On Jan. 24 President Obama’s annual State of the Union address outlined what Obama considers to be the most pressing issues for his coming year in office.

U.S. President Barack Obama gives the State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress, Tuesday, January 24, 2012, in Washington, D.C. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT)

For those of you who missed out on the speech, that lasted over one hour, the following will serve as your guide to the 2012 State of the Union.

Obama discussed how to creature more jobs and rolled out a specific “economic blueprint” as his proposed plan of action for 2012.  In addition to his economic plan, the President also went over his plan for defense spending, his support of free trade and the opposition he will face from the Republican-led house of representatives.

Obama’s blueprint supported points included the following tax policies (about.com):

1. Extending the 2010 tax cuts to everyone making less than $250,000/yr
2. Eliminate tax breaks for companies that moves jobs overseas
3. Tax breaks for companies that build in distressed areas

In addition, Obama outlined the following actions in dealing with the energy crisis (about.com):

1. Create 60,000 jobs a year by developing natural gas
2. Give tax credits for alternative energy development
3. Allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million houses

The blueprint outlined steps in the areas of education, housing and regulations. Obama would like to (about.com):

1. Train two million of the structurally unemployed
2. Ban insider trading among Congressmen
3. Address the housing crisis by giving mortgage holders $3,000 a year with refinancing program

As far as defense, Obama mentioned his past military accomplishments fairly early on: killing Osama bin Laden and ending the Iraq war. He went on to propose $500 billion in cuts, while increasing the ability to defend against cyber threats.

President Obama also mentioned that he increased exports by his 2011 signing of free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama. He outlined how his policies are against those of trickle-down economics and he strives to close the economic gap between the rich and the poor – demonstrated by the nation’s Occupy movements.

The President acknowledged that the House of Representative, currently dominated by republican congressmen, will most likely present strong opposition to the majority of his polocies Since it is an election year, most republicans would like to see Obama defeated and their own candidate slip into the White House.

While many of his points were simply reiterations of plans he has supported in the past and some viewed it as ‘more of the same,’ there is no denying that the 2012 state of the union speech was one of the best speeches given by our nations leaders.

Following only, in my opinion, Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis Speech and Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech, the 2012 State of the Union address was an impeccable example of public speaking and perfectly explained how big a role eloquence plays in clinching public support. The full address is available below:

Regardless of your opinion on the man, remember the speech you just heard. There is a very good chance people will still be talking about it in 50 years.

As President Barack Obama gears up for his election-year State of the Union Address, many are wondering if he will use the annual speech as a Launchpad for his 2012 presidential campaign.

Last year’s State of the Union saw 43 million viewers, which makes it an ideal platform to begin a national

President Barack Obama delivers remarks in front of Cinderella Castle in the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World, in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Thursday, January 19, 2012. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/MCT)

campaign. After the Tuesday nigh speech, Obama is scheduled to visit five swing states (Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan and Iowa) where he will have the opportunity to restate the themes of his address

In a video e-mailed to millions of supporters on Jan. 21, Obama promised to deliver a “blueprint for an American economy that’s built to last,” with the government assisting the private sector and individuals to ensure “an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules.”

Obama is also expected to at least brush upon the death of Osama bin Laden and the recent growth of the job market during the speech that is expected to last at least an hour.

Since his last State of the Union address, Obama’s job approval rating has fluctuated greatly due to the turmoil of the year’s news. According to the National Journal, while most Presidents have had approval ratings in the 50 percent range during their third year, Obama’s have remained in the 40s.

The State of the Union address is scheduled to take place on Tuesday at 9 p.m. EST.

Whether you are a devout Catholic or an adamant Atheist, it is an undeniable historical fact that the Christian church played a large role in the shaping of the United States and its principles. To this day, centuries later, Christianity’s presence and influence in America remains.

The Christian church reaches every corner of America.  Every Sunday, millions of Americans funnel into one of over 400,000 Christian churches across the United States. When coupled with institutions of countless other faiths that have flourished here,
churches hold great influence on the masses of followers and represent significant monetary value.

Imagine the how much the federal government would profit from levying taxes on the multitudes of churches and other religious
organizations. That hefty of a sum would definitely stretch one’s imagination.

With the state of the economy in such a fragile state, the United States government needs all the tax revenue it can get – and taxing churches would rake in billions. After all, as certain left-wing Americans claim, most other businesses and organizations face federal taxes.

As the United States sinks further into trillion-dollar debt, many are calling for President Barack Obama and the federal government to revoke churches’ exemption status and apply standard federal taxes, primarily property tax, to religious organizations. While this concern for the nation’s well-being is admirable, it is essential that churches remain tax-exempt.

Churches have been unofficially exempt from paying property tax since the nation’s inception, with an official exemption being declared in 1894. Reversing this exemption would be corruptive, as it would interfere with the policy of separation of church and state.

Opponents bemoan religion’s influence in government, arguing for religious references in court, in pledges and on coins to be banned. They now decry the exempt status of churches from taxes. While it is true, that religion should not have any influence in government, it also goes the other way around. The government should have no influence in religion.

Religious organizations should always remain outside of the government’s sphere of influence. As the Founding fathers declared,
government-controlled religion is tantamount to tyranny.

While a tax wouldn’t be direct control, it initiates too close of a relationship between church and state and could lead to the
government passing further regulations on churches in the future.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that churches’ tax-exempt status is not just special treatment from the government. All
charitable organizations in the United States are granted this status, and churches clearly deserve categorization as a charitable organization.

Even the non-religious will concede that most churches, specific religion notwithstanding, provide services that enrich their
community. Whether it is day-care, soup kitchens, food pantries, aide of the homeless or even international humanitarian missions, churches actively promote benevolence. Just like a tax on charities, a tax on churches would only hinder vital altruistic
operations.

Millions of underprivileged Americans rely on churches for basic necessities. For the government to drain money from churches would be to slash at the legs of those it is supposed to defend.

Supporters of a tax on churches often scoff at the portrayal of churches as charitable, thinking of enormous TV churches that more resemble corporations, with millionaire pastors.

While this type of church does exist, they are a false representation of the other 99.9 percent of American religious organizations. The typical American church is not a for-profit organizations, and should not be taxed like one.

A 2010 report by Hartford Institute for Religion Research revealed that at least 20 percent of American churches are under severe
financial strain – nowhere near the greedy corporation guise that many are disillusioned by.

The added burden of federal taxes on these small churches would in many cases prove to be too much to handle. The government would be directly responsible for the closing of up to thousands of churches.

Thus, levying taxes upon churches would be impeding on religious freedom, and though the government would benefit financially, it would only be a detriment to the nation in the long run. Tax exemption for churches must be maintained.

This article will not make Jon Huntsman win the Republican Nomination. In all honesty, it probably won’t even help. And that’s a shame.

Before I begin, I want to get one thing straight: I have been a supporter of Barack Obama since he first started his presidential campaign. I have been behind Obama since I first saw his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech and heard him remind me that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America.”

What attracted me to Obama was his message of “hope” and “change.” Not only was he eloquent and exciting, but he was telling it like it is. Many people thought he was too inexperienced and that his name was too different and his skin too dark, but he was different and I believed he would do things differently. I was wrong.

Jon Stewart put it best when he said “I have been saddened to see that someone who ran on the idea that you can’t expect to get different results with the same people and the same system has kept in place so much of the same system and same people.”

Before I am a democrat, a republican or a moderate, I am an American. I want this country to work. I hoped Obama would change the system he preached against through his years of campaigning. He’s hasn’t. Therefore, he’s not the best choice to be President of the United States.

Now, that doesn’t mean that Obama is the worst choice either. It doesn’t mean he can’t succeed. I will vote for Barack Obama… unless his opponent is Jon Huntsman. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have done nothing that leads me to believe they would be better presidents than Obama. Huntsman has.

Huntsman stands out for the simple reason that he doesn’t try to stand out. As Anthony Bergen wrote, “Romney flip-flops, Gingrich is kind of a creep, Ron Paul is out-of-touch an unrealistic, Bachmann and Santorum are religious nuts, Herman Cain is a clown, and Rick Perry is a joke.”

Huntsman is reasonable. We need reasonable leaders. This country was formed by reasonable men in an era that was actually called “the Age of Reason.” While the founding fathers may not have gotten everything right, every decision they made was supported by thought and reason. Jon Huntsman is a man of reason.

While voters flitch at the idea of calling anyone a moderate, moderation is exactly what the United States needs. Moderation doesn’t erase core beliefs. I’m not going to change mine and I don’t want my president to change theirs. Huntsman is a worldly and sane leader.

Huntsman is for civil unions for same sex couples, but against same sex marriage. That’s not what my perfect president would believe, but it was Obama’s stance in 2008 and I’m willing to compromise. Huntsman is pro-life and against abortions in the second and third trimesters. I respect his prolife stance (I disagree with it, but I respect it.) As for evolution and climate change, this is what Huntsman tweeted in August: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Will Jon Huntsman win? I hope so. Can he win? Absolutely. He is the most formidable opponent to take on President Obama and he is the most appealing GOP candidate. It will be difficult for him to clinch republican support, but I believe the he would have a shot at the presidency. Huntsman has a platform that manages to appeal to youth, democrats and minorities. All other candidates are running for the GOP nomination. Huntsman is running for the President of the United States.

It is in tremulous times such as these that the nation is truly in need of a strong leader to take command, to assuage the uneasy populace. Without bold and decisive individuals fronting America’s government, the future of the nation is an uncertain one.

America needs Presidents who are painstaking in representing the wishes of the majority. However, it is the responsibility of American voters to select such a worthy candidate, someone we can rely on to ensure the people’s representation in the government.

This responsibility is not spared from teen voters. By the time Election Day rolls around next year, there will be a whole new generation of eligible voters, including many current juniors and seniors here at Coppell High School.

The 2012 Presidential Election will be the first in which Coppell’s current junior and senior classes will be of age to vote. It is imperative that the young voters across the country, the future of this nation, take the time out of their day to submit a vote.

America has always been a progressive nation, a pioneer of democracy and a bastion of political rights. As a whole, the new generation of voters is abounding with revolutionary ideas that will help America continue to evolve in the future.

If teen voters, like upperclassmen at CHS, continue the trend of apathy by not voting, America risks falling behind nations with more eager, forward-thinking young voters.

Over the past several decades, voter turnout at Presidential Elections has been steadily declining. In the 2008 election, only 63% of Americans filled out a ballot. This percentage is one of the lowest among established democracies.

If barely more than half of Americans are voting, does it absolutely reflect what the majority needs? The blunt truth is that no, it does not.

A reversal of this trend could only be made possible by an enthusiastic group of teen voters. The future of America is in the hands of the current youth, and another generation of indifferent drones does not bode well for America.

If only certain groups of Americans are voting, only these certain groups will benefit. It would be highly beneficial if public schools would encourage students to vote and spend class time to educate students on any upcoming election.

November is already upon us, and only one year remains before the 2012 Presidential Election.

The average senior at CHS probably knows very little about the leading Presidential candidates, like Mitt Romney or Herman Cain, and even less about key issues.

Remember, CHS upperclassmen, you do have a voice! Take advantage of the freedoms you are so privileged to have and starting paying attention to the election campaigns. America will be whatever the voters make it, so vote in 2012!

The voting age for Americans is 18, and for most students at Coppell High School, that means for the time being they can’t have much of a say in our government. However, a movement by the Obama Administration ensures that everyone in America can let their voice be heard.

We The People, a subset of whitehouse.gov, is a site where anyone can create and sign petitions by simply creating an account with their name, email address and city. Any petition that gathers at least 25,000 signatures within a month is promised to be reviewed and a response be made by the White House.

For example, a petition for the release of any known information regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life, with less than the required 25,000 signatures, was recently replied to in a statement from the White House. Sorry to any alien-hopefuls, the statement read “The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race.”

This has made having a say in and communicating with our government easier and more inclusive than ever before.

Make an account, sign petitions and get your voice heard!

Graphic by Scott Bennett

Still, as one closely examines the circumstances surrounding the raid, the clear simplicity of the issue — American triumph over an enemy — grows complex and murky and gives pause to any unbridled enthusiasm of a victory.

One of the most contentious issues surrounding the raid is the reason why Osama bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world, was able to evade capture for so long while living in a conspicuously secure and fortified, military compound in a rural region of Pakistan, dominated and controlled by an authoritarian Pakistani police force.

No matter how Obama looks to the American public, he has put himself in a sticky situation with Pakistan, which connects Iran and Afghanistan and has always been a lukewarm ally of the U.S., due mainly to America’s support of India and rigorous pursuit of global terrorism.
It seems very likely that the clandestine Inter Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s shadowy secret police force, had something to do with bin Laden’s continual evasion of the CIA and Special Forces, especially as Pakistan’s main military academy was situated a mere 1000 yards away from the world’s most wanted fugitive; a fugitive that Pakistan had, at least according to its government official line, every reason to catch. Now, bin Laden’s death could very well be a tipping point, replacing a tepid ally we have nursed along for decades into an enemy that could very likely last longer.

Even now, hundreds of Pakistani citizens are already mourning the death of bin Laden, turning him into a martyr for their cause, just as many commentators and pundits feared. Additionally, the president will have to maneuver his way through the essential feeling of empathy a large amount of Pakistanis feel for bin Laden and those like him.

As of now, the Pakistani military, which was not officially informed of the raid, has expressed its displeasure at the raid via a strongly worded announcement in which it warned the Pentagon that any other surreptitious excursion on their territory would be met with disastrous consequences.

As of now, the U.S. gives Pakistan over $10 billion dollars in aid every year and that bond, though occasionally aggravated and strained, seems solid enough to weather this latest round of scratching.

The raid was a great success, by any measure, and if Obama can skillfully wield the embarrassment of having the world’s most infamous terrorist found living in relative luxury a few hundred yards from one of the nation’s premier military establishments, it seems likely, though not certain, that the issue will likely be overshadowed by the collective blush spreading among Pakistan’s elite. If the President handles this well, his second term seems to be within his grasp.

Features Editor

Osama bin Laden is seen in this screen grab from Al-Jazeera's satellite channel a day before the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks. (Balkis Press/Abaca Press/MCT)

Osama bin Laden, perpetrator of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, was announced dead Sunday night. Bin Laden was killed by a CIA-led operation. The United States has announced that they have the body of the terrorist leader and DNA testing confirmed his identity.

Bin Laden was killed in a ground attack by Joint Special Operations Command forces working with the Central Intelligence Agency. Leon Panetta, CIA director, called members of Congress to describe the killing and President Obama has made the announcement on national TV.

“Tonight I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that has killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda,” Obama said.

Bin Laden was on the FBI’s most wanted fugitives list even before the 9/11 attacks. His name has been one of immense interest since 1993, when he engaged in a firefight with U.S. soldiers outside of Somalia. His other offenses include the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed 224 in August 1998 and an attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors in October 2000. In 1997, Bin Laden declared a “holy war” on the United States.

Bin Laden has been avoiding U.S. capture for years, since hours after the 9/11 attacks when proof surfaced that he headed the operation. It was only six days after the attacks that President Bush announced he was the number one suspect. Two months following the attacks, bin Laden released a video claiming that the result of the incident had reached beyond his “optimistic” expectations.

For more information:

Inform your peers:)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2048622,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41526422/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

In another pro-business move, President Obama has appointed Jeffrey Immelt, a former GE Executive, as his chief Outside Economic Advisor. Intended eradicate the anti-business reputation he has gained throughout the years. In recent years, the President has become somewhat of a boogeyman for business groups, and been tagged as someone who “hates” business, due to the tone and stance he displayed towards some of America’s most esteemed companies.

Among his other moves intended to allay the reputation he has made include scheduling a major address to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and appointing a former JP Morgan Chase Executive, William Daley, as chief of staff. In recent years, the president has increased regulations for major industries, scared and worried industry in general by taking over the Big Three car companies, and blasting prominent investment banks, albeit to score populist points.

Still, this marks the latest move in a White House offensive, and it will be interesting to see what the administration can come up with next, especially as the campaign cycle looms for 2012.

For more information on this appointment, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/economy/22obama.html?hp