We the people response

Yes i agree i feel that with this new law there will be many discriminating court cases to prevail from this. On the same token i feel that it is necessary to enforce these issues otherwise America as we know it will still be in an economy crisis paying for these individuals to live freely. They do not pay taxes and the president should pay more attention into issues other than the war that will go on for many years to come. Allowing Illegals to come across the border and not get checked until they commit a crime as high as a felony is wrong and we shouldn't stand for it. The small petty crimes are bad also but as soon as they are committed there is no word of who the individual is or where they went. We know very well that they can flee back to Mexico and live there everyday life again.

Http://jessi1986.blogspot.com

Arizona Immigration law!

Arizona is trying to pass a law to make it possible for cops to stop people just on gender or suspicion that they could be immigrants. I feel that this is not a good idea because it will probably cause large protest and possibly a lot of violence. Other parts of the law i feel are appropriate and should help with our drug problems in the united states. One provision is strict enforcement on immigration laws and laws against persons or groups that hire movers to transport drugs back and forth threw united states borders. There needs to be something done when it comes to the illegal drugs coming across the border. This problem is causing American children to get involved with these horrible narcotics at a very young age. The law being passed is seen to help with some economic problems by collecting money from millions of undocumented aliens to give them a chance to be legal and enjoy the freedom given to us by our constitutional rights. This is a huge opportunity for non citizens of the united states to become citizens and start paying necessary taxes that the rest of the working public gets to pay. This law was said to have been largely perceived to be brought about by the death of a well known rancher that was killed by an illegal border crosser. With a tragedy like this calls for forceful measures and are sometimes necessary to make sure it no longer happens. I feel that parts of this law will benefit many people.

Obama

President Obama has tried to help many Americans with change and the thought of a turn for the better. So far the New president has shown change in areas that seem to effect the public very little. The number of troops that were supposed to return from the war in the middle east as soon as president Obama took office has not been completed. The number of troops have grown overseas and the fatalities have increased big time. Also the health care reform has caused more American debt and an increase in vulnerability of the American people. So i feel that as stated on we the peoples blog the (Apostles of anger)have a valid point.

Civiliian Casualties in Afganistan?

NATO releases information stating that they had killed five civilians in a night time raid. Trying to cover for them selves they stated that it was a mistaken "Honor killing". I feel that the reason we have women, men, and children over there fighting for our freedom is not because of civilian work of terrorism. These people are trying to live a life in a poverty struck en environment and shouldn't be used as target practice. These people are loosing family members left and right some involved with the acts of terrorism and some just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our leader should have more power controlling the people innocently being killed by the acts of poorly advised soldiers. I honor the men and women of the United States armed services but there are different ways to deal with stubborn individuals or people that have bad days. We as Americans see people on an everyday basis that are out of hand and rude for no reason but we are not out there taking there lives for a days worth of small mistakes. Also military officials should be ashamed of there efforts to cover up the killing of civilians shot execution style tied up and gagged. The officials stated that this was a custom burial ritual after a family member was found dead. To me this seems like more lies to cover the cruel acts of some American civilians. There is a clear difference between someone that has been nicely covered after a murder or death, to someone that has been tightly tied from the back of the head were the wound was to the inside of the lips. This to me is a embarrassment of the American solider in the eyes of the people around the conflict.


http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com

Allow or Not same sex prom dates?

A student in Mississippi wants to take her same sex girlfriend to the prom leads to a cancellation of the entire dance. This Student proceeds to get her equal rights as a citizen and takes it to the U.S. District Court in Oxford. After the school had cancelled the dance the student was ridiculed and threatened by other classmates. This led to the ACLU demanding that the school do away with restrictions of same sex prom dates. I feel that the question that is needing to be answered is, Are all schools going to allow it or do students that want theses things for them selves have to fight for it. I think that it is a young adults own right to take whom ever they feel emotionally attached to with them to such a special occasion as prom. Most high schools allow just about anyone to attend prom even if they are not enrolled in that school. So why would it be any different for two girls both enrolled in the school to go together. The school board stated that the situation would cause too many distractions and embarrassment. A school should focus on the children's learning and understanding of course material before trying to interfere with the parental portion of emotional behavior. The school by canceling an event as important as prom caused more problems for the students than allowing her to just go and enjoy her senior year in high school. With this cituation some people are still so blind to see that the earth as a place is changing at a very rappid rate.












http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1971659-2,00.html

Republicans and Health Care Reform

"Afflicting the Afflicted" is what Paul Krugman calls his article. In this opinion on Thursdays health care summit he discuss things said by the Republicans in reference to the health care reform debate. His intended audience seems to be anyone who has an interest in the health care reform, although his article seems to also be sided more to Democrats. Krugman's claim is that the Republicans "didn't bother making a case that could withstand even minimal fact-checking." He argument leads you to believe that he feels that the Republicans didn't make a good enough case on where they stand, especially with the amount of time, research, and emphasis put into the health care reform. While Krugman's article is definitely one sided, he does have great evidence to support his claim. When he discusses the republican representatives comments on premiums going up he does mention that the Democrats say that "average payments for insurance would go up". Krugman does acknowledge that this is something the Democrats did say would happen, but that the Republicans didn't speak on the Democrats entire statement and notes that rise would be due to"better coverage" and the "federal aide" would help to offset this cost. He also discusses the use of reconciliation and how is was stated by the Republicans that it has "never been used for something like this" Krugman points out that it has in fact been used twice before in health care reform. While I do think he is accurate here, I don't agree with it being used in such an over hall of the health care system and I think that is more the point that the Republicans are trying to make. I do however agree with his comments about the Republicans inability to adequately discuss the issue of pre-existing medical conditions. I also agree that it seems very wrong to deny someone health care coverage because of the many reasons that we currently do and feel that the Democrats putting an end to this is a great thing. I, like Krugman wonder why the Republicans didn't give an answer for this issue. Overall Krugman makes a good argument for his claim, he backs it up with direct comments from the Republicans and discusses their lack of evidence. It is his last comment at the end that leaves me feeling like it is more a one sided push for the Democrats and their plan. He comment of "But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform", leaves me thinking he himself must be a Democrat as well, which is where he must get his logic from, and also that he has forgotten that it isn't just up to the Democrats. This issue affects the entire U.S. and it is not something that they can create by just finishing the job, its going to take a lot more work than that. Before reading that statement I thought that his article was pretty good, he even had me siding with him. He last comment kind of soured me though and makes me wonder that even though he is very skilled in economics knowledge and has written many books and received many awards if he wasn't just siding with the Democrats. I think that with him being such a great writer he may have been able to write just as good of an argument for the Republicans.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html

Don't Ask Don't Tell

This news article discusses the recent decision to get rid of the ban on gays in the military and the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. Although I do think that it takes time to implement a new policy, or rather get ride of an existing one, I do disagree with some of the things in the article. For one it discusses "third party outings" and how "service members are kicked out after others report them to be gay". I think that this is way wrong, how can someone else get you kicked out for something you may or may not be. They also discuss how it would be "the biggest upheaval to the military's personnel policies since the 1948 executive order on racial integration". I realize that this is a huge step for the military but I also think that the decision in 1948 was a huge step as well and something that needed to be done. The next part of the article talks about possible backlash. I think that if any member of the military were to backlash against this new change that they would not be focusing on the real issues. Robert Gates's comments make sense but I wonder if he is thinking of the people who are gay in the military or just the people who are against gays in the military when he says, "Stupid was trying to impose a policy from the top without any regard for the views of the people who were going to be affected" However I do agree the fact that their should be an internal review. I really feel that the main issue here is that anyone who is willing to serve their country and put their life on the line should not be kicked out or not allowed to join because they are openly gay. My uncle is in the air force and I know that the thing that keeps him going is the thought of his family. Especially his wife and his children. I cant even imagine being over seas or away from my family and not being able to even say the exist or put of pictures of them, those who serve in the military and who are gay would not be able to do these things. Even though I am not gay and would not choose this for myself, I do feel that people who are have the right to serve our country and not have to hide who they really are. They are Americans just like the rest of the people fighting for us every day, and I think that anyone who has a problem with them being there should offer to take their place.











http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/repeal-of-military-s-don-t-ask-ban-239850.html