Happy Fourth of July!  I know that many of you will be participating in TEA Party events, shooting off fireworks, cooking out on the grill, or traveling to see your friends and family on this day of celebration.  Please, however, make sure that you take care.  If you plan on drinking, call for a cab or designate a non-drinker to take you home.  Additionally, be extra alert on the roads for any drunk drivers, especially late at night.  I want you all to return home safely.

An hour ago, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin not only said she would not run for re-election in 2010 but that she is also resigning from the position as Governor. This announcement comes after a failed Vice Presidential run in 2008 (sharing the ticket with Senator John McCain) while enjoying a high popularity rating among national Republicans. By resigning from her position as Governor, this frees Palin to take a more active and prominent part in the lower 48 States to position herself for a 2012 Presidential run against President Barack Obama.

I can understand the reasoning to not seek re-election. Currently, whenever she leaves Alaska to meet with national figures or attend Party events, Alaskan officials criticize her for shirking her duties as Governor (much like the complaints against Virginia Governor Tim Kaine serving as the head of the DNC). By not seeking re-election, she is free to travel not only domestically but internally as well. Additionally, she will be able to join various boards and commissions to increase the strength of her resume in preparation for a Presidential run.

I view the decision to resign her position as very worrisome. She already is a lightning rod for her detractors, especially following some of her unpolished responses in the early days of the 2008 election after she was tapped to be Vice President. The decision to “quit” during her term will be used to as the basis that she is not a serious politician and that voters cannot count on her to fulfill her duties if she were to be elected as President.

Justifying her action, Palin pointed to the “lame duck” mentality that many politicians have in the last year of their term when they know they are not going to be re-elected. She said:

So Alaska may progress, I will not seek re-election as Governor. And so, as I thought about … how much fun Governors have as lame ducks. And maybe travel around the state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions - so many politicians do that. Then I thought, that’s what’s wrong. Many just accept that lame duck status and they hit the road, they draw a paycheck, and they kinda milk it, and I’m not going to put Alaskan’s through that.

I’m determined to take the right path for Alaska. Even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable. With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election, I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of Governor to Lt. Governor Parnell.

John McCain made an unorthodox decision last year to suspend his campaign to return to Washington to work on the TARP legislation. The decision was viewed as a great political calculation, but also a very risky maneuver if he was viewed as not being effective. The same can be said about today’s decisions by Palin.

If the people give her credit for achieving her campaign goals in only two years not wanting to waste state’s funds during the rest of her term, especially if she remains active in advocating for the state over the next two years on the national scene, then her popularity will remain high. However, if she squanders her achievements and comes across as weak on the national scene leading up to the various state elections around the country in 2010, then any credibility she might have as a viable Party Presidential candidate my be viewed as remote as her town of Wasilla.

Related articles:
KTUU TV - “Gov. Sarah Palin to resign her office July 26″
KTVA TV - “Palin will not seek re-election”
Politico - “Sarah Palin will not seek re-election”
Breitbart - “Palin resigning as Alaska governor”

If you didn’t catch the news this weekend, there was a debate regarding the legal status of a President in a foreign country. No, I’m not addressing the Iranian Presidential Elections but rather the arrest and expulsion of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. The action has caused an international uproar, but I think the attention in the issue might be misplaced.

Imagine, if you will, that President George W. Bush thought he was channeling President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that he could not leave the helm of the nation while two wars were underway. Noting that FDR was elected to four terms prior to the passage of the 22nd Amendment with no serious harm to the balance of power on the Federal level, he decides to unilaterally initiate a national referendum to revoke the 22nd Amendment. This alteration would allow him to run for a third term, most likely against Senator Barack Obama.

The Supreme Court informs Bush that his action would be unconstitutional, but he decides to go ahead with the referendum anyway. Fearing that Bush is seeking a power grab, the Congress orders Admiral Mike Mullen (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to detain the President for violating Federal law. Before Admiral Mullen could take action, President Bush fires him. Attorney General Michael Mukasey informs the President that his actions are illegal and that he would be arrested if he prosecute him if he carries through with his plan. Bush calls Mukasey’s bluff, and as a result is arrested with Congress elevating Dick Cheney to the office of the President. What do you think the domestic an international reaction would be? Bush would be condemned for his actions and Congress would be praised for enforcing the rule of law in the United States.

The above chain of events is what occurred between President Zelaya and the Honduran government last week, resulting in his arrest on Sunday. Acting to preserve the democracy, the Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest Zelaya, with the Congress supporting the Courts action. So why is it that the ousted Honduran President is the one receiving support and the actions of the government being described as a coup?

The UN has already accepted a resolution demanding the restoration of power to Zelaya, and the Obama administration has called the Honduran government’s action against Zelaya illegal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has described the events as “fast-moving,” but I wonder if the international knee-jerk is moving even faster. If the Supreme Court, Attorney General, and Congress of Honduras warned the President that his actions were unconstitutional and he would be punished if he sought to break the law, why is the world taking Zelaya’s side? Could it be that the international body has acted before taking a moment to review the facts of the case?

Related articles:
The Age - “Honduran military ousts president ahead of vote”
The Wall Street Journal - “Honduras Defends Its Democracy”
Taiwan News - “Foreign ministry spokesman admits to gaffe on Honduras situtation”
Brisbane Times - “Ousted leader ‘had drug links’: Honduras”
Reuters - “Ousted Zelaya to be arrested if returns to Honduras”
Breitbart - “UN General Assembly condemns coup in Honduras”

In what could only be viewed as an act of desperation by the hard-line segment of the Iranian population, hard-line cleric Ahmad Khatami used today’s prayers as a way to scare those who have participated in the protests following the presidential elections. Lacking any tactful or colorful words, Khatami issued the following threat:

We ask that the judiciary confront the leaders of the protests, leaders of the violations, and those who are supported by the United States and Israel strongly, and without mercy to provide a lesson for all.

…

Based on Islamic law, whoever confronts the Islamic state … should be convicted as mohareb.

Mohareb is a term used to describe anybody who takes up arms to create fear and to deprive the people of freedom and security, or one that is at war with God. Under Iranian law, anyone convicted as mohareb would be executed.

This threat of lethal violence follows increased crackdowns on protestors within the country. Supporters of Presidential candidate Hossein Mousavi, and others, who view the current state of Iranian leadership as dictators, have challenged the results of the presidential elections as well as the authority of the ruling power. Protestors have been beaten, arrested, and sometimes shot as a means to control the growing outcry. Such actions would not be required if the people had faith in their leadership.

While this is the first time the threat of death has been used in such a direct manner, it is not the first time the ruling power has tried to link Mousavi and his supporters to the United States and Israel. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has attempted to tie Mousavi to the West (with the United States having long been labeled the Great Satan) and used that as an excuse to justify harsh actions by the state. The threats seem to have worked, as the size of the protests and confrontations continuing to dwindle. The latest act of defiance was a mass release of green balloons in honor of those killed during the violence over the past few weeks.

President Obama has tried to walk a fine line by praising the participation in the election process and then for those who protested in the streets amid the threat of violence. On the other hand, he has tried not to interject the United States into the debate, even though the U.S. Congress passed a few resolutions on their own. However, how long can the President stand on the sideline while a government scared of losing their power strikes back at their opposition?

The United States must take a stand and call for the global community, especially the countries of the Middle East, to condemn the harsh tactics by the Iranian government. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had issued a joint statement with Prime Minister Gordon Brown expressing concern over the Iranian government’s response, but fell short of any real condemnation. President Jalal Talabani of Iraq has complemented Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his victory, but has yet commented on the crackdown of protestors. The leadership of the United Arab Emirates has also been silent.

With the major players in the region remaining silent on Iranian domestic violence, they are indirectly supporting such aggression. It might be accused that these nations are suddenly “pro-American” if they were to stand up for the rights of people to protest free from fear of harm or death. But being able to voice your opinion free from the fear of being beaten isn’t an “American” concept - it is a human concept. For some of these nations, it might be viewed as hypocritical, since they too attempt to silence dissent, but change has to start somewhere.

It’s time for the region and the world to stand up for the rights of the individual.

Related articles:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy - “Saudi Media Take the Lead Against Iran’s Regime”
UPI - “Brown, Abdullah speak on Iranian protests”
International Relations and Security Network - “Iraqis Say ‘Hands Off’ to Iran”
Al Jazeera - “Call to execute ‘rioters’ in Iran”
Telegraph - “Iran election: protester ‘worthy of execution’ says cleric”
Reuters - “Cleric calls for punishment of Iran ‘rioters’”
International - “Mousavi Vows to Continue Efforts; Ahmad Khatami calls for Death Penalty on Protest Leaders”

It is a sad day. One of the world’s greatest entertainers, if not the greatest, passed away at the young age of 50 years old. Michael Jackson was rushed to the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles today after suffering what is assumed to be a cardiac arrest. With the world looking forward to his comeback tour starting in just a few weeks, a silence has befallen the musical industry.

It is unusual to cover celebrities on the U.S. Common Sense website, but Michael was not your ordinary celebrity. For decades he was involved in charitable work both in the United States and around the world. Starting back in the late 1970s, he provided his talents and money to hospitals, various awareness groups, scholarships, combating world hunger, and more. Most of his charitable giving went to hospitals that specialized in care of children, including burned victims, those with cancer, and those suffering from leukemia, and AIDS. Some might argue that the large amount of money he gave led to his financial troubles that he faced later on in life. However, by that point he greatly impacted the world through his music and charity that he would find people willing to support him in his time of need, even during highly publicized legal cases.

For a complete list of his humanitarian efforts, visit this site.

There are few people that have impacted the world as much as Michael. I would group him with international icons such as Mother Teresa, President Ronald Reagan, Princess Diana, and Pope John Paul II. All of these individuals used their talents or positions of influence to improve the lives of people around the world, from fighting hunger to ending oppression. I doubt that Michael will be remembered more for his charitable work than his art, but it is something that we should all remember.