Nancy Pelosi vs Anne Coulter

Okay, so Nancy Pelosi may not be everyone's favorit person, but you have to admire the woman. Regardless of what you think of her, she has maintained a fairly consistant political agenda, she is upfront about her ideas and political views, and she is a smart cookie...

But don't you find it interesting how similar Nancy Pelosiy and Anne Coulter are? The two could not be more different, but look so similar...

Abortion in a Healthcare Bill

Is it necessary for our health care bill to address issues of abortion?

Roe v. Wade brought up the issues of a persons right to privacy, a right not explicitly addressed in the constitution. All Roe v. Wade answered was that a woman, with regard to her body, has the right to privacy. That the issue of abortion should be addressed with the Doctor, not the state in which she resides.

I personally believe that all people have the right to privacy, that they have the right to do what they want to their own bodies without the invasion of government. Regardless of state of federal laws, I believe that what one does in the privacy of their home or doctors office is their right. It is not something I believe the government should have a say.

There are many laws that I believe states do not have the authority to create, let alone maintain. Specifically, I believe a woman should have the right to purchase insurance that includes coverage for abortions if she chooses that insurance policy. Should others be required to pay for that coverage, that in my opinion is another issue. I don't think people should be forced to pay for something they do not agree with, but neither do I believe those people should be imposing that belief on others. Choice goes both ways, not necessarily with those that have a moral high ground. Morality is in the eye of the beholder, not the state, and therefore decisions regarding a woman's body have nothing to do with the state.

I find it fascinating that many who oppose abortion support the death penalty. What a contradiction? I find it deplorable that many put Pro Life stickers on their cars while they push for the death penalty. Who's life is more important and why do we get to decide?

I for one am against the death penalty, but not for moral reasons. I am against it because the purpose for it, namely deterrence for killing others, isn't working. If the death penalty actually deter other from murder maybe my opinion would be different, but it doesn't, and therefore I find it difficult to support a system that states a purpose that in fact does nothing at all.

It would seem that government is yet again trying to impose its beliefs on people, not because it is good for them, but because they are trying to get back at the Democrats for adding the Public Option to the Health Care Bill. Including abortion is unnecessary, in my opinion, and should not be included in this bill.

There Is a Public Option, But What About the Undocumented Immigrants?

Wow, I'm a little shocked that both Houses have drafted bills that include a Public Option for Health Care Reform. I am also surprised that the House bill is making Health Insurance mandatory.

I used to live in Boston, Ma where the state has a law where all citizens must have insurance. I was a little upset with this law, only because many of the people who do not have insurance do so because they can't afford it. They have no alternative, and therefore, go without. But in Mass., you have to have it or you pay a penalty. Here is the clincher. You have to prove that you've had insurance on your taxes, or you pay the fee. I had insurance, so that wasn't a big deal to me, what about those that didn't have insurance? They can't afford insurance so they get hit with another fee they can't afford. Um...tell me how this is helping people?

But, my biggest question, and more importantly I think, is the issue regarding undocumented people. This country does not make it mandatory upon entering a hospital to prove citizenship, not even state residency. Many times this is done after the person has been admitted. Who carries that burden? It seems to me that we still have this underlying issue of Immigration Reform, that we still have not addressed? If we make it mandatory to have insurance, does that mean hospital can now turn people away that do not have insurance? Does that mean, those that are here on vacation, or visiting on business and get sick will not be seen in US hospital? What does this mean for the millions of people that live in the US undocumented?

I, for one, strongly believe we need immigration reform, INS is a mess in general and needs to be changes. But I wonder how it is that we don't address this issue in this Bill. I believe all people deserve to be treated if ill. But if money is the issue, which, who are we kidding, that is the biggest issue here, how can we ignore the fact that millions of people live in the US and are not documented. Are they going to have to get insurance too? Can they get insurance without proving citizenship, or will the government now institute a rule that we must have documentation in order to get insurance?

I'm all for reform, reform, reform! But lets not ignore a major issue in this health care debate. I want to know how we will address the immigration question. Cause, I don't know about most of you, but I live in California now, and while I'm Jewish and have always been a minority, the fact of the matter is, Hispanics are the majority in many of California's major cities, legal or not, they make up a vast number of people using our medical facilities, and I want to know that they will be able to freely and safely get insurance without fear of retribution. Why? Because I'm going to have to pay for it in the end if we don't give undocumented people the right to purchase it and I don't want to have to pay if I don't have to.

What I'm really wondering is, why isn't anyone asking this question? Am I the only person that sees this an a conundrum?

Poor Ol' Harry!

How brutal can the media be? You know, I would love for there to be a Public Option in the Health Care Reform Bill. I LOVE that Pelosi, I know everyone loooovvveesss her, has been able to get the Democrats together in the House to possibly pass a Health Care Reform Bill with the Public Option. But Senator Reid faces a different issue. He faces a Branch of the legislature that has a filibuster power.

On the one hand, it seriously pisses me off that after all that we've discussed and debated, the Republicans would be smug enough to filibuster this bill, but yet it is a power they possess.

On the other hand, if we can't have a Public Option, but can have some form of reform, for instance, waiting periods and preexisting conditions, as we say on Passover, Dy'anuh! "It would have been sufficant!"

Senator Harry Reid is now faced with the reality that he is the leader of the Democratic Party, not the Senate, and if it came down to it, we have a Democratic Vice President who would happily be a tie breaker, which I don't see being an issue. Senator Reid is not the leader of the Senate, he leads the Democrats. But are we being fair of our critisism of him? Are we being too hard on Ol' Harry?

Okay Guys, I'm resubmitting this Post because NO ONE RESPONDED TO IT!! I really want to know what you think!!!!

Its time to address the fact that we have old white men running our legislature!

I understand that many Congressmen and Senators don't want to admit that they are losing hold of their minds. Its super important that these offices have strong staffers and efficient aides, but when the staff is running the ship, its time to retire the boat.

Its not just about term limits, I don't believe 4 years is enough time to make a difference when it comes to making laws. The California State Assembly is a great example of why term limits can be too restricting, but some kind of regulation of those in office is important, just like in any field. A person that is going senile should not be able to continually hold office just because everyone knows who they are. Its not fair to the constituents and its not fair to the Staffers trying to hold the office together!

The reality is, many of these people are of an age, of a time that does not corralate to what is going on today. They don't have an understanding of what their constituencies want. They have an undestanding of what they wanted when they first ran for office back in 1960! I assure you, the issue that were addressed then, while may be similar to what we are facing today, are not the same and can't be resolved in the same way.

I think its important to have a regulatory agency go out an interview our legislators to determine how effective they may be in crafting laws. A 90 year old man should not be elected! I don't care how great he may have been 20 years ago, today he is too old to even stay awake during a house session. Its embarrassing for his constituents, and embarrassing to the American People.

While there are several members of Congress at an advanced age that are fuctional to conduct business as usual, many are not. Term limits not only bring new blood and new ideas into our law making, but also eliminate individuals who should not be holding office.

I would say 4 terms is sufficient in getting acquanted with the legislative process, getting involved in committees that affect the Legislators district, draft bills that will make a difference in that region, then move out to bring in more new ideas. Fresh! Change! Something new.

What is the best alternative to the Public Option

I still have this issue with people only saying how much they disagree with Obama's Healthcare Plan, but not saying anything to come up with an alternative. For those out there that disagree with the public option, stop telling me why you disagree, but tell me what other alternative you can come up with to force Insurance Companies to stop increasing premiums and not providing the insurance for which people are utilizing them for.

(I still don't buy that the Public Option will force private insurance companies out of business.)

SHOUT OUT TO ALL MY NEWBIES!!!!

Just wanted to welcome all my new followers to Politics, What! Please feel free to comment on all my posts from the legalization of Marijuana, Abortion, Health Care Reform, etc. Whether you agree with my point of view or not, tell me about it...but make sure you tell us WHY!

My goal is to engage people into talking about issues they wouldn't normally feel comfortable, or wouldn't normally think about talking about. If you have something to say, SAY IT!!

Don't ask, Don't Tell #2

President Obama has made good on another political promise, to pursue Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I was thinking how interesting it was that I had just written an article about the issue, few responded, and then President Obama says he wants to push to abolish this law.

It will be a long hall, this isn't a policy that can just be done away with. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a law. We need Congress to get on board with this issue. Hopefully, people can put aside their prejudices and see the benefits of changing this law.

People are always talking about accepting other people, we may not like what they do, but no one is perfect anyway. As a society, ideally, we need to accept people for who and what they are, as long as it doesn't harm us physically in any way, and stopping making laws that exclude people for no reason. That is all Don't Ask, Don't Tell does.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT COMMUNISM IS!

Okay, I feel it is imperative after spending too much time on Twitter.com that most people don't have a clue what Communism is. Yes, I ended that sentence in IS.

Okay, let me makes this really simple...
1. Dictatorships are not Socialist governments.
2. Socialism is a step to Communism, not Communism itself.
3. You have to have a strong Capitalist society to become Communist. In other words, Zimbabwe shouldn't have a Communist Revolution.
4. Leninism, Stalin ism, ARE NOT COMMUNISM!
5. Marxism is not Socialism
6. China, the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc, are not Communist, they just call themselves Communist, and the State Department classifies them as Communist.

I could say I'm 5'10'' and people who don't know me could actually believe that I'm 5'10''. Lesson....get to know me and you'll learn the truth, I'm 5'.

Do We Need to Increase Our Troops in Afghanistan

President Obama is hesitant to increase the troops in Afghanistan. Many government officials are saying that because Al Qaeda has moved into Pakistan, it is unnecessary to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan. While others are saying in order to decrease the likelihood of Al Qaeda from reaffirming themselves in Afghanistan and to maintain peace it is crucial to increase out troop levels.

Those that make the argument to not increase our troops also made another argument with respect to Iraq, and still do, that its time to put the power of maintaining peace back to the people. Its important to teach the Afghani's how to protect and serve their own nation.

But to what end does the troop increase help the United States? To what end does it serve the citizens of Afghanistan? How many years do we need to be at war to protect others without handing over that obligation to that state? How many people have to die?

Before I say I am for or against the troop increase I want to know what the strategy is with respect to these soldiers. What are we trying to achieve by increasing the number of Americans going to war and how long do we expect them to be there. Additionally, why are US soldiers the only troops over there? Isn't this a war that is to assistant all Democratic Nations? Why does the troop increase have to be American troops? Where is the rest of the world? And why aren't they sacraficing their men and women for the freedom from tyranny?

US Presidents Who've won the Nobel Peace Prize

*Barak H. Obama 2009

*Jimmy Carter won in 2002 as ex-president for what the Nobel prize committee said were "his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development".

* Woodrow Wilson won the 1919 prize in recognition of his Fourteen Points peace programme and work in achieving inclusion of the Covenant of the League of Nations in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War One. "The President succeeded in bringing a design for a fundamental law of humanity into present-day international politics," the Nobel Committee said.

* Theodore Roosevelt won the 1906 prize for his role in ending the bloody 1905 war between two of the world's great powers, Japan and Russia. The result was the Treaty of Portsmouth signed by Russia and Japan on Sept. 5, 1905, at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Price

This week, it was announced that President Barak Obama was given the Nobel Peace Price. What an honor for an American President who, within his own country, is battling for the lives of those less fortunate.

Some are saying they don't understand how or why he was given this honor. Or, more to the point, that President Obama doesn't deserve the honor. It seems inappropriate to say that Obama doesn't deserve the honor. He's obviously been a human rights advocate for many years, not just since becoming the President of the United States. But many wonder why him, what prompted the community to consider him in the first place.

Whether people like President Obama, or not, we should consider the fact that this puts the United States in a different light then when President Bush was in office. The international community saw the United States in such a horrible light because of the Iraq war. For 8 years we were disliked by basically the entire world, except Great Britain, and that was only because ofPrime Minister Tony Blaire. Even the citizens of Great Britain disagreed with the choices their government was making. Now that Prime Minister Gordon Brown is in office, the relationship with England and the US has changed.

President Obama winning the Peace Prize is obviously an indication that the US is moving in a different direction. We are mending the broken relationships we've had with our allies, instead of separating ourselves even further into isolationism.

Whether people agree with President Obama receiving this award or not, society must acknowledge the United States relationship with the international community is getting better and its because of President Obama. Whether people like him or not, President Obama is the most popular state leader in the world today.

Term Limits for the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government

Its time to address the fact that we have old white men running our legislature!

I understand that many Congressmen and Senators don't want to admit that they are losing hold of their minds. Its super important that these offices have strong staffers and efficient aides, but when the staff is running the ship, its time to retire the boat.

Its not just about term limits, I don't believe 4 years is enough time to make a difference when it comes to making laws. The California State Assembly is a great example of why term limits can be too restricting, but some kind of regulation of those in office is important, just like in any field. A person that is going senile should not be able to continually hold office just because everyone knows who they are. Its not fair to the constituents and its not fair to the Staffers trying to hold the office together!

The reality is, many of these people are of an age, of a time that does not corralate to what is going on today. They don't have an understanding of what their constituencies want. They have an undestanding of what they wanted when they first ran for office back in 1960! I assure you, the issue that were addressed then, while may be similar to what we are facing today, are not the same and can't be resolved in the same way.

I think its important to have a regulatory agency go out an interview our legislators to determine how effective they may be in crafting laws. A 90 year old man should not be elected! I don't care how great he may have been 20 years ago, today he is too old to even stay awake during a house session. Its embarrassing for his constituents, and embarrassing to the American People.

While there are several members of Congress at an advanced age that are fuctional to conduct business as usual, many are not. Term limits not only bring new blood and new ideas into our law making, but also eliminate individuals who should not be holding office.

I would say 4 terms is sufficient in getting acquanted with the legislative process, getting involved in committees that affect the Legislators district, draft bills that will make a difference in that region, then move out to bring in more new ideas. Fresh! Change! Something new.

Why punish the Democrats?

Isn't it interesting how even though the Democrats have a majority in both the House and the Senate the Republicans still seem to be controlling the Health Care Reform debate?

We've known for a long time that elected officials take a lot of money during election times from lobby groups and private companies. It seems that even though we elected them into office, the vast majority of these Senators and Congressman have been in office for YEARS!! Yes, there are no term limits in the US Legislature! THEY NEVER RETIRE!!

The reality is, these Reps and Senators probably don't even need that money to get re-elected since so many of them win by vast majorities based on the fact that they've been doing this for so long. The Representative in Santa Cruz, CA has won by mass majorities of over 70%. A predominately Republican District, this super progressive Democrat never needs to worry about losing his seat. AND HE IS FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM AND IMMIGRATION REFORM!

Its time that our Representative stop being controlled by organizations that don't represent their district and aren't in their district.

Another thing that is pissing me off is that the Republicans are still pushing the same anti reform jargon they were spewing before the Health Care Reform debate started! And they are accusing President Obama of being racist! Why don't the Republicans just admit that they oppose Health Care Reform because the special interest groups that keep money in their pockets would stop giving them money for re-election! Stop this bavajadas that the Public Option would run private health insurance companies out of business! Its completely ridiculous. For those that are so afraid of government intervention in their health care plan, those are the very people who would continue to purchase outside insurance.

I definitely see where Chris Rock is coming from...since its insurance, and I don't get sick, shouldn't I get my money back!

You know what's worse than taxes?
What's worse than tax is insurance.

You got to have some insurance.

They shouldn't even call it insurance.
They just should call it ''in case s*&T.''

l give a company some money
in case s*&t happens.


Now, if s*&t don't happen,
shouldn't l get my money back?

Don't ask, Don't Tell

Why can't we have gays in the military? The United States needs more troops, but we turn away people who are willing to die for their country because of their sexual orientation.

Is it better to hid their sexuality so they can serve, and keep that truth to themselves, as if that makes their homosexuality okay to deal with? That doesn't make any sense to me. Who does this law protect? Its ridiculous! Are soldiers really that affected by their fellow soldiers sexual orientation? Would they rather be short staffed and have a higher likelihood of getting killed, or have a homosexual team member along side them, adding more protection to their unit.

There is no reason why this hasn't be revoked at this point. If people want to join the military and are qualified physically and mentally to serve this country, to die for this country, what does their sexual orientation have to do with it?

For those that are homophobic, that is not an excuse to allow this law to persist. That's discrimination.