Protection not Profits

    When I first read your blog about the idea of privatizing social security, I was confused. I agree with you about how something so big and centrally run like S.S. could disperse itself among thousands of individual investor’s with-out expecting any problems.  The first thing that comes to mind is corruption, once you get that much money moved from the government to individual investors, there is no telling what could happen in-between the cracks.. Yes regulations and rules will be set and yes there are those who will follow them, but there is always that few who will take advantage and ruin it for the majority. Why are we giving them this opportunity?  There are already accusations of corruption within our current system which is run by few people, and moving it in such a way to where millions of people could be responsible, just seems absurd. Social Security was designed to help and protect the elderly, not make profits from them.

Let’s keep the system the way it is and address the problems that face it with adequate provisions; something as powerful as S.S. should only be handled by a knowledgeable few.  

Gun reciprocity shoots holes in states' rights

If you’ve lived in Texas then you’ve seen, or know someone that has, a firearm. From hunting in the rural ranches to protecting yourself in the city; gun control has always been a hot topic for our state.  Now in USA Today, an editorial writes about gun control and how it’s being stripped away from the states. The notion is that the House is voting on a measure that would require all states to accept each others carry permits, no questions asked. For example, if I were to obtain a concealed handgun license in Texas and travel across the country any state I travel through, outlawing a “concealed handgun”, must now oblige by Texas law on handguns. At first, to me the average hunter, it seemed to make sense; why hasn’t this been done in the past, came to mind. The NRA has pushed hard on this issue, lobbying House members to place the bill on the table. After thinking a little longer though, I seemed to agree with the writer of the article. Allowing something like this would go against everything our nation was built on, what happened to state rights? In a movement to make things easier to some individuals would probably be detrimental to others. Not only would this type of legislation cause political tyranny, but it’d also infringe on the safety of those whose states do have strict gun control laws. And what happens when the case is murder, if it were in a different state by an individual who had a handgun, which was only obtainable in his “other” state, where is the line drawn? Does he get charged with murder or would the law exemplify him simply biased on this legislation. I hope this bill doesn’t gain popularity, which personally I don’t think it is, it causes too much infringement on states’ rights with little benefits to us all.

Wade's Gov. on Immigration, In-State tuition, and What We're Doing

After reading my classmate’s article about Immigration, In-State tuition, and What We’re Doing, certain aspects came to mind. Being from a border town, Laredo, I have firsthand knowledge of the recent and past drug violence, aided by the “flow” of immigration, causing harm to American border town communities. Before, tourist from around the world would travel to Laredo to shop across the bridge into our sister city, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico; since 2003, when violence started occurring in Nuevo Laredo, almost all main attractions (shops, restaurant’s, and clubs) closed down within months. The tourist rate and economy in all border towns have plummeted, and continue to do so today. Three of my high school friends having lunch across the border passed on when gunfire erupted and the restaurant blew up by a grenade launcher. With this kind of firsthand information, I would have to disagree with you on your point that the United States needs to stop giving millions to stop the flow of illegals into this country. Their position by enforcing stricter policies along the border, in my opinion, is substantial and needs more applying. By stopping the influx of immigrants today we will not only contribute to stopping the genocide that is happening along our Texas border; but also halt the violence that continues to spread into northern regions of the U.S.

Now on your point on giving Immigrants, who are already living here, the opportunity to gain citizenship through college courses is exceptional! Back home I have several highly intelligent “illegal” high-school friends, who went to an engineering magnet and scored higher on their SAT’s than most “legal” students, and are scared to pursue a college carrier because of being deported due to our current system; what a shame! I believe stricter border laws need to be enacted purely for security, but immigration laws within the states need to be reformed in favor for those already living in America looking for the American Dream; just as our forefathers intended.

Medical pot group sues Obama administration over California crackdown

                Everyone in America has witnessed once in their lifetime, either through television, magazines, or newspaper headlines, Medical Marijuana groups advocating for their cause. Just this past Thursday a medical marijuana advocacy group sued the Obama administration saying its new position on changing local and state medical marijuana laws in California is unconstitutional.

 In 1996 pro-medical marijuana advocates pushed for the passing of proposition 215, which exempts doctors and seriously ill patients from marijuana laws and allows them to grow and use it in treatment. Fast tracking to the present, some 15 years later, medical marijuana has branched out into an economic boom. It’s practically impossible to not get a prescription for marijuana in California. The trend has created California into a virtual “hot-box” and citizens, who are perfectly healthy and have obtained a prescription, are taking advantage of new law. This reason here is why federal government has taken a peculiar interest in targeting big marijuana distributors. The idea that the average citizen is taking advantage of a law infers regulation from the government, doesn’t it? In no way are they trying to throw the law away, yet there merely “regulating it” as they do for all laws they implement.

 I find it bizarre that a group is suing for a cause that is already established; their mad because big companies who grow and distribute marijuana are being raided. Yet, those are the companies taking direct advantage of those who are truly in need of marijuana for serious health issues by selling a majority of their product to those “conning” the system. In my opinion, this cause for uproar against the national government is absurd. If you’re a Californian and have an illness where marijuana is a benefactor, then a switch from disturbing centers or a change to start growing your own, because its legal for you to do so, shouldn’t be a big enough problem to sue the national government! This group can use their support to focus on more important issues; maybe, making marijuana legal and taxable to everyone. In turn, it would create huge tax revenue giving us the jump start we need to get out of this recession.

The Nihilist Party: Republicans Who Believe in Nothing

In today’s political bowl ideologies have been said to be separated from their initial core beliefs.  In “TheNihilist Party: Republicans Who Believe in Nothing” by RJ Eskow, Eskow gives prime examples as to where the Republican Party has drifted off in our present day. His audience is us, Americans, who haven’t had much luck in making sense as to what will get us out of this recession. At first he clearly defines the word Nihilist: a viewpoint that traditional beliefs and values are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless –Merriam-Webster Online, in order to establish a foundation as to his explanation defining today's GOP’s stance on public policy. He attributes this definition to Republicans, to claim that they are filled with greed and self-loathing efforts defying the common good of all our non-wealthy citizens; in other words, usually their loyalties reside within their predominant sponsors. With this in mind, he directs the most common problem to the fact that Republicans oppose anything the Democrats propose. For example, Republicans passed and signed a $286 billion infrastructure for George W. Bush; today they oppose all such spending proposed by democrats. There is never a middle ground here, one way or the other opposing parties are pushing each other off the platform. Before the democrats can get anything proposed in congress the GOP quickly shuts it down, not even looking into other solutions to fix the problem at hand, just like when Republicans rejected Obama’s jobs act to expand employment; a solution they didn’t believe was worth looking into. Eskow also relates how Cain’s “9-9-9” program is detrimental to the working class and its only goal is to favor the wealthy. Republicans are always in favor when it comes to cutting taxes on the wealthy, expanding business overseas, which worsens our economy, and cutting benefits from health care programs. None of this would be true to the Republican ideology before the 90’s.

I agree with Eskow and his beliefs of an un-balanced government due to the false prospects of the Republican Party. What else is one to expect to think about the GOP but cynicism? What happened to the treatment of small business and building for the better of our country for all people, much like republicans Eisenhower and Reagan did. New leaders, whose influence aren’t bonded by the money that sponsors them, are in demand to wash away the tyranny that has been bestowed upon one of our most influential political parties. Prosperity is only to come when balance is back in order.