According to a recent CNN poll, approval ratings for congress have plummeted down to near all-time lows. This study showed that only 10% of people polled said they approve of the job that congress is doing. This number is down 10 points from the beginning of the month. This shows a very noticeable public reaction to the current stalemate over budget negotiations. This approval number is astonishing, and shows a huge disconnect and problem in our current political system. A nation cannot function properly when only 1 in 10 citizens feel that the people they voted into office actually support their interests and are properly working towards them.

In my opinion, our representative democracy has become fundamentally flawed. It’s obvious that elected officials do not put their constituent’s interests as a first priority. In elections we have the decision to either elect a Democrat or a Republican and neither choice seems to have any real obligation towards those that elected them. This strict 2 party system that we have in place leads most voters to feel that they have no real voice in government. I think that a proportional voting system would be able to rectify this situation. It would allow people to elect groups that represent their views more specifically. In addition to that it would break the current stalemate between the 2 parties that we have in place. But unfortunately this simply isn't going to happen and so we’re stuck with an unhappy populace and a congress that can’t function properly.  

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-congress-approval/index.html?hpt=po_c1

Monday, September  30, 2013

 

Government Shutdown Could Cause Trash Collection Delays Inside D.C. 

    

As we know the government will be shutting down tomorrow in the article the last time they threatened to shut down the government was 2011 and it’s not going to be a big deal the police force will be still be on duty, human and health service will still be on duty and public school. The public libraries will be closed  the problem is that the trash company will be on delay until next week. My opinion and I disagree the trash company should be on duty so we won’t have a dirty environment and it’s going to be trash all over the streets and you don't want a stinky nasty environment even if it’s only a week that's like dumping trash in the middle street. 21,000 of those city's 35,000 will be spared from there cuts It’s not like the budget is going to go up and people are going to be in debt they should work because they will still be getting paid even when the government shuts down. Why would anyone want to have a dirty place when it’s dirty that cause more disease and more animals will come around make it more disgusted and dirty person and been dreaming for this day to come. You would love for trash to be stock up and cans pile up. That’s like having a dirty diaper and you don’t change its just going to get worst. I bet the government don’t want us to dump are trash in the ocean for that week or they wouldn’t mind. Like I said they are important and need to work just to keep the city clean that what most state and city want is to keep the area clean and we barely do good job at that half of the time. This was my opinion on the government shutting down on the trash collection delays inside D.C.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/government-shutdown-2013_n_3976360.html?utm_hp_ref=huffpolitics-blog 

Government Shutdown Looms, and Neither Side is Willing to Compromise.

With Government shutdown less than 24 hours away, the House and the Senate continue to battle back and forth over a spending bill, and neither seem willing to compromise. The main source of controversy? President Obama's signature healthcare act. While the Republican-controlled House has stated that it wants to avoid a shutdown, it only intends to do so by presenting a spending bill that will delay Obamacare for another year and grant provisions against contraceptive coverage. Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has made it clear that "anti-Obamacare provisions" will not be accepted in the bill. Senator Ted Cruz seems to believe the House of Representatives is compromising, stating, "For all of us who want to see it repealed, simply delaying it...[is] compromise." Although the House seems to be budging more so than the Senate, it is evident that both the House and the Senate need to relearn the definition of compromise. Either side seems unconcerned with the Shutdown, and accusations of using it as a threat roar from both directions. The voice of reason in all of this is Senator Rand Paul, who proposed a conference committee to determine a short term spending bill that will avoid Government shutdown. Although a conference committee has never been held under these circumstances before, it is a small step towards compromise and reaching middle ground. However, the voice of reason has been shut out amidst all of the controversy, and both sides continue the stalemate over the funding bill.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/29/reid-senate-will-reject-house-bill/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/29/sen-paul-wants-to-reconcile-in-conference-committee/

Federal Government Picks and Chooses Colleges "Worthy" of Funding

           “President Obama has proposed rating colleges on several criteria, including graduates’ earnings. Colleges that do well in those ratings would get more federal financial aid.” The Department of Education is considering collecting this data to help students select a college to attend. However, state officials do not want federal funding attached to students’ job success based on salary.  Some academics are insulted because a liberal arts degree may be underrated based on the graduate’s earnings. Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, states that “it’s devaluing what higher education really means.”  After the disclosure of the National Security Administration’s collection of emails and cell phone information, some congressmen are not ready to start collecting graduates’ earning information.

            The federal government is trying to fabricate a formula grant for state colleges based on the computations of previous graduates’ salary. By devaluing certain colleges, this will reduce government spending. However, specific majors will be negatively impacted. I personally believe the federal government should not influence academic institutions by denying funding. The university administration is responsible for college’s academic programs and the students are responsible for their own success. The federal government is overreaching across state government programs by attaching federal funds to college graduates' salaries.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/education-judging-colleges-by-graduates-paychecks-97234.html

New Jersey judge rules same-sex marriage must be allowed

            Though New Jersey was one of four states to allow "civil unions", a judge in New Jersey ruled on Thursday that civil unions were illegally preventing gay couples from receiving federal benefits. It was also ruled that on October 21st, same-sex marriages would be allowed to officially take place. This ruling comes just months after the Supreme Court ruled to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act that states marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Personally, I don't think that this should even be an issue anymore. Every state should have marriage equality. It is quite obvious that this is blatant discrimination. The 14th amendment, section 1 states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By the government denying a certain group of people the same rights as another group, they are going against the 14^th amendment. I believe there are two main issues. One, many politicians cannot seem to understand what freedom between church and state means. Just to sum it up for them, it means that just because they may believe in the Bible, it does not mean they can bring their beliefs to work with them. Two, they need to understand that this is not about them. Politicians too often forget that they are in place to represent not themselves, but their constituents. As Dr. Hill stated, it is not about whether or not you believe in same-sex marriage, it is about fact; and the fact is same-sex couples are being denied equal treatment. I applaud the judge in New Jersey for making the right decision under the law. It is my hopes that sooner rather than later, the other 36 states who do not allow same-sex marriages will follow in New Jersey’s footsteps so that every citizen may have equal rights regardless of who they love. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/us/new-jersey-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=us_c2

Obama, an Evolving Doctrine on Foreign Policy

This article addresses the U.N speech Obama gave. In the speech president Obama explains his positions in Syria and Iran and the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. Two of his ideas and his "top priorities" were finding a negotiated end to the Iran confrontation and creating a separate state for the Palestinians that Israel can live with, without fear. President Obama is looking for a peaceful resolution and if he can manage these ideas many lives will be saved.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/world/middleeast/obamas-evolving-doctrine.html?ref=politics&_r=0

America's Role in the World

President Obama's recent address to the United Nations General Assembly practically centered on foreign policy.  Though Mr. Obama wasn't able to give much detail regarding America's role in the world, he assured that the concern isn't America forcing itself into other countries, but instead the lack of effort from other nations.  He then goes on to clarify his stance by stating, "all elements of our power, including military force" will only be used in order to protect Americans.  While many grey spaces remain in America's general role of the world, efforts towards cooperation with Iran have become clear.  Since the recent election of Hassan Rouhani, negotiation regarding nuclear activity have opened up, however, Mr. Obama warns Americans that peace efforts will take time and patience.

Many Americans feel cut off from foreign policy as it's power is solely in the hands of the federal government, and loss of control is only worsened by the unpredictability of other nations. Even though Obama gave the people as much information as he possibly could, there surely remains an uneasy feeling due to the amount of questions unanswered.  The only way Americans will receive solid answers regarding it's role is through time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/president-obama-at-the-united-nations.html?hp

President Cruz? Too soon.

Ted Cruz certainly has become the hottest politician around the past 24 hours.  Due to his 

bold debate to defund Obamacare, Cruz has been trashed by the GOP, with words such as 

they "f****** hate" him, and see him as a "wacko bird".  There is now talk of Cruz being a 

Presidential candidate in the 2016 election.  Too soon? I think yes! Although Cruz has proven 

himself to be a strong minded and willed person, he has only held his current position for a 

mere 9 months, and has just recently, less than 24 hours ago, caught the eye of national 

news broadcasters and the public.  As mentioned in the article, Cruz has brought crowds to 

their feel with his responses to past speeches, such as Pres. Obama's "You didn't build that" 

rant. Cruz is being displayed as "the man we've been waiting for" coming from a Republican 

party POV, but the likelihood of seeing Cruz on the 2016 Presidential ballot, although being 

hyped now, I see as slim to none.  It's just too soon to be putting a role like this on him!  Yes, 

Cruz has proved himself to be a gifted politician, yes, he has proven to be influential and a well 

spoken man, and with due time and experience could prove himself to be a great leader for 

the U.S. but he must first "pay his dues" and gain more experience as a politician

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/ted-cruz-is-on-a-path-to-the-white-house-97289.html

California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

California is unique in that it has the most illegal immigrants in the country and has 3.5 million legal permanent residents. Thus a significant amount of California’s population does not participate in politics and to change this, the state legislature is allowing permanent legal residents to monitor polls during elections and assist voters and undocumented “immigrants who were brought into the country by their parents will be able to practice law, something no other states allow.” It is controversial because those who support the new laws say it is a way in which noncitizens can contribute and integrate while those that oppose argue there would be no incentive or reasons why immigrants should become citizens. Federalism is allowing California to meet with the local needs and is “experimenting” and if it has a positive effect a similar law can be proposed nationally. It is a good way to integrate both undocumented and legal immigrants. It is important to mention that legal residents are only being allowed to assist they are not voting thus they are not enjoying the same privileges citizens are entitled to.  This law would have a positive effect because the more immigrants participate in politics the more informed they are going to be thus they will be motivated to become citizens so there voices too, will be herd. With regards to the jury duty bill I agree with Bob Wieckowski in that ‘“You don’t release your prejudices or histories just because you take an oath of citizenship, and you don’t lose your ability to listen to testimony impartially just because you haven’t taken that oath either.”’ Plus according to the constitution everyone has the right to a fear trial and this cannot happen if the jury does not represent population. Not to mention that when the jury represents the population of the country or state its citizens tend to trust more the government. This is a great opportunity for immigrants in California to participate more in politics and I hope they do because only then will this law could spread to other states and then why not become a national law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/california-leads-in-expanding-noncitizens-rights.html?smid=go-share&_r=0

California lawmakers move to shield illegal immigrants from deportation

Immigration advocates are trying to get a proposed bill titled the "Trust Act" signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown after it passed the state Senate by a vote of 24 to 10.  The Trust Act would make it more difficult for California police officers to assist federal officials in the deportation of illegal immigrants because it would "prohibit local jailers from holding most arrestees for an additional 48 hours before federal authorities arrive".  The cases where they could be detained the additional 48 hours while federal officials arrive are crimes considered serious like child abuse, burglary, and murder.  Under this bill, crimes like selling illegal drugs in small quantities would be considered minor because it would be a misdemeanor and those same drug dealers can go out and continue to sell because they can't be held long enough for anything to be done.

This proposed bill is causing much debate because it limits the abilities of police officers to do their job and because The California State Sheriffs' Association believes that local officials should leave immigration to federal officials which involves holding those arrested until federal officials arrive.  Debate is also occurring because the bill is seen as unconstitutional.  The debate over it being unconstitutional is occurring due to the fact that the proposed bill would allow the state to restrict the ability of the federal government to enforce immigration law stated in "federal code 8 1373(a)".

In my honest opinion this bill shouldn't even be up for discussion because the fact that they are here illegally should be the only argument officers need to be able to hold those arrested 48 hours while federal officials arrive.  Section 274 of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act makes it a federal felony to be in this country illegally and last time I checked a felony is a serious crime.  Then there is the Supreme Court ruling in the case of The United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in which they ruled that "the people" protected by the Amendments to the Constitution "refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community" meaning that even if the Trust Act passes bail could be set so high for illegal immigrants that there is no way they can pay it because they aren't protected by the eighth amendment which protects against excessive fines and excessive bail, making the bill useless.  In conclusion this proposed bill would restrict the ability of police officers to do their job, is dangerous because it allows for the release of dangerous criminals captured on a lesser charge, and is unconstitutional yet people still think Governor Jerry Brown should sign it into law.

Ted Cruz is a newly elected Republican Senator from Texas. In an article on CNN by Leigh Ann Caldwell, she describes the different actions taken by Cruz and the viewpoints of some people within the Republican party. After reading this story over, it seems to me that, like many Republicans within the Senate feel, that Cruz is advocating for something that in the end is a lost cause: the defunding of Obamacare. With a Democratic majority rule in the Senate, it would not be feasible to fight a losing battle at the expense of the entire government shutting down.Caldwell mentions that in a public opinion poll by CNN, many more Americans that oppose Obamacare would rather it pass and then appeal it or fix it up than have the entire government shut down over it. Furthermore, not only is there the possibility that the federal government gets shut down, but that the Republican party basically takes many steps back. It is mentioned in the article that the way to change the Obamacare bill would be to get more Republicans voted into office and that governmental shut down would hamper that happening. I would venture as far as to say that besides in states that have been predominantly red for years, Republican candidates in many elections would not get elected much higher than the local or possibly county level because the public as a whole would blame the entire Republican party for any consequences that would come if the government is shut down. That could be a huge backlash and depending on severity of the shutdown, it could lead to a Democratic "takeover" in Congress and even the Presidency for multiple terms down the road.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/politics/ted-cruz-government-shutdown/index.html?hpt=po_c1

CT. Supreme Court to decide if horses are vicious

Today in Hartford, Connecticut the State Supreme Court heard arguments on whether all horses in Connecticut should be classified as a “naturally vicious species”. This all started back with a court case in 2006 when a father held his son up to a horse so the son could pet it, failing to read the sign that said “Don’t feed or pet the horses”. The horse, Scuppy, stuck out his neck and bit the boy’s right cheek, and is said to have removed a large chunk of it. Timothy Astriab, owner of the horse farm, had posted warning signs before the boy was bit. Astriab won the initial case at a lower court back in 2010 when the Judge ruled that the child’s father failed to prove the owner knew of any previous incidents of aggression by any of the horses at Glendale Farm. The precedent-settling classification would make horse ownership uninsurable and threaten Connecticut’s massive horse industry if the state Supreme Court rules that horses are a “naturally vicious species”. Connecticut would also be the first state to state to consider horses inherently dangerous.

Horses are prey animals and when faced with danger their instinct is to run, not act aggressively. That being said, not every horse is as passive as most, but calling them vicious? That just seems ridiculous. The fact is horses can bite, just like every other animal. I’m a horse person and I can’t count the number of times I’ve been bite.  It happens, but not a single one of those bites was out of aggression. It also amazes me that the parents do not take responsibility considering the father is the one who held the son up to the horse and neglected the sign in the first place. I’m baffled on why this case made it all the way up to the State Supreme Court. Can the justices on the State Supreme Court really expect to make the state classify horses as vicious creatures because of a family’s negligence? 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/conn-court-weighs-horses-innately-vicious-20347259

Amidst budget crisis, more criticism than compromise coming from both sides

In the midst of a potential government budget shut down both parties seem to be more interested in bickering back and forth than actually working to reach a compromise. In the midst of a stubborn bipartisan stalemate, the only recent developments to come out of the issue seem to be petty insults finger pointing. I understand that in this tightly contested bipartisan political situation it would be crazy to expect everyone to see eye to eye. But at the same time when a debt default is rapidly approaching I would hope that some differences could be set aside for the good of the country. But sadly, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Recent reports on the issue offer no evidence that progress is being made. Instead, all of the new information on the topic seems to be top ranking officials making comments that would be more at home at a schoolyard argument. House of Representatives speaker John Boehner expressed his frustration at Obamas lack of willingness to work with congress on the budget issue. In turn, Obama agreed with a democratic senator that the republicans attempt to defund Obamas health care plan was the “dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of.”  An anonymous official from the Obama administration called Boehner and his affiliates “crazies.” Clearly this isn’t the most productive political environment to work with.

Obviously the separation of politicians is inevitable. I’m not suggesting that we would be better off without these parties or that the view of Madison and other Framers on the dangers of factions was correct. But at the same time this strict division of our political atmosphere into two distinct poles creates some obvious difficulties. This current financial situation is a perfect example of that. Because two parties currently disagree on the debt ceiling and healthcare, the entire federal budget may be put into a whirlwind. And with such an even distribution of power between both sides, without a compromise no progress can be made. I can only hope that both parties will reach a compromise and not risk the safety of our economy over a stubborn feud.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-usa-fiscal-obama-boehner-idUSBRE98J01320130920

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/us-usa-fiscal-obama-idUSBRE98J0C520130920

  

Student Denied Constitutional Rights at College

A student at Modesto Junior College was denied his First Amendment Rights earlier this week when he was confronted and brought to a College official for handing out copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day. The illegality of his actions were that he was exercising his First Amendment right, while not standing within the “free speech zone,”  which is a small circle of concrete that fits only two people at once. It is because of situations like this that the founders, the people who drafted the Constitution, created Checks and Balances. This system has created a successful Criminal Justice System that has lasted two centuries. Checks and Balances deters situations like this, because they stop people in positions of power from having too much power. The system was created so that in the event of a injustice, it will be corrected. If the founders had not created Checks and Balances there would be too much power in one place. With the separation of powers rights have less of a chance of being violated. The Judicial System stops the Executive Branch from putting too many people in jail and it creates a chance for people to defend themselves. The Executive branch helps the Judicial System process criminals. All in all, rights are saved through the creation of checks and balances.

So basically, Checks and Balances 'cause of Rights.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/24/student-denied-constitutional-rights-speaks-out-against-college/

Food stamp cuts a cruel proposal

This article is written by Donna Brazile about the House of Representatives recent vote to cut $40 billion to the food stamp program in the next 10 years. Basically, Donna Brazile is saying that the House of Representatives took a shot at the 48 millions Americans on food stamps, and how cruel this decision was to our nation. If you look at least half of Americans live in poverty, and the families net worth's are dropping dramatically.  I agree with this article because I feel like the House of Representatives were just making a stubborn decision. If you think about it isn't a real reason to cancel it looking at the facts that food stamps errors are at 3 percent mostly from the government, the average food stamp household has a monthly income of 744 dollars, and net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction. So why would we take money from the people who actually need it? The middle class is disappearing even more. By the federal reserves to be consider a poor  family you have to make less than a $23,550 a year, a person to be consider poor must make less than $11,490.  Are you kidding me that is ridiculous a single parent household can hardly survive on 42,000 a year. People are already working 2 or 3 jobs to barely make , so this basically kicking Americans down while they are already on the ground  gasping for air. In the article also goes into how the same representatives went on a trip to Ireland were giving a spending salary of 166 dollars a day, the average American family on food stamps spends 4 dollars a day. Was this really a wise decision by our House of Representatives? Is this a harsh mistake? We will see over time.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/opinion/brazile-food-stamps/index.html?hpt=po_r1

Tamil Party Fights for Federalism

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/04/sri-lanka-main-ethnic-tamil-party-vows-to-work-for-federalism-impartial-war/


Tamil Party Fights for Federalism.


       Far away there is a place that is called Sri Lanka that is fighting for the rights of Federalism. Federalism is a type of government that divides the power between different branches of an institution. In America, Federalism is a central part of our role in our country. Federalism gives us the opportunity to have a vital say in our policies and officials. We the people are in control of the government , not a centralized government around a single body with all power. The Tamil Party in Sri Lanka, is in favor of this successful and vital type of government. " TNA Firmly believes that sovereignty lies with the people and not with the state." They believe that this will solve many of the various problems of the country, for example many war crimes which have ridden the country in the past years. The Tamil Party also believes that giving people the opportunity to voice their opinions through Federalism will finally let the people get involved in a non violent way. I believe that Federalism would be beneficial to their society, because it is so different than the centralized government they have now. I look forward to the changes that Sri Lanka will endure and hope that Federalism works in favor for them like it has here in America.

Modern Day Slavery

       According to "thinkprogress.com", African-Americans are 30% more likely to be imprisoned than whites for the same crime. 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in America, we have more blacks incarcerated in prison than there were slaves in 1850 America. I am not saying that African Americans who commit crimes should be exonerated. However, I am saying that the war on drugs in America has unfairly targeted poor black communities for many years. The situation reminds me of the Jim Crow laws of the early 1900's in various ways. First, African-Americans were being unfairly targeted for being a race that was stereotypically "abnormal". The war on drugs has unfairly targeted African Americans, because stereotypically African-Americans are drug dealers and users. However, statistics tell us that white teenagers use cocaine and heroin at seven times the rate of black teenagers, and use crack at eight times the rate. I'm not trying to create a battleground between whites and blacks. I'm simply stating that the Drug enforcement agency should not target specific races or communities. "All men are created equal" has been a part of the American creed since the founding of this country. The progress of equality in America has transcended far beyond where it began and that makes me proud to be an American. No nation will ever be perfect, and 14th, 15th, and 16th amendment proves that America made strides towards true equality. If America continues to put the people first and continue to modernize ideals, this country will forever remain the land of opportunity and prosperity.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/23/criminal-injustice-the-percentage-of-african-americans-in-prison/

Marco Rubio: Justified blocking or racist homophobe?

Florida senator, Marco Rubio, recently decided to withdraw support for a candidate nominated to be a Miami judge on the federal bench. Judge William Thomas, an African-American man who is also openly gay, has been ruled out of the nomination because Rubio has ceased to support his candidacy. This comes 10 months after being nominated by President Obama as well as being backed by Marco Rubio himself.
Rubio justifies his blocking by recognizing the fact that Judge Thomas made two controversial decisions in criminal cases. One being a somewhat light sentence for a man charged with a hit and run of a bicyclist. The perpetrator received 22.6 months of jail time despite the fact that he had been on drugs as well as drunk when it happened. The catch: he turned himself in the day after the incident, therefore any charge of drunk driving was ruled out. The second incident regarded Judge Thomas's decision to ignore a confession by five defendants that were charged with raping and shooting a woman to death. Reason being, the defendants were not properly told their Miranda rights or did not understand him. However, they were all ultimately convicted and sentenced.
It really makes me wonder why Rubio, after supporting him for 10 months, would randomly block Judge Thomas's nomination for federal judge.The article in which this information comes from does not disclose when Judge Thomas became openly gay, for that would give us an answer of whether or not Rubio made his decision simply because of his sexual orientation. The decisions the judge made, however, took place early this year so Rubio should've been well aware of them. Is Marco Rubio justified in this decision or is he basing his actions off of the fact that he is openly gay and/or black?
This issue can be related to our discussion on federalism because it is a prime example of the powers in which the state hold over local government (in this case, Florida senator over Miami judge). I am not in support for Rubio's ruling, for he has been a credible candidate for 10 months. The judge had the right to rule in any way he or she seems suitable (and they were indeed valid rulings), and that is all Judge Thomas did. It is unfortunate that Rubio made this decision; I hope the petition to get his nomination moving forward again passes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/rubio-withdraws-support-for-gay-black-judges-nomination-to-the-federal-bench.html?ref=politics

International Interference, or Lack Thereof

This article is written by Putin (well, a translation obviously from Russian) about international law and the United States' involvement in international relations lately, especially where it concerns Syria. Basically, Putin is advocated against military actions by the United States in Syria. Such actions, Putin says, would be against the interests of numerous other nations in the United Nations and would not further the view that America appears to have of itself as a model for democracy, but rather a country that relies on brute force to bend nations to its will. Disobeying laws would only bring about the same fate that the League of Nations suffered before WW2. Furthermore, numerous Americans have spoken out against action being taken in Syria, especially after the mess that America engaged in in Iraq. Frankly, the Middle East can;t suffer any more tumult after what with the chaos of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is alarming that force has became the main point of intervention for America. Civilian casualties are almost a definite occurence and if we allow this to happen then what are we but murderers? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

Senator Cruz loosing the GOP support?

Although the vote is scheduled for Wednesday, Republican Senator Ted Cruz is taking the floor of the Senate and plans to talk and oppose the issue of "Obama care" until he can't stand anymore. The Republican Senators are saying that stopping the movement of Obama care is not going to help with the issue.  The issue is what the GOP is going to do during the vote. Throughout the article it is pretty clear to the Democrats, who are for Obama care, say that the vote that is scheduled for Wednesday is still going to happen. Senator Cruz's address to the Senate is not technically a filibuster; therefore, can not stop the senate from the scheduled vote. Since President Obama was elected the issue of what we know as "Obama care" has been an ongoing debate throughout the legislative process, but can this issue really shut down the government on October 1st? The answer is yes.  If there is no conclusion on Obama care with the vote their will be no budget, without a budget there is no government.  The GOP has a message with the issue but, what will the party have to do in order to get their point across without shutting down the government. Is that even possible? In a bigger picture, the GOP is trying to figure out the golden road they can take without hurting the American people and their supporters.  The GOP party is going to get blamed for some type of negative action either way.  If they vote against Obama care, they are hurting the American people by shutting down the government. There is no doubt that if the government shuts down on October 1st the Republican party will be the first to blame. If the GOP tries to avoid the bad press and avoid shutting down the government and goes for Obama care, they will be going against their values and their party. Also, the GOP could potentially lose their conservative supporters. Is this issue really worth that? American's will be tuning in for the outcome of this significant issue and seeing whether or not the government will come to a conclusion.

Article: Cruz vows to speak against Obama care

Should the Seventeenth Amendment be Repealed?

             Many Americans are unaware that U. S. senators were originally appointed by the state legislature. However, the Seventeenth Amendment changed that so the state’s citizens could vote for their senator. According to this article, some politicians and judges believe this lessened the States’ powers which affected federalism and that the Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed. On the other hand, the article states “Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would reduce the benefits of federalism, as it would turn state legislatures into electoral colleges for U.S. Senators.” It was necessary for the Seventeenth Amendment to be implemented to expand democracy. National Parties make national issues very important in state elections.           
        The Seventeenth Amendment increased the public’s opportunity to participate in elections and impact the law by selecting a senator with their policy preference. I personally believe that the Seventeenth Amendment strengthens federalism and allows citizens to be connected to the local, state, and national government. I believe this is cooperative federalism in which the national and state government share powers.

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/27/why-did-state-legislators-give-away-their-power-to-pick-senators-on-the-origins-of-the-17th-amendment/

Increasing Numbers of Illegal Immigrants

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reports that the number of illegal immigrants that have been caught has risen for the second straight year. During the past eleven months, border patrol agents have caught 388,422 immigrants trying to enter the US without proper documentation. This number is already higher than the 34,768 caught during the twelve month period before September 2012 and there is still one month left during the current period. Before 2012, the number of illegal immigrants caught had been declining for six years. A bill that was passed by the Senate in June 2013 proposed $46 billion to strengthen efforts on the US-Mexico border. The bill did not include any particular strategy to strengthen efforts on the border. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi is planning on releasing a bill that does not strengthen border security. Representative Michael McCaul from Texas opposes Pelosi and explains that the government has already spent over $75billion on the border without any success and that a proper plan to strengthen the border is greatly needed. I agree with McCaul that there needs to be a proper resolution to stop increasingly large waves of illegal immigrants. A plan that creates proper border security with new fencing and more patrol agents is needed to stop incoming waves of illegal immigrants. This plan would greatly decrease the number of illegal immigrants entering into the US through Mexico.

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303983904579092190903995668.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

Is Strong Party Affiliation a Problem in the U.S.?

In a recent Huffington blog post by Ariel Edwards-Levy, a new survey was cited revealing Americans' trust in the federal government's ability to problem solve is at an all time low. Taking into account the current economic and financial problems the U.S. is facing, as well as the proposed military strikes on Syria, it is easy to understand why public trust in the government is falling. Just 42 percent express confidence in the governments problem-solving abilities. However, the percentages of Republican and Democrat trust vary greatly. Currently, Republicans' trust in the government's handling of foreign affairs is at 35 percent while Democrats are at 71 percent. It is noted in the blog post that, "partisans traditionally have more faith in government when their own party controls the white house." This raises the question of whether reliance on party affiliation is too heavy in the United States. Because there are so many governments in the U.S. to keep up with, it is easy to see how party affiliation is so heavily relied on, despite the governing party's ability to make decisions in the White House. My great grandfather used to always say, "never vote for a Democrat," and it is true that older generations do tend to have a stronger party affiliation. This voting reasoning is greatly flawed, and is comparable to a child voting for their friend as class president based solely on that friendship. Hopefully, though, younger generations are stepping away from this trend, choosing to be informed, listen to the issues, and vote as non-partisans for who they think is best suited for the position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/government-trust-poll_n_3922684.html?utm_hp_ref=huffpolitics-blog

Hatocracy

Monday, September 23, 2013

Lower Health Insurance Premiums to Come at Cost of Fewer Choices

We all know Obama is fighting for Obama care to provide insurance at a reasonable price for middle class and the poorly. They were saying in the article that Obama health care will be less than be less under Obama. How can this help us? & How can this not help us? Its also saying have some type of insurance is better than having nothing and you if you will be able to go to who ever you want if you like you doctor you can keep your doctor but if not you will be able to change it. They want more hospital to become more involve and provide the health care program. They feel it will be convenient for people not drive a hour away to a hospital but to a clinic that's close to them so they need everybody for it. You will also have an opportunity to keep your doctor or change your doctor. The problem is the republicans are threatening to hold up a spending a bill and don't want to put any money towards this. If a patient has a complex medical problem that’s being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from their health plan.  They think its going to be a downfall and going to put them more in debt. They also want money to be taking away from the health care program. They feel if is goes thru that the government will be in the business and know what's going on. I agree that this will be a great benefit for people because if you don't have the money you will have insurance that will pay for the whole thing or pay majority of it. This will decrease the death rate and increase the health that people will receive. Its not like the money they spend to make this be successful for the US will be going to some thing that's not helpful this will help a lot of people in different ways provide more service for the ones that are suffering. We are already in debt so I really don't see the big deal. I know without insurance I wouldn't of been able to pay for the service I have got while I was in the hospital. Its not like the middle class and poorly are pulling out thousands of money from there pocket to pay for it. For example if I had to get a MRI and I had to pay out of pocket because I didn't have no insurance I would be paying a lot of money that I don't have. This will only help us and stuff will get better for the future it will just take time to adjust to. Obama is trying to help the poor will all can't do the things or the things that the rich can get so Obama is trying to make a change that we can all get token care of when needed so whatever has to happen to go thru should go thru because this is a good cause .They will also have to get more doctors involve and more hospitals and clinics. They would have a bigger income because more citizens will be getting the help they been waiting for. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/health/lower-health-insurance-premiums-to-come-at-cost-of-fewer-choices.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#comments

Navy Yard Shooting

By now, we have all heard about the shooting that happened a week ago at Navy Yard, in Washington D.C., just off the Navy Yard metro stop and right near the ball park of the Washington Nationals. This article by CNN uncovers more about the gunman, Aaron Alexis, and his odd behaviors that he has had leading up to the shooting. There were many signs to show that Alexis was not capable of being responsible with a firearm, especially when he was arrested back in 2004 for shooting out the tires of a car. He also had anger management issues which were clearly documented. Yet in all of this, with the navy knowing full well about all it all, they still ended up granting him security clearances. As a citizen of the United States of America, it makes me feel highly uneasy that somebody in the military could potentially turn on their own country and start shooting at their own men. This is one of the many reasons why the constitution needs to be changed. Now I want to be clear in that I am not saying I want to rid the constitution, but what I am saying is that we need to change the constitution. The 2nd amendment states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Though I recognize that the people have a right to bear arms, at what cost is it at? When the lives of people are on the line, we need to put things in perspective and take another look at policy; in this situation, we need to take another look at the constitution. Again, I am not saying that we should rid the 2nd amendment all together, but we should regulate it so that there is a better chance of deadly weapons not ending up in the wrong hands. I suggest that the process for obtaining a gun should be similar to the process of obtaining a driver’s license. First, you must pass a written test, followed by a test to make sure you can properly use a gun. Next, there would be an extensive background check, and if there is any reasonable doubt that one may use the gun for something other than recreational purposes, then they will be denied a license. If they pass the background test, then they will be given a gun license in which they can then use that license to buy a gun. Nobody without a proper license would be allowed to buy a gun. Lastly, once they buy a gun they would have to register it every few years. That plan would sure help the economy and create jobs! All in all, the constitution, in particular the 2nd amendment, needs to be looked at and altered to fit the needs of this time era.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/us/navy-yard-shooting-recap/index.html