We "The ___"

I'm not sure anymore who "The People" are. We the citizens or illegal aliens? According to Obama, it might just be the illegal aliens and to totally disregard the concerns of the American citizens. With Obama's recent immigration reform, aliens can now be dismissed from deportation and to top it off, hand out work permits to those who have not committed a crime 'serious enough' to be deported. Don't ask me what's a serious enough crime according to Obama; ask him. But according to ICE, most of these aliens have committed crimes that could have them sent back home.

This immigration reform does not only anger the Republicans but the law-abiding citizens. It's a slap in the face with a cherry on top (handing work permits). There are already citizens who need to find a job to support themselves and now they're drilled into a deeper hole by handing out working permits to illegal aliens. Illegally cross the border, commit crimes, work illegally, and now to be treated like nothing ever happened. With unemployment slowly recovering, Obama wants to make sure it doesn't improve by handing work permits to "Dreamers" aged 30 and younger. Sorry citizens, there are now millions more to compete with for a job you needed.

Obama has totally disregarded what the founding fathers put in place (The Constitution) and it is obviously too late to impeach the tyrant but at least the approval ratings speak for themselves. We hope that the next president cleans up this mess that Obama left behind but oh wait, we hoped that when Bush left office. History repeats itself.

Gas under 3$ Nationwide

Your introduction grabbed my attention and kept me reading the rest of the post. Your conclusion sort of left me with regrets on why I read the post; not because it was poorly written (it was not) but because you didn't have a stopping point. You left the reader with no after thought because you just provided the information but didn't give it your thought so that the readers could agree or disagree. Engage your readers instead of just providing the information. You could have concluded with a question or a normative statement to get your viewers goin'.

Another thing you could've worked on to make your post better was to provide evidence for your claims. You mentioned that the U.S. could save $187 million a day but no evidence or mathematical calculations leading to that claim. You also mentioned that you read an article but never provided the link to that article you claimed to have read. So work on citing your sources if you bring up any kind of facts.

Overall, this was an okay post and was worth reading 3/4 of it because the end could've been better. Keep blogging!

Government Spending

Government spending is parallel to that kid that only wants the fun stuff. If a child is given $100, where do you think he/she will spend it? On school supplies? No. On toys? Yes. Our federal government isn't any better at knowing what to spend the vast amounts of cash they have. A nation that spends 1.5 trillion dollars on a fighter jet gives away how careless they are of their spending and how corrupt the federal government is. Can you imagine how many more potential college graduates that can help with the kind of money spent instead of wasting it on a fighter jet that has no real use?

We are spending so much more on our military than our citizens. Where has the main phrase of the Constitution gone (For the good of the people)? I'm more than positive that right now, right this moment, we have high school graduates that have huge potential in becoming great things but are unable to due to their background. For example, kids who grew up in poor communities and have little to no help. They are left stranded while the government gets to enjoy their tax dollars. It's a real shame. ~20% of government spending goes to the military which is roughly 700 billion dollars a year. All for what? To protect against terrorism? You are much more likely to die from any other death related activity than from a terrorist attack. Statistics prove it all.

Why is the government then spending so much on national defense? Simple: to gain power and violate the citizens' rights; something that the founding fathers were afraid of. Congress do not look for the interest of the nation but for the interests of their own similar to how a child is (selfish). By the time the government realizes the mistakes they're doing, we'll be all doomed and end up like the Brits, the ones we complained about in the first place.

Peggy Noonan in a blog of her own furiously criticizes the Obama administration on how they are handling the Ebola crises. Peggy works for the Wall Street Journal and was a special assistant for Ronald Reagan during his presidency. In her blog she talks about the flawed logic behind the Obama Administration's efforts in dealing with the deadly Ebola outbreak.

Dr. Frieden believes a travel ban would be harmful because it won't help stop the spreading of the disease in Africa which makes no sense because Dr. Frieden believes in protecting the American people and the only way to do that is to stop flights entering to America from infected countries. Peggy Noonan ridicules his logic and so do I along with the rest of the audience. The evidence that this is a seriously flawed way of approaching the crises is apparent. The first Ebola patient was first seen in Dallas and now it's slowly and surely spreading. If 2 nurses caught the virus, what hope does that give the American people? The Obama administration has failed the nation once more and shame on them.

Obama has done nothing to help restrict the spread of the deadly virus. I like Peggy's example of how even children would not struggle in making the right decision in this situation. If something harmful comes through the door and harms everyone else in the room, what's the first thing you would do? Keep the harmful object out and close the door so that everyone inside the room does not get infected. Simple decisions are obviously not so simple with the Obama administration which is quite ludicrous. Sigh.

Christopher Ingraham in an article argues that the press should not be controlled by government and if it does then the First Amendment will be nullified which is a fact. Christopher writes to the general public and argues the exact opposite of what 37-percent of Americans argued for; that the news media should be required to get government approval before reporting on national security issues. It's blatant that the First Amendment will be violated if anything of this sort takes place and it's astounding how 37% voted for anything like this. I'm left with no choice but to agree with what Christopher is arguing because it's a no brainer that if we let Congress control what the media says, then that has already violated our First Amendment and could lead to more serious violations (like there aren't any violations already pffff). I like how Christopher concluded his article a quote by Thomas Jefferson at the end which did fit in perfectly with what the writer was arguing. Everything was well argued, and nothing was said out of proportion. It was cut clear, short, and to the point which was what I really liked about this argument. He didn't need to say much as it was pretty clear and logical about what he was trying to argue. Russia controls its media and look at what they have reported about their troops being in Ukraine (it was said that troops were there on vacation). This is the result of a controlled press and is a perfect example of what would happen in America if that was the case. The logic behind Christopher's argument is that everyone looks out for himself. If the government has control over the press then they will silence anything that would harm them and they would only publish what would make them look like the good guys and manipulate anything negative to being something positive about the government. I second this because the more power the government has, the more harm they will be able to do to the American citizens.

Global warming has been a major issue in recent years. Sizing down on the amount of waste that we emit is a top priority right now and will probably be that way for many years to come. Not only does warming our planet harm the environment and the species around us, but it also harms the ones who cause the issue. We want to grow our industries that we think will benefit from but really we are doing it at the cost of our lives. A recent article from the New York Times shows that Obama has recently asked major retailers to size down on their HFC (hydrofluorocarbon) emissions to which they agreed. Now they are looking at reducing about 700 million metric tons of CO2 through 2025; 1.5% of the world's gas emissions in 2010. This is a step in the right direction and maybe we can start to grasp a little bit of fresh air. One thing about this article that really grabbed my attention was that America is not only trying to reduce its own gas emissions but also expanding their efforts abroad. Who knows! Maybe we can finally get together and be environmentally friendly at last!