Congress Extend the "Bush-era" Tax Cuts?

SOURCE : http://www.usnews.com/debate-club

            The issue here is should Congress pass the Senate's Tax Plan? Bush's tax cut that only applied to those making under $250,000 instead of all Americans. I honestly believe that congress should pass this plan. Obama and the Democrats are completely right in saying that the rich should "pay their fair share." The rich are wealthy enough to survive financially without any tax cuts, I mean that's why they're rich right?



            Other arguments of this article from people like William Gale think that Congress shouldn't pass the tax plan because he feels that The Senate's plan doesn't go far enough in the short or long term. I somewhat agree, due to the fact that the plan was only to be extend to the end of the year. But in a way I look at this plan as a little something just to help the lower and middle income Americans get back up on their feet and start next year fresh. Let the plan continue.
            Republicans like to argue the fact and say that right now our economy is too fragile to support the tax cut. They also mention that in supporting this tax plan, it will hurt small businesses and prevent job availability. In some ways if this tax plan was long term I could see that happening, but since this isn't long term I think Congress should pass this plan.
 

 Question to You Guys :

Do you think Congress should pass this plan to extend the tax cuts for lower & middle income Americans? If they  do or don't, how will this effect our economy ?

SOURCE : http://www.usnews.com/debate-club

Pro Same-Sex Marriage !

Dems move to include gay marriage support in official 


party platform
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/30/dems-move-to-include-gay-marriage-support-in-official-party-platform/#ixzz229eUDbL0

So , While I was reading this news article , all I kept saying is , wow Obama is for same-sex marriage. That to me was a major shocker. 

I remember when Obama first came on the scene and their was a confusion on his beliefs whether he was a Christian or practicing the Islam faith. Either way, I'm sure neither one agree's with being gay or lesbian. So I'm wondering, is he promoting gay marriage for publicity and to get a thumbs up from the gay community , or is he really for it. ( question for you guys also )

Also , I know our  country was built on Christian faith , so is it "right" to give the people a right that is an abomination to Christ. Or are we not following God's rules anymore , since we live in a country of "Freedom" (Question number 2)

Anyways, my opinion to same-sex marriage and how it is being promoted across the states , is that i don't think that its right.  Number one because , I'm a Christian, of course. Number two , if the whole world became gay , where would are population go.I know we can in plant sperm , egg , whatever but that doesn't always work.

Like I said before , our country was founded with the Christian Faith , shouldn't we stick to it ? You don't see the Islam countries go against the Koran, in any way. But the Again we are America and everyone is free to do "whatever they want" 

I hope you let my questions marinate throughout your week and then reply to let me know how you feel . 

later !

FYI classmates

I was looking around on google because I wanted to see if I could buy the hard copy of the hip pocket constituiton guide , and I actually found an online link

* Thank You Google !*

If anyone is like me , I work better when I can see it on a computer screen , and I actually unorganized my packet somehow.

the only thing is doesn't have is the foreword and afterword. this is just the constituiton , bill of rights , and amendments with all the break down lingo.

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-guide-to-the-united-states-constitution

Romney Criticizes London Olympic Preparation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/28/mitt-romney-olympics_n_1713616.html?utm_hp_ref=politics 

I was fairly surprised when I heard about Romney's criticism towards the preparation of the 2012 olympics in London, England. London was very offended by this criticism and I can see why. The cabinet member in charge of the Olympics responded, "When we have the opening ceremony tonight and we tell the world that eight of the world's top 10 sports were either invented or codified in Britain – and only two in America – I hope Mr. Romney is watching." 


If I were to be criticized of not being prepared for an event that I had plenty of time to plan for, I would be mad. Why in the world would you criticize London on preparation of the 2012 Olympic games when they had at least a 4 years to prepare. That's like telling someone their not prepared to play in the championship game when they had all season to practice. 

Romney shouldn't have even been judging the preparation of the London Olympics when it hasn't even started yet. I thought that London prepared a tremendous opening ceremony for the start of the 2012 olympics.

Then later Romney decides to back down from his criticism on the London Olympics. I think this makes him look sketchy and just shows that he lacks the ability to make up his mind. 

Do you think London was well prepared for the 2012 London Olympics? Would you be mad if you were criticized on an event you had plenty of time to prepare for?

Tragedy Sparks Debate

Since the fact that this tragedy and the subsequent argument stemming from it will be a major topic of discussion for may months to come, I thought I'd give my two cents on the situation. Both President Obama and Romney hold the viewpoint that we should not pass new stricter gun laws but instead strengthen current gun control laws, I found this to be a a good decision since I found that the main reason for bot parties lack of drive to work on this issue more was that they were both looking for "broader and more politically appealing ways to keep guns away from killers." I can clearly see were both sides are coming form on this issue, the perpetrator of this massacre, James Holmes legally bought all the weapons he had in his possession, and the lack of legislation reflects the reality that Laws and background checks can only do so much and are "often futile in in keeping someone with horrifying intent from executing a massacre." I'd like to know from you guys, how should we be handling these types of issues of gun-violence, how should we try to keep more assault-style weapons of the streets without treading on citizen's second Amendment rights?

Conspiracy therory ? Or TRUTH?!

About a week ago I was coming home from work , and up sparks a random conversation with me and someone else on the bus. We had the most heated political debate I've ever had on a bus , or anywhere for that matter.

With that conversation Obamacare became the main topic. He was telling me about a website called the trumpet.com and another called polidocs.com . I've never been a fan of these conspiracy websites but I decided to check it out anyway. The reason I looked is because he told me about how in the Obamacare bill there was a section in HR 3200 that spoke about the government implanting a tracking device in people. Of course I didn't believe him, but I decided to do more research on it anyway. I looked at HR 3962 first. It did mention a registry device, but I have become confused by the bill jargon.

You can look at the bill here (from 2009)
When you do make sure you click find and then National medical device registry.
Ways and Means ( go to page 1001 )

Now I do not know for sure if this is pertaining to devices such as defibrillators and other needed devices for medical use, or if it is talking about what this site is talking about. I think depending on how you read it you might think tracking devices. Honestly I think if they were talking about implanting tracking devices then it'd be all over every news channel site and whatnot.

Now to the political end of this:
   First of all it's unconstituitonal, Second I am almost POSITIVE they cannot do this.

My questions to you all :

Do you think this is just a conspiracy theory gone wild , or is this really true?



Tragedy stirring up politics

Healthcare.  Job creation.  Drilling.  Debt. These are some of the topics you probably have read about during the 2012 election campaigns. Adding to the mix, for the first time in a long time, is gun control.  After the events that occurred in Colorado, President Obama has made it clear that he believes that to stop another tragedy like that one, new gun laws should be made. He wants to ban certain guns from public use and conduct better background checks. I agree that better background checks could help the problem a little bit, but I also agree with his opponent. If someone wants a gun that badly and can’t get one legally they will find a way to get a gun illegally, any gun they really want really. The problem is either way you look at it guns are getting in the wrong hands. It’s our right to own a gun; guns can save lives and take them. I believe leaving guns in the hands of the police and soldiers has the possibility of preventing premature death. If it was up to the people who can own guns, who would you say has the right to have and use a gun?         

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/obama-talks-limiting-some-gun-use-in-wake-colorado-massacre/

Most Americans Frustrated about Presidential Campaigns

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/poll-most-americans-frustrated-with-2012-race/

This is a true fact, nearly 78% of Americans are frustrated with the Presidential campaigns. You might be thinking why? Or you understand and know why. The reason for this is because both candidates are negatively attacking each other to race to the finish line by the November 2012 election. Citizens have been complaining that the campaigns have had too many negative ads that are driving people crazy. In the article that I've given you said that 66% of Americans believe that the candidates have been too much offending each other than addressing issues that our country is struggling today.

In my opinion, the candidates just need to do their job. Yeah, stand up for what you believe in, but don't continously attack each other to win. In my opinion, I believe attacking each other makes a person unprofessional. To me, in every presidential campaign, seeing the candidates fight each other is just foolish to me! They should say and address the issues and do what's write. We as citizens are supposed to count on our leader, and when our leader is "so and so" how can we trust him of her?

What's your opinion with the presidential campaign? Do you agree or disagree with the other citizens? Why?

Obama's Opinion on Educational Reform

Read the article here

This article is saying that Obama's trying to make its so people can go to school without going in to debt. That Obama's trying to make it easier for people to get an education that they deserve but sometimes can't afford to per sue. Hes tying to make a reform more for the African- Americans. This is a great thing because there are so many under privileged. This will give them more opportunities, if they choose so to make a better life for their future and life. 

Do you think that people will use this to their advantage?
Do you think Obama is making the right decision to open up this option?

Former Rival May Become Running Mate

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/19/157049589/from-rival-to-running-mate-could-be-for-pawlenty 


I think that the fact of Mitt Romney considering running with former rival, Tim Pawlenty, who has a significantly different background than Romney. I believe that Tim Pawlenty isn't the right fit for Romney because they have different views.  Pawlenty isn't the type of person I think belongs in the white house; this is due to his collection of tattoos. My view of a leader in not only this country, but any country, is to have some one who is smart, sophisticated, and able to make tough decisions, not someone with tattoos. I'm not trying to say that every leader shouldn't have a tattoo, they could have gotten it in the past from their old personality. However, I think that even if this leader had a tattoo he shouldn't go around showing it off. Although I am not a Romney fan, I strongly believe that choosing Pawlenty as a running mate would be a big mistake.

Can you picture having a President or Vice President filled with tattoos? Would you take Pawlenty as a running mate?  

Colorado Shooting Brewing Debate on Second Amendment

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/23/romney-new-gun-laws-wont-make-a-difference-in-this-type-of-tragedy/?iref=allsearch
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/politics/obama-romney-guns/index.html

The Colorado Shooting occurred just recently on Friday, July 20, 2012 during the premiere of the new Batman movie. Twelve people were killed and over 52 injured due to the shooting from suspect, James Holmes. After this terrible massacre, America has been debating on the roles of the Second Amendment. As I was reading various articles including the two on top, 45% of Americans oppose to the gun control, and 49% of Americans are for the gun control, so basically it's almost even. The problem with many of us as citizens is that we are not doing a great a job on supporting the gun control because the support for gun control has dropped. Throughout the prior years, it has been said that President Obama lacked on discussion on weapons showing even lack of leadership.

President Obama is still in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban but is questioning if it should be reinstated. Many politicians do believe the ban has to be reinstated because the ban is expired at the moment. In the book, The Constitution, What it says, What it means, it states, "Today, questions about the Second Amendment center around bans on assault weapons, mandatory background checks, waiting periods, and other restrictions on gun sales or use." But candidate Mitt Romney in one of the conferences said, "New gun laws won't make a difference in 'this type of tragedy.' In this point, I agree with Romney. This country has great people, but there's also people that make bad descisions. Not everyone will listen to the rules. It's like at school, one of the rules is don't come to class late. What happens? People still come late and lose participation points and do they care? No. I truly believe that Congress needs to think not just the law but the possible outcomes from the citizens.

Will citizens follow the new laws on gun control if it happens? What do you think Congress and the president have to do to focus on to improving the Second Amendment? What's your belief on this gun control on the Second Amendment? Will there be a solution?

Campaign Analysis: A Look at Public Opinion and the Presidency

As the presidential campaign continues to move full steam ahead, it is time to look closely at what the candidates are saying and doing and then unpack the reasons for their actions.

How do the candidates set the tone for their campaigns?  What do they do in order to define themselves and their positions on the issues that matter most?  

In addition, how do the American people feel about the candidates and their campaigns? Throughout our work this year, we will look closely at polls, patterns and trends in elections.

This article, from an informative PBS Newshour Blog, analyzes these topics and includes statistics and results from two different polls.

LINK:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/07/obama-romney-look-to-define-campaign-on-their-terms.html  

What do you think about the nature of this campaign?  Be specific and use evidence to support your claims. And what do the poll numbers tell us?  What inferences can you make about the statistical information included in this article?

Also be sure to have some fun with the Electoral Calculator at the bottom of the page.  Any predictions?

Our Blog and the Work of Political Scientists

First of all, I want to applaud your work on the blog so far this summer.  When I returned from my trip to the first National Park this side of the Mississippi, I found a community of media-literate young people; asking critical questions and engaging in purposeful discussion about politics and government in the United States.

Second of all, I realized we didn't establish ground rules for the blog.  While disagreement is both valuable and necessary, I also ask you to maintain civility by avoiding personal attacks and sarcasm.  Not everyone brings the same background knowledge or opinions to this blog, so let's continue to make this a safe place for critical analysis, deep questions and authentic learning.  I also am interested in hearing your opinion on additional ground rules for the blog.  Please post your thoughts as comments below.

Finally, I want to offer you a challenge.  Currently, I am taking classes to prepare to teach AP U.S. Government and Politics.  During this week-long training, one of the goals of the class has become clear to me.  This class is about more than having an opinion.  Of course, we support certain policies and parties because they make the most sense to us; but the nature of political science and the real work of political scientists is different from simply supporting or opposing a candidate.

As you continue to study the news and post about politics and government, consider multiple perspectives and think critically about how we as citizens get our information.  Think about American political culture and the political beliefs of Americans.  In addition, continue to develop your ideas about what the role of government should be.  Why do we need government?  What has the role of government been in the past?  And what should the role of government continue to be?  There are no right or wrong answers here.  But there are connections to be made.

Keep up the good work.

Take a Look; Tell Me What You Think

This isn't a real post, I just found a couple of Romney ads that really hit home to me and I wanted to hear what y'all think.

Shale Gas Boosting Our Economy ?

      By 2035, Shale gas could contribute to nearly half of America's gas supplies, but as of now it's only 1/3. Prior to reading this article, I for one was't really aware of Shale gas and really what it was. I did research on shale gas it self and learned that it's a actually a natural gas formed from being trapped in shale foundations (shale is basically mud, that's mixed with clay minerals and tiny fragments, mostly quartz).

The Shale Development 

    Without George Mitchell seeing potential in already known technology of "fracking," and what they called "wasting his time and money," the 10 years and $6m Mr.Mitchell spent in trying to crack the issue other companies couldn't, the plans for our economy's future probably wouldn't be so bright. "Fracking," the drilling technique which releases high pressures into shale deposits to release the natural shale gas, for the last decade, big oil and gas companies couldn't find this breakthrough technology to do so.  The article stated that it was surely the "best-spent development," in history of money spend on gas. At some points I am starting to agree.

        Obama in his state-of-the-union speech at the beginning of the year, using EIA (The Energy Information Administration) numbers stated that the U.S. has nearly 100 years of gas supplies at current consumption rates. That sounds like a pretty good plan for the future and if the president can see that vision for our country I suppose I can too. Especially if it's saving the U.S. money and keeping us out of a "hole."

          Meanwhile, the big question is: How does Shale gas benefit the U.S. economy? 

       It's a known factor that natural gas is cheaper, especially because it doesn't have to be imported because it's not coming from other country's factories. Having to not import shortens supply chains and because fracking shale deposits is something that the U.S. could do ourselves, It gives us more factory jobs in U.S. That wouldn't just help support American citizens to get them back on our feet, but our economy as well. This in result is helping the U.S. save money and is helping to keep us out of another recession. 

Question to You :

 Does it seem like Shale Gas is actually boosting/benefiting our Economy? If not who is it benefiting? What would you change about this shale gas development?

SOURCE 1 : http://www.economist.com/node/21558459


SOURCE 2 :http://marcelluscoalition.org/2012/07/shale-gas-boosting-u-s-economy-leading-to-american-energy-sufficiency/http://www.economist.com/node/21558459

FREE SPEECH FOR ALL IN THE ZONE

The article I read was about a foundation that tries to give college students the rights they deserve. They were going after Indiana University for its restrictions on freedom of expression for their students. The school claims its doing the right thing. They believe the restrictions they made prevents disruptions at the university, but is it legal? The constitution limits our rights when they have the possibility of harming the majority; while rallies can be disruptive at times, it doesn’t mean they have a right to be banned even if they were peaceful.  The constitution does not give any school the right to set up free speech zones, as the only place where major topics that are debatable maybe discussed freely and rallied for. To add insult to injury, to even express your opinions in these zones, you have to send in an application 5 days in advance of going there and your thoughts must be approved. Freedom of expression shouldn't have to be approved and you shouldn’t have to wait 5 days to say what’s on your mind right now. Is giving up a bit of their rights beneficial in the long run or will loosening their control over freedom of expression cause the chaos the university envisions?          

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/21/free-speech-codes-on-campus-political-correctness-at-it-most-ridiculous/

Romney Starts Attacking: Obama Belittles American Success

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/romney-goes-on-offense-over-jobs-remark/

Let's start off by saying that I support Governor Mitt Romney in this presidential election, because I know that many of you support President Obama for re-election and I anticipate that this post will recieve many comments.

Now I saw Obama and Romney's comments on the subject of success and governments role in it, and I have to say that I found Obama's comment to be quite belittling and rude. He basically said that government brought you to where you are today if you are successful. Your drive and motivation meant little, and government was crucial and fundamental. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. Businesses help to fund the government! Without the taxpayer dollars from individuals and businesses, the government would be unable to perform half of the duties that it does! Adding another point, every single president has said if you work hard in this country, you will make it because it is the land of opportunity. Obama basically threw that out the window with this comment. I'll revisit this topic later.

Now onto the foreign issues. Romney accuses Obama of crony capitalism, and honeslty, I wouldn't put it past him. Many people, not excluding the president, will do whatever it takes to get ahead, so if that means paying people off for more votes and for help, then so be it. It isn't too hard to believe. Next, Romney is accused of using foreign tax havens. I don't see the big deal. Many people do that! It's kinda smart. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that's legal. Bain Capital gave many, many Americans jobs, so he isn't being un-American! He is, indeed helping us out!

Back to the success issue. I realize that later Obama corrected himself, but I still believe that he said the entire truth of what he felt. I have been told numerous times that when you slip up and say something, it is more than likely what you actually feel inside but were trying to hide from everybody. He may have corrected it, but he still said it. It is quite possible that Obama feels that government is more fundamental to succeeding in life than the entrepreneur is.

Hey, a lot of you go to MBA to learn how to run a business and such, so Obama said that when you get older and have a successful business, you didn't build it, somebody else did. How does that make you feel? Many of you will have businesses of your own one day, and Obama is trying to say you aren't the reason it is operating!

So, here's my question to you. Do you believe that the government plays a vital role in building businesses and other success, or do you believe that the individual plays a bigger role?

A Sea of Uncertainty: Obama's Healthcare Expansion

A sea of uncertainty. That describes many U.S. states concerning whether or not they will expand President Obama's Medicaid programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/governors-face-hard-choices-over-medicaid-expansion.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/business/medicaids-new-tug-of-war-economic-view.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonp

If you read the two articles above, or just about anything recent concerning the President's Medicaid expansion, you will quickly find out that it is causing a lot of controversy. A lot of Governors are completely opposed to the idea of this whole expansion, one of the reasons being that it takes too much money away from their budget. There are a lot who approve of the whole thing. And then there's the group that basically has no idea whether they should enact the expansion or not.

And you can bet this is no easy decision. Governors, as you probably know, are depended on by a lot of people. People in the state that they govern. But no matter what the people say, the governor has to make the decision his or herself. They are supposed to make the choice that they believe will be the best for their state. But as you can see, people have far different opinions as to what they think will be the best option.

While I personally would love to approve of this idea just because I like it, doesn't mean that's going to happen. I can see how this would majorly strain a state's budget, because most states can barely get by as it is. Look at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-twice-as-much-as-estimated/2012/03/26/gIQACSZncS_blog.html

You will see how expensive this whole ordeal is. $1.76 TRILLION! That price is the total for all states. That's a lot of money, don't you think? That is a major expense, and I would certainly think twice before expanding the healthcare into my state if I knew the total cost of it. So I can see how people are having second thoughts about it.

However, there are millions of uninsured Americans, and they do need help. That's why Obama came up with this program, supposedly in an effort to help them out. Health insurance is one of the basic things that everyone should have, and there is no way this country can get anywhere if there are a large amount of people suffering like this. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

So I ask you: Do you think it's worth it to expand the healthcare to all states? Do you think this program is a good idea at all?

If not, then suggest a way that you think the government could help out the poor, uninsured people.

Corrections from Mr. Freeman

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/06/morgan-freeman-obamas-not-our-first-black-president/?iref=obnetwork
I happened to read this article and it sparked a very quick thought in my mind , and brought attention to a very large issue. Obama isn't fully black, he is mixed, his mother was white. Technically speaking he isn't a first BLACK president, to say that he is would mean that he is fully African-American. That statement right there really made me think, and then as I went down to read the rest of the article, I saw this:

He is being purposely, purposely thwarted by the Republican Party, who started out at the beginning of his tenure by saying, 'We are going to do whatever is necessary to make sure that he only has one term,'" Freeman said. "That means they will not cooperate with him on anything. So to say he's ineffective is a misappropriation of the facts."

-Morgan Freeman

He's completely and totally right, could the reason for the so-called "ineffectiveness" just merely be the partisan divide at its worse, and maybe only worsened by the fact that Obama is not white (fully) ?

So I'd like to know do you think that Obama has been ineffective up to now , or just merely the president caught between a rock and a bunch of GOP's ?



Mitt Romney: Better Chance for African Americans or Techniques to Get into Office?

SOURCE:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/us/politics/romney-says-he-offers-better-chance-for-blacks.html?_r=1&ref=politics

   Mitt Romney's bold statement said before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P), "If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him." Reading this article it self, set a side from the election, what does Romney have to offer for African-Americans that Obama hasn't or already have? 

   I feel that because Obama's African-American, Romney sees he's not getting those votes from the African-American community. Maybe he's not. Instead of targeting one specific race for votes, Mitt Romney should really try and make some real promises that could actually be fulfilled. He shouldn't just offer a "better chance" for just black community,but for all communities of different races. The African-American community isn't the only community that needs better chances.

 

    Even though he does mention that his policies and leadership would help any family of color, I still see this 25-minute speech as a way to get more black supporters. He's targeting black voters because he wants to have more "black votes," than Obama. Romney stated he expects African-American votes. What if he doesn't get them? What if African-American communities sees his promises and speech an act just to get himself into office? What will his next technique in his presidential campaign? 

He mentioned that he'd fight teacher unions and repeal Obamacare. 

   Just even the thought of him even trying to repeal Obamacare was kind of outrageous and that's where some people in his audience felt he "hit the fan" in his speech. Romney's target audience were the ones who struggled for better health care plans and coverage. I don't believe the aim towards bringing down Obamacare was the right thing for his campaign.

QUESTION(S) :

Does it seem like Mitt Romney's technique is to just tell black voters what they want to hear just to get a vote? or is he really a "better chance" for the Black Community?

SOURCE : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/us/politics/romney-says-he-offers-better-chance-for-blacks.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Lawsuit Tries to Block New Arizona Abortion Law

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/us/arizona-abortion-law-is-challenged.html?_r=1&ref=us

So Arizona has set a law that will be an action by Aug 2 , 2012 which states that an abortion can not take place 20 weeks after the last menstrual period. This deadline for an abortion is many weeks ahead of  the Supreme Court's decision.

We all know the case of Roe v. Wade , and the law that was made because of it. Just to refresh your memory , the law states that a women can not have an abortion after about 24 weeks of pregnancy. The only way the mother could have an abortion after that deadline is if medical problems occurred.

With this new law that Arizona is putting an effect , the mother of the child would have to make quick decisions on whether or not they want to keep their unborn child. Is right to rush such a life changing action like that? Or should they have more time to consult family,friends exct? 

Also stated in the article Dr. Paul A. Isaacson shared that you can not detect fetus problems before 20 weeks.  So, basically a mother can be carrying a child with various problems either dealing with a mental state , physical , or even health and wouldn't know it until the deadline for abortion was up in Arizona. Now say the mother doesn't want a child with any dis-functions , and now has to carry a unwanted child full term. Is this right to the mother ? Or should she be able to set up an abortion even after the deadline was up?

Now , my opinion. I believe that this law is still wrong. If its 10 weeks in pregnancy or 30 weeks , i still don't believe abortions should be done. I don't agree with the fact of murdering an innocent being. I don't think that pushing the deadline up on abortions will benefit the people or make things worst. I think it will just be another rule that has been assigned to the people. 

My question to you all is this : should the abortion law in Arizona be changed to the one we have? Is this law benefiting this state ? 

Who's lying ? BO or Romney

As most of you might have figured out I am a downright Obama fan, hardly ever do I find wrong with what he does. Although lately this Bain Company prediciment is making me teeter with the unconditional fan part. I think we should really look at this and think.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

From the above article I took away the fact that because Romney was not on the "books" he was in no way apart of any of the things that Bain did, which I find really hard to believe. It truly is not much to "forget" to write someones name down on the records. If Romney's name was on the books , even then a hell could be unleashed about the company's [as well as Romney's] ties to Stericycle [ an abortion fetus garbage company ( so to speak ) ]. If you did not know Willard Romney is a Mormon which is similar to a type of Christianity but differs in ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/12/romney-team-disputes-report-he-misled-on-bain-departure-date/

I am not the CEO of a huge multi-million dollar cooperation, but what is slightly common sense to most, why fill your name on IRS forms if you have no affiliations to the said company?

I know Romney is a business man and likes to alter his opinions due to the feel of the "customer" [us].

What I also found weird though, to play devil's advocate, is the fact the SEC forms are the only thing that the Obama campaign has. If we knew more about the anonymous people from the 1st article I think that would help. They could just have personal ties to Romney in some way , or have gotten some money for saying these things ( which is truly not unlikely ).

I don't believe we should go about it in the way McDonnell did. Losing your cool in an already heated situation just fans the fire and makes you interesting.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/13/mcdonnell-furiously-defends-romney-from-obama-salvo/?iref=allsearch

The main problem that I am finding with this whole Bain thing is who is telling the truth ? Is it Romney? If he is then this would destroy the president's campaign in many way and give an advantage to Romney. But if Obama is telling the truth then Romney's huge conservative vote most likely will go out the window because of the company Bain worked with ( Stericycle ).

I just would like some answers . Hard fact answers please. I just want the truth !

Hard to come by in American politics these days.


What are your thoughts?

I'd also like to add that Mitt Romney has so much money into his campaign it is INSANE ! The pac's have his back and I really don't trust anything a website such as factchecker.org says because money talks! I want to see IRS forms GOVERNMENT forms !

Bringing Back the Draft?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/lets-draft-our-kids.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Looks like some high ranking general wants to bring us back to the days of Vietnam. The days when the government pulled your name out a hat and you were forced to serve in the military. Oh the joy!

But if this new pro-draft general were to so much as to glance at the Constitution they would realize the flaming unconstitutionality of the draft, per the 13th Amendment.

Now I know you're probably thinking "Wait! I thought the 13th Amendment abolished slavery!"

Well you're 1/2 right! The text of the amendment reads:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Hmm involuntary servitude... Wouldn't that be the exact same as making someone serve in the military with out their will?! And isn't that unconstitutional?!

So whether or not the Selective Service System (the draft) is only a contingency plan (in case something unexpected happens) and not actually used or not, it needs to be abolish per our 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

I guess at the very least we can make the draft as a sentence for criminals as opposed to prison!

So should government be allowed to force you to serve in the military, or would that be a violation of the 13th amendment?

The College..of Electors

The two presidental candidates are going neck and neck almost when it comes to the CNN Electoral Map. Obama with 247 Electoral Votes and Romney not very far with 206.

Ever since I started reading the Constitution over and over and over again , I have realized how big of a role the Electoral College plays[an almost deadly one it seems] in the election of our Presidents.

I don't watch the election numbers closely , nor am I statistical genius. What I do know is from the looks of this map [ http://www.CNN.com/election/2012/ecalculator# ] Romney is controlling the Middle United States.

I don't think the electoral college is a fair option , simply because it is not exactly the people voting. If you have a big state such as Texas then you have a huge 38 votes, but a place such as Connecticut only has 7, some states have even less.

Is the electoral college harmful or helpful?

With this map who do you think will be the projected winner of the 2012 presidential Election?

*A question for any who know the answer: Has Mitt Romney chosen a Vice-President yet ?

Obama in Support of Tomorrow's Professionals

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/06/15/531417_ap.html Very soon a decision that Obama made approximately 3 weeks ago will began to affect millions of students around the country. This new policy change in question will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger Illegal Immigrants or immigrants whose official citizenship has been in limbo for one reason or another who came to the U.S as children and have since led law abiding lives. In my opinion this is a great step towards helping illegal immigrants in general. Interestingly enough despite the stereotype that is placed on illegal immigrants that they're the cause of many crimes a study by the Public Policy Institute of California revealed immigrants comprised only 17 percent of California’s prison population, even though they accounted for 35 percent of state’s total adult population. In another light Obama may be using this as a platform from which to strengthen his Latino voter base. So what do you think? Did Obama compromise his position on the polls with this move? Will this decision have an affect on the elections in the coming months?

Are Republicans the Job Creators?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/07/Unemployment-Rate-Dropped-In-Every-State-That-Elected-A-Republican-Gov-In-2010

So it looks like our Governors over on the GOP side have found it easier to create jobs than our buddies on the left. I can't help but wonder why that is. Maybe it is because the Democrats seem to be in love with job killing regulations? Or is it that the Republicans hate the job killing taxes? Is it because people like Scott Walker understand that you can't let big union bully jobs out the window?

So with these numbers that prove that the Republicans seem to be better, in some cases only a little and in other incredibly, at lowering the unemployment rate in their state, and with the not so good looking national job numbers from the President the other day, do the Democrats really deserve to keep the power they have in Washington? Does the President deserve to keep his job, when the party he is fighting against is doing so much better than him in creating jobs? Does Mitt Romney and his GOP friends deserve a turn at the wheel and do what the Republicans at the state level are doing to create all the jobs they've been creating?

Healthcare For All

Link to Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/more-state-leaders-considering-opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion/2012/07/03/gJQADvMsLW_story.html

Have you ever felt lost, ignored, or uncared for? Well that's how millions of Americans will feel if state leaders choose to opt out of President Obama's healthcare expansion, which is something they are considering doing. Republican governors of these states: Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Iowa, want to opt out. Now you may ask, "What is the expansion about?" Well, it's about Obama wanting to deliver healthcare to poor Americans. Many people cannot afford healthcare, yet it is something essential to have. Very essential, actually. What if those people get sick? How are they going to come up with the money to go to the doctor's office? Many times, there is no way for them.

This is the case for millions of Americans, so it's certainly a problem. So our President put this new program into action, in order to help out those people.

But certainly, this whole idea is not settling well with everyone. Republicans are worried about this whole proposal costing the U.S. Government too much money, because it will be quite an expensive program. It will cost the Government billions and trillions of dollars over time. That's a lot of money! A lot of people oppose it because they think it's just a waste of money. I found some opposition when I was doing some research:

"It is projected to cost approximately 1.6 trillion dollars which will be funded with cuts to other wasteful spending. Of course, that cost will also be offset by the increased productivity of workers who might otherwise be a drain on the society due to illness. Since the projected cost is over 10 years, this translates into 160 Billion dollars a year which is about a fifth of the base Military budget.

If the cost of this was borne directly by the taxpayer with no offsets the end result would be that it will cost every taxpaying American, if split equally, about $1159 a year for the next 10 years. Considering that the cost of paying COBRA for a family of four is about $1000 per month or $12,000 per year, this is quite a bargain for families who suddenly find themselves out of a job."

Source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_Obama's_Health_Care_plan_going_to_cost

So clearly there are more than a few people who oppose this whole thing. Personally, I don't agree with all this opposition. In my opinion, most of those people who oppose this whole thing are selfish rich people. They have no idea what it’s like to live on food stamps, to not know if you will have food on your table the next day. No, they have no idea. Completely clueless. So instead of being so selfish and calling this whole thing a waste of money, why don’t they just reflect on how ridiculous they are making themselves look? Yes, there are other things that need to get taken care of in this country, a lot of things that need to be fixed. Healthcare should be one of the most essential things, because that is very important to have. So of course people who can’t afford it should have a way to get health care. We can’t just abandon a large percentage of Americans, what kind of country is that.

So I would like to hear your opinion: Is this whole program worth it? Or is it just a waste of everybody’s time? Is it really going to help Americans, or just make things harder for them?

21st Century Politics and the Right to Vote

When you think of the right to vote, what do you think?

What should a person have to do to earn it?

Is it even an action that should be earned?

Or are we born with the opportunity to decide?

I want to share with you the informal, but still purposeful style, of our class blog.  I also want to share with you a link from early June about what is going on in Florida right now as we lead up to the November Elections.

Key words:

Deja vu:  to have seen something before
Purge:  to remove; to get rid of
Swing state:  a state where no particular party or candidate has control, thus each party/candidate seeks the electoral college votes of that state politics

LINK: https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/deja-vu-all-over-again-floridas-latest-attempt-purge-voters-rolls

What does this news story say about the state of our democracy in America?  

Is this a new phenomenon?  Or has this method of purging names from the voter lists been used before?  Who used it?  Why? 

How will you learn more about this issue of voters' rights?