Freedom of Speech

As I read from Gabriela Guadarrama, from her post "Should there be a filter for freedom of speech?", I find that she believes that the first amendment is outdated, and the government should prevent people from using offensive statements.  This is something that I do agree with.  I also do believe that people should be able to take what is thrown at them and move on, but there is a level of "too harsh". That might come out a little cold at first, but if actually thought about, it would be easy to see that no days we are being restricted on what we can and cannot say for really dumb reasons.  For example, it is inappropriate to say merry christmas because people are being offended. This is something I find ridiculous, and should have the right to say what ever you feel like. BUT, I do not believe it should be okay to say how you feel about different races if it is offensive.  Racist statements are something that shouldn't be acceptable, and really are not already.  I don't think that the first amendment needs to be changed, but as there are limits to what you say in school, there should be limits everywhere else. So to conclude my statement, there should be limits on what people say, but not stupid things like saying merry christmas, but with racist statements.  Other than racists statements, I can't really find anything that should be banned from saying. The younger generation, including me, need to take what is thrown at us and move on instead of raising a fuss over nothing.

Sneaky

Has anyone really noticed how sneaky our National Government is?  Not only are they sneaky but some people in office or most people in office are making decisions, not for the gain of the country but for personal gain.   One of the main things that stands out to me about the United States Government, is how much that our vote actually counts.  Many people believe that our vote is exactly what goes, and in reality we vote and then the people in office decide what actually happens.  For example, our vote for the president. Yes, we vote for who we think should be president, but do we actually vote and decide who the president is?  Our vote isn't shown as, "who is the next president?", but as "what party will the president be?".  When the electoral college gets our votes, they might see who wins majority vote, but it's mostly about what party wins majority and then they vote on who the president shall be.  They don't even have to listen to the people.  They can simply vote on who ever they want.  Also there are many laws passed for personal gain.  A lot of people in office might ask themselves this question before they make any decisions, "how will this help me?"  It irritates me that this is the way things have to be, but how will people be in office if they don't do what the people like.  It would be nice to find the right people that will just make the best decisions for the country.  Along with people making decisions for the popularity, special interest groups get to make many decisions. They need the money and if they make decisions against what the special interest groups want, they will not be getting money from them.  What a great system right?

  I believe that Fernando Lopez is right in his argument on his blog,Home of the Winners, from Monday October,26, is correct in stating that America is somewhere you should be able to come to better you life for you and your kids. Now this is a very touchy subject because I feel like if you say one comment in the wrong way you could come off to people as a discriminate.  Now I believe that you are correct in saying that it should be allowed, but I also believe that there is a process that everyone should follow.  I believe anyone should be able to come into the United States, but with citizenship. Gaining citizenship is a process that is a little difficult at the moment and maybe should be a little easier and less expensive. This IS NOT saying that we should keep other people from other countries out, but I do believe we are already facing major problems here already and just letting anyone and everyone just walk into our Nation doesn't really help us out.  We are separate from other countries and need to remain separate. There is a side of my family that came from Italy and a part that came from Mexico, and if they didn't live in the Untied States already, I would tell them to become citizens so they could live here.  This is also not just about being a separate Nation, but to keep the U.S. safe.  So, yes I do agree with, in saying that anyone should be able to come into the United States, but I will also have to argue in saying that there needs to be a process in which they do so, and not just open up the borders to anyone.

Problems we face.

    One thing I have come to realize lately, is how politically seperated we are as a nation. When saying politically separated, I am saying there there is almost two different sides, republican or democrat, and there isn't enough in the middle to stand out.  This is almost like a battle that is going on.  When I was in high school, all kids ever talked about was what side they are and why their side is right and the other is wrong, but I never heard anyone agree with both sides. Another example is the news.  Sometimes I wonder if we are actually getting the full news anymore, because every news channel is politically based and it is beyond obvious.  I think the news is becoming less and less credible, because I don't know if they are saying certain things to make one person look good and another look bad, or if they are saying it how it actually is.  Everyone has their own way of seeing things and now it is showing when watching the news.  I believe that at one point we need to almost step back and look at things as a whole and start making changes that are better for the country even if it is against the political party that one stands.  There needs to be someone out there that does what is good for the country and not what is good for the party.  But from there we also have to look and wonder if anyone is actually going to do that.  Would anyone vote for that person if he or she ran? Would people not vote for him/ her because he/ she isn't in a political party?  These people need to stand out and make it clear to everyone that we need to put aside the differences and work together as a team to help fix the nation, the more we disagree the further we are drawn apart.

Why so mean?

        Today I feel like Mr. Obama is getting treated very terrible for every decision he makes.  Not saying that I agree or disagree with any of the decisions, but it seems like there isn't anything that he is doing that anybody likes.  Now I have to be honest and say that I have not been paying any attention to any of the things he has been deciding on, because the only thing I see now are people making fun of Donald Trump and other candidates Given that all I have been hearing about is Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I decided to read a blog about Obama, and I find it funny to see what the article is actually about.  With the title as "Obama Gets a Clue", I knew that it was going to be a interesting blog.  This blog was written by Steven Hayward, on October 15th, 2015, on PowerlineBlog.com.
       This article is mostly about Obama changing his mind and keeping the troops in Afghanistan until his presidency ends.  Steven also compares Obama to Jimmy Carter when asking if Obama finally got a clue.  As Steven says, " Barack Obama has been making Jimmy Carter look pretty good by comparison from day one of his administration."  This is saying that the way Obama is making choices, he makes Jimmy Carter look good even though Jimmy was a very poor decision maker.  
       Steven writes from a conservative side of things, and believes in troops being in Afghanistan. We know this because he says, "you know it's bad when our European allies want to keep forces in Afghanistan." You are also able to tell what side he is coming from by the tone of the article.  He says Obama finally gets a clue when he decides to keep forces in.  At the end of the article the is a funny cartoon that shows a man, that represents world events, dragging a man, Obama, behind him by a leash.  From the article you can also tell that the author doesn't like Jimmy Carter by the way he calls him a peanut-brain.  
       I found this article very interesting to read because it is a very one sided story.  He doesn't show any understanding as to why Obama might take troops out of Afghanistan, instead just talks about why it would be a bad choice not to.  The author has some very interesting thoughts that make the article worth a read.  To me I do not disagree or agree with this mans writing.  I do not know enough about Jimmy to criticize him and I don't know enough about Obama to criticize his decisions. So I do not have an opinion towards the article, but I know that others will.  Whether you agree or disagree with Steven, I suggest giving the article a read because, in my opinion, it is always nice to see where others are coming from.  

I have found a very interesting article on the New York Times paper,John Kerry Rushes in Where Obama Will Not Tread, that talked about the problems going on in Syria and how Mr. Obama is dealing with it all.  This is a very difficult situation for all in charge, but I feel like needs to be dealt with but with extreme care. The author, Peter Baker, talked about how Mr. Obama would like to almost hold back and let it almost resolve itself.  BUT, at the same time, I can see where he is coming from by not getting involved.  Obama also has the Secretary of State, John Kerry,  doing a lot of work for him because he is willing to go anywhere and do anything to try to find a resolution to this problem.  So while Obama is too busy,  Mr. Kerry is figuring out ways to solve this, as they say, “the engineering way”. “If there is a problem, it can be fixed.” John Kerry has a constant communication with the foreign minister which can be very beneficial in our situation. John Kerry is very helpful in our situation, and I believe that if anyone were to solve the problem the way they want, he would be the one to do so. This article shows almost exactly what Mr. Obama is doing by “watching over it” and what Mr. Kerry is doing by “trying to solve the problem.”  The author throws in there that the reason U.S. can’t just jump into Syria is because of the risk they have to our country.  I do believe that having someone other than the president help resolve the situation without putting the U.S. to war, is the smartest thing to do at the moment.  We need to do all that is possible in a peaceful way before attempting to play it rough.  Maybe to others that might seem like the wrong thing to do, but that is why I like this topic so much, to hear all the ways that this can be handled and all the results that can come with it. The articles intended audience is for everyone that lives in the United States, but can be inferred differently by different political beliefs, (how to act on Syria).  I also noticed that the author, Peter Baker, did an excellent job on keeping his opinion out of the story.  The article was very well written and deserves to be read because it is something very important that is happening right now and involves everyone, and if it doesn't involve everyone now, if the cards are played wrong, it can involve everyone later on.

blocked planned parenthood?

Why would The House want to vote on a bill that blocks federal funding to planned parent hood for a year?   Now it doesn't sound that bad because it is just for a year.  The doctors now will be criminally charged if they don't try to save the babies life, if the baby is born alive during an abortion.  I personally think that is great though.  I don't know how anyone could not try to save a little babies life.  The article that I read over this issue is found at Fox News's website.  This article was very interesting to read.  From the article you find that,  it is not just about not funding and saving the babies life, but it's also an attempt to change some abortion practices.  One of the big arguments, and one that a presidential candidates addresses that there are undercover videos of babies being kept alive to harvest some of their body parts like their brain and sell them for money.  This is not only disgusting, but something that should also be stopped.  The de-fund bill was passes 241-187, and also has a potential change so shut down the government.  There are two different bills and their goals are, to block planned parent hood for a year and impose criminal penalties to the doctors who don't try to keep the babies alive if born during an abortion.  Democrats already got rid of a bill that wanted to erase planned parenthood funding, as the republicans are arguing that having the government shutdown for this would be damaging. Ted Cruz is trying to get the Republicans to get rid of planned parenthood completely.  The article was very interesting and very informative over this topic.  It's a very well created article and you should go over and read it. It won't take too much time because it is short and gets straight to the point.  I believe that planned parent hood is okay on some points, but to kill a baby who is already alive and to sell its body parts for money, I believe that is wrong and should be stopped.  I think one year won't hurt anyone and could be good in many ways.  It would also be a good "test" and to see how things work with the money being blocked.  Its only for one year, and it will go by quickly.