Politics, What? The Political Blog

Gay Marriage New York

2011-07-11T18:01:00.000-07:00

I have been talking about this topic for so long I don't even know what else to say. Why isn't California following in New Yorks footsteps. Making laws that take rights away from people is not only morally wrong, but unconstitutional and making laws based on person feelings is also risky. I strongly believe that we need to start being sensitive to those who are different and have differing views on life. People have the right to choose and that also includes life partners. Gay people should be allowed to marry, period.

Prophecy Fulfilled

2011-07-10T21:37:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to point out that I was correct with regards to Congresswoman Giffords. There was a recent blurp about her in the news regarding her husband going into space, but other than that we hear nothing of her recovery. Additionally, we are back to where we were before, no security for our lawmakers. I didn't really believe that it was necessary for Congressman to have bodyguards, but it does make me sad that we quickly move on to the next big thing...Casey Anthony, not guilty.

Upcoming Elections

2011-07-10T21:32:00.000-07:00

Something that has been on my mind for some time now has been with respect to the upcoming Presidential elections. What really has me thinking is the lack of a clear Republican front runner. I personally have ever intention of voting for Obama.

1. He is not a Republican
2. He has a better chance of winning
3. I want my vote to count, and as I will have only 2 choices, the answer is an obvious one.

I had the privilege of living in Boston, Ma for a year, it happens to be my favorite city. Mit Romney happened to be leaving office at the time, but something he will always be remembered for is signing into law the bill that allowed all residents of Massachusetts to get affordable health insurance. But for some reason he refuses to really take any credit for basically instituting a state run form of healthcare. People still have choice in cost and kind of insurance, but in all reality it is universal healthcare. I can't possible stand by someone who doesn't stand by their own recent past.

Michele Buchmann is just a no brainer to me. She has made several incorrect statements to the press, making her a liability as a future President. It is also my understanding that her chances are slim as never has a Congress person become President due to voters. If we though President Obama was inexperienced, Michele Buchmann is an infant. I don't think the international community would take her seriously.

Herman Cain, a business man with no political experience, is also someone I wouldn't vote for. Besides the fact that he has no international relations experience, government is not a business and should not be run as if it were. Its a non profit for a reason. I think he would be better served to run for a Governor first, but we all know how that went down in California, as Meg Whitman lost that race based on a similar platform as Mr. Cain.

Need I continue with the other options?

What do you think? Do you believe Obama has done a good job? Is he making progress? Is he the best option?

Implications of Congresswoman's Attempted Assassination

2011-02-04T21:17:00.000-08:00

The assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords does bring to light the lack of security surrounding local officials and the simplicity in getting close to those individuals. As Arizona politics has been at the forefront of immigration reform, I have been staying abreast to many Arizona political issues. In the past, most people actually did not know their representative, districts being so confusing and many young people not taking an interest in local government.

It is my belief that since the end of the Bush administration, the political climate has been heating up and many people of all ages have been getting more involved in politics, as can be seen in the recent election. With the economic down turn and only a slight glean of light at the end of the job tunnel, people have become angry and fed up with US political dysfunction. Republican and Democrats alike, people from both sides are upset and fed up with how government is functioning. After seeing what appears to be an attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords, I have begun to contemplate the direction our fellow countrymen are moving. There seems to be so much anger and animosity throughout the world, so much hostility, you can hardly argue this one young angry man is a complete anomaly.

In other articles I've written, I have pointed out all the policy changes and the political environment of the United States, but I honestly didn't see this kind of malice on my US anger radar. How angry must our citizen neighbors must feel that they believe killing a person would resolve their frustrations. Have things become so unsettling in the United States that people have succumbed to death threats and attempted murder to fix their or the US problems?

During a constituent meeting, Rep. Giffords and several other individuals, including an Aide, were shot by Jared Lee Loughner. Most often we think assassination attempts happen to Presidents, people who seem the most powerful, larger than life. One representative is only a small part of a large body of power. She is but one person out of 435. Her voice is actually rather small in the grand scheme of things.

It is no surprise that fellow classmates and old friends are stating that Jared Lee Loughner is mentally disturbed. It seems the most common method of discerning this type of behavior, to find a reason why this horrible things would happen. But ultimately, he is not the first or last people to show extreme amounts of anger towards political figures.

President Lincoln used to invite people to the presidents mansion, he would speak to constituents without Secret Service guarding him. Now Presidents have to speak to large groups, never one on one, and most importantly, not without the watchful eye of the Secret Service. Had President Lincoln not been shot and killed, Presidents would be using the President in the fashion we have come to know.

Individual cities have stepped up security for many local representatives conducting open meetings. Obviously, it is not possible to completely cut off from the public, but many representatives are concerned for their safety, as they should. I fear though that little will change from this tragedy. Has anything in Washington really changed? Are Representatives and Senators working together to make real changes or are they just making a show of change?

Call me a skeptic, but I believe nothing will really change in Washington, and in a month or two this horrible tragedy will be pushed to the side and politics will continue on as usual. It is the job of the citizens, of us, to keep our politician honest, to make sure politicians do not forget this horror. Only by learning from this can real change come about, by learning from it and not forgetting it happened. Only then can we ensure real change in Washington. Because the reality is, American people are unhappy and angry, not just the unstable Americans, but the "Joe Plumber's" of the country. Ultimately, the American people deserve a government that takes them seriously and works together to get the economy and jobs back on track. Only then can that glean of light at the end of the tunnel become a bright light of reality that we all hope for and deserve. Then we will know for certain that Rep. Giffords' will not be forgotten. Otherwise we are in for a lot more of the same.

Congresswoman Shot

2011-01-09T19:46:00.000-08:00

I don't know much about this Arizona Congresswoman, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, but I am really shocked at where our country is going. I know I have talked about all the policy changes and the political environment, but I honestly didn't see this kind of malice.

Most often we think about assassination attempts on Presidents, people who seem powerful, larger than life. One representative is only a small part of a large body of power. She is but one person out of 435. Her voice is actually rather small in the grand scheme of things.

President Lincoln used to invite people to the presidents mansion, he would speak to constituents without Secret Service man guarding him. Now Presidents have to speak to large groups, never one on one, and most importantly, not without the watchful eye of the Secret Service.

Will our local lawmakers now also need body guards to protect them from those they speak for?

The Department of Education

2010-11-27T22:46:00.000-08:00

When you think of the federal Department of Education what comes to mind? Primary and Secondary school regulations, the George Bush No Child Left Behind Act (that left all children behind), or higher education, such as college or university? It would be to the detriment of the US education system if the federal Department of Education was dismantled. The reality is, the DOE is an all encompassing organization of sorts that deals with all elements of education. This is vital to the US education system because it can more effectively offer equal opportunities to all education systems while at least attempting to maintain equal distribution of education funds to those in need. It is incredibly important to note that some states are obviously more wealthy than others, they would not have the abilities to maintain themselves without some federal government aid. To expect equal education distribution among students, it is equally important to maintain equal facilities. Obviously, some schools still have low graduation rates because the facilities are poor, but that is only another reason why state management is not enough to help run schools, as most schools are funded by property taxes in the area.

While many of us focus on the failure of the No Child Left Behind Act of the Bush Administration, many don't realize the potential this law had at actually assisting under performing schools around the US. The lack of follow through with respect to this law cannot only be attributed to the Department of Education. Lack of funding by Congress was the real reason nothing beneficial came from this program other than test scores. While the program is not perfect, forcing all students to take a written exam to determine their knowledge of the proceeding year, it has been one of the only programs that forces schools to be accountable to the students that don't score as high as others. These are the students that usually get lost in the shuffle. In theory, it has been the only federally mandated program to force schools to focus on all children, not just the top performing students. Obviously, without funding, it was a flop. But, as voters we can make that change.

Additionally, the Federal Department of Education offers many opportunities financially, to college bound students that some states just don't offer. To dismantle this department would then do away with hundreds of thousands of young American adults that are attending institutions of higher education that they normally would not be able to afford, be it City College, Community College, or University. Some states just do not have the resources to offer these kinds of programs to college bound students. Certainly, Nebraska does not have the financial capabilities as California in offering student aid, and students should not be penalized for that states smaller budget just because of where they live geographically.

The Department of Education is a tool that the United States uses to manage the education system within all 50 states, in order to determine they are functioning at an equal level. If they are not, DOE has the capability of assisting those schools financially. To do away with a program, that frankly receives less than 5% of the US budget is unnecessary and unfair to those that utilize its programs. DOE is far more than a regulatory agency, but also an agent of obtaining higher education. To dismantle that would be to do away with the small opportunity many of these people have at obtaining a degree in order to make their life better. It does far more than any state may be able to achieve.

Should Smoking be Allowed in Public?

2010-11-27T22:43:00.000-08:00

Have you ever gone for a run outside and found yourself surrounded by a waft of smoke? Your lungs are already working hard, your heart rate is elevated and all of a sudden, on a big deep breath you inhale black smoke from someone in front of you. That's it, your run is finished, you can't breath and you've lost momentum.

This happens to me all the time at my favorite running spot, West Cliff in Santa Cruz, Ca. Not that I am the worlds best runner, but I'm trying. I, like millions of Americans, have asthma. Running is hard enough as it is, but with asthma, my chest constricts more heavily and I rely on my inhaler to get me through a long run. West Cliff is one of those places that is just beautiful. On the Pacific Ocean, the wind blowing, the air quality for someone like me is perfect on West Cliff.

Unfortunately, during the tourist season West Cliff is overrun by out of towners. It's impossible to run without breathing in cigarette smoke. Now, maybe you're thinking, this is an outdoor area, open by the ocean for heavens sakes. The reality is, West Cliff is one of those public places where people specifically go to exercise. People walk their pets, they walk with friends, they ride their bikes, or watch the amazing surfing in the waters below. This area is known as an area where people go to work out and enjoy the outside. Smoking and exercise do not mix. And its rude when people go there knowing that people go there to workout. In fact, Santa Cruz, Ca created a law banning smoking in this area. Although, without police enforcing this law, like many others, this law is useless.

That is one example of why smoking should be banned in public places. Another example is when food is concerned. Just because of smoker can't test, doesn't mean we all should suffer from this ailment. Breathing in sticky, suffocating cigarette smoke is not my idea of an enjoyable dining experience. I would hazard a guess that even a smoker would agree it's not a great experience to eat while breathing in someone else cigarette smoke. Food and cigarette smoke don't mix either.

Besides the rude factor, we are all aware of the health affects of cigarettes. In the state of California it is illegal to smoke in your car if you have children in the car, even if they are your own children. It's child endangerment. This law came about because of the health affects that children have been exposed to. If a smoker chooses to smoke and kill themselves, do so privately. I think it is official. If a smoker wants a smoke do so in a manner that doesn't affect those around you. Smoking is a personal choice and therefore you have to deal with the consequences of smoking around people that don't like cigarettes. If you want a quick fix do so in private, in a manner that doesn't inflict pain to those around you.

Learn more about this author, Amy Rebeiro.

Islam and Terrorism

2010-09-13T21:55:00.001-07:00

Differentiating between Islam and Terrorism

Is the religion of Islam a faith of terror, or does this religion give people who are by nature more prone to violence an excuse to impart their terrorist vengeance upon those around them? Due to past and recent events in history individuals find themselves thinking about the connection between terrorism and the religion of Islam. There are debates surrounding the faith itself. More notably, scholars are currently debating the definition of the term Jihad, which appears numerous times in the Quran.

The notion of terror is not new. Throughout history, universities have studied the use of terror during war and by world leaders. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Lenin are all examples of world leaders that have inflicted terror upon their people and upon other nation states. Interestingly enough, both Lenin and Stalin argued for the destruction of religion, advocating for a state free of faith and God. As a fundamental aspect of Communism, both leaders believed in the abolition of religion. Another use of terror can be evaluated by studying Hitler and Mussolini. Both advocated for a world free of Jews, believing Jews were to blame for the weakened economy and world depression. All these leaders used terror tactics in creating and maintaining their power, while arguing that terror was in the benefit of it's people and country.

Another example of historical terror, Christians used terror during the Crusades. Christians argued their God was the right God, and by not accepting their perspective of God, all those not willing to accept Jesus into their heart must die, an after life spend in eternal damnation. Terror has been a tool of war for thousands of years, faith only being a means to impart that terror.

With respect to Al Qaeda, it is true that Osama Bin Laden has declared Jihad against the United States. Jihad is defined as a struggle or by some a holy war, but many Muslims have argued the Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden have perverted the text of the Quran to justify their actions. Many Muslims have argued that the term jihad is not a justification for a fighting war as we know in the 21st Century, but more an internal struggle or war that many must go through to accept their faith into their heart, in other words, a war of faith. It is a struggle that Muslims must go through in understanding their faith.

Muslim scholars say that Osama Bin Laden has perverted the faith of Islam, and more importantly, the term Jihad to promote violence as a means to itself, not a means directed by the Quran or in the name of Allah. Bin Laden claims it is because of the troops in Saudi Arabia that justifies his holy war. He fights this Jihad because of the American presence in one of the most holy cities of Islam. This is the justification for this war by Al Qaeda, but it has, of course, grown much larger than that at this point.

But religion is an interesting thing. For centuries it has been used as a platform for righteous war, and Islam is not the first, or probably the last to claim this right. Regardless of the name of the faith, all religions justify their actions by saying they do so in the name of their God. Can't all used of violence been seen as terror?

To claim that Islam is a breading ground for terror is to ignore the use of faith in world history. It is arguable to say that it is the people within the religion of Islam that are angry and feel weak; it is the use of their faith as a tool for violence, not the faith itself that is violent. In all religions there are extremist, Islam is just another example of how those extremist pervert their faith to justify violence.

I'm a published writer!

2010-08-25T23:29:00.001-07:00

Hey bloggers! I am so happy to anounce I sold my first article! Aren't you proud of me!

Arizona Immigration Decision

2010-08-09T23:13:00.001-07:00

Arizona is under extreme amounts of scrutiny regarding the immigration law they recently passed. The State of Arizona contends that it has the right to protect it self and that the law mirrors that of the Federal government’s. The opposition of the Arizona content that the law condones racial profiling, and discriminates against people of darker skin. Additionally, those that disagree with the law do so because they believe it is far too complicated for every state to create individual laws that may or may not agree with each other. More specifically, immigration is a Federal issue and does not fall under State jurisdiction.The Obama administration took the Arizona immigration law to court in July. His administration did not cite racism as the reason behind their claim, but went to State vs. Federal powers outlined in the Constitution.

Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court ruled for the Obama Administration, but did allow some aspect of the law to move forward, although she did believes the law is not a mirror image of the Federal statues, as many of the supporters have been claiming. She stated that: “There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens.”Arizona’s Immigration Law went into affect this month under much scrutiny. Both noncitizens and citizens alike felt mixed emotions regarding the enactment of this law, which did not fall short of the eye of the Federal Government.

Not all aspects of this law went into effect. Specifically, parts of the law that forced law enforcement to look into all individuals that may or may not be illegally in the United States. It also allowed citizens to seek legal retribution against law enforcement if those citizens believe law enforcement is not doing enough.

Arizona’s immigration law also forces all individuals to carry their immigration papers on them at all times. The Arizona immigration law, in essence, only requires those that are not legally here to provide proof to authorities that they are allowed to be here legally, not the other way around. Arizona does not have the authority to force all citizens to carry federal documentation of citizenship.

More troubling is the aspect of the law that allows the police to detain individuals they believe my not be here legally if “when practicable”. The ambiguousness of the law is disconcerting. Arizona did provide a video tape to its police giving scenarios where this action may be required, but in viewing the video, it is still questionable what could be seen as reasonable.

Even with this ruling, Arizona is not backing down. They are moving forward with an appeal of the decision

Why the US Needs to Reform its Immigration System

2010-06-19T13:57:00.000-07:00

Who has the right to be an American? Who has the right to be in America? There have been many arguments regarding immigration reform. Some believe a complete revamp of our system is in order and that our nation cannot afford to deport all undocumented individuals living in the US. Others believe that immigrants have taken jobs away from Americans

The United States deports immigrants when it is determined they are undocumented. The US is finding that many of those undocumented immigrants just cross back over again. Many Americans would not be willing to do the hard labor of farm labor many immigrants do for the income of many of these immigrant families.

Many Americans complain about getting paid minimum wage for standing around doing nothing. I have found that many laborers make roughly minimum wage, but realistically it comes out to more because it is not taxed. Immigration reform needs to be addressed

To detain immigrants crossing the border is of higher cost to Americans. And the cost for deportation is higher still. The study, "Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment," scheduled for release today by the Center for American Progress, is billed by its authors as the first-ever estimate of costs associated with arresting, detaining, prosecuting and removing immigrants who have entered the United States illegally or overstayed their visas.

The total cost would be $206 billion to $230 billion over five years, depending on how many of the immigrants leave voluntarily, according to the study." Washington Post, 2005. We can't just build a fence and expect the immigration problem to go away.

Another thing that needs to be address is the concept of the US National language. The United States does NOT have a national language. Unfortunately, one of the things that bothers me the most in the United States is that Americans do not learn another language in schools in addition to English.

We demand that immigrants learn English, but we don't have any desire to learn their language in return, even when we travel to their country. We expect everyone to know English.

One way or the other, Immigration Reform needs to address these issues. If you go to any other Western nation students learn 2 additional languages. English is a very difficult language to learn, and I have a lot of respect for people who try to learn how to read and write. But how can we expect people to learn a language when there are no programs available to them?

Search
Politics, News & Issues:
US Politics

* << * << * Homeland Security * Government & Policies * Party Politics * Political Issues * Soldiers & Veterans * US Economy * US Elections * US Immigration * US Leaders * US Military * US Politics (Other) * >>
* >>

Get a Widget for this title
Views on illegal immigration in the US

* Top Article
* All 225 Articles

77 of 225
Write Now Write now User ToolsArticle Tools

Page 2 of 2

to learn English when becoming a US citizen. I know this because my mother, who has been here for 35 years, still has a difficult time speaking English, and she knew very little when she became a citizen. But she is constantly learning and reading and studying to become a better English speaker. What people don't realize is that she knows 3 other languages. But that doesn't matter because she has an accent. Immigration needs to address the language barrier.

If the United States had a better relationship with Mexico, like it does with Canada, the immigration issue would be for not. But that would mean Mexico would have to be more like Canada. Mexico is in dire need of assistance financially, and it needs a new system of government. It is so corrupt and dangerous people leave because they have no choice.

Immigration Reform needs to address building a relationship of worker visas, at least giving people the right to work in a more available way, and have them pay taxes, that is something to move this issue forward. That doesn't mean make everyone a citizen.

Drug Cartels have also been a major problem with respect to immigration. And this has been an issue since the Clinton administration. A task force was created to combat the drug cartels moving into the United States from Mexico. Cocaine is one of the biggest imported items from Mexico into the United States.

We have intelligence in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever we are combating Al Qaeda, but I would say that the largest threat to Americans right now is the violence from these cartels just south of our border. Would people turn to death and violence to provide for their families if an alternative were available to them? Immigration Reform needs to be address now.

Can Anyone Demand Too Many Rights?

2010-06-15T22:22:00.001-07:00

The question is: Are Gays and Lesbians given too many rights? I would counter that question with: Do people have too many rights?

Let's remember the Constitution, as the 14th Amendment 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." All citizens of the United States are given the same rights, equal rights. The right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to their own religion, whether you agree with that religion or not. Don’t forget, each religious group believes their religion is the correct one, and they don’t agree with the other faith, but each faith still have the right to believe what they want to believe.

Remember when African Americans were fighting for their right to be considered a full person? Black people used to be preserved as a fraction of a person. Remember when women were fighting for their right to have a voice, to vote? Both groups were told during the time of their struggle that they wanted too much. To women, people said, let the husband voice political views for the family, stay at home, take care of the home. For Black people, they were subjugated, told they were less than human because of the color of their skin. And while many don't want to admit the tough reality, Black people are still fighting for equality. Women, as well, make less than men in the same career field.

But does any argue that these groups are demanding too many rights? Do we say that they are given too many rights? Certainly not, at least not in the public arena because deep down all people deserve equal rights, to be acknowledge by society as an equal part of that nation. Gay Activists are advocating for the right to have equal rights, the right to have the same rights as everyone else.

Like another’s religion, you don’t have to agree with that faith. That is your right. But you have to respect the other person’s right to have a different perspective than you. Natural or not, people are people.

Our forefathers created the Constitution to give more explicit laws to a newly created United States of America, the Declaration of Independence is equally important when analyzing the rights of man: "All men are created equal." It is imperative that we stop thinking in terms of Homosexuals and "Us". It is as if we separate ourselves from a large part of our population. This question separate gays and lesbians, from "Us," implying that they are less than us. Homosexuals are not different then us, not any more different than women are from men, and White people are from Black people.

Gays, lesbians, women, men, Blacks or Whites, we are all the same skin deep. We are all made from the same good stuff. Gays and Lesbians deserve the same opportunities, the same joys, and the same sadness as everyone else. Wouldn't it be more accurate to ask, Why haven't Gays and Lesbians been given full rights as conceived in our the Constitution?

Should Abortion be legal?

2010-06-10T22:15:00.001-07:00

When the government creates laws there are several questions that need to be addressed. For one, is a law just because the government says so, or as citizens, do we have the right, or more specifically, the duty to question why laws are passed. What makes laws just? These questions have been on my mind for a long time, not only with respect to the issue of abortion and the death penalty, but also because of the Health care debate and other programs before or passed by Congress.

We as citizens have an obligation to question the creation of laws, or the changing of our laws. But, by the same token, it is important to understand why government passes certain laws. It is imperative that citizens not only know that certain laws exist, but also understand the purpose of the law. In order for people to follow laws its important for them to understand them

With respect to abortion, it is as important to understand the law, as it is to understand why the law was created. The right to privacy, while not explicitly written in the constitution, has become understood as a basic right that the Framers intended. That said, what one does to their own body is their own choice, and it is that understanding that allowed for the creation of the legalization of abortion.

The interesting thing is, beliefs are relative. To impose ones beliefs on others that do not welcome it is disrespectful. People have the right to believe whatever they want and not have that belief oppressed. That said, I am going to state my opinion regarding abortion, but to people who are interested in hearing what it is. I'm not forcing anyone to agree or live with my opinion.As religion has shown, feelings of superiority have affected our ability to see things clearly. Ultimately, we do not have the right to tell someone what they do to their body is wrong, let alone force someone to give birth, have a child, or be responsible for giving that life away.

Abortion should have nothing to do with religion, but in many cases it always comes back to God. It is not my business what ones relationship with God is or isn't. It is equally important to state that to force a women to carry a life inside her is equally unjust. Additionally, it is very difficult to enforce specific abortion laws. This is the reasoning I was talking about earlier. It is equally important to be able to make laws that are enforceable. We cannot make laws based on morality, but unenforceable. Specifically, making abortion only legal if the product of rape or incest. That law is not enforceable mostly because not all people go to the police to file a report and many people are ashamed to admit incest. Is it just to make a person have their father's child?

The reality is laws based on morality or without proper justification are flawed. Morality is always changing and therefore a poor basis for the creation of laws.

Economics and Crime

2010-05-26T21:45:00.000-07:00

Super interesting take on why the crime rate has dropped.

Arizona and Accents?

2010-05-26T20:39:00.000-07:00

Arizona is dismissing English teachers who have accents...what kind of accent do they have?

Arizona-English-Teachers-policy-What-accent-is-wrong

heavily-accented-teachers

The Tea Party-What Direction is the Country Moving in?

2010-05-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

Nothing has changed about politics. The reality is, every year a new President is elected, midterm elections take control away from the party in power and towards the party not president. It happened to President Bush Jr., President Clinton, and President Bush Sr, although he only had one term. these are just the statistics.

What is unusual about this new movement, and rather frightening, is the common use of the phrase, "We want our country back." I find this rather scary because I wonder, from whom do they want it back from? Who took their country, and why wasn't I informed?

President Obama is not the first President to use government as a tool to try and find stability in the economy. In fact, every President since the 20th century, has used the government to assist businesses or individuals. Stimulus packages, the use of credit, FDIC insurance at your banks, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and many other forms of social programs like public schools, have been used to keep people secure. What I am seeing as a major issue is not that these programs are in existence, although some have made arguments regarding reversing some of these programs, but what I see the most of is that people want "their" social program for "them" not for "others." What is scary about that way of thinking is ultimately, who decides who the "others" are?

This centrist kind of thinking is what lead to many wars, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. While many of you may think this is ridiculous, those people might be reminded about what lead up to the holocaust. Economic stiff and unrest was the foundation for this injustice against humanity. It began with putting people into ghettos, limiting the movement of Jews, determining curfews and types of jobs they were allowed to work. Jews were forced to wear yellow stars and carry their papers on them at all times. I am truly afraid that this country is going down that road again. When people feel their livelihood is at stack they go to any and all methods to protect themselves.

The Tea Party movement is using a similar method of thinking as President Bush's camp did during his Presidency. Fear. I'm not making a judgment call here. 911 was scary and not knowing who your enemy was or is, is even scarier. But, as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, "This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

Our government is not perfect, and like all business men and women, they like their job. I am not against this idea of pushing the incumbents out of office, in fact, one of my past postings was about namely that, the need for new blood in Congress, but I don't say that out of fear. I say that out of understanding of how Congress works. While boring, the The Dysfunctional Congress?: The Individual Roots Of An Institutional Dilemma (Dilemmas in American Politics ">Dysfunctional Congress is a great book because it illustrates the internal issues that plague Congress. Maybe the Framers never anticipated the US becoming so large. Britain, France, other nations during that time that were of great power, never showed a movement of growth the way the United States has grown. But regardless of size, it was always intended that Congress would be a check and balance of the Executive Branch of government. It is not surprising that we may have a Republican run Congress because that is the usual way of business. But not for the same reasons now.

I really want to know what people are so afraid of, what makes them say their country has been taken from them, what freedoms have been taken? I thought that during the Bush administration when the Patriot Act was signed into law. That law scares me to death, but that didn't spark the same fear as this new Health Care Bill has done. It doesn't make sense to me. It's not logical.

This movement has not explained clearly what it wants, what it stands for, and therefore I am skeptical. Who head this organization? And what are they fighting for? All I see are extremely conservative, bordering on racist ideologies and extremist thinking. Those aren't my ideals, that isn't the direction I want my country moving in.

Senator McCain and President George Bush had very similar perspective on the immigration issue. McCain working with Senator Kennedy on an Immigration bill to help deal with this problem fairly. I find this movement to be unrealistic and unreasonable. The world is getting larger, not smaller, and we have to find ways to accommodate and change with that knowledge. Closing borders has never been in the best interests of the United States, and never will be. We are too large a country, and at one time too well respected to turn our backs to the world. While I do not agree with everything President Obama does as President, I also do not believe in conspiracy theories about his patronage or religion.

I implore people to be less self interested and more proactive. Instead of going off of what people tell you about a document, read the document and figure it out for yourself. And, try to think about this if the shoe were on the other foot.

Yes, changes need to be made in Washington. The Good Old boys in Washington are a problem, but don't replace them with more of the same. It takes a special person to want to be a politician. Think about why they are running and what they want. Think about it they even know what they are doing. Freshmen members are able to do very little, especially while they wait to see which committees they will be on. Don't think you'll see change that quickly, if at all! That is the reality of Congress.

But isn't interesting, I voted for these changes that have people up in arms! The things President Obama has done are things he promised to do during his campaign. We shouldn't be surprised that he advocated for new health care reform because he said he would. Were people listening?

US laws and Arizona Laws....do you think they are the same?

2010-05-18T21:43:00.000-07:00

Arizona Immigration Bill

Bringing it Back!

2010-05-16T23:35:00.000-07:00

Many many months ago I wrote this post about immigration. Some of you commented and some didn't. Interesting how this has come full circle. I'm posting it again because now that things have been talked about I want to know if anyone's views have changed? And, for you new followers and, maybe you didn't look at my past postings so I'm bring this to the front.

Who has the right to be an American? Who has the right to be in America? This topic, while not at the forefront of American Political debate, is a key issue that needs to be addressed during the Obama Administration. There have been many arguments regarding immigration reform. Some believe a complete revamp of our system is in order, that our nation cannot afford to deport all undocumented individuals living in the US. Others believe that immigrants have taken jobs away from Americans.

In the state of California immigration is a key issue. In a state that has a vast agricultural community, immigrant workers keep farms functioning. Rarely do American citizens apply for these jobs. Interestingly enough, many of these workers travel to the United States during the crop season, moving from farm to farm to make money for their families. Some of these people move back to their home country, while others stay and send money back to their families. But agriculture is not the only field that immigrants predominately work, construction is another.

The concerns are rising now regarding the safety of our borders, but not from immigrants that are looking for a better life for themselves taking our jobs, but those people turning to other sources to care for the families. The growth of drug trafficking and the violence it has brought into the United States has replaced the fear of job stealing. I'm not concerned with our Mexican border as it pertains to people coming here to work, but am concerned with the drug cartels and their exploitation of poor families and former soldiers in the Mexican Armed Forces.

About 4 years ago, when the topic of Immigration Reform was of greater debate, the issue of drug cartels was not discussed as a major concern and reason for building the wall between the US and Mexico ( a wall that is easily scaled and a complete waste of money) but, the US focused on jobs in America, felons coming into the US (child molesters/abusers, etc.) and, border safety because of Al Qaeda (the majority of Al Qaeda caught trying to enter the US were found entering from Canada, not Mexico).

What the issue comes down to now, more than ever, is safety, which I don't think the US has done a very good job of ensuring. Border patrol agents are afraid to patrol because of fear of death. How are Americans to feel safe when our own agents of safety can't effectively watch our borders? People are being killed in the United States because these cartels have infiltrated so deeply into the US that they now have hired hands living here. Shockingly, many of these people are Americans.

Fear is not the basis of this argument, but raising awareness needs to be addressed. What our government has done to create safety is NOT working. The US hasn't made any strides in immigration reform, and Americans have stopped asking!

Mexico is a failing country, the government having little to no control of its population. Corruption and greed are so deeply embedded the government that the cartels are basically running the show. Americans are being told to limit their travel to Mexico, Mexican Americans are afraid to visit their families, and American are being killed and kidnapped. We have much to reform in the United States. We created a new bureaucracy to manage our safety, but what have they done? Things are still getting worse, not better.

4 years have gone by and now something that was not a large concern is now what I believe the reason we should focus on Immigration Reform. I'm not advocating the closure of our borders, do not misunderstand me. We are a nation of immigrant and should never close our doors. We need a better system, one that is not controlled by outside sources. I think the US needs to open their eyes and realize that by ignoring Mexico, by not involving our government in what is going on in that country, its only exacerbating the problems in the US.

2010-05-13T12:08:00.001-07:00

"The Secret Book of Grazia dei Rossi" - The Jewish Ghettos in Italy

2010-05-13T12:07:00.000-07:00

I wanted to put this book out there because I think it is a really good illustration of what is going on today. I usually don't put these links in my blog posts but in this case I think this book is amazing and highly recommend it. It is a fictional story, but a great illustration of the treatment of Jews in Italy in the first ghettos created in Europe.

Arizona and Immigration Reform-Are We Moving Towards a Police State?

2010-05-12T17:51:00.000-07:00

As many of you already know, Arizona recently passed a law that allows police to request from anyone that they believe may not be legally here to provide them with documentation. There are several issues with this law that have not been addressed in the news media that I thought would be interesting for dialogue on this blog. Besides the clear issue of legalizing racial profiling, there are legal questions that come into play with regards to this law.

First of all, American Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. While our friends in blue would like you to think you do, there is no state law requiring anyone to carry ID on them. Now I ask, does this law now require citizens, or anyone legally here to carry these papers on them? It is my understanding that the Arizona law does not require legal residences, nor citizens to carry said papers. Now, if the state of Arizona made it law that all people at all times must carry federal or state provided identification, this would not be an issue, but it does not. In fact, Americans are not required to provide proof of citizenship until they apply for passports in order to leave the United States and be allowed access back into the United States. There is no law requiring people to carry said papers to determine their citizenship while being in the US.

This law in essence only requires those that are not legally here to provide proof to authorities that they are allowed to be here legally, not the other way around. Does anyone else find this to be in itself a problem? Am I now to believe that if I get stopped on the street in Arizona but forget my ID at home that I could get penalized for that? But the law does not explicitly state that Americans are to carry ID on them. How interesting.

This law is obviously aimed at a specific group of people that are more easily identified by the color of their skin. But this raises far more issues with respect to American Citizens. If you are for this law you yourself are not excluded from its impact, and I don't mean with respect to the economy. I mean that anyone that may not look "American" could be affected by this. The law not only gives the police the right to profile, but it also penalizes them for not doing so. And while it may be easier for some to provide proof of citizenship, let me tell you, the state of Arizona will be making a lot of money because you are going to have to pay to prove your legal residence.

I see images of "Fix-it-tickets," citizens having to order birth records to provide courts to prove citizenship. Besides the fact that immigration is federal, not state. I see people getting pulled over or stopped because they look or appear to not be "from here." Or worse, identify theft sky rocketing in order for those that are not legally from here obtaining fraudulent information in order to remain here.

It is my contention that this law is more reactionary, and less solution oriented. In fact, it is safe to say that more harm may come of this than good. Let us remember, one does not become a citizen of the state of Arizona, but a citizen of the United States of America. I don't know about you, but I am of Jewish decent, my people have gone through one holocaust already, I don't want to go through another one.

Ezine Articles

2010-04-21T23:34:00.000-07:00

You know what I find fascinating about my articles on ezinearticles.com, guess which articles has had the most hits? Of all my articles, the issue of Communism in America is my number one viewed article, over that of health care. Its had 3 times the views of all my articles...what is it about communism and socialism that interests people?

Fear and Racism...President Obama vs. the Arizona Legislature

2010-04-21T22:44:00.000-07:00

I'm bringing back this post because of the current news regarding President Obama. I'm shocked that I'm bring it back already, but should I really be that surprised? Racism seems to be running rampant and our government seems to be helping. Arizona should be ashamed of themselves.

What do you think of Arizona perpetuating the question of President Obama's birth place, even after Hawaii provided a birth certificate for the President?

People even say that he is Muslem. This ignorance even after the big debacle with Reverend Wright. Which is he? A crazy christian, a member of a racist church that is anti American, or is he Muslem. Last I checked, you can't be both. It seems to me that the same people that were up in arms about the church President Obama was a member of, are now saying they think he's Muslem.

It is obvious that there are people in the United States who do not like President Obama because he is black. I think everyone, even President Obama agrees that some people don't like him purely because of his race. But, the question remains, are people disagreeing with President Obama's Health care reform because of his race or because they don't agree with his ideas on how to reform health care?

People are scared of Government because and I'm sure many of you will just love me for saying this, but because of the Bush/Cheney administration. President Obama can do no RIGHT regarding health care, or anything else, because people are afraid of how powerful our government has become. Therefore the prospect of a public option for health carefreaks people out, regardless of the fact that there are people that couldn't opt into the Public Option and some that could really use a Public Option for Health Care. Regardless of how intelligent or helpful President Obama's health care reform plan may be, people are too afraid to agree with it. The underlying issue here is not race, but fear.

My point is, people are afraid of where we have been and where we are going as a nation. With a war we don't want, don't think we need, and our economy and deficit slowly plummeting, its no wonder people are afraid. But fear does not necessarily create stupidity, but unfortunately, it seems it does in the USA.

Karl Marx once said that religion was the opiate of the masses. But I would say fear is the opiate of the masses. Fear has a paralyzing affect on people, to the point where they fight it. I think that is a more accurate perception of what is happening in America today. As another "Marxist" once said, There is nothing to fear, but fear itself (I paraphrase). FDR is the father of the New Deal, and someone that many claimed was a socialist. Regardless of whether you believe this or not, FDR is someone that many believe helped carry the US out of the Great Depression. The Welfare state, as many call it, allowed people to begin again.

It is obvious that there are people in this great country of ours that hate President Obama because of his race, but I think people are more afraid of him or at least his ideas, than they originally thought. People wanted "Change" during the election. Obama clearly discussed his Health Care Plans for the US, but still we act surprised at what he is proposing.

I'm just gonna throw this word out there...Trust. And you know the great thing about our constitution...if we don't like a law that was passed, and we change our minds, we can actually change our minds, the law can change.

The heart of the matter is, people are scared. Until we can be honest about that fear nothing will change, and all this work will go for not. Maybe we don't trust our government completely, but give them a little bit of credit. Not a lot, but a little. Additionally, not only is fear an issue, but selfishness too.

Tea Baggers...What the hell are they thinking?

2010-04-20T14:20:00.000-07:00

I mean no disrespect...okay, actually I do, who are these people that associate with the tea bag party? Are they completely out of touch with reality?

Interestingly enough the New York Times did a poll and this is what they found. "Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers."

Another classic quote for the New York Times..."“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”"

While they say they are against Obama because of his socialist views, supports of the tea party movement are happy with the social program they are on, "Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits."

So, those of you who are supporter or consider yourselves to be "Tea Baggers", a name I can't believe we say out loud without laughing, think about what you are a part of.

I'm Back

2010-04-20T13:37:00.000-07:00

Okay, its been a while...okay, a long while. But I've had some time to think about what I wanted to talk about in my next post. You see, with the passing of the Health care bill and the law suit coming against Goldman Sacks, that government isn't as useless as I used to believe.

I really don't believe that our government is by any means a democracy, those that think it is need to take a Government class. We are a Republic, which means we the people do not have direct access to the creation of our laws. But it seems like for once the government may have our best interests at heart, rather than their pocket books.