The Weekly Bradlo6/14 - 6/20

All The Content From Last Week In One Convenient Location

Thank you for visiting The Bradlo.

What is this website?It is a mixture of news and opinion articles focused on one of my biggest passions – politics. Before I write my opinions and updates, I thought it would be important to provide some background information about myself.  

I am currently studying Political Science at Arizona State University. What led me to study political science? In the fall of 2008 I was in junior high school, all I knew was that America was involved in two foreign wars and was in a whole lot of debt. I also knew that whatever the outcome, the election would mark a turning point in America.

 Growing up in a Republican household, I instantly decided that McCain was the candidate I wanted to win the presidency. Not knowing a thing about politics I decided to debate my friends who favored then Senator Barack Obama. I lost every debate. I had no facts and no information to substantiate my statements. I wouldn’t say I was humiliated because it was never personal. But these “debates” certainly did affect my decision to delve into the world of politics. The next time I wanted to win.

 From 2008 to 2010 I read a lot of news articles about the debt and foreign policy. However, I still didn’t do enough research to win debates. I knew a little more about government and could tell that the midterms were a great deal. I understood why President Obama looked so defeated during his speech after the midterm elections. The American people had elected the other party as the majority in the House of Representatives.

 The real research began between 2010 and 2012. I read more news articles, more history books, and  more books on policies foreign and domestic. I read about a young senator from Illinois who won the Presidency. I looked into the past of the Republican candidates. I read articles from the left and the right.

 In the late 2012, some of my friends told me they were less supportive of President Obama after talking to me. During the spring of 2013, I remember my one friend – former Obama supporter -telling me “I wish Romney won. This wouldn’t have happened. You were right.” What began as an effort to win debates turned into a passion. Now I don't research to win debates, I do it because I enjoy reading about presidents, foreign policy, domestic policy, reports on the economic crisis, and the seeing the impacts of different policies on life today and in the future.

 To this day, I still enjoy sharing political news with my friends and family. Many of my friends have told me they get a lot of their news from what I post on Facebook. That is my goal with this website. I hope you enjoy my writings and find them informative and feel free to share your thoughts!

 -Bradley Cortright

Sixteen People (And Counting) Running for One SeatOn Tuesday, Donald Trump announced he is officially is running for president, bringing the number of candidates to 16 and it’s not even primary season. So far we have seen a wide variety of candidates on both sides of the isle… I mean on the Republican side which can boast 12 candidates running for president.

Cuomo but that probably won’t happen until 2020 at the earliest. And we’ll see if Vice President Joe Biden will decide to try to run again.     The Republican candidates include: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, and Donald Trump. Next week Bobby Jindal is expected to announce he is running for president. The Democratic candidates include: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, and Martin O’Malley. Some New Yorkers have been anticipating an announcement from Governor Andrew

 The Republicans so far have done a good job of fending off a dynastic nominating process. Meanwhile, the Democrats seem ready to nominate Hillary Clinton for president – at least according to Rush Limbaugh. Three other Democrats are running but for the most part have limited national exposure.    The Republicans so far have done a good job of fending off a dynastic nominating process. Meanwhile, the Democrats seem ready to nominate Hillary Clinton for president – at least according to Rush Limbaugh. Three other Democrats are

  Jeb Bush and Mrs. Clinton both are related to former presidents and have experience in political offices. However, the media seems convinced -or seemed- that the Democrats want Mrs. Clinton to be their nominee. The Republicans on the other hand want to ensure they nominate their best candidate. Jeb Bush and Mrs. Clinton both are related to former presidents and have experience in political offices. However, the media seems convinced -or seemed- that the Democrats want Mrs. Clinton to be their nominee. The

 Granted the Republicans did lose two presidential elections and don't want to nominate a weak candidate. This election cycle will be quite interesting for the candidates as the list of candidates grows for one slot.     Granted the Republicans did lose two presidential elections and don't want to nominate a weak candidate. This election cycle will be quite interesting for the candidates as the list of candidates grows for one slot.

 The task of weeding out candidates may be more difficult than it sounds with the amount of candidates who are fairly new to Washington politics. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio all are senators and have some political background, but none are seasoned politicians. I cannot say whether or not these candidates have corruption but they likely have less corruption than Mrs. Clinton. My point is that their lack of scandals and corruption may make it more difficult to narrow down the Republican field.The task of weeding out candidates may be more difficult than it sounds with the amount of candidates who are fairly new to Washington politics. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio all I’m pleased that there are so many presidential candidates. Even though the majority of them are Republican, all offer a wide variety of views and ideas for the country. I hope that instead of viscously attacking each other personally, they’ll focus on the issues and how each would handle that issue. I’m pleased that there are so many presidential candidates. Even though the majority of them are Republican, all offer a wide variety of views and ideas for the country. I hope that instead of viscously attacking each other personally, they’ll focus on the issues and how each would handle that issue.

The Democrats who have announced their intentions to run for president also deserve a round of applause. With the media and many of the Republicans anticipating that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee these three individuals have decided to run for president and make the system more democratic.    

The Democrats who have announced their intentions to run for president also deserve a round of applause. With the media and many

of the Republicans anticipating that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee these three individuals have decided to run for president and make the system more democratic.

How has this made the system more democratic? It provides a wider range of candidates. The more candidates there are the better because it allows the American people to choose candidates with backgrounds and experience that may make one candidate better prepared for office. How has this made the system more democratic? It provides a wider range of candidates. The more candidates there are the better because it allows the American people to choose candidates with backgrounds and experience that may make one candidate better prepared for office.

  Making history is nice. To be in the history books as the generation that elected the first female president or to have three presidents from

the same family would be fun to say. But, we must look at how qualified each individual really is. Making history must not be the number one reason people vote for a certain candidate this election

cycle. Making history is nice. To be in the history books as the generation that elected the first female president or to have three

presidents from the same family would be fun to say. But, we must look at how qualified each individual really is. Making history must not

be the number one reason people vote for a certain candidate this election cycle.

Politicians Will Be Politicians Following the tragic slaughter of nine people at a church in South Carolina former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal appeared on Fox's Your World With Neil Cavuto to discuss the shooting.

When asked about President Obama's response to the shooting, Jindal said he was disappointed that the president decided to take cheap political shots rather than call for a healing process in the nation.

However, when asked by Cavuto if he would do anything to "rein in" the ease of access to guns Jindal continued to respond that the president shouldn't have been making a statement about politics and dodged the question.

It was almost like watching the same part of the interview on replay over and over again. The message was good. I agreed with what he said – the first time. But after the second time it began to make Jindal look like a hypocrite. Instead of answering the question he was taking a political shot at the president – a man I might add who is not running for the presidency again.

We should also give consideration to the fact that this incident probably struck a nerve in the president. He is the first African-American president, and nine African American church goers were murdered while he was in office. I don't think there is an easy answer to ending horrific murders, nor do I think the president should have compared the United States to other countries around the world. However, I can understand the president's desire to end the issue of gun violence in America. I think everyone would like that. I don't know the president or what exactly his thinking was. But I suspect that when he mentioned gun control it wasn't simply for political reasons, rather because he believes that it is something that will make America safer.

At this time I think it would be important to note that it is widely expected that Jindal will be announcing his candidacy for president next week. While trying to not give it away he told Cavuto that "if we

do decide to run" he would talk in depth about his plans to deal with the nation's issues.

Not wanting to say something that would cause backlash I can understand. In 2012, the Republican candidates had numerous issues with what they said about women's rights.  However, what I saw in the interview was just politics. Instead of saying what he believed about the issue hid behind his talking points politicized the shooting while trying to rebuke President Obama for doing the same thing.

Say what you believe. It's worked well for Governor Christie and Governor LePage of Maine. You can't make everyone happy, but you can at least stand up for what you believe in. If you don't stand up for what you believe in now, how can we trust you to stand up for what you believe in if you're the president? That goes for everyone.

That's how a democracy works you tell us what you believe and if we the people agree we vote for you or not. If you have to lie about what you believe because you want to pass a bill ("If you like your doctor…" ring any bells?) or get elected then the that's taking advantage of democracy.

Yes, there are times when what's good for America isn't really what the public wants but those times should be limited to extremes. A democracy cannot function properly if the voters don't know the truth about their representatives or the laws that are passed.

Does The Administration Get It Now? I Don’t Think So

The State Department released its annual report on terrorism. The report concluded that despite the election of a new Iranian president and the possibility of a nuclear deal being approved the nation's foreign policy has not changed. As if we couldn't tell that by reading the news.

The report highlighted Iran's sponsoring of terrorist operations in the Middle East. Iran's support of Syrian President Bashar Assad is seen as one of the main reasons why rebels have not toppled the government since the Syria's civil war started four years ago.

Critics of the Iranian nuclear – and even those who support it – believe that the issue of sponsoring terrorism should be tied to the discussion of Iran's nuclear capabilities.

However, Obama administration officials believe that the nuclear talks and terrorism discussion should be handled separately. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said, "Our very serious and grave concern about Iran's support for terrorism remains unabated" but continued to say that the international community's main focus is ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

The Administration can say all it wants that making sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon is one of its top priorities. But its actions speak differently. At first the Administration said it would take the deal to the U.N., leaving Congress in the dark about what the deal included.

However, an overwhelming majority in the House passed a bill requiring a review of any nuclear deal before it gets approved, and President Obama signed it into law. But honestly even if the House approves the deal that they review, do you think Iran is going to follow that deal?

Answer: No.

Already Iran has defied the UN's rules. The Iranian government refused

to let U.N. nuclear inspectors do their jobs and has secret nuclear facilities. Let's look at other aspects of Iran's government.

Back to the beginning of this article which talks about Iran sponsoring terrorism. Iran has sponsored Hezbollah, just one of the more well known terrorist organizations, and countless others. Not only does Iran sponsor terrorism but it sponsor President Assad who is accused of using chemical weapons on his citizens.

One odd note is that Iran built a mock U.S. aircraft carrier, blew it up, and posted it on the Internet. Probably not so much odd as it is brazen.

And to close let's look at Yemen. Starting in the spring the nation descended into civil war and the primary support for the rebels came from Iran. However, we did see that Iran backed down in the face of American military might.

When Iran was sending a convoy of ships carrying "aid" the U.S. sent a battle group to monitor the convoy. Although there were mixed messages about the mission of the convoy, it seems like Iran got the message because their ships turned around.

Why would the administration that claims to it doesn't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon continue discussions about nuclear capabilities without discussing its terrorist operations? We already know they don't play by the rules so why are we trying to give them something else to abuse?

I guess the administration doesn't get it.