http://whatsleftofyourrights.blogspot.com/2007/11/first-its-psychos-next-its-you.html
I read Jennifer's commentary on the right to bear arms. The link to her article is listed above. Although I would not have articulated her view points quite the same way, I do agree with her. I do think that guns sometimes end up in the wrong hands and therefore causes pain and suffering among other citizens. However, the right to bear arms is a right that we possess here in America. This is supposed to be a free country and therefore if someone wants to own a fire arm they should be allowed to do so.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
Pro Choice or Pro Life…..
In keeping with controversial issues, I thought it would be fitting to discuss abortion. Heated with passion and religious beliefs abortion never makes for a dull topic to discuss. For many people this is an open and shut case; few "ride the fence" on this topic. Most people are pro choice or pro life, period, nothing else to discuss. Although I do not find my self "riding the fence" on this topic, I certainly can appreciate all angles of this argument. So the big question is….where does Snapp stand regarding this issue?
If in an election, the issue of abortion comes up for vote, I would vote pro choice. However, I am completely against the idea of having an abortion. Being a Christian I believe that no life should be destroyed in that manner. Without getting on my religious soap box, I do believe that God created all life, and that life has a purpose (even if we do not understand the reasoning behind it.) In other words, in the case of rape, incest, or the 15 year old girl who makes poor life choices, abortion is not an option.
I would not vote pro life. The reason for this decision is because I would not want the government to dictate to a woman what she can and can not do with her life. I realize that in the preceding sentence of this article, people would argue that it is not just "her" life that she is dealing with here. However, in America this is a free country and everyone should be able to live their life and make their own informed choices and decisions. Also if the government were to have control over abortion, that would just be another freedom that would be removed from us. This would be one step closer to living in a dictatorship. For example in Romania and China, there was a time when the people of those countries were told how many babies they could have or not have. In China, you were limited to the number of children you could have. In Romania, you were told you had to pro-create and birth control was illegal. I could not imagine living my life under these rules and conditions.
In closing, I do not agree with abortion, however it is not my decision to make. This country was founded on certain beliefs and fundamental rights, which should not be removed. We should all be free to worship from our own kind of pew, and live our lives and make our own choices and decisions. Government should not be able to make those decisions for us. Therefore I would vote pro choice in order to keep this a more "Free" America.
If in an election, the issue of abortion comes up for vote, I would vote pro choice. However, I am completely against the idea of having an abortion. Being a Christian I believe that no life should be destroyed in that manner. Without getting on my religious soap box, I do believe that God created all life, and that life has a purpose (even if we do not understand the reasoning behind it.) In other words, in the case of rape, incest, or the 15 year old girl who makes poor life choices, abortion is not an option.
I would not vote pro life. The reason for this decision is because I would not want the government to dictate to a woman what she can and can not do with her life. I realize that in the preceding sentence of this article, people would argue that it is not just "her" life that she is dealing with here. However, in America this is a free country and everyone should be able to live their life and make their own informed choices and decisions. Also if the government were to have control over abortion, that would just be another freedom that would be removed from us. This would be one step closer to living in a dictatorship. For example in Romania and China, there was a time when the people of those countries were told how many babies they could have or not have. In China, you were limited to the number of children you could have. In Romania, you were told you had to pro-create and birth control was illegal. I could not imagine living my life under these rules and conditions.
In closing, I do not agree with abortion, however it is not my decision to make. This country was founded on certain beliefs and fundamental rights, which should not be removed. We should all be free to worship from our own kind of pew, and live our lives and make our own choices and decisions. Government should not be able to make those decisions for us. Therefore I would vote pro choice in order to keep this a more "Free" America.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
To Deport or Not Deport.....
Illegal Immigration is a huge social issue today in America. The controversy surrounding this topic is normally heated when discussed among Americans today. There seem to be about three main views regarding illegal immigrants. One view is to let the proper authorities gather everyone up and send them packing. Another view is to provide them with paperwork in order to make them legal, this way they would be tax paying citizens like the rest of us working stiffs today. Finally there is the view to not do anything. The people benefiting from this thought process normally are your larger business owners who need illegal aliens to do work that most Americans will not. Also those businesses can hire these workers for a fraction of the cost of a legal American citizen. (And probably get more work from them, with fewer complaints.)
The view to gather everyone up and send them packing, is narrow minded and would not solve anything. Whether we like to admit it or not, we need those workers here to do jobs that none of the rest us of will do. Farming, landscaping, house cleaning, and construction are just a few industries that benefit from the use of illegal immigrants. Did you know (according to the World Bank,) that about 53% of the Mexican population lives in poverty? This means living on less than $2 per day. So of course many immigrants are going to take whatever job and salary they can get to help support their family.
Ok, let’s talk about the last two views. On one hand we give everyone paperwork and make them start paying taxes. On the other hand we turn our heads and do nothing. I don’t feel that turning our heads and doing nothing is the answer, nor do I feel that everyone should just get paperwork handed to them on a silver platter. It is a privilege to live in this country, and if it wasn’t, so many people would not be illegally crossing the border to get here to take low paying jobs that require manual labor. Issuing paperwork is something that needs to be done. We do need to have everyone documented who wish to live here. There needs to be a system in place that would make it beneficial for the illegal’s to become citizens, but equally beneficial for the U.S. economy as well. We need a program that would maybe tax the illegal’s harder for the first few years in order to make up for lost time; while still allowing them to becoming citizens and making a better life for themselves.
While this issue remains a heated discussion today, illegal immigrants are out there and working among us everyday. With that being said, a few questions come to mind. I wonder how the Native Americans felt when we came in and took over their land; and if they had a more sovereign system in place would we find our selves in the same shoes as the Mexican immigrants today?
The view to gather everyone up and send them packing, is narrow minded and would not solve anything. Whether we like to admit it or not, we need those workers here to do jobs that none of the rest us of will do. Farming, landscaping, house cleaning, and construction are just a few industries that benefit from the use of illegal immigrants. Did you know (according to the World Bank,) that about 53% of the Mexican population lives in poverty? This means living on less than $2 per day. So of course many immigrants are going to take whatever job and salary they can get to help support their family.
Ok, let’s talk about the last two views. On one hand we give everyone paperwork and make them start paying taxes. On the other hand we turn our heads and do nothing. I don’t feel that turning our heads and doing nothing is the answer, nor do I feel that everyone should just get paperwork handed to them on a silver platter. It is a privilege to live in this country, and if it wasn’t, so many people would not be illegally crossing the border to get here to take low paying jobs that require manual labor. Issuing paperwork is something that needs to be done. We do need to have everyone documented who wish to live here. There needs to be a system in place that would make it beneficial for the illegal’s to become citizens, but equally beneficial for the U.S. economy as well. We need a program that would maybe tax the illegal’s harder for the first few years in order to make up for lost time; while still allowing them to becoming citizens and making a better life for themselves.
While this issue remains a heated discussion today, illegal immigrants are out there and working among us everyday. With that being said, a few questions come to mind. I wonder how the Native Americans felt when we came in and took over their land; and if they had a more sovereign system in place would we find our selves in the same shoes as the Mexican immigrants today?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Bush Declares that He Remains Relevant
Bush Declares that He Remains Relevant comes to us from the Washington Post.com. (Click on the Hyber Link above to see the article.) Yesterday, October 17, 2007 President Bush "went off" on Congress. He claims to be upset that they are not moving any bills through. He says it is their fault, and that he will start vetoing bills if they do not get their act together. He states that his veto power is what makes him relevant, even though he is becoming more and more unpopular among the U.S. citizens. Of course Congress is also very unpopular right now and President Bush is feeding off that, just as President Clinton did toward the end of his time in office. In my opinion, this is a sad attempt to make some "noise" before he leaves office. I find myself wondering if he really intends to do any more in office, or does he even care?
President Bush vetoed a popular children’s health program expansion. He proposed a 20% budget increase for the program; however analysts say that would not even be enough to cover the kids that are currently in the program. The increase would have given the program an extra $35 billion over the next five years, which would double the programs funds and therefore would cover about 10 million people. The program currently covers about 6.6 million. This all sounds good, however there are people in the program right now, who are eligible but are not receiving coverage. President Bush claims that if the 20% increase is not enough, then he and Congress would get together and find the money. How are you going to work with Congress if you are yelling and threatening them? I really don’t think that Bush has any intention of really reforming this children’s health care program, nor does he have any intention of really doing much else in his last 15 months in office. It is my opinion that he is trying to take some of the heat off of him by blaming Congress.
A great leader is what this country needs. I don’t feel that we have had one for many years. None of the presidents for the past 20-35 years in my opinion have made any life altering changes while in office. Politics has become too much of a game, just like corporate America. If you want to survive then you have to play the game. It is not ever easy being the unpopular one, and making some real changes. However, it is something this country needs. Bush I feel thought he was doing something good when he made the unpopular decision to continue with the War in Iraq. However, there are so many other issues that need to be addressed, and it is a shame that he will only be remembered for his War on Terrorism. Being President is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and a gift. I just wish more Presidents would take the office as seriously as some of our founding Fathers did during their reign.
President Bush vetoed a popular children’s health program expansion. He proposed a 20% budget increase for the program; however analysts say that would not even be enough to cover the kids that are currently in the program. The increase would have given the program an extra $35 billion over the next five years, which would double the programs funds and therefore would cover about 10 million people. The program currently covers about 6.6 million. This all sounds good, however there are people in the program right now, who are eligible but are not receiving coverage. President Bush claims that if the 20% increase is not enough, then he and Congress would get together and find the money. How are you going to work with Congress if you are yelling and threatening them? I really don’t think that Bush has any intention of really reforming this children’s health care program, nor does he have any intention of really doing much else in his last 15 months in office. It is my opinion that he is trying to take some of the heat off of him by blaming Congress.
A great leader is what this country needs. I don’t feel that we have had one for many years. None of the presidents for the past 20-35 years in my opinion have made any life altering changes while in office. Politics has become too much of a game, just like corporate America. If you want to survive then you have to play the game. It is not ever easy being the unpopular one, and making some real changes. However, it is something this country needs. Bush I feel thought he was doing something good when he made the unpopular decision to continue with the War in Iraq. However, there are so many other issues that need to be addressed, and it is a shame that he will only be remembered for his War on Terrorism. Being President is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and a gift. I just wish more Presidents would take the office as seriously as some of our founding Fathers did during their reign.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Crack Gap
Kimbrough v. U.S; this is a case regarding an African American military veteran who was arrested in Norfolk, VA for being in possession of 92 grams of powder cocaine and 56 grams of crack cocaine. He faces a hefty prison sentence for the possession of crack cocaine, but not so much for the powder form of the narcotic. The length of the prison sentence for being in possession of crack versus powder is something that has been debated among Americans for a while now. Congress passed a law that increases the prison sentence served for being in possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.
Kimbrough was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He could have served 19 to 22 years. The reason for the shorter sentence is due to Judge Raymond A. Jackson, who presided over the case. In his opinion it is “ridicules” to charge crack offenders more harshly than powder users. Therefore he went against the Congressional law and kept the sentence to a minimum. The question now is not if the sentence should be longer for crack users. But rather, was Judge Jackson right or wrong for going against Congress in his decision making.
This is now something that is being decided amongst the Supreme Court. Was Judge Jackson in the wrong for going against Congress? According to the journalist who wrote the article I read, their opinion is clearly No! The author states that the ruling is completely reasonable, and that 15 years in prison is no walk in the park. I don’t think one minute in prison would be a walk in the park, nor should it supposed to be.
This article also does not have enough evidence or reasoning to support the authors’ position. It is a justices’ job to read the case and the facts and make a decision based on that and that alone. It is not his job to just disagree with what Congress has made law because he thinks it is “ridicules.” In my opinion this Justice should be reprimanded for his decision, and the sentence revoked and re-tried with an impartial opinion. There is research showing stats that crack users and dealers are more likely to commit dangerous crimes such as murder and rape, than someone on the powder form of the drug. Just as the drug user committed a crime for using drugs, Judge Jackson also committed a crime by going against what Congress has laid forth as law. Should Judge Jackson receive time in prison for going against Congress? In my opinion that would be “ridicules,” however if Congress deemed that a Justice go to prison for such an offense, then Judge Jackson would definitely be making a visit to the prison for his walk in the park.
Here is the link to this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202018.html?nav=hcmodule
Kimbrough was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He could have served 19 to 22 years. The reason for the shorter sentence is due to Judge Raymond A. Jackson, who presided over the case. In his opinion it is “ridicules” to charge crack offenders more harshly than powder users. Therefore he went against the Congressional law and kept the sentence to a minimum. The question now is not if the sentence should be longer for crack users. But rather, was Judge Jackson right or wrong for going against Congress in his decision making.
This is now something that is being decided amongst the Supreme Court. Was Judge Jackson in the wrong for going against Congress? According to the journalist who wrote the article I read, their opinion is clearly No! The author states that the ruling is completely reasonable, and that 15 years in prison is no walk in the park. I don’t think one minute in prison would be a walk in the park, nor should it supposed to be.
This article also does not have enough evidence or reasoning to support the authors’ position. It is a justices’ job to read the case and the facts and make a decision based on that and that alone. It is not his job to just disagree with what Congress has made law because he thinks it is “ridicules.” In my opinion this Justice should be reprimanded for his decision, and the sentence revoked and re-tried with an impartial opinion. There is research showing stats that crack users and dealers are more likely to commit dangerous crimes such as murder and rape, than someone on the powder form of the drug. Just as the drug user committed a crime for using drugs, Judge Jackson also committed a crime by going against what Congress has laid forth as law. Should Judge Jackson receive time in prison for going against Congress? In my opinion that would be “ridicules,” however if Congress deemed that a Justice go to prison for such an offense, then Judge Jackson would definitely be making a visit to the prison for his walk in the park.
Here is the link to this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202018.html?nav=hcmodule
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Longer Leave for Troops
Fifty-Six to Forty votes was all it took to keep the troops in Iraq. Americans are asking for a timeline that would required that their leave would be as long as their deployment. According to this article Democrats are the ones who are pushing to get the troops home and the Republicans are obviously opposed. “This is Bush’s War,” seems to be the comment and opinion of most Democrats in Congress.
One-Hundred Thirty Thousand troops are to remain in Iraq through next summer. It is difficult for the troops and the troop’s families to have their loved ones away for so long. Some troops have been in War Zones for more than half of their 5 year tour.
This is a very important topic to read about because it affects so many of our fellow Americans and their families. War is never an easy time nor is it welcomed. However, being an Ex-Marine myself, you are fully aware that when you sign up you could be deployed. You join the Military to serve your country and you are trained to do so no matter neither the cost nor the commitment.
Here is the Link to the Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091900915.html
One-Hundred Thirty Thousand troops are to remain in Iraq through next summer. It is difficult for the troops and the troop’s families to have their loved ones away for so long. Some troops have been in War Zones for more than half of their 5 year tour.
This is a very important topic to read about because it affects so many of our fellow Americans and their families. War is never an easy time nor is it welcomed. However, being an Ex-Marine myself, you are fully aware that when you sign up you could be deployed. You join the Military to serve your country and you are trained to do so no matter neither the cost nor the commitment.
Here is the Link to the Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091900915.html
Monday, September 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)