You cant do that!

This is in response to what theobamanation posted and the fact that congress is attempting to pass CISPA, which is not ok.

I totally agree with you on this issue.  What in the world gives them the right to try  and get in our personal business.  I know that yes, they are or have been already doing this but to pass it as a bill is not ok.  I understand the logic behind it because i can see how it would be helpful in tracking or preventing future crimes or attacks from happening but don't agree with the method in which they are choosing to do this.  It is a violation of rights and should be looked at more thoroughly or just all together thrown out.  Hopefully the senate and the president will see this for what it is and deny it.

You Can't Blame It On Him!

In the article, The RNC's Block-and Blame Game, John Avlon writes about how the republican party continues to blame President Obama for the gun control bill not passing.  Republican Pat Toomey even himself said that people on his side didn't want to vote yes for the bill simply because they didn't want to be seen as helping the President.

This is very disappointing to me seeing as how the bill would be a good thing as far as making sure certain individuals would not be allowed to purchase firearms.  The only thing is i don't believe this is going to stop those individuals from obtaining firearms.  Its just the same as with the war on drugs, it hasn't stopped anything people still get drugs illegally if they want them bad enough they'll do whatever to get them, so i believe the same will happen with firearms people will find a way to get them even if this bill is passed. 

But, that's just my opinion.  In the article Avlon goes on to say that as a result of these certain party individuals opposing the bill they have seen a backlash from those in their parties, and have helped the Democrats gain some popularity as a result of this.  This is something that they deserve for choosing to go against out of hatred towards someone who is just trying to do something right for the country.

 I like how Avlon writes, "The lesson is that we do pay attention—especially if there is a moral dimension and frustration over popular will being ignored."  This is very much true, congress, i believe thinks we're just gonna sit back and let them do what they want and that's just simply not the case.  Americans as a whole are tired and fed up with whats been going on and are going to make a stand for what they believe should be happening, or at least try.

In part I agree with John Avlon writes, the RNC is getting what they deserve and will eventually have to just stop fighting it and realize the only way for this country to get better is by working together.

We should make lemonade

I agree with Christian's blog entry "Should we make lemonade?" He talks about the fact that the U.S. is a capitalist country and is about making money and therefore it would be beneficial to us to legalize immigrants just by the application fee alone it would benefit in making a profit.   
Now i do however feel that there should be some restrictions to this before you allow any of them to become legal.  Just how in the DREAM Act it states that they can't have been convicted of a felony or 3 misdemeanors, I believe these are some of the same rules we should follow before allowing them legalization.  I also believe that they should provide proof of continued stable work or continued education or attempt to continue.
Its just a matter of making sense, this is something we should do and hopefully those in the country who are afraid of change will see that this is eventually going to happen or i at least hope so.

Gay's should be allowed to marry

The question that is being circulated in the media recently is should gay/lesbian couples be allowed to enter in a legal marriage?  The resounding answer has been or seems to be yes, at least from the general consensus.  The fact that government believes it can define what a legal marriage should be is just ridiculous.  How can you say that it should only be allowed to a man and a woman because its intention is for procreation.
I believe that if two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together that they should be allowed to, even by making it legal and going through the same legal process that straight couples go through.  This is not a matter that the government should even be involved in, just because they choose to have different morals and they have power to enforce or change laws because they see this as a matter that infringes on their morals and because they're scared of change doesn't give them the right to interfere in peoples lives who choose a different lifestyle.
There's an article in Dailymail that writes about this Georgia Republican chairwoman and how she believes that if we make gay marriages legal it could lead to fake marriages by straight people just to receive government benefits, which is just ridiculous because people do that now to help get things like green cards, insurance and any number of other benefits that are granted to legal married couples and the government hasn't done anything to prevent these things from happening.
So I say to the government stay out of the lives of those that just want to be happy and show it like everyone else who is granted marriage.  What gives you the right to judge?

Why should welfare recipients be the only one's to get drug tested?

In this article by Paul Begala, from The Daily Beast he writes about how Congressman Stephen Fincher proposed that states should randomly drug test those who receive govt support (welfare) to be tested in order to keep their benefits.  What begala is saying is why should they be the only one's to have to be tested, why not also those who are in the positions that grant them these benefits like the congressman himself or for that matter other members of the senate or, the president himself.
He goes on to point out instances in which those in power have displayed themselves moments in which it would seem they are under the influence like, Gov. Rick Perry and his lapse of memory moment in the republican primaries and then follows this with the fact that he apparently had been on medication during that debate.
In my own opinion, I do believe in some instances it is something that should be implemented, like when you have repeated proof of someone taking advantage of the system to just simply obtain drugs or not provide for their family with the money they've been given.  I can say this because I have myself had to apply for food stamps, and although in the past (and I mean years ago) I did smoke I haven't anymore so wouldn't have a problem taking a test myself, but I also never intended to take advantage.  So, I agree with Paul on him saying that it shouldn't just be applied to those on welfare, we should also test those in the higher up positions, even those running major companies and the country. 

America's troubled drone policy: let the debate finally begin, in this article by John Kael Weston, he writes about how drones that are used in attacks on suspected terrorists affect those that are in the military and civilians alike.  He writes about a marine friend of his that is troubled by the way the drones are used.  Yes, they are killing those who pose a threat but also innocent bystanders.  The fact  that the government does compensate those families for their loses doesn't mean that its ok to keep doing it at any cost.  His marine friend goes on to say "our drone hammer makes everyone look like that nail that needs to be flattened."(thedailybeast.com) Meaning that others perception of what the US is doing is being done unashamedly.  John, along with his friend, doesn't agree with how the drones are being used and neither do I.  The drones should be used to take those out who are going to cause harm but, when using those drones it should really be taken into account all the innocents that are around.  The government shouldn't have to pay families for there loses if the attacks where done strategically and correct.  Besides that why should they spend more money that shouldn't be spent.  This article clearly makes you think about the use of drones and how they are being used, but also how there is a negative side to it as well.      

I am writing about an article from Thursday February 7 in USAToday, that's about Iran extracting and airing images it took from a drone that the US had apparently lost, but that Iran had captured in reality.  In the article it talks about how Iran has studied the drone and has the capability to re-create it's own production line of drones.  Now the reason I chose this article is that it fascinated me that a country like Iran was able to capture one of our drones and now has the ability to reproduce it, because if they can do something like this then it only leaves you wondering what else are they capable of or have already produced themselves.  This is something we need to be looking into a little deeper in my opinion, if not and we're caught sleeping it only gives not only them but others an opportunity to strike when we least expect it. Check it out if your at all curious about this.