AP Government Ranting Review

Here's some quick notes I wrote for the Class of 2008... still is relevant... for the most part....

My prediction is that one of the FRQs will cover the presidential election process, so know the difference between a primary and caucus, how a candidate becomes a potential nominee through the "money primary" all the way to the nominating convention and then the general election.

Good luck. Have fun at Prom.
Random facts.

* African Americans vote Democrat.
* Filibuster occurs in the Senate but it's INFORMAL, not a CONSTITUTIONAL power.
* Congress declares wars, but the President deploys the troops.
* The President must notify Congress within 48 hours according to the War Powers Resolution Act.
* People don't vote because they are not registered to vote.
* The "Solid" South refers to the fact that the South has consistently voted Republican. Recent elections, including the upcoming 2008 election, may not necessarily be "solid" for the Republicans.
* A "Blue Dog" Democrat = conservative Democrat
* "Horse-race" journalism refers to the fact that we pay attention to the media's coverage of the presidential candidates and not the actual issues at hand.
* The gender gap refers to the fact that women tend to vote Democrat more so than men (ie "soccer mom" vote)
* The vote in the Midwest tends to determine the presidential outcome (ie. OHIO and PENNSYLVANIA) - The Dems hope to swing that into their favor this year
* The Supreme Court hears just about 1-2% of cases that are sent to them. Most cases are heard by the court of appeals and the SC simply approves them. Most never make the Court's docket.
* Amicus Curiae briefs are used by interest groups to lobby courts.
* Three important committees: Rules (sets conditions for debate, calendar for bills), Appropriations (deals with the actual spending of money budgeted in committees), Ways and Means (determines where particular bills are headed -- it's where bills go initially)
* Rules committee is only in the House, not the Senate
* Senate = Period 1, House of = Period 2
* Senate: 30 years old, 9 years living as a resident, citizen, living in State
* House: 25 years old, 7 years living as a resident, citizen, living in State (informal to live in District)
* Pres: 35 years old, 14 years living in US, natural-born citizen
* Commerce clause has been used to strengthen power of national government (Heart of Atlanta, Gibbons)
* 10th Amendment: States' rights (US v. Lopez), limits on power of commerce clause - this case is more of an aberration than the norm - the federal government has tended to increase its power relative to the states
* Party structure in the US is DECENTRALIZED! ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL!
* White House Staff = White House Office = CHIEF OF STAFF = LOYAL TO THE PRESIDENT = JAMES BAKER FOR RONALD REAGAN!!!! KNOW THIS!!!!
* State legislatures draw district boundaries and tend to gerrymander them to favor Congresspeople like Grace Napolitano - who gets money from labor union and business PACs alike, although the trend is for business PACs to increase. Labor union membership is on the decline.
* 1st Amendment - speech, religion, press, petition, assemble
* "Wall of separation" - Engel vs. Vitale, Lemon v. Kurtzman - religion and schools separate. I pray that you understand this. Irony intended.
* Lobbyists supply TECHNICAL INFORMATION PRIMARILY. They do wine and dine, BUT THEY LOBBY FOR INTEREST GROUPS (ahem, Gaby)!
* 1994 = Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich - Dems held the House for a long time, but that year voters ousted the Dems and elected in a landslide Republicans... Hillarycare was a bust. By 1996, Bill Clinton "triangulated" and became a centrist Democrat and "ended welfare as we know it." Welfare became more of a state burden as is education.
* block = whatever money, categorical = strings attached
* President = leader of political party BUT NEVER MENTIONED IN CONSTITUTION!
* Two-party system benefits under a single-member district determined by plurality and not majority of votes.
* In case of a tie in electoral college, goes to the House where each state gets ONE VOTE. Need to win majority (26 states).
* Senate ratifies treaties with 2/3 vote NOT THE HOUSE
* Justices must pass a President's litmus test
* Legislative veto violates principle of separation of powers, giving legislative authority to the executive - but some state practice it, just not Congress!
* Federalist 10 - Factions exist, and they are best contained in a federalist government or a large republic. It is impractical to destroy factions, but layered government tends best to limit the effects of faction.
* Unfunded mandates = No Child Left Behind. Think a law with no money attached.
* Incorporation Doctrine = 14th Amendment. Study the 38 Court Cases. They will come up.
* DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL INTENT = "JUDICIAL RESTRAINT" - The idea that you only do what the Constitution says to do. "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" is the opposite. The Warren Court tended to be activists and expanded civil liberties.
* Cloture (60 senators) ends a filibuster.
* Cabinet posts (sec state, defense), FBI (gov agencies), SEC (regulatory agency) need majority confirmation of the Senate, White House staff does NOT
* PACs give money to incumbents ($5,000 max), $2,300 max to individuals, in Buckley v. Valeo it established unlimited individual contribution to own campaign but limits to others
* 2008 is a "critical election" in that a party realignment may occur. Electorate may move more Democrat because in 2004 and 2000 it was Republican. Depends on how the Midwest votes and the formerly "Solid South" may not be solid anymore
*Will I run for Congress? Will be slaughtered in the House (90% incumbent re-election rates) but may win the Senate (70% re-election rates). Watch out Barbara Boxer!

That's all. Maybe reading this over and over may jump you from a 2 to a 3 or 4 to a 5. Marginal benefit.

Good luck.

2nd Amendment

What is the 2nd amendment ?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep or bear arms.

"We're in a war. The other side knows they are at war, because they started it," said Larry Pratt, president of the Gun Owners of America. "They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists."

As you can see many gun owners are feeling like their constitutional rights are being taken away and they feel the need to be armed in the presences of the "other side" which most likely refers to the middle eastern people of Iraq.

The people that rallied were not just in fear of losing their 2nd right amendments but they are very dissatisfied with the way things are heading in Washington due to the fact that they are losing their right to bear arms.

In virginia where the rally is taking place is legal to carry certain weapons but illegal in the district of columbia. This really offends the protesters since they want definitive power to carry or bare arms in any state which they choose to go to.

The opponents of these people seem to be very worried by the way that there are really no new proposals coming from the white house about gun laws or gun control.

I believe these people are acting irrational since the supposed threat of terrorist is not really there. It is all a psychological issue that they need to get over.

There rights are really not being taken away from any angle that you see it from because they are still allowed to carry certain weapons in the state that they live in. This should be enough for these people to compromise with because it isn't necessary for people in the United States to walk around arm since we do have the highest death count due to guns than any other countries in the world. Its ridiculous that these people are complaining about things that are still given to them but in a limited amount

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/19/second.amendment.rally/index.html

2nd Amendment

What is the 2nd amendment ?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep or bear arms.

"We're in a war. The other side knows they are at war, because they started it," said Larry Pratt, president of the Gun Owners of America. "They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists."

As you can see many gun owners are feeling like their constitutional rights are being taken away and they feel the need to be armed in the presences of the "other side" which most likely refers to the middle eastern people of Iraq.

The people that rallied were not just in fear of losing their 2nd right amendments but they are very dissatisfied with the way things are heading in Washington due to the fact that they are losing their right to bear arms.

In virginia where the rally is taking place is legal to carry certain weapons but illegal in the district of columbia. This really offends the protesters since they want definitive power to carry or bare arms in any state which they choose to go to.

The opponents of these people seem to be very worried by the way that there are really no new proposals coming from the white house about gun laws or gun control.

I believe these people are acting irrational since the supposed threat of terrorist is not really there. It is all a psychological issue that they need to get over.

There rights are really not being taken away from any angle that you see it from because they are still allowed to carry certain weapons in the state that they live in. This should be enough for these people to compromise with because it isn't necessary for people in the United States to walk around arm since we do have the highest death count due to guns than any other countries in the world. Its ridiculous that these people are complaining about things that are still given to them but in a limited amount

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/19/second.amendment.rally/index.html

Sherard's Post

The news article entitled Barack Obama invokes Jesus more than George W. Bush highlights the recurring trend of our current commander-in-chief referencing his religious faith, more directly, his Christian faith in numerous amounts of high-profile public speeches he has made every since taking office. He has done this in a manner that has surpassed the tendencies of previous president George W. Bush. Obama has referred to the Christian faith in “overt” way as he Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State puts it. For example, Obama would refer to use biblical allusions in his speeches. “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

As far as motives regarding this behavior in part by President Obama, everyone has different ideas. Some say that he is doing this to combat the previous controversies of his supposed rumored Muslim faith. Others say that this is a mere political move to gain confidence from the American people through reference to their predominant divinity. It is also worth noting that even though president Obama is far from shy in disclosing his Christian faith in the critic-filled public, his stance on controversial issues such as abortion-rights extensively contradicts his potentially strategic political maneuver.

As far as my opinion on this subject is concerned, I remain convinced that this is indeed a political strategy executed to perfection by our 44th president. Being on the good side of “believers” is definitely a safe political position to be in. America in general looks towards Christianity as the official doctrine. I think every president has tried to epitomize a god-fearing leader of a God-fearing nation in general. But Obama takes has shown especial rigor in this department.

But the question of whether the uplifting of the a divine being that has been the basis of religious culture here in America ever since history began writing itself here done by Barrack Obama is actually a genuine incorporation of true character on his part will perhaps will never be answered.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html

By Sherard Cheung

"Predictably Irrational Behavior"
This is a title made by Dan Ariely Who is a behavioral economist. He found out that we consumer don;t behavior as teh economist think we do. He explain that irrelevant factor, such as emotion, can affect the way we make decision, and not just the maximum utility we gwt from goods or services. It is true that we often pay to get the maximum utility, but with influence of irrelevant factor it change our way of thought, but at the same time, didn't cahnge our economic mind.

As an example please take a few second to answer teh follwoing questions .


1. Which one would you prefer?
A cup of coffee $2
A jelly donut $5
A jelly donut and coffee $5

2. Which one would you prefer?
A cup of coffee $2
A jelly donut and coffee $5

Did your decision change?

As in that little experment, the change in wording can make one decision look like a more better decision. With a little change a company can make more profit.



sorce: http://www.npr.org/templayes /story/story.php?storyId=19231906

GITMO

Obama and Gitmo One Year Later; "Drifting" Toward Bush?
This article is about Obamas failure to close Guantanamo bay. The author compares Obama to Bush because Bush also failed to close Guantanamo Bay.

Personally I do not understand why people are not more upset about a place like Guantanamo Bay. It is a place where the government can lock you up indefinitely with out reason. If they "think" you are in some way helping terrorists they can pick you up and make you disappear.

You are not a human in Guantanamo you are a number. The guards are not allowed to know what the inmates have done why? So that they treat everyone like a terrorist who wants to kill American babies. If you are released you are forced to sign a paper saying that it is your fault you were suspicious enough for the US to put you in GITMO and that you are sorry.

I am in no way trying to help terrorists but putting innocent people in GITMO a place where "Tourture its whats for dinner". GITMO can transform very easily into a place where radicals or undesirables will be sent to be disposed of. GITMO is a stain on what America really stands for.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/22/obama-and-gitmo-one-year-later-drifting-toward-bush/

number2

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Nuclear Missile Pact
This article titled Obama' s Nuclear Spring Fell Back, focuses on the nuclear arms treaty between President Obama and Russia. Although the main point of the artcile is to state that the amount of nuclear arms held by countries involved, both Russia and the United States, will be reduced by thirty percent. This will be done in an attempt to provoke peace and limit the power of each nation. However, despite the conditions of the treaties President Obama has made a provision that will allow the United States to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons holding countries, if they violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Through the enactment of this treaty, Russia and the United States have agreed to lower its nuclear warheads to one thousand each.There has been much dissent between conservatives and liberals on whether or not this treaty was an realistic or idealist. However, this article in particular was told through a liberal viewpoint, as the world “neoconservative” was used frequently to describe certain thoughts and ideas. One strong condition of the pact that was made between both Russia and the United States is that President Obama ensured not to include a portion that read that the nations would not use nuclear weapons against non-nucler weapon bearing countries. This offers protection against such countries like Iran, ensuring if the United States resolved to use nuclear weapons, the option would be available. Also, to refute any conservative claims that this pact “ties the hands” of America, President Obama refused to accept the provision of the pact that would not allow the United States to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Now, the option is easily left open for the United States to use nuclear weapons if the case called for.The pact overall was a strategic call taken by President Obama in order to have negotiations with Russia. It also allowed for President Obama to call many of the terms of the pact and agree with some of the provisions while disregarding others that would have limited the United States power in decision making in the future. I found this article at

Nuclear Missile Pact

This article titled Obama' s Nuclear Spring Fell Back, focuses on the nuclear arms treaty between President Obama and Russia. Although the main point of the artcile is to state that the amount of nuclear arms held by countries involved, both Russia and the United States, will be reduced by thirty percent. This will be done in an attempt to provoke peace and limit the power of each nation. However, despite the conditions of the treaties President Obama has made a provision that will allow the United States to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons holding countries, if they violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Through the enactment of this treaty, Russia and the United States have agreed to lower its nuclear warheads to one thousand each.

There has been much dissent between conservatives and liberals on whether or not this treaty was an realistic or idealist. However, this article in particular was told through a liberal viewpoint, as the world “neoconservative” was used frequently to describe certain thoughts and ideas. One strong condition of the pact that was made between both Russia and the United States is that President Obama ensured not to include a portion that read that the nations would not use nuclear weapons against non-nucler weapon bearing countries. This offers protection against such countries like Iran, ensuring if the United States resolved to use nuclear weapons, the option would be available. Also, to refute any conservative claims that this pact “ties the hands” of America, President Obama refused to accept the provision of the pact that would not allow the United States to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Now, the option is easily left open for the United States to use nuclear weapons if the case called for.

The pact overall was a strategic call taken by President Obama in order to have negotiations with Russia. It also allowed for President Obama to call many of the terms of the pact and agree with some of the provisions while disregarding others that would have limited the United States power in decision making in the future.

I found this article at http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/042010c.html.

Alyssa's 2nd Blog- Nuclear Mission Pact

This article titled Obama' s Nuclear Spring Fell Back, focuses on the nuclear arms treaty between President Obama and Russia. Although the main point of the artcile is to state that the amount of nuclear arms held by countries involved, both Russia and the United States, will be reduced by thirty percent. This will be done in an attempt to provoke peace and limit the power of each nation. However, despite the conditions of the treaties President Obama has made a provision that will allow the United States to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons holding countries, if they violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Through the enactment of this treaty, Russia and the United States have agreed to lower its nuclear warheads to one thousand each.
There has been much dissent between conservatives and liberals on whether or not this treaty was an realistic or idealist. However, this article in particular was told through a liberal viewpoint, as the world “neoconservative” was used frequently to describe certain thoughts and ideas. One strong condition of the pact that was made between both Russia and the United States is that President Obama ensured not to include a portion that read that the nations would not use nuclear weapons against non-nucler weapon bearing countries. This offers protection against such countries like Iran, ensuring if the United States resolved to use nuclear weapons, the option would be available. Also, to refute any conservative claims that this pact “ties the hands” of America, President Obama refused to accept the provision of the pact that would not allow the United States to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Now, the option is easily left open for the United States to use nuclear weapons if the case called for.
The pact overall was a strategic call taken by President Obama in order to have negotiations with Russia. It also allowed for President Obama to call many of the terms of the pact and agree with some of the provisions while disregarding others that would have limited the United States power in decision making in the future. I found this article at http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/042010c.html.

Tough enforcement against illegal immigrants is decried

Approximately 400,000 are deported each year out of an estimate 12 million living in the country. Immigrant rights advocates and labor activists say, “the Obama administration has continued a policy of tough immigration enforcement against people who are no threat to the United States, even as the administration calls for a new immigration law designed to legalize many of them.” Some believe that Obama has his priorities out of line when it comes to the issue of immigration in America. The deportation rate has continued to increased, but activists claim that this number is bloated by student, janitors and nannies, who do not pose a threat to society. In some cases, these individuals even pay their taxes like a normal citizen would.

Just the same, I wholeheartedly support the decision of the Obama administration to pursue maintaining his promise and policing the neighborhoods of our society. I personally believed the proposed intent to take such actions to be purely for the appeal of the population that actually believes that we should keep our country as our own, such as me. Sure, it seems brutal that families are being deported after living in the US for years. Sure, some pay taxes as they should and contribute to society as they should. But that is the minority. Plus, our nation stands for order and law just as much as it does freedom. If I were to go out a run every red light simply because I thought that it would lead into a better life for me, I would get arrested. The same goes for immigration. I know that some of these poor folks are fleeing from the drug cartels and fleeing for opportunity, but there is a set way to go about it. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are allowed into the country and then made citizens. They wait in line. They do what they are supposed to. What makes the 12 million of self-dubbed Americans any different. It simply displays and utter disregard for what this great nation was built upon. I can’t go to Disneyland and cut in the front of every line just because I want to ride the ride more. People have to learn to respect the government enough to take the time to follow the laws. We really don’t want people who are not going to giver reverence to the establishments that are built.

After saying that, I want to say that I do see that there are some exceptions to the rule just as always. Perhaps Obama should focus on those who do have criminal records, or those who have just come over. Those are the ones who we can change. The ones who have lived their whole live illegally should be given the chance to become a proper citizen and perhaps a chance to stay. But this cannot be done for 12 million people living under the radar. Some have got to go, or at least gain some admiration for the country that protects them.

"Inalienable Rights" in Jeopardy Once Again

Abbie Dorn had lived a normal fulfilling life and always wanted children. In June 2006, her wish came true when she gave birth to a set of healthy triplets. However, that is where things took a turn for the worse. Dorn suffered severe brain injury when she nearly bled to death during labor. Because her brain was deprived of oxygen during the incident, she quickly fell into a vegetative state. When it seemed things could not have gone worse, Abbie’s parents found themselves trapped in a legal battle with the triplet’s father to fight for the mother’s right to visit her three children. Daniel Dorn, Abbie’s former husband, claims that his children should not see their mother yet because they are supposedly too young to understand the unfortunate situation. He states that he has evidence from neurologists that Abbie will forever remain in an absolute mindless state and has no chance of any form of recovery what so ever. On the other hand, Susan and Paul Cohen, Abbie’s parents, argue in support of Abbie’s potential for some signs of recovery. The battle for parental rights will inevitably spark several court appeals that might forever change the rights of mentally incapacitated parents.

This mother’s tragic story reveals the fundamental flaw of the overused phrase “all men are created equal.” It does not take long to realize the countless exceptions to the basic rule that America was created upon. Although Abbie’s parents report that she can now respond “yes” or “no” to questions and make small movements to her arms and legs, she still needs to endure many court decisions before she can gain visitation rights to her own children. America claims to be influenced by John Locke’s principle that everyone had natural rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the children’s father exercised his right to challenge Abbie’s basic rights merely because of her mental condition. If the court eventually rules in favor of the father, the decision would ultimately be a terrible blow to the mentally disabled.

I truly believe that the father is ridiculously selfish to say the least. Making such an effort to prevent his children from visiting the mother merely because of a tragic mental condition, Daniel Dorn fails to recognize the fundamental definition of humans and their inalienable rights. Abbie has not intentionally harmed anybody in any way and should never be deprived with her basic rights, even when she is not capable of actively pursuing those rights herself.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/22/california.triplets.visitation.lawsuits/index.html?hpt=C2

Value-Added Tax

As the the deficit increase and the economy worsens, it is to no surprise that President Obama is forced to look for new sources of revenue. Probably the most controversial of these new ideas is the concept of implementing a value-added tax(VAT) to our economy. Before I explain what I think this tax does, I wish to express a disclaimer that I may be explaining this tax wrong because it is quite confusing.

To give you a better understanding of what VAT is, think of it as something like a sales tax, but it applies to all provisions of goods and services at each stage of production. For example, if I were to buy a desk, the production process would go something like this:
company that cuts down trees -----> company that cuts the trees into usable wood material ----> company that buys the wood to manufacture desks ----> furniture store that sells desks (there are sure to be more production steps that go into making a desk, but I tried to simplify the process)

With a VAT, the tax would be applied to each production step (4 were used in my example). This would mean that the company that cut down the trees would be taxed, the company that cut the trees into pieces would be taxed, the company that buys these pieces would be taxed, the furniture store would be taxed, and the consumer would be taxed as well. In theory, the price the consumer pays would be the same if they were subject to either a 10% sales tax or a 10% VAT. However, by taxing each individual process, companies would try to increase the price of each step. Going back to my example, this would mean that the company that is cutting down the trees would charge more for each tree to try to recover the revenue they lost from the VAT. If each company follows suit, the end price that the consumer will have to pay will be increased dramatically. A $100 desk would now cost more like $120. And if we go back to what we learned in microeconomics, we know that if we increase the price of the desk, there would be less demand for it. Consumers would have less incentive to buy that new desk and perhaps just keep using an old one.

In our economy, we need our consumers to buy more, not buy less. From what I understand from this VAT, this is what I believe will happen. If we were to look at the Laffer Curve, we would be getting less total revenue from this tax, even though the government is getting more revenue per product sold. Again, I may have completely misinterpreted what the VAT would do, but if what I said is true, I do not believe that President Obama should consider this form of tax.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The United States along with several other nations participate in drawing up a new agreement. It is named ACTA, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. ACTA’s use will be to assist in shutting down counterfeiting, copyright violations and intellectual property theft. ACTA will change some of the current liberties that exist on the internet. ACTA will cover a vast range of properties, including counterfeit medicine and illegal music downloads. Many skeptics are concerned with the changes that may result from the creation of ACTA by limiting free speech on the internet. Some sites report of leaks of early ACTA documents which may force internet service providers to actively monitor transfers whether they have any illegal software, etc. that may be being circulated. The companies would also be forced to disable access to customers who violates the ACTA. Examples cited were companies which were liable for user created content. Google executives were criminally responsible for hosting a video of an autistic teenager that was bullied.

I believe the ACTA should not be passed even though it strengthens intellectual property rights, protects against piracy, etc. The reason why I would not support ACTA is the invasion of privacy violated in the Bill of Rights. Most of the disagreeable portions I found were linked with internet changes. I do not think the government should require companies to monitor what we do. The government has no reason to suspect every single person on the internet to be criminals. This is a clear violation of the right to privacy when the government proceeds to monitor what we download or upload. There is no probable cause for the government to search for illegal materials.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/20/business/AP-US-TEC-Copyright-Trade-Agreement.html

http://www.eff.org/issues/acta

Federal Judge Rules Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

by Todd Richmond

On April 17, 1952, President Harry Truman signed a bill into law proclaiming a national day of prayer in the United States. In 1988, President Reagan dedicated the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer and it has been celebrated as an observance holiday ever since that day. The purpose of this day is to call people of all different faiths to pray for the leaders of the United States, and the nation as a whole. It is not a public holiday, so schools and government businesses are all open. The day is simply a day in which the President requests those who are willing, to pray for the nation.

Recently, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, arguing that "the day amounts to a call for religious action." The court decision was started with a lawsuit that was filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation against the federal government in 2008, arguing that the day violated the separation of church and state. There is no reason for this law to be ruled as unconstitutional. Prayer is a private practice, and those who do not wish to participate in this day do not by any means need to participate in the day, or even acknowledge the day. However, for those who do believe in God and the power of prayer, it is a day to remember the Christian principles this nation was founded upon, and pray for the nation. I actually agree with the Obama administration on their response, which was “the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the United States.” Obama still plans to hold the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 6.

I completely agree with Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow in his statement "It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," The First Amendment to the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The National Day of Prayer does not force anyone to be a part of a certain religion. Many different religions believe in prayer, and all of those religions are simply asked to pray on this day. The National Day of Prayer does not prohibit free exercise of a religion either. The day therefore does not go against the First Amendment or the Constitution. Judges are stretching the Constitution to interpret it the way they want to and they have taken it too far. The National Day of Prayer should remain an observance holiday in the United States



Link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DAY_OF_PRAYER?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US


Psalm 33:12 Blessed is the nation who's God is the LORD.

Republicans Find Another Partner in Health Care Repeal

"Republicans have no greater ally in this fight than leukemia," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

"Denying insurance to Americans with preexisting conditions and ensuring that low-income Americans stand no chance of receiving quality health care are just a few of the core beliefs that the GOP and leukemia share."

In this article by The Onion, the questionable intentions of the Republican party is the very humor raised. The article pokes fun at the idea that Republicans are easily willing to allow insurance companies to deny people coverage, and personifies leukemia as a common ally to the GOP and both believe that low income families should not have quality health insurance if they have already contracted a preexisting condition.

As we all know the majority of the Republican party has become beyond furious with the passing of the Health Care Reform Bill passing, but The Onion still attacks them and gives them an almost in human image with "And believe me, if anyone is angrier than the Republican Party that children can no longer be denied coverage for having preexisting conditions, it's leukemia." DeMint continued. DeMint is well known for being a very strong pro-life. But leukemia feels that the republican party will harm their public image.

I find it very funny that The Onion also touches on the elimination of personal intentions of anyone being in the Republican Party, whereas I wonder if anyone who is very right wing, lower class (not all republicans are rich) would truly be against the reform bill. It is in both the GOP and the toxic murderous disease to make sure individuals can still be killed off by the disease because they are denied health insurance due to the disease being on them before hand. It makes sense though, they both have common interests and should indeed join together against their common enemy, Democrats against the denial of health care to children. Republicans wanted to recruit HIV/AIDS to help them out, but because they associate themselves with the socially defected homosexuals, they refused to lower their reputation anymore. But now that Obama has added health benefits to homosexual couples, now they are reconsidering getting the help of HIV, because of its influence, it will cause for cheaper medication of its drugs to treat it that will be covered by taxes of all Americans.

"In 2010 leukemia and the Republican Party will make history," a spokesman for the illness said. "Because years from now, when people look back and ask who was on the right side of the issue, they'll remember the day that Republicans and leukemia came together to make a real, permanent difference in the lives of millions of Americans."

Source: http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-leukemia-team-up-to-repeal-health-care,17215/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html?ref=politics

Census Walk

The Census walk really brought to light how important the census is to our community. Not too many people showed up but the fact that people with power showed up really showed the importance. There were a few people who live around here that did show up so it was impressive because not too many people know about this so any one showing up is good. Then the people leading this event really tried to educate us on how the census works and the laws in place to protect people privacy. Since our community is made up of people from around the world and some are here illegally they fear that putting the information on the census will really get them in some trouble with the law. The census though has no questions to do with that sort of things, so people should not worry about this. People who work with the census also make a pledge of secrecy and any questions asked will be safe. All the census tries to do is find out how many people live here so we can get enough money to support the community. We were also provided with census gear because some people try to take advantage of this event that occurs every ten years and say they are with the census and take people’s information to commit fraud. This is such a big deal that we as volunteers were not taking information but we still had to show that we weren’t fake. Then we got an area to go around asking people to please fill out their census and answer their questions the best we could. We went with a partner one that was 18 and older and someone that wasn’t so I was with Sam, I was 18 and she wasn’t and luckily for me we got my street. It made things much easier because I had to talk to my neighbors. Some of the awkwardness was taken away but it was still very interesting to see how little people know about the census. IT went smoothly and afterwards we went back and turned in our information.

2010 census

A few weeks ago, I came to Los Altos in need of a few extra credit points. What I did not realize until after the day progressed was how much good we were doing just by being there. The United States census is an extremely important questionnaire, especially to small communities like Hacienda Heights. Most people do not realize how important it really is. The speakers mentioned that there are particular households who do not list every single person living with them. This poses a definite problem. Apparently, this causes a loss of thousands if not millions of dollars. It is extremely important to count every single person. The census is one of the ways that the government knows how much to fund certain communities. It is a way for them to take a look at who lives where and how they are surviving. That being said, it is extremely important to fill out the census.
Grace Napolitano, who is a House Representative, was one of the speakers on this day. She brilliantly explained how beneficial having a census was. Along with this she also briefed over the job that she has in the House. It was interesting to actually feel connected to someone who works for our government. She seemed to be a warm and friendly lady.
After the speeches made by a few other individuals including Jay Chen, we gathered up our flyers and maps of the streets we were to travel to. Luckily, Edwin and I got his own street. We went door-to-door explaining to people why they should turn in their census. We pressed them to make sure they mail it back as soon as possible. Accomplishing about twenty to thirty homes, we made our way back to Los Altos for a free meal provided by the Buddhist Hsi lai temple. We turned in the remainder of our fliers, and recorded how many houses we got to. We were then free to leave.

I Hate What You Say, But I'll Let You Say It

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear the Westboro Case, a case which may change the limits to our free speech.

The case involves Albert Snyder, the plaintiff, suing Westboro Baptist Church, the defendant, of "defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress", for "protesting" (holding such signs as "God hates fags") when Snyder was holding his military son's (Matthew) funeral.

In lower courts, Snyder won, and Westboro had to pay up 11 million. It went to higher courts, which determined that in fact, Westboro was rightfully protected under the first amendment, and thus were immune to the charges and that Snyder himself has to pay Westboro 16k in legal fees. The Supreme Court has decided to review the case, likely due to the Westboro's national fame of being homosexuality hating bigots. (On a side note, Bill O' Riley decided to cover all of Snyder's fees and called out Westboro).

Now, I think that the entire Westboro Church is a mockery to religion, and just an organized way for horrible people to come together and spew their hate on national TV. The founder, Fred Phelps, is notorious for anti-gay protests, even calling terrorist attacks and disasters as events from God to punish a homosexuality-accepting society (and he got 30% of the vote when he ran for Gov. of Kansas, too). The adults of the Church are despicable who I hope were brainwashed into following the cult. The children have no choice to follow since the church probably lectures them on their "beliefs" 24/7, with the adults forcing them to volunteer in their protests. However, I do not believe they should be convicted of their charges.
First of all, they did nothing wrong except being ******bags, and if being a ******bag was a crime, then Barry Bonds would have been jailed a long time ago, and Spencer Pratt would now been executed. They were well within the bounds of their legal right to protest, including being at least 100 feet away from a military funeral. They were not directly targeting Matthew Snyder (although it may seem like it) but the homosexual community, the military, and basically everyone else except them. They do this sort of protest on at least a weekly basis, so I doubt they will take the time and get to know the person before interrupting their funeral. They weren't fighting words, just stupid words, and it doesn't fall under the "imminent lawless action" since a violation of the law wasn't imminent and likely (unless someone wanted to fight, but that didn't happen).

99.9% of people have the common decency to know not to protest outside a funeral, especially to know not to spew words of hate. It's just that .1% such as the Phelps family which lack any sort of respect. That .1% shouldn't determine the actions of everyone else, and therefore I'm against any amendment that bans protests outside of funerals, since it also eliminates all the "good" ones such as peacefully protesting to pull troops out, as well as strictly violating the first amendment. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Snyder and forces Westboro to pay the $11 million, it will essentially be a sign saying that we can say anything we want "as long as we don't hurt any feelings", and that's not good at all. Even though punishing Westboro for being ******bags might seem like a good thing, it does not make up for further restrictions to our free speech.

If Westboro didn't already have a negative reputation, then this case will have never made it to the Supreme Court. It's similar to anti-abortion groups protesting outside abortion clinics or PETA protesting outside animal-testing facilities, it's just that (I'm going to generalize) most people dislike Westboro Baptist Church (although it can be argued a lot of people hate PETA too). Westboro just wants attention, knowing that anti-gay rallies incite anger in people, so the best way to destroy Westboro is by ignoring them, not forcing them to pay $11 million.

I would look really bad if I censored this picture after advocating free speech.

http://www.ydr.com/vets/ci_14636330