsolete. What he says regarding these matters are what he believes the Republican Party voters will want.

Knowing that Santorum will probably not change the tune of his presidential campaign anytime soon, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to address what he does stand for.

In my opinion, what he wishes to see is a return to a time that cannot be brought back. It is a simpler time, one that was not necessarily awful when it came to the structure of the American family.

Those days have long past, and now we are in the 21st century. Yes, perhaps in some ways the things he preaches may be better. Quite frankly, I am too young to know and I have no interest in finding out for some time.

At the same time, I do feel that perhaps these feelings can only be shaped by personal experience, so it would be wrong for me to pass full judgment. Nevertheless, this would still fall along the lines of my argument that it is irrelevant to the issues of this election.

The one criticism that I do have with no regrets is Santorum’s attack on John F. Kennedy’s opinion regarding religion.

When Sen. Kennedy made his speech on this matter in September 1960, he was not advocating for complete a complete elimination of faith from politics. Instead what he meant was that no officeholder should implement a state-based faith. The fact that a man supposedly as smart as Santorum believes this makes me sick.

That being said, this is not a plea for the former Pennsylvania senator to change his emphasis to the economy. While I disagree with most of the words Santorum speaks, I can nevertheless respect him for sticking to his beliefs, no matter how absurd and outdated they may be. Despite this, the choice of Santorum would surely be devastating to the Republican Party.

Moving into 2012, it was time to get serious. Just a few days into the new year, the Iowa caucus came into play.  Initially, it proved to be the closest ever, with Santorum narrowly edging out Romney in Iowa, considered more of a scrimmage for the candidates.

New Hampshire was the first big prize, with Romney winning respectably. The leading man was headed for South Carolina with another lead in the polls.  Gingrich kicked his conservative rhetoric into high gear, and took the primary for himself.

The two new rivals next battled in delegate-rich Florida.

After conducting a well-financed campaign, Romney swept the state’s primary and followed with Nevada.  This made South Carolina into nothing more than a speed bump in Romney’s quest for the nomination.

Following Nevada, Gingrich’s support appeared to be diminishing.  Romney had another primary and two caucuses approaching: Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado.  While Romney recognized that the first one would be a stretch, the latter had granted him victory in 2008 and should do the same in 2012. This was not to be, with Santorum capturing all three. Once again, the front-runner for the nomination is in question. Facing the current situation for the Republican candidates, there are some things to be noted.

One is the present standing of Gingrich’s candidacy.  After three straight primary wins combined with two more caucus victories, the thought of him carrying the nomination is beginning to wane.

Along with the losses in the state contests, the former Speaker of the House may also be experiencing campaign financial concerns.

According to Trip Gabriel of The New York Times, Gingrich has a difficult obstacle to overcome, “Even as he sacrifices time in front of voters, his prospects of raising the cash he needs are uncertain.” He also faces the dilemma of Rick Santorum’s rise to prominence. Aside from Gingrich, Romney also faces more of a challenge now from Santorum. After three losses last week to the former Pennsylvania senator, Romney has once again found himself playing on the defensive.

Fortunately, unlike after his loss in South Carolina, Romney benefits from having more primary wins under his belt. Furthermore, the next big primary is in Michigan, on Feb. 28.

Because he was raised in the state, along with the fact that his father, George W. Romney, was both a popular businessman and governor, Michigan was intitally thought to be a cakewalk for Romney, but now it seems winning the primary will be much more difficult than expected.

Nevertheless, it can be safely assumed that Romney will not take any chances after his loss in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri.

Santorum’s candidacy is still uncertain. It is possible that his recent victories will help grant him more momentum, which can be decided over the next month, particularly on Super Tuesday. At the same time, he faces an uphill battle due to Romney’s greater strength in spending.

If this proves true, his candidacy may fade quickly and will face a similar fate that Gingrich has been dealing with.

Judging by all these factors, this nomination contest will by no means be easy.

All that can be done now is wait and see what happens, one primary at a time.

Yet when it comes to this subject, many of our nation’s citizens find themselves unable to act on their beliefs. Why is this the case? What is it about the protester that enables such mixed feelings?

There was a time when protest was as American as apple pie, even before there was such a description as American. The Boston Tea Party was one of the biggest protests that led to the gradual beginning of the Revolutionary War. After this, we saw the reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century. Next there was women’s suffrage and finally, civil rights. These were all movements that, in the end, led to greater changes in American society.  As a result, these are currently looked upon fairly well, even if they were unpopular at the time of action.

Of course not all American protests have been considered successful. During the first half of the 20th century, several socialist movements were put down. The army was sent in to scare out the Bonus Army marchers.  Then, of course, there is still the memory of the massive anti-Vietnam War protesters during the 1960s and 1970s.

Movements such as these failed to achieve their specific goals, but also seemed to reflect negatively on those who partook (at least to a respectable majority). Episodes like these have always seemed to cast a dark light on the American protest scene.

So here we are, and once again we find ourselves amid more protest and dissent over the streets. Today, it is not about war or civil rights. Instead, it is primarily fiscally based.  There are those on the right, forming, of all names, the tea party.  Meanwhile, the left (and to some extent moderates) have established the Occupy Wall Street movement. Once again, protest has returned to the American scene. Along with this, there are the feelings of support and apathy.

I will be the first to admit, I am not one to participate in such behavior (at least in terms of fiscal matters). To me, the tea party marchers come across as if they are in a Halloween parade, while I believe that the Occupy Wall Street protesters should maybe search for possible employment once they get their point across. That being said, these actions are the epitome of a functioning democracy.

The fact that Americans are paying attention to the relation of the economy with government is encouraging to know that they are heard. We are fortunate enough to know that, for the most part, our government and citizens can perform this in a respectable manner. Compare this to the problems that are going on in Syria and Greece.

There are, by all means, greater political duties that can be performed, such as voting. But political protest, no matter where it falls ideologically, is still healthy for the United States every now and then.

There seem to be only minor questions regarding the candidates’ backgrounds, but these are hardly valid.

Not even the issue of a black candidate, a barrier broken by the president upon his victory in 2008, will dominate the headlines save for a few radicals. Taking this into account, this will be a campaign dominated by the problems that are affecting Americans today.

This should not be mistaken with my last column regarding whether or not the candidate will focus on the issues. There is no guarantee what they will do. But, it will be the American voters who decide who will lead.

To me, leadership is a topic that is far more abstract than the other concepts of United States politics. As you may know, I have identified where I stand politically. But I can admit that I have also been fascinated with the leadership qualities of presidents whose views were almost no where close to mine.

Personally, I have this habit of looking into history when I want to find an answer to an obscure question. The president that comes to mind first is Franklin D. Roosevelt, because there was not much that we share together, ideologically speaking. At the same time, it isn’t hard for me to admit that he had tremendous austerity to bring the American people together and back to life. This is all too clear, that even I could have seen myself pulling the lever for Roosevelt once or twice.

The other president hard for me to admit is Ronald Reagan. Like FDR before him, Reagan ran for president when Americans were losing confidence in their country. Reagan should have been an unlikely choice, but his right-wing political stances seemed to fly over the heads of supporters who were far from conservative. Once again, Americans felt the need for a strong leader during turbulent times.

Now we find ourselves in another predicament. The country is once again in financial instability, and nothing is too bright abroad. This year, the vast majority of the American voters want to find a way to make ends meet. In that case, they will be asking themselves who gives off the strong leadership persona? Four years ago, a majority thought that Barack Obama did.

For some voters, this may remain true in November, while others probably believe that his ship has sailed. Then there are the two Republicans, Romney and Gingrich. As I have observed, both of these men have some attributes of good leaders, but not enough to be outstanding.

Gingrich has the passionate fire to stir up crowds with his knowledge of conservatism. Romney is less adept to this. But he bears a mature coolness associated with a president, which may be the reason I have heard older Republicans say he looks like a president.

Unfortunately I must say, none of these three candidates have fully demonstrated the “leadership” qualities that many Americans crave. Hopefully, for their sakes, the candidates can find a way to generate this image before November.

Former Senator Rick Santorum grabbed 13.3 percent of the vote.

Rep. Ron Paul claimed that he is not backing out of the race after posting only 7 percent of the vote. 

Prior to this win, it seemed as though the wheels were coming to a halt for Romney.  After a recall from an earlier Iowa victory and a devastating blow in South Carolina.  For many candidates, these factors could have been rather detrimental. Certainly for Mitt Romney, the latter loss may have brought about painful comparisons to the 2000 John McCain campaign.

However, cutting his losses in South Carolina, the former Massachusetts governor realized that Florida had to be a must win.

Not only would victory look better, but the state’s winner-take-all issue is vital as well.  To obtain this goal, Romney had to face up to one of the bitter realities of modern day campaigns: the negative attack.

When Romney began his quest for the presidency, he preferred to stump with the sense of optimism.  He generally attempted to point to America’s greatest strengths and future potential.

When it would come down to criticism, it would be saved for President Obama. It sounded rather naive at times, but for the first couple of months it carried him forward.

Once Gingrich began to make a comeback, Romney realized he had to take further action.  He moved beyond the issues, attacking the public past of Gingrich, questioning his tenure as Speaker of the House in the 1990s and the time he worked for Freddie Mac.

According to The New York Times, the Romney campaign aired an ad that referred to Gingrich making a profit from the housing crisis while other Floridians suffered.

Meanwhile, in the Gingrich camp, the mood remained somewhat mixed.  Several, including the former Speaker of the House, went into the Florida primary with a sense of optimism.  Gingrich began to imply that the Romney camp was beginning to run scared, according to The New York Times.

But as the week continued, it was Gingrich who seemed to be on the defensive. The first mistake came from an ad attacking Romney by portraying him as anti-immigrant, meant to appeal to Cuban Americans.

This was sharply criticized by Sen. Marco Rubio, the popular Cuban-American senator who remained neutral in the primary, “I didn’t think it was accurate.”

Then Gingrich slipped up in what should have been his specialty, a debate forum.

Addressing the current state of the space industry, he proposed that he would establish a colony on the moon during his presidency.

In response, Romney looked at his opponent and said that he would fire any advisor who proposed such a policy.

Romney’s change in approach, as well as increased spending, appear to be paying off. Recent polls showed him maintaining a steady lead in Florida leading up to the primary.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Romney’s support ranged across many areas and demographics.

He lead among Hispanics, veterans, men, women (largely put off by Gingrich’s personal life) and even has a slight edge on evangelical voters.

Certainly, Gingrich has hinted that he is willing to take his campaign to the convention, which hasn’t happened in the Republican Party since 1976.

Either way, it should be an interesting campaign, in the weeks and possible months to follow. One thing is for sure, no matter who wins, the party must strongly unite in order to take on the president in November.

When it comes to election, the goal is all too clear: get to the end and come out victorious.  That’s all well and good; it should be the primary goal for these candidates.  But at the same time, I cannot remember the last time where an election had even 50 percent of its time devoted to the issues. Now it seems as though candidates are faced with an endless barrage of attacks.  Don’t get me wrong.  This may sound cynical on the surface, but I believe that negative attacks are sometimes vital. If one candidate tends to disagree with another candidate’s positions, then he/she has a right to attack. That being said, it can only go to a certain point.

In the last 50-some years, we can look at the changes in style of campaigning. The first appearance of negative ads were in 1964, when LBJ aired the infamous daisy ad against Barry Goldwater. By 1988, things had gotten much worse. Both candidates George Bush and Michael Dukakis seldom covered the issues of that year in order to make jabbing attacks at each other. While voters still went to the polls, they nevertheless expressed their discontent for the careless conduct of both candidates. In recent years, this has continued to play out. President Bush and John Kerry both chose to go after the others’ Vietnam War records. There was the attack on Obama about issues ranging from his religion to place of birth.  Meanwhile, the Democrats chose to find any picture of  John McCain with then-unpopular president Bush and claim to be his natural heir, ignoring any of his actual votes in the Senate.

I am still not sure what to expect.  Early on Mitt Romney seemed to be pursuing a course of positive focus. It is true that he attacked Obama, but this was all a matter of his policies as President.  Of course, once Newt Gingrich began to creep up on his lead, negativity seemed to be the only way to go. Fortunately, it seems as though Romney has managed to focus on Gingrich’s public career rather than his three marriages. Likewise, Gingrich has seemed to attack Romney’s record as governor instead of his Mormon faith.  It is signs such as these that give me hope.

If the candidates behave themselves and do their job, I will be happy. Voters have a job too. In today’s society, many seem upset with stories pertaining to gossip. Polls had shown that many Americans either had problems with Romney merely because of his faith and with Gingrich because of his marital history.  Personally, I do not believe that a candidate for public office should be chastised for his/her private life.  If Americans had always done this, some of our greatest leaders would have never been elected. So, at the end of the day, it is just as much the job of the American voter as it is the presidential candidates to understand the serious matters facing the nation and vote on what really counts.

Personally, I identify and am registered with the Republican Party. My preference is not solely based on ideology (though it is not entirely obsolete), but also on what I feel to be a better track record.  Hailing from an East Coast state, the corruption and big machinery of the Democratic Party is rather abhorrent. The few times Republicans have held statewide office in this region, it has been for the better (Chris Christie and George Pataki, to name a few).  One may ask, how was it that these great leaders could be elected into office? The way I see it, this was because the party realized the need for a pragmatic approach and selected the candidate who had the best chance for victory.  On the national level, however, I am afraid that this approach is lacking within the party.

Barack Obama has been in office for a little over three years.  Personally, I believe that he has performed a terrible job in office.  Of course, he has not achieved anything as president during his tenure, which would disqualify him from being labeled as a good or bad president in my opinion.  It appears as though he thoroughly wishes to be the most effective do nothing president in recent history. While his administration may be one for the record books, it is not one that the American people need for four more years.

At first, Republicans seemed to be opening up.  They had a Mormon and former Massachusetts governor as their front-runner.  Mitt Romney is by no means a conservative. He is a bull’s-eye moderate right on the ideological dart board, and that is perfectly acceptable.  Romney is conservative on the two dominant issues of the race, fiscal and foreign policy.  As a result of this, Romney has held the slight edge over the president in recent polls. Why is this?  It is because the crucial independent voters can accept him as a candidate.

Unfortunately, last Saturday’s South Carolina primary displayed some bleak colors.  After adhering to fears that “a moderate” would be the Republican nominee if Romney won, South Carolinians granted Newt Gingrich 40 percent of the vote. I find this to be rather absurd on a few accounts, but the fact that Gingrich has a weaker national standing than Romney in the polls doesn’t leave much to the imagination. Let’s face facts, conservatives can talk all they want about social issues, but at the end of the day, the unemployed swing voter will not be concerned with whom he/she can marry. So why is Gingrich better for the Republican Party just because he proclaims himself to be a “conservative”?

A typical answer lately has been that he evokes the policies of Reagan. That rhetoric may sound good on the surface, but we must remember that Reagan ran for president over 30 years ago.  Times have changed, and the “Great Communicator” would have known better than anyone pragmatism was key to victory, which enabled him to govern effectively.

So in effect, the Republican Party has to realize that fundamental ideology is not always beneficial. The best candidate must be backed. This year, like it or not, Romney’s the guy.  If Gingrich wins the nomination, I have a feeling it will be another four years of a useless Democratic administration.

It contains 50 states that are distinct in their own way, but perhaps none are more distinguishable than California.

The largest and most diverse in population, it has led our nation with its many innovations.

Once again, it did not fail to break form by introducing yet another first.

On Saturday, Oct. 8, California Gov. Jerry Brown successfully signed the California DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act into law.

This will enable youth students in the state,  who are undocumented immigrants, the ability to attend state schools while receiving state aid.

Brown shot down the notion from critics that he was introducing a form of affirmative action, claiming that it “ducked a costly legal battle,” as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The law is not technically new because it is an addition to another one established in July 2011.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the law is scheduled to take effect as of Jan. 1, 2013. The actual figures for California’s DREAM Act are quite decisive.

It has been estimated by the California Department of Finance that there would be some 2,500 students eligible for these grants.  With a program that is subsidized around $1.4 billion, the bill for this program is expected to cost nearly $14.5 million.

Aside from the economic citations (although not disregarding), the law has and is expected to bring about both praise and controversy.

The bill was initially shot down last year, and it draws considerable attention due to California’s widespread diversity throughout the state, including a large population of Hispanics.  

The 2010 U.S. census found around 37.6 percent of the population in California was Hispanic.

The state’s other youthful demographics have expressed their distaste with the bill.

Indeed, the same day the bill was signed into law, protest broke out at the University of California, Berkley, according to The New York Times.

While California is the first state to pass legislation pertaining to the immigrant education concern, it is not the only state to reevaluate the matter.

In both Alabama and Illinois, the state governments sought to face their own immigrant situations.

Alabama passed legislation to check the legality of public school students.

In Illinois, the state passed a law similar to the California law.

Although these two states acted differently in their approach to the immigration issue, they nevertheless demonstrate the growing significance of the matter.

Everyone saw the obvious, such as the back and forth of perhaps the two most vivid candidates in the past month, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

What no one was expecting was the stunning victory of Georgia’s Herman Cain over Perry in the Florida Straw Poll in September.

This threw the race into another spin.

For Herman Cain, 65, the news continues to be surprisingly good. Not long after his Florida victory, he took another surprising lead in the Midwest Straw Poll.

The reasons for this possible success may have to do with the fact that he has gained so much approval from the tea party movement.

As the former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Cain’s business background has left many optimistic that he would understand the fiscal concerns of the U.S.

His unwavering conservative views,  as opposed to the questionable beliefs of Perry, have also granted him trust among conservative Republicans.

Yet, Larry Schwab, of John Carroll’s political science department, believes his candidacy remains a long shot.

“Herman Cain has run an excellent campaign and is the biggest surprise among the Republic candidates,” Schwab told The Carroll News.  “However, I doubt that he will be successful in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Rarely do candidates with little experience and little name recognition win in the primaries and caucuses.”

Gov. Perry also had a lot to handle in September.

Aside from what was viewed to be rocky performances in the debates with the other candidates, Perry also had to face his past record.  He alienated many social conservatives with his support for state mandated STD vaccinations.

Then there were the charges by Romney hinting that Perry was a do-little governor in a state where the government is very hands off.

The governor managed to dance around these issues for the most part and maintained his lead in the polls.

Then another issue came about that was difficult to escape.

According to The New York Times, the Perry family owned land designed for hunting in west Texas, which was supposedly nick-named “Niggerhead.”

Questions arose as to whether Perry’s father and the governor himself changed the name of the land upon purchase in the early 1980s.

With the answer unclear on Perry’s ethics have been brought into question by some.

Just as it seemed that no one else could declare their candidacy, increased speculation developed regarding New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

The 49-year-old governor, who has held office since 2010, has received much attention do to his unwavering fiscal stance.

A Wall Street Journal article released Monday said, “The governor spent much of the week deliberating the logistics of a late bid.”

Inevitably, however, Christie announced the next day his decision to stay out of the race.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in announcing his decision, the governor said, “The deciding factor was that it did not feel right to me, in my gut, to leave now, when the job isn’t finished.”

Presently, the race in the GOP camp is centered around Perry, Romney, and more recently, Cain.

Indeed, the possibility of other late entries is unlikely at this point, due to the heavy spending already by the Perry and Romney camps.

As for Cain, further success seems unlikely, but history has shown that candidacies such as his own may gain surprising momentum – one example being Eugene McCarthy in 1968.

McCarthy’s grassroots’ support enabled him to bid a convincing argument against the Johnson administration’s policies and carried him to the convention, albeit unsuccessful.

Cain may be able to build this momentum among the tea party members, if he wishes to make his bid a reality.

As for the general election, things may be looking up for the Republican aisle.

According to a joint ABC News-Washington Post non-partisan opinion poll, the numbers are 37 percent for Obama.

Of those who were polled, 55 percent voted for the Republican candidate.

For Shane Bauer, his fiancée Sarah Shourd, and their friend Joshua  Fattal, their 781 days  in Iranian prison were anything but joyous, but rather a fight to retain their sanity.

The ordeal began on July 31, 2009, when the three hikers were arrested for illegally crossing into Iran.  The three had been traveling through the Kurdish territory of Iraq when they claimed to have accidently crossed over the border. Upon making this mistake, they were soon arrested by Iranian border guards. This proved to be only the beginning of their dreadful ordeal.

For the next year, the three were held in solitary confinement.  The guards placed the men in one section of the prison, while Shourd was kept to herself.

For the next year, the three dealt with the horror and turmoil of the abhorrent Evin House of Detention.  Despite these factors, the three Americans refused to be broken.

By September 2010, Shourd was released due to declining health.

Freed American Shane Bauer, center, meets his father Al Bauer as his fiance Sarah Shourd looks on upon his arrival from Iran, in Muscat, Oman Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2011. After more than two years in Iranian custody, two Americans convicted as spies took their first steps toward home Wednesday as they bounded down from a private jet and into the arms of family for a joyful reunion in the Gulf state of Oman. (AP Photo/Sultan Al-Hasani)

Meanwhile, the other two were left to squander at Evin for another year. They continued to keep up the fight for justice.

There was a lot that could have made them insane;  such as the “screams” they could hear from other prisoners, according to The Wall Street Journal.

They performed daily exercise routines with water bottles to keep them fit, and at some points conducted hunger strikes for better rights in their detention, as reported by The New York Times.

Just as a battle was being fought in the prison, it was also ensuing internationally.

First there was the matters concerning Iran’s own complicated government. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at first seemed as if he desired the return of the two other hikers.

But he also had to face a strict judiciary, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was strongly against the hikers’ release.

After months of debate, and intervention from American and Omani diplomats, the two were released on a bail of $1 million. The long months of harrowing solitude for the men had finally come to an end. After spending a few days reunited with their families in Oman, the prisoners arrived in New York City on Sunday.

Following their return, they vocally bashed their former captors.

“From the very start, the only reason we have been held hostage is because we are American,” Fattal said, The Wall Street Journal reported.

They referred to the time in prison as the worst thing to ever happen to them.  Despite the struggle of the past two years, these men seem destined to move on with their personal lives.  Bauer and Shourd intend to marry, with Fattal as best man.

As for the relations between the U.S. and Iran, it can be said that the future is confusing at best.

While the arrest of the hikers, accused of spying, damaged an already tense relationship, the release helped to stabilize the situation.

Instead, the conflict between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad has the U.S. wondering who really has power.

Judging by this leadership conflict and a functional government, Iran may or may not be the ominous threat the U.S. may believe it is.

A week after proposing a $477 billion jobs plan, Obama announced a new plan to cut the federal deficit by $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The president brought up the subject of Medicare and Medicaid, stating how they would be receiving very few cuts, mostly when it comes to drug companies.

He estimated the figures to be around nearly $580 billion in cuts from the federal budget along with a $1.5 trillion tax increase for higher income Americans, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama accepted the duty to help restore the American economy.

He indicated this during his campaign and now hoped to prove that he would be a man of his word.

It was obvious that he would face challenges along the way, such as opposition from Republican lawmakers.

Nevertheless, he remained optimistic that his Republican colleagues would be willing to work for a successful goal.

As the first months went by, things appeared to be moving slowly, but nothing the president considered out of the norm of the legislative process.

When the 2010 midterm elections began to unfold, the Republicans managed to swipe back the house while receiving respective gains in the Senate.

The President took this defeat as a possible sign that he may have pushed to far without providing some adherence for the opposition.  He hoped that perhaps this could then allow for the two parties to come together and form a proper solution to the deficit.

As summer came, everything seemed to take a turn for the worse for the president.

Twice, the president witnessed Speaker of the House John Boehner walk out on discussion for the deficit, according to The New York Times.

No matter what he seemed to propose, the Republicans refused to negotiate on any plan to bring down the deficit.

By the end of last week, the president implied that he was fed up and he was taking matters into his own hands.

Republican lawmakers went off on the president’s deficit-reduction proposal. Some did not feel it necessary to bring about cuts for higher income Americans.

“The administration’s insistence on raising taxes on job creators and its reluctance to take the steps necessary to strengthen our entitlement programs are the reasons the president and I were not able to reach an agreement previously,” Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement on Monday.

Still, the president did not seem fit to back down, “I will not support – I will not support – any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans,” Obama said Monday, in regards to the critics he received from his Republican counterparts for the tax increase on higher income Americans.

Obama’s attempt to control the ballooning deficit comes as he faces the lowest approval rating of his term.

The success of his deficit-reduction plan and his securing of a second term very well may be tied together.

Seven of them greeted each other Monday at the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, Calif., getting ready to debate the issues of the upcoming election.

While the final goal of these seven may be to represent their party in the 2012 presidential election, which individual it will be has yet to be decided.  For many viewers, eyes were on the two leading contenders in the race, Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, and Governor Rick Perry from Texas.

As the debate progressed, the issue at hand  turned to jobs and employment, both questioned the other’s record. According to The Wall Street Journal, Perry pointed to the fact that Massachusetts ranked the 47th state for employment growth during Romney’s tenure as governor.

John Carroll Professor Larry Schwab also pointed out Perry “has a strong conservative record on policy issues and that Texas gained many new jobs during the past ten years.

The former Massachusetts governor responded by citing his valuable business experience and referred to dealing with a Democratic legislature.

As Perry began to highlight Texas’s job growth, Romney pointed to the fact that Texas lacked an income tax.

Turning to the Texas governor, Romney said believing Perry created jobs in Texas is “like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet,” therefore trying to downplay his success.

While the two governors stole most of the spotlight, other candidates tried to put in their two cents, as well.

The other candidates ranged from Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, referring to his time as ambassador to China, to former pizza magnate Herman Cain making reference to his 999 business plan. At one point, Texas representative Ron Paul even exchanged an attack on his governor for taxes.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (Minn.) attacked Perry for his controversial law requiring young Texas girls to be vaccinated for human pappilomavirus.

After the debate, the candidates parted ways for several days in order to keep their names out in public. Soon enough, a few political endorsements came in for the big two contenders.

Gov. Perry received support from his neighbor to the east, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindall, who, according to The New York Times said, “Rick Perry is the candidate who can lead our party to victory in 2012.”

Schwab believes the other candidate is better suited for victory in 2012, though, claiming “[Romney] has an excellent background in economic policy and that he would be the strongest Republican candidate against President Obama.”

Meanwhile, Romney found an ally in former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who withdrew from the race in mid–August. As for the other candidates, their bids for the nomination have yet to gain the same traction.

By means of runners-up, Bachmann and Huntsman seem to have the best chance.  Unfortunately, they struggle to have the same organization that Romney and Perry currently enjoy.  Nevertheless, at least for Huntsman, a large amount of money could prove beneficial down the road.

As of this week, however, the race seems fit to stand between Romney and Perry.

Numerous competitors for the nomination seemed unable to thwart his lead.  No matter the passion, energy, and sheer discontent others have shown with the policies of President Obama, Mitt Romney came out as number one each time. The fact that he had not been thoroughly decisive on specific issues seemed to be obsolete.

While these factors for Romney may have been true, the negative side of the pendulum has begun to turn for him.  Polls showed a very slow, gradual decline for Romney, but only recently has he fallen to second place.

As with any high-stake competition, there is always the chance for a definitive challenger.

Romney met that challenge in Texas Gov. Rick Perry. To many, Perry has come across as a possible alternate option to Romney. Both candidates have displayed the ability to excel at an executive position and seek to combat most of the Obama Administration’s legislation.

Aside from these qualities, the similarities end. Romney is from a wealthy background and the former Democrat Perry hails from a poverty-stricken family who made his way to the top. In many ways, Perry seems to represent the poor man’s idea of what Romney should be.

Since declaring his candidacy last month, Perry took an instant leap in the polls, and has since managed to surpass Romney.

According to  an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday, Perry currently stands at 38 percent, with Romney in second at 23 percent.

Ron Paul remains in third with nine percent and Michelle Bachman in fourth with eight percent.

While Perry’s 15 percent lead is discouraging for the former Massachusetts governor, they certainly do not signify a doomed end to his presidential bid.

In some ways this may be merely a wake-up call for him to take a more decisive stand on issues.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Romney has begun to “take a more centrist stand,” while still trying to court the Tea Party.

Perry cannot get too comfortable with his immediate surge either.

Although he does have a strong following in the conservative factions of the Republican Party, some experts fear that winning the moderates may prove to be more difficult.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Perry’s staunch conservatism may alienate independents, whose support is proving increasingly vital for victory.

Of course both candidates face the reality that it is still very early in the campaign and that much can happen in the next 14 months.

Mitt Romney can attest to this factor, having seen what happened to his father, George W. Romney’s candidacy in 1968. An early contender for the Republican nomination, the elder Romney seemed to have the lead overall his potential opponents.

However, a bizarre blunder quickly diminished his support, and he withdrew in February of that year, while Richard Nixon took the final prize.  In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan had yet to declare his successful candidacy until November of 1979.

With many months left in the campaign, both candidates must continue to play a game of caution and strategy if they wish to win the nomination.

The realization became prevalent upon President Barack Obama’s confirmation speech Sunday night. Within a matter of minutes, the country roared with celebration.

For over 10 years, bin Laden had been the most wanted man by U.S. intelligence.  Beginning in the 1990s, a series of attacks were carried out against several U.S. targets, often either businesses or military establishments. In 1998, a video message that displayed bin Laden attacking the U.S. was considered to be a declaration of war. Attacks proceeded to be carried out in East Africa and on the U.S. battleship, the U.S.S. Cole. All of these events were prevalent to bin Laden’s cause, but none of these proved to be his finest hour.

On the clear morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon brought bin Laden to the top of America’s priority list for terrorism.

The hunt began not long after the attacks, when President George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror.”

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 led to the removal of the Taliban government, a staunch backer of bin Laden’s al-Qaida network. For a time, the U.S. Army’s efforts were successful in minimizing the terrorist organization in the Afghan-Pakistani region.   Al-Qaida began to experience a resurgence in the mid-2000s, and as a result, permanent success in the region for the U.S. appeared to be difficult.

While the United States was fighting to maintain order in Afghanistan and keep al-Qaida at bay, bin Laden managed to successfully evade several attempts to be captured.  In the early part of the War on Terror, he faced many close calls but managed to escape every time. Gradually, speculation about his possible death became common.

Reports appeared a few times stating his death, only to be proven false each time. Dismayed at the failure to capture the top terrorist, Obama wanted his demise carried out.

This was made clear in his speech following the operation when the president said, “Shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al-Qaida, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle and defeat his network.”

In time, this proved to be beneficial.

The final hunt began after U.S. intelligence received word that the whereabouts were possibly known. According to the president, he first learned of the bin Laden’s whereabouts in the late summer of 2010.

Regarding this newfound information, the president said, “After years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.”

Under the president’s orders, six elite Navy Seals were sent in to the compound believed to be housing Osama bin Laden, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, about 40 miles away from the capital, Islamabad.

The operation proved to be tense for the administration, which followed the operation as it occurred. Things appeared to be hectic at first, when a malfunction of one of the Seals’ helicopters caused it to crash.

Despite this event, the highly equipped Navy Seals managed to go on undetected.  Within the hour, the Seals managed to locate bin Laden, engage in small firefight, and finally fire the shots that eliminated the existence of the most wanted man. Also killed was a woman who was used as a human shield, along with three other men, one of whom was believed to be bin Laden’s son.

Less than a day later, bin Laden’s body was laid to rest at sea. This practice was held within the custom of bin Laden’s Muslim faith, which includes that the body be buried within twenty-four hours. In the U.S., Americans were informed that the president needed to make an urgent statement. The announcement was a definitive sigh of relief for a country that seemed to have had nothing but bad news in recent months.  At 11:30 p.m. Obama announced that an operation had been conducted successfully resulting in the slaying of bin Laden.

The president continued his statement, implying to the American people that the long years of waiting to bring justice to the Sept. 11 attacks had finally ended. The President expressed the sorrows that many families experienced following that day.

Finally, he made a plea for the unity that existed following the attacks to return to the American citizens.

As the president spoke, celebrations sprouted throughout Washington, along with other parts of the country.

Often, the chants in the backgrounds were, “USA, USA.” This was prevalent on the campus of John Carroll University, which is generally reserved in tone on a late Sunday night. Several students gathered and celebrated anyway they could.

Freshman Kevin Mawby said, “This is a great period in American history and we are living it. This is an incredible feat for our military efforts and all of the boys fighting for us so we can celebrate this victory. USA!”

For millions of Americans, the memories of the 1995 government shutdown loomed overhead in their minds.

As the day progressed however, the possibility of a shutdown was finally averted with a buzzer-beater agreement to cut roughly $38 billion from the budget was struck barely an hour before the shutdown was scheduled to begin, keeping the government up and running for the remainder of the fiscal year.

President Obama began to explain his plan for the current budget that is under review over the weekend.

The president implied that he has a strong desire to reduce the deficit in order to repair the U.S. economy.

With many of his proposals, Obama held  true to his own party’s views, such as the desire to erase the tax-cuts for wealthy Americans enacted during President Bush’s administration.

At the same time there were a few proposed cuts which echoed the rhetoric of the congressional Republicans.

For instance, Obama expressed the need for cuts in entitlement programs such as Social Security and government-based health insurance, programs usually favored by the Democratic Party.

While the threat of a shutdown has dwindled, remaining is the possibility of a default regarding the debt ceiling.

There have been several proposals from the White House and other Democrats implying that the debt ceiling must be raised.  Although many congressional Republicans have protested this, the level of dissent most likely will not be particularly strong.

The real question is which party is believed to have benefited more from the entire budget crisis.

On one side, many of the Democrats expressed their content with the way the crisis was handled.

The congressional Democrats expressed their optimism with the possibility of spending cuts in areas they feel must be trimmed.

Some of these details include increasing taxes on Americans making $200 thousand a year or higher, as well as cuts in military spending.

The survival of federal funding for Planned Parenthood was also seen as a victory for the Democrats.

As for the White House, President Obama expressed his satisfaction with the government’s ability to work together even among differing political ideologies.

“Today, Americans of different beliefs came together. We protected the investments we need to win the future,” said the president.

At the same time, many viewed the Republicans as the victors of the budget crisis.  Indeed, the Republican Party successfully managed to receive more demands than may have initially been expected.

The White House’s decision to make cuts in Social Security and health insurance were causes that were championed by the Republican congressional majority.

It should not be forgotten in the hype of the deal, though, how political differences exposed the fragility of the federal government. “It’s showed that neither side is afraid to have a really hardballed negotiation, that closing down the government is an option on other things and that neither side is afraid to take it to the edge of the cliff,” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) told The Washington Post.

With the White House and Congress divided on how much must be cut from the budget, the threat of a government shutdown continues to remain on the horizon.

The biggest controversy has stemmed from the debate regarding how much must be cut from the Federal budget.  While both Democrats and Republicans believe that the cuts are required, they argue over the amount necessary to be trimmed.  Furthermore, there are also questions as to which programs require more cuts.

White House officials and both the Senate and the House have tried to negotiate on the most applicable figures. The administration, along with other sources, has implied that those involved in the process are working with a $33 billion cut in mind.

Many officials, most of which are Republicans, have argued that they have still not settled on an exact budgetary figure.

One of the biggest criticisms stems from the debt that the government has accumulated during the Obama administration.  Administration officials have necessitated a desire to raise the debt ceiling from where it currently is.  The White House fears that if this action is not taken, the nation could face default.  Republican lawmakers do not believe that this threat is valid enough to implement a rise in the debt ceiling, expected to reach around $14.3 trillion by April 15.

While there are issues that involve the current administration, the primary battle lies within Congress.  The divide exists among the Democratic controlled Senate and Republican controlled House.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, has been working the proper cuts.

His most recent proposal includes a plan to cut the budget by $4 trillion within the next 10 years. The results of this proposal would most likely mean the disintegration of Medicare, something unlikely to be supported by Democrats. About 60 percent of the budget makes up social programs, which includes Medicare.

Many Republican lawmakers have attacked the Democrats as being the reason for the possibility of a government shutdown.  Speaker of the House John Boehner referred to a budget cut of around $63 trillion, which the Senate never passed. He implied that they would be at fault if the government does shutdown.

Boehner may be in an even deeper entanglement than believed.  According to Professor Larry Schwab, of John Carroll’s political science department, he faces a partisan fight. Schwab explained, “One of the key aspects of this budget battle is the dilemma of Speaker John Boehner. On the one hand, he faces pressure from some Republicans to accept the Democrats’ latest proposal and thus avoid a government shutdown. On the other hand, he is being pressured by other Republicans to reject all Democratic proposals that fall short of a complete Republican victory in the debate.”

This makes it all the more difficult for the ideal proposals to be initiated.

On Tuesday, President Obama urged lawmakers to reach an agreement. He also said a government shutdown is the “last thing we need” when the economy is just starting to turn itself around, a departure from his previously reserved stance on the negotiations.

He went on to say Democrats “have more than met the Republicans halfway at this point.”

Political turmoil and disputes between radicals and non-radicals alike are splintering the Arab nation.

Much of the initial and primary focus has been centered on President Abdullah Saleh.

In office since 1978, President Saleh has found himself a victim of the anti-dictator movement.  Sensing the massive wave of unpopularity, Saleh put up a brief resistance before agreeing to step down at the end of his term.

President Saleh’s issues are minimal in the tumultuous politics of Yemen.  While the desire of the rebellious freedom is backed by the United States in countries such as Egypt and Libya, Yemen requires a different approach.

The society of Yemen represents one that is dominated primarily by culturally outdated customs, as understood by much of the Western world.

The country’s citizens remain relatively tribal and uneducated, frequently engaging in civil warfare that began roughly 50 years ago.  These Civil Wars have stemmed primarily from opposing political factions in Northern and Southern Yemen.

President Obama may want to redirect his Middle Eastern focus.  With the tribal violence occurring as a result of political unrest, Yemen appears to be strikingly similar to Afghanistan.

Following Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan was plunged into a violent civil war.

Eventually, the Taliban government prevailed and took over, providing a safe haven for al-Qaida.  Seeking to repeat history, Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization has embedded its way in the Yemeni turmoil.

This should not necessarily come as old news for the United States.

Al Qaida has had a foot in Yemen for some time.

Before al-Qaida carried out the Sept. 11 attacks, its members successfully bombed the U.S.S. Cole, stationed in Yemen.

The United States’ timing may be a decade late, but it is better to get involved in the political unrest now, rather than continuing to stall.

Saleh has worked closely with the U.S. in the past against the Yemeni al-Qaida branch.

While President Obama seeks to assist those fighting oppressive governments, he may also want to extinguish the hive of radical instigators.

Recently, Yemeni forces have abandoned their posts across the country as demonstrators have made their feelings known to the Saleh. In the southern city of Jaar, a well-known al-Qaida haven, protesters have taken over all government buildings.

Armed protesters also took over a factory that produces arms, explosives and ammunitions.

On Monday, an explosion rocked the factory killing at least 110 of the looters.

Last weekend, in a speech to a crowd of thousands of supporters, Saleh told them that he was willing to concede power, but only if it were placed into “safe hands.”

The next day, he reneged on his assertion, clouding any time frame for his departure.

“A presidential source denied on Saturday what have been reported by some media outlets that President Ali Abdullah Saleh will step down,” a statement released from a Yemen news agency said.

Approximately a month ago, the opposition coalition, Joint Meetings Party, came to an agreement with Saleh regarding a peaceful transition of power, which he in turn agreed to.

Now the coalition has scrapped that deal, calling for his imminent departure from the presidency. Saleh has claimed he is the only alternative to al-Qaida-led chaos.