Reform In Tejas

There’s a ruckus in the Lone Star state, one that will bring many unhappy people to the State capital. There are nearly 100 immigration bills currently being written or filed by members of the Republican Party with a very unwelcoming message: we don’t want you! While it’s not a surprise to hear this particular party so vocal for harsher immigration control, it’s unsettling to hear that Texas state Republicans are practically reversing the positive gains made by former President George W. Bush.

President Bush welcomed Hispanics and the result gained him a re-election in 1998, but in a complete turn around, state representative Leo Berman from northeast Texas (540 miles from the nearest border) is charging ahead on very tough measures on immigration. A few of his bills would require elementary children to prove citizenship upon enrolling in school, prevent automatic citizenship to children born in Texas, and make English the official state language. "That will shut off the state printing anything in any language but English, and that's going to save millions of dollars right there."

Already bringing back memories of Arizona and the national attention/disapproval that followed, Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business fears Texas could lose a community that brings the state $17 billion a year. "If suddenly all the undocumented workers [in the state] were simply to go back to their home of origin, it would be disastrous for the Texas economy," says Bill Hammond.

Furthermore, he uses their political affiliation as a way to de-humanize them, “Most Hispanics right now do vote Democrat; there's no question about it," Berman says. "So what vote are we going after? We're going after a vote that doesn't vote Republican anyway." With a statement like this, the reasoning for the onslaught of harsh immigration reform must be questioned. How much longer can immigrants to this country and their families who may already be legal citizens take this form of discrimination? This sounds like an agenda devised by a group who don’t care about the individuals who are in need of help and who do contribute to the State economy.

It is unfair and insulting to the people and their families who have helped build the infrastructure of a State. These people only expect what any hard worker expects in return: Education and a place to call home.

Don't bat an eye, it's just war

In his article, The Nation: In Libya, US Forgot About Congress, John Nichols’s states that we are not following the rules that were set out by the Constitution. The Constitution requires that congress declare war and not solely the president yet he points out that presidents have been declaring war since World War II. This includes our current president, Barack Obama who has gone to war without the checks & balances originally outlined by the Framers. I feel Mr. Nichols’s article was intended for an audience who is unclear as to what we, the United States, are doing in this “war” or how to interpret what they are feeling toward our country as a result of it.

I interpret that he is looking for answers and reasons to justify or condemn our plan to attack Libya. He illustrates that Gaddafi is a man of ill repute, with “palpable disdain he has expressed for the legitimate aspirations of his own people,” leaving him without any allies. Is that enough to take action and start a war? Mr. Nichols’s reaction to this is to draw our attention to the fact that this war has never been declared or even discussed in Congress.

In regards to the author’s reputation, Gore Vidal has said, "Of all the giant slayers now afoot in the great American desert, John Nichols’s sword is the sharpest." He is political correspondent for The Nation and is author of more than 7 books relating to Journalism and Democracy. Thus, I feel he is well versed and educated in speaking about our international politics.

Mr. Nichols’s makes his claim quite clear by saying, “Of all the checks and balances outlined in the constitution, none is more significant than the power to declare war.” Mr. Nichol’s’ feels any president who fails to consult congress is doing wrong by our constitution and our republic. His logic is that without the debate or discussion of going to war we are ignoring the system in which we so apparently swear by.

I agree. If we are not even going to play the game that was designed to be played, what are we doing? Why vote on matters that utlimatly can be ignored or unchecked? This is not a Obama issue, nor was it a Bush or even Truman issue, what I think Mr. Nichols’s was trying to say is that we are losing a grip on what the country was originally set up to be. I would like leaders to follow the rules, but they don’t. President Obama, along with The United Nations went hand in hand bombing Libya without even batting an eye toward congress.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/21/134730963/the-nation-in-libya-us-forgot-about-congress

Interesting site

some good information:

http://www.civicyouth.org/

Hands Tied as Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Westboro

Welcome to Topeka Kansas, home to the Westboro Baptist Church. In a article written by Bill Chappell and published by the National Public Radio, Chappell describes the Supreme Courts 8-1 ruling on Tuesday in favor of the Westboro Church protesting at funerals of fallen soldiers against gays serving in the military. Leading the Baptist Church is Rev. Fred Phelps who along with his followers have traveled throughout the country protesting hundreds of funerals with signs that read "God hates Fags" and "You're Going to Hell."

While many feel outrage at the Westboro group, under the First Amendment they are protected to express any opinion they may have, as hateful as their signs read the group was indeed on public property which protects any group voicing public opinion. While they targeted private funerals their message was one of "public concern" which further protects them.

I feel this is an important article to think about as it concerns something we wrestle with daily concerning public option and free speech, so much of it is out of anger and ignorance which is encouraged and and will always win over the voice's of the peaceful and those scared.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/02/134194791/supreme-court-sides-with-westboro-church-on-funeral-protests