Basically, a few mayors of cities, Chicago and Boston, have decided to challenge Chick Fil-A's stance on marriage by wanting to ban the business from their city. As a defender of individual freedoms, there are a few viewpoints to understand in this scenario on both sides. First, Chick Fil-A has the freedom to support any cause they wish. Second, people have the right to support or boycott Chick Fil-A. As stated before, this has been going on for years. Chick Fil-A funds anti-gay causes and people have been boycotting them. There is really nothing new about it.
The mayors of cities have a right to freedom of speech. They have the freedom to voice their opinion on anything they want. Regardless, of what is said, the city does not have the right to rule any business out of their feedom of speech or their freedom to do business. However, people do have the right to support or boycott Chick Fil-A based on their views and be aware of what any business funds or does not fund
There are no winners in this controversy. As a matter of fact, it has brought out the worst in people. These mayors stance against Chick Fil-A did not help marriage equality. Instead, it was seen as an attack on a businesses freedom of speech and right to do business. Worst of all, it pinned people in the world against each other once more. Now you have people supporting Chick Fil-A while others protest. The whole scene is very ugly.
I understand not everybody on here is religious or even Christian. From my point of view, all of us regardless of views, have the responsibility of being role models as Christians, Religious Others, or Atheists. Role model citizens defend individual freedoms and love all people in this world as a child of God who deserves love and support. Fighting excessively with each other and supporting hate is not the role model this world needs. Who is this fight really supporting? In the end we are supporting corrupt politics. We are supporting the mayors that started the controversy and the ugly fight it has brought out once again to divide the citizens of the U.S.
I don't believe this is the way Jesus would want us to act. We are not suppose to be hating each other, supporting hate in any manner, dividing each other, and fighting each other. We all have seen how politics have divided us already. As role models, we must be better than politic divisions. We must stand up for individual freedoms. This controversy is not doing anything good for anybody on either side. It has brought out the worst in everybody. Encourage individuals to go back to their life regardless of which side they support. This ugliness is not becoming of any of us.
If some of you want to donate money to charity, that's wonderful. Give money to the charities which will miss out because people gave to Chick Fil-A instead. There are plenty of charities that need money right now, especially woman's shelters which run low on giving during the summer, school supplies for needy children, food banks, health care for the homeless, or pregnancy crisis centers/homes to name a few. There are so many places out there that need attention right now. I'm not saying to support or not support Chick Fil-A; what I am saying is let's get back to normal life. Out of love for each other and healing of divisions, which should not exist, lets be the bigger people. I encourage you to consider giving to places which desperately need our donations right now instead of being consumed by another political game. I refuse to be a game peice. I have stopped playing. Let's be role models; not pawns!
I don't expect Mitt Romney to outline his exact plans to reform healthcare, but if more information comes out about it then I will make sure to cover the details. Peace be with you all, until I find a time to write again. I wish you all blessings on any vacation endeavors! This is the first time, I've had time to breathe in a long time! If you have a busy life like me; please make sure to take time to breathe for yourself!
- It's hard to speak of Obamacare without talking about Illegal Immigration. Obamacare expanded medicaid to cover more people; hence, illegal immigrants. Due to illegal immigration, we have hospitals that are going bankrupt from providing care to this population. Let's go through and see how Repbulicans and Democrats generally feel about illegal immigration.
Democrats, for the most part, support illegal immigrants. They realize these people are coming to the U.S. to seek a better life. It's also a well known fact that the Mexican government is not working with the U.S. government to find solutions to this problem. Additionally, if democrats allow illegal immigrants to come over, make them citizens so they can vote; they will vote democratic because this party supported them. Most Democrats are against spending tax dollars to build a fence along the boarder or sending troops to secure our boarder.
Republicans, for the most part, do not support illegal immigration. They fight for a fence along the boarder and more troops to strengthen boarder control and prevent the drug wars from spilling over onto American soil. They only want people to immigrate to the U.S. legally; to prevent possible criminals from becoming U.S. citizens. They understand illegal immigrants as persons who do not pay taxes through "under the table work," but feed off of the U.S. government through Social Security, bankrupting our hospitals, and basically putting a strain on the U.S. economy.
Since I am a minister and believer in love of all God's children, I've done a great deal of thinking about this issue. I believe a good bipartisan compromise could satisfy both parties and still assist illegal immigrants. First, biblically speaking in the Old Testament, God made it clear that we needed to save food out for aliens from other countries, because Moses had to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Therefore, God's chosen people had to be liberated through immigration; counting on God and others to provide. Thus, it's our duty to assist in liberating the oppressed. It's apparent the Illegal Immigrants from Mexico are being oppressed by their country and are fleeing to the U.S. for liberation. I do believe it's our responsiblity to figure out a way to welcome them. But how?
Immigration Reform does need to happen. A better Immigration system can solve problems across party lines. One of the main problems, is in order for mexican immigrants to come to the U.S. legally, the government of Mexico has to provide them the necessary documentation (like proof of identity, birth certificates, etc.). The Mexican government has denied these documents to its own citizens requesting them. This is the reason why it's almost impossible for any mexican immigrant to apply for to U.S. immigration legally.
Therefore, the following is my personal suggestion. First, we allow illegal immigrants to come over and give them temporary visas, fingerprint them, and provide them with an ID. Unless we can prove otherwise, we have no other choice but to accept their claimed identity. I think this temporary visa should last seven years, therefore, if they are indeed a criminal we can recall their visa and deport them back to Mexico immediately. We have their fingerprints, we know who they are, and they cannot try to immigrate back into the U.S. again. Additionally, the ones who prove themselves to be worthy in their temporary visa years, can then seek to become full U.S. citizens. Second, this will take care of the illegal immigrants being paid "under the table" problem. They will now have visas, be legally able to work, get a fair wage, pay into the Social Security system, and pay yearly taxes. Third, this will also put immigrants into a place where less of them will live in poverty and they will be able to buy health insurance rather than being a strain on our hospital system. Third, we should increase our boarders to protect us from harm on the U.S. soil from the drug wars. A well built fence (that will actually work), along with heavy boarder patrol should be in place to protect us from terrorism and human trafficking as well.
If immigration reform in this capacity happened, then better health care reform could be put into place, since there will not be an enormous need to expand medicaid to illegal immigrants at the expense of cutting medicare and medicaid to U.S. citizens. Under Obamacare, medicaid will only cover persons who live133% below the poverty line. It will be harder for U.S. citizens to get medicaid. Additionally, those who do not qualify for medicaid will be punished by tax penalty for not buying health insurance. So, if you live below the poverty line but not 133% below the poverty line, there's no way you can afford to buy health care insurance, much less be able to pay the tax penalty. Obamacare will keep the poor and low middle class even more oppressed. Obamacare is not good news.
Today I recieved an e-mail from the National Black Republican Association that I wanted to share with you. The author of the article explains how Obama and the democratic party have neglected the Black and African American community. Additionally, the article explains everything the Republican party has done to defend them. If you have concerns about the information in her article, the author's information is at the end for contact purposes. I encourage you to do so; Frances Rice is the expert.
I understand why the House wanted to symbolically vote against Obamacare in 2011. I can even understand why the House wants to symbolically vote once again to repeal Obamacare after the Supreme Court ruling. It's a great way to tell the American people that they plan on repealing it as soon as possible. Once again, I understand the symbolic repeal Obamacare votes, but I can't help but think that they are wasting time. There is work to be done; other measures to be discussed and bills to be passed. The House will vote to repeal Obamacare again on July 11, 2012.
There is an awful lot of discussion around whether Obamacare can be repealed or not. It's possible to repeal Obamacare, but it requires that Mitt Romney wins the 2012 Presidency Election and a majority of House and Senate politicians to vote in favor of repealing it. Therefore, repealing Obamacare is possible, regardless of the Supreme Court's decision.
Here is what people are neglecting to realize at this point: I don't believe Mitt Romney will repeal Obamacare and leave health care reform alone. Since he instituted socialized medicine in his home state; I believe he's got a better idea of the issues regarding health care reform. His experience in this area gives me hope that he will do a better job at fixing our broken health care system.
The second reason why I believe Mitt Romney will choose to reform health care is because of his statement within these past two weeks. He stated in an e-mail to me, that from day one in office he was going to work to repeal Obamacare. The second half of his sentence included......and work to provide real health care solutions while protecting taxpayers.
There is unilateral party line thinking about health care reform. The fact is, both republicans and democrats realize there is a need for health care reform. However, they disagree on how health care should be reformed. The people in America who are against Obamacare are not necessarily against health care reform. This is a major misconception. People are against Obamacare because there is numerous problems associated with it (I have outlined in previous enteries). Thus, I support another parties idea of health care reform.
Let's enjoy our freedom and liberty while we still have it. As soon as certain laws take effect, if not repealed, this will no longer be the case. So live it up this 4th! Have one more Independence Day when we can remember the true intentions of our founders!
My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing; Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountain side; Let Freedom ring!
My native country, thee, Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love; I love thy rock and rill,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills; Like that above.
Let music swell the breeze, And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song; Let moral tongues awake;
Let all that breath partake;
Let rocks their silence break, The sound pro-long.
Our fathers' God, to Thee, Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing; Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King.
The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to impartially admnister the law.
It's very difficult to impartially administer the law as a Supreme Court Justice if you wrote the law.
Let me explain. Elena Kagan was elected to the Supreme Court and voted in the ruling on the Obamacare law.
However, Elena Kagan helped write the Obamacare law. Thus, it's extremely unethical for her to be voting on a law she wrote. This makes it completely impossible for her to impartially administer the law.
I am not saying, the outcome would have been any different if Kagan was not a voting Supreme Court Justice.
However, I am saying that it's unethical for any Supreme Court Justice to vote on a law they wrote.
I am thinking citizens of the U.S. needs to be aware of this fact in the Obamacare ruling.
Also, there does need to be an ethical procedure put in place which protects the impartiallity of adminnistering the law by not allowing any Supreme Court Justice to vote on their own law.
Of course, this would change the rules on Supreme Court voting and I'm not sure how to rectify such a problem.
The only thing I am certain about is, "It's impossible to impartially admnister the law as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice when ruling on a law you assisted in writing." This is plain eithics.
People are often swayed by the media. However, in our society today there isn't a media which isn't extremely biased. So, how do we know what's true anymore?
Here's how to sort all the confusion out:
1) visit http://votesmart.org/ to look up all the voting records of the candidates. This site tells you what every candidate voted for or against. Additionally, it allows you to read the bill in question. Remeber, it's important to read the bill. A candidate may have chosen not to vote for a bill because something was attached to it which was against their platform. If this ends up being a question, it's best to contact the candidate via phone or e-mail for clarification.
2) Often times the news speaks about the U.S. Senate Bills. If you plan to watch the news, I suggest to watch several media stations to get the basis of the extreme left and right side of the arguement. Then look it all up for yourself to decide which news station is more accurate and unbiased in your opinion. All you have to do is look up the bill under the legislation tab at http://www.senate.gov/ it will also tell you how the candidates voted.
3) Often times the news speaks of the U.S. House of Representatives. All the bills can be read at http://www.house.gov/ (click on the legislative activity tab). It will also show you how each candidate voted.
For example, people are often confused about Obamacare. What's in this bill? Now you know how to find and read it. I love my readers so much that I went ahead and attached the link here for you!
(Please remember this document is large you will have to be patient in downloading it.)
The issues around the constitutionality of Obamacare surround the penalty fine. Basically, those who choose not to get insurance and do not fall below 133% of the poverty line (which would qualify them for government insurance) will pay a penalty fine.
The U.S. Supreme Court could not pass Obamacare as constitutional with the penalty fine, because the penalty fine is considered unconstitutional. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court could deem Obamacare as constitutional if they called the penalty fine a "tax" instead. The controversy comes in here because the Obamacare law was never introduced or passed as a tax. This gives room for the repeal of Obamacare.