Robert recently wrote a blog post titled Live and Let Live on his blog Hitting High and to the Right. As
soon as I read the first paragraph of his post I was intrigued and kind of surprised.

I read Robert's bio and the first two words were Steadfast Conservative. I did a little Google search
and when I did the definition popped up on the Political Typology Groups and it said, "This overwhelmingly
Republican group holds very conservative attitudes across most issues, including social policy and the size and scope of government. However, they are critical of business and Wall Street. Steadfast Conservatives also express highly negative attitudes toward immigrants and take a skeptical view of U.S. global involvement."

I'll admit that I'm usually the type to cast people into Liberals and Conservatives stereotype. While I know people can vary on different stances and opinions I usually think if someone is a Liberal then they are a certain way or if they are conservative they are against certain things. I'm definitely going to be more open minded.  I was intrigued by his whole post because he is honest, he admits he doesn't like to label himself or his party of choice, he admits what he believes in, and is open and straight forward. I not only appreciate that, I admire it.

I'm a Christian, and I hate it when people say that it's against "MY" religion. Or that "its not natural" or "its a sin" Honestly it doesn't concern or affect them, they aren't God, and they shouldn't be pushing their religious beliefs on anyone.

Robert brings so many different issues to light, makes valid points, and is well informed!

Affordable Benefits

I really appreciate the Free Birth Control under the Affordable Care Act. I know it's caused some controversy with certain religious companies, organizations and even people, but I think it's a great idea. There are a lot of women out there who cant afford birth control but don't want to get pregnant or have a baby just yet. While condoms are 98 percent effective, birth control is 99.9 (when taken correctly) it's an extra precaution to take.

With the Affordable Care Act in place that was signed into law in 2010 by President Obama, private health insurance plans are beginning to offer birth control and some preventive services with out co pays or deductibles. I know this has sparked some controversy with the law and religiously affiliated organizations and companies, deciding what is and isn't moral and religiously acceptable.

According to The Christian Science Monitor's article Hobby Lobby 101: Explaining the Supreme Court's birth control ruling by Warren Richey, Hobby Lobby is controlled by family members with shared religious beliefs that life begins at conception and that any birth control method that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg is a form of abortion and killing that is forbidden by their faith. Hobby Lobby actually only objected to paying for two forms of birth control (the morning after pill and two kinds of IUD) They did
not object to the most common forms of birth control including daily birth control pills.

I think this law is a great idea because it enables many women to be able to acquire birth control with out having to worry about how expensive it is. It effects everyone; teenagers, young adults, men and women. Maybe with this teenage pregnancy will decrease, and if more people had access to birth control maybe they wouldn't have a need for an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy. If it is against your beliefs then you wouldn't need birth control (since no one is forcing you to buy it, or to have sex before marriage) But for others out there with different religious beliefs now have access to something that will benefit them.

I chose David's Government Blog to critique when I saw his post on the Death Penalty because it's something most people don't talk about, but is widely controversial. I loved the fact that he stated openly his opinion and did it boldly. (I'm a little jealous, because I still feel intimidated to do something like that.) I may not agree with the post as a whole or his opinion but I respect it and his opinion. David made some valid statements about issues that I do agree with. Maybe I watch too much Law and Order but it's scary to think about wrongful deaths and judgements, maybe even framing someone. I would like to see more statistics involving states, and cases of the death penalty, and maybe the citizens and their crimes. Maybe a back history or pro con list. But I think David wrote it well and stated his opinion well.

Slight Modifications to Make Big Changes

     I think government funded state assistance programs are a great help to those who actually need them. I do think we should keep the programs but add more restrictions and limitations to them. Maybe even teach people that these programs are not means for living but just temporary assistance.
     I am a single mother. I work 40 hours a week (sometimes more) and I take 9 hours of classes. I make more than minimum wage which is now $7.25 in Texas (but not a whole lot more in my opinion). I am grateful for my job and my earnings but by no means am I well off. I struggle to make ends meet and pay my bills on time.
     However, I don't qualify for any sort of government assistance because I make too much money. I've been told to quit my job, find a job that doesn't pay as well and to have another kid, because it'll "help". I work hard and pay taxes on a service that I'm unable to use. With my job I see and handle customers first hand who have and use SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and/or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Need Families). SNAP pays for groceries (anything not pre-cooked) and TANF gives cash on a card that they can pull out and use for whatever they desire.
     Who is getting these benefits? I know that there are truly needy people out there who are unable to work, or don't make enough money and need them. But I also know that their are people who come into this country (illegal or not) to benefit from such a program. Some work under the tables and don't report their income or some people life and put false information to benefit themselves and get more benefits. Other people keep having kids and aren't able to provide for them to keep getting more benefits. (SNAP, TANF and Medicaid)
     I think it's harder to change people, and they way they are, or the way they think. But I think with the right changes, limits and restrictions we can keep these benefit programs and make sure they aren't being wrongfully taken advantage of.

On Thursday morning March 12th, Smirking Chimp's blogger Ted Rall wrote an article titled, "Her Bad! Again, Hillary Reveals Her Terrible Judgement." Rall informs the reader of Hillary Clinton's many indiscretions, her poor judgement, and poor political decision making. He doesn't think highly of Clinton or her political decisions. The author wants to inform the public about Hillary Clinton because of the possibility of her running in the next presidential election. He stated, " ..Whether a person with such bad judgment should be trusted with nuclear launch codes at 3 am." He makes a valid point in his article.

As Secretary of State in 2009 she opted to use a private email account with her personal one and not use an official .gov one issued by the State Department. There have been many scandals with government officials deleting emails, partaking in illegal activities and there was a regulation that required government employees to keep their all of their emails. Clinton had made a statement that she "doesn't want her personal emails made public" however the author under covers the irony of her statement. She voted for the USA Patriot Act, which authorized the NSA to intercept everyone's phone calls, emails and everything else.

She was one of the many senators who voted with Bush to invade Iraq even though, she was one of six senators that had read a secret 96 page National Intelligence on Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction programs. It was clear there was no solid evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and yet, they still invaded Iraq. "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the est decision I could with the information i had.. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong."

I agree with Rall and his point. It makes me, as a future voter and as a concerned citizen question if she's qualified to be the next president. I think Rall did a great job informing the public in an easy to read article.

Lynn Meyer wrote a response article titled An economic environmental plan to The Christian Science Monitor. Meyer wrote the piece in response to The Monitor's article What are Republicans going to do about climate change? While her response is short I think she does a decent job of getting to the point but not necessarily making it. Meyer states that "..a majority of Americans want action on emissions reduction, and Republicans will have to come up with a plan they can get behind." I would like to know how many Americans are behind this and if they are Republican or Democratic. Does it mean that the Democrats already have an agenda for an economic environmental plan and the Republicans keep turning it down.

Meyers does state one option that some conservatives are already on board with but whether they're Republican or Democratic isn't stated. It is one decent option and Meyers does make good points with helping the environment (which is good for everyone) creating new jobs (also helpful) and boosting the economy (again great). I don't like how that's the only option. If Republicans are the ones that have to do something about the climate change I think it's only fair to give them multiple options and work with them to figure out many different choices and to have a variety to choose from. Meyer also should have given more statistics or from multiple sources to solidify their point. There was one source and while that was their findings there could be more that had completely opposite findings.

This response didn't convince me that this is the way for Republicans to get on board to help make a change with the climate. It is an idea, but it's just that. Just because one study was done with good results doesn't mean it would work well everywhere. I think we need to find an option that would not only benefit as many people as possible but would work well wherever it would be necessary.

Chapel Hill murders: Turkish leader challenges Obama

On Thursday February 12, 2015 BBC published an article called "Chapel Hill murders: Turkish leader challenges Obama." This article is about three young Muslim students here in the United States who were murdered and how President Obama hasn't made a public announcement or talked at all about the whole situation. Since the police are unsure of the motives behind the gunman they aren't calling it a hate crime but it is a possibility. I think this article is important and should be read to bring awareness on many issues.
Hate being the most important one. Was this a hate crime? What would drive someone to think killing someone else because of their religion or ethnicity is acceptable. If it wasn't a hate crime why did the gunman shoot and kill these three Muslim students? Mental health being another issue that our county needs to take more seriously. Did the gunman have any mental health issues? I think the country should be making more of an effort to bring awareness to mental health. You can't go to school anymore with out the fear of something happening. Everyone has to be politically correct to not offend anyone with what they say or how they say it. What is it going to take for things to change? To be able to walk out in the world with out the fear or someone doing something to harm one another.