Who Won Tonight's Debate?

The final debate before the nation's first primary in New Hampshire is in the books. Who do you think won tonight's debate? Who lost? Who had the best moment? Vote now and tell us your thoughts in the comments.

Who do you think won tonight's debate?

Chris Christie

Ted Cruz

Donald Trump

John Kasich

Marco Rubio

Jeb Bush

Ben Carson

Do Quizzes

Who Won the Third Republican Debate?

With the third Republican Debate now in the books we have been given a lot to think about. Who do you think won the debate? Vote in the poll and comment with why and who you think might have lost the debate? What did you think of the moderators?

Who Won the Third Republican Debate

Rand Paul

Jeb Bush

Chris Christie

Ted Cruz

Mike Huckabee

John Kasich

Donald Trump

Marco Rubio

Carly Fiorina

Ben Carson

Poll Maker

Who Won the Second Debate? Vote Here!

The debate is over, who do you think won the debate? Vote for who you think won the debate and comment with who you think lost the debate.

Don't forget to like us on facebook and follow us on twitter!

Who won the debate?

Chris Christie

Carly Fiorina

Rand Paul

John Kasich

Marco Rubio

Jeb Bush

Donald Trump

Mike Huckabee

Ben Carson

Ted Cruz

Scott Walker

Poll Maker

Fact Check: Trump on Iran and 'Do These Republican Senators Support the Iran Deal?'

Last Saturday in an interview on the "John Fredericks Show" Trump made a statement about the Iran deal: "If Israel attacks Iran, I think -- of course this wouldn’t happen, it wouldn’t happen with me, with Obama you never know -- but we’re supposed to be on Iran’s side if this happens. OK? And nobody knows this and even talks about that point but, basically, we’re supposed to protect them."

Earlier that day in an interview with CNN he made similar comments on the topic: "You know, there is something in the Iran deal that people I don't think really understand or know about," he said. "And nobody is able it to explain it, that if somebody attacks Iran, we have to come to their defense."

So I wondered, is it true that the U.S. has to support Iran if they enter into armed conflict with Israel? Let's dig into the facts. According to Politifact: 

"At the heart of the claim is Article 10, Annex III, of the accord which states:

"E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices."

That includes the following:

• "Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;

• "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."

This article has been criticized in the Israeli media.

"One of the clauses in the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran last week guarantees that the world powers will assist Iran in thwarting attempts to undermine its nuclear program," Israel Hayom, a newsletter, said July 20.

But experts told PolitiFact Florida in late July that such interpretations are, at best, exaggerated. The aim of the provision, they said, is to protect nuclear materials from theft (say, if terrorists tried to steal Iranian assets) or from sabotage (with the intent of causing a hazardous-materials threat to health)."

It is also important to note that this deal is not being presented as a treaty; it is considered an "executive agreement" and therefore doesn't have much hold on the U.S. When a new president is sworn into office in 2017, he or she will have to decide what to do with the agreement and whether or not they will continue to follow it.

Earlier this year during a committee hearing, Senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio questioned Secretary Ernest Moniz and Secretary John Kerry about this provision:

Rubio: "If Israel decides it does not like this deal and decides it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility. Does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to defend Iran against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world

Moniz: "I believe that applies to physical security and safeguards all of our options and those of our allies would remain in place."

Rubio:If Israel conducts an airstrike against a physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"

Kerry: "No. The purpose of that is to have longer term guarantees as we enter the world in which cyber warfare that when you are going to have nuclear capacities we want to make sure you are properly protected. But I can assure you we are going to coordinate in every possible way with Israel."

Rubio: "If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program, are we obligated to help them defend themselves against the Israeli cyberattack?"

Kerry: "No, I assure you, that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel’s security."

It seems pretty clear that while there are some security features in here, that we will not be required under the deal to protect Iran against Israel. This claim is rated false.

Going along with this I also came across another claim on facebook, that several Republican senators had supported the Iran deal.

The claim is simply that these senators supported the Iran deal. We took a look at each of these senators press releases and statements to the media. 

Senator John McCain is one of the leading opponents of the deal and has even gone so far as to call Secretary Kerry "delusional." 

Senator Lindsey Graham has made opposing the Iran deal a central part of his presidential campaign message.

Senator Hatch stated: “For decades, the Iranian regime has been dangerous in its aims and duplicitous in its quest for nuclear weapons.  Any deal that removes sanctions without robust means of ensuring the regime's disarmament and compliance with its international obligations is worse than no deal at all.  Empowered by the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that we passed into law earlier this year, Congress must fully scrutinize this agreement and must not hesitate to oppose the deal if it endangers the security of the United States or our allies in the region.” He has been a major opponent of the bill.

Senator Alexander opposes the deal stating that it "does not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear program and makes no effort to put a brake on its other conduct as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism." He continued,"The agreement puts some limits on Iran's nuclear program, but it also legitimizes it, thereby encouraging a nuclear arms race in the most unstable area of the world," Alexander said. "The agreement takes the pressure off Iran at a time when pressure is likely to succeed."

Senator Coats' statement on the deal explains:

"Members of Congress now have the opportunity to review the pending deal, and every member must determine what this deal buys us and at what cost. We must ignore the coming public relations campaign that will trumpet this deal as a victory for diplomacy and the false premise that the deal is a choice between peace and war."

President Obama has defended his deal by challenging critics to put forth an alternative. How about exercising American leadership and enacting more vigorous sanctions to persuade the Iranian leaders to reconsider their positions or persuade the Iranian people to reconsider their leaders?

Congress should reject this bad deal."

Senator Corker stated that “Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”

Senator Flake said he opposes the deal because “While Congress has received assurances from the administration that it does not forfeit its ability to impose sanctions on Iran for behavior on the non-nuclear side, these assurances do not square with the text of the [agreement]," 

Senator Perdue plainly stated that the senate should "reject the deal"

To put it simply, this post is flat out false on all counts. There isn't a shred of truth to the statement. If you see a friend post this meme or the above quote please feel free to refer them to this article.

Let's Get to work on Immigration Reform

I am a conservative and I support immigration reform. In fact I also support a form of amnesty for a good number of illegal immigrants that our currently in our country. Our country has been facing a long standing question on immigration reform, which is: What should we do about the 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants who are living in our country? Should we deport them all to their country of origin, grant them amnesty and let them stay with a path to citizenship or just continue to ignore the problem and hope that it just gets taken care of on its own.

Now let me make this clear I do support all current laws on the books and I think that Obama's actions of giving amnesty without legal backing is unconstitutional. It is his duty to execute the law as dictated by congress; he does not have the authority to pick and choose which laws to execute.

Being a firm believer that presidential authority has surpassed constitutional limits through  decades of overreach, I  firmly believe that the president's authority should be scaled back significantly. The easier it is for the president to act without restraints and checks, the easier it will be for an evil man as president to bring upon mankind tyranny and injustice.

As a full supporter of the law, I support congressional authority on this issue, as it is a national issue, which affects the entire country in trade, security, education, and health care.

Considering the events of the last few weeks, securing our border has never been more important. Before addressing the topic of what is being considered I want to first discuss where I have come from so maybe you will see how I have come to my point of view on the issue.

There was a point several years ago where I was all for kicking out every illegal immigrant from our country. They broke our laws, came here illegally and had to be punished for that no matter what. This lasted for a quite a while.

One day I shared these opinions with my mom and she responded by asking me "what about your Aunt?" I have an Aunt who had recently married my Uncle, a paranoid schizophrenic. She came here legally but lost legal status and just stayed here and has since struggled to work toward legal status. I thought about this for a little while.

Before this point I hadn't known anyone who was in the U.S. illegally. I was still stuck in my thoughts and opinions, but it started me thinking. If she were to be deported, what would be the impact on my uncle? He would probably have another episode or possibly something worse.

 While in college I talked to several people including a friend who was working on his path to citizenship. He was born in Canada, but moved to the U.S. around age 3. It took him over 18 years to be able to get citizenship. Even for those who marry citizens the path is not always clear or easy. It can be a long, laborious process that takes many years.

There was a time that we welcomed everyone to come to America. I’m not suggesting that we encourage everyone to come here, but by far we seem to believe that only a few people should come - that they should be similar to who we already are and should speak English perfectly. We used to be a melting pot of countries, ideas and immigrants, but now we are becoming more intolerant and ignorant of other cultures and beliefs.

 In 2007 I was in Las Vegas, and I saw many people whom I was familiar with take to the streets to rally for immigration reform that had been supported by President George W. Bush. This attempt at reform was struck down by congressional Republicans. A few years passed, and our country dipped into what is now being referred to as the Great Recession. I talked with friends of mine from Vegas who mentioned that many illegal immigrants were returning back to their countries due to lack of work. I wondered if this would continue. If so we would not have a problem anymore. The issue with that idea is that many of these people grew up in the U.S, and to them this is their country and many of them don't even speak the home language of their country of birth.

While interning in the Senate I had a long discussion once about my views on immigration with a fellow intern, during which we did some what-ifs. What if someone was brought here as a 2 year old and they are now 23, have never known the country they were born in, and only know this country as their home? How then do you justify punishing a 2 year old for the actions of their parents? I still remained pretty stiff in my response. I looked at what I felt is the burden of illegal immigration. If somehow we got rid of 11 million immigrants then maybe the 14 million people who are out of work would have enough jobs available for them. Maybe our school system would get better, maybe our country wouldn't have as much debt.

 I even thoroughly liked Mitt Romney's idea of self deportation by discouraging illegal immigrants through e-verify and similar methods. The change had started though, as I realized how my ancestors had come to this nation at a time when this land was a shining beacon to all who wanted a new life. We didn't tell others that they couldn't come to our nation because they were poor, or because they couldn't speak the language.

Instead we inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  

Now that I've addressed some whys of immigration reform, let's think about the what. What is being considered? The current senate bill that was passed last year included a long list of ideas including securing the borders, a path to citizenship for illegal's and changing and modernizing the rules for legal immigration to prevent such a backlog and some of the other issues occurring due to the current system.

A simple breakdown of the bill can be found here. I will not go into detail as you can find all of that information for yourself about some of the benefits here, here and here. I would also suggest taking a look at both the Heritage Foundation's opinion and the Cato Institute's opinion on the issues.  I will say a few words however. The bill calls for significant increases to border security through drones and electronic surveillance equipment in addition to the security increase we have seen in the last decade. It would establish a board made up of state leaders to determine when securing the border is complete, which would be made in a final decision by the Director of Homeland Security. Also it calls for an effective plan to enforce employers using documented legal employees which would most likely be through the e-verify system.

This bill may not be perfect, but so far it is the best plan that I have seen. We need our legislators to get to work on this issue now, and stop kicking it down the road for the next Congress to deal with.

Part of the bill also lays out a plan for dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants, giving preferred green cards for those who obtain advanced degrees in areas such as science, math, and engineering. In dealing with the 11 million illegal immigrants the plan calls for increased background checks for immigrants and increased cooperation between government organizations in order to respond to issues that come up. It would create a tracking system to make sure that those who come legally continue to abide here legally.

Those who are currently here illegally could apply for legal status if they pay a fine, pay back taxes, and if they pass a background check. They would then be on probationary legal status. However, for full legal status and a green card they would still have to get to the back of the line and wait for all security measures to be put in place. The earliest that any of them could become citizens is in the late 2020's. They also would not get access to public benefits, such as welfare, until granted full citizenship.

So what has been the response to this plan? Some republicans continue to raise the issue that amnesty supports tearing down our current system of laws and encouraging people to break them in the future, although the party seems split on the issue. Earlier this week there was some suggestion that maybe we should rethink pushing immigration reform right now coming from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), but this was shot down by several republican members of congress including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Also, with this has come the issue of whether to pass a comprehensive bill or to go through the process of passing some of the bills piecemeal. Some members suggested that attaching amnesty would surely doom the bill.  The House is set to consider several portions of the bill in small pieces including security and legal immigration changes.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has lead the front to support the bill from the republican side. He recently went to the senate floor to support reform at this time saying, “Here’s my encouragement to my colleagues who don’t agree with the bill that we’ve crafted – change it. Let’s work on changing it. If you believe that what we have today is broken, if you believe that the status quo on immigration is chaos and a disaster...If you believe our laws are not being enforced and we need to pass laws that force the administration – this one and a future one – to enforce our laws, let’s change it. I’m all ears." Surely none of us is opposed to enforcing our proper laws and having a president that supports and upholds the laws of the land are we? However the current system does not do that: it encourages the president to act on his own and not have to take responsibility for his actions.

He continued by saying, "But let’s not leave it the way it is, because the way it is chaos. It’s bad for our country. What we have today is not good for the United States. And our job as policy-makers is not just to come here and criticize. Our job is to come here and to make a difference. .. And what we have now just doesn’t work, it’s not good for our country. We can’t leave it this way. And we have a chance now to, I think, truly improve it. This is not an effort to force anything down anyone’s throat. This bill that we’ve worked on is a starting point. It’s not a take it or leave it proposition. It never has been....Let’s work together. Let’s come up with a solution that modernizes our legal immigration system so it’s good for our economy, that once and for all forces the administration – this one and future ones – to enforce our immigration laws, and that once and for all deals with the 11 million people that are here illegally in a way that’s fair and compassionate. But also fair to the people that did it right, and also a way that ensures that this never ever happens again.”

So what are my views on this issue? Greatly changed: partly due to an increased compassion for other people who I have met and who I have not; partly due to politics and seeing that real change could be made here and now and that we need more compromise; and partly because I understand that there are millions of people that are affected by living here illegally that could be productive members of our society if we allow them.

This plan is fair and fairly straightforward. It does bring about a consequence for those who have committed the crime of coming here illegally through fines, back taxes, a waiting period, and through back of the line status. It also upholds our laws by helping us to have 11 million immigrants become legal. I wonder sometimes how many crimes are not reported because someone is afraid to call the police out of fear that they or their parents might get deported over it. It would lay out a pretty clear plan that would have to be followed with the opportunities for our border to be secured and for people to be able to come to the U.S. legally in the future.

It also allows for the great American Dream to spread further to these people who have come here for a new life, one which they hoped would be better than the one that they left. There was a time when America was a shining beacon to the world of freedom for the oppressed peoples of the world. We even inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Those who would benefit from this bill are for the most part looking for hope and freedom, much like most of our ancestors when they came here. This plan gives them that hope. This hope and freedom was what we were founded upon. Let us not fail again to be the hope of a brighter day to the world by oppressing those within our country who wish to partake of the American dream.