Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO
28 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
While even highly offensive speech is protected in the U.S., that level of freedom is quite unique.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This article investigates the varying protections given to free speech around the world. As it turns out, very few countries give the same degree of protections to free speech as America - many western European countries, which we would otherwise associate with individual freedom, often ban and regulate speech that they consider offensive. Holocaust denial is banned in multiple European countries, particularly Germany, and France has a recent history of banning some Muslim self-expression. Otherwise educated people in other countries are often shocked at the American government's legal inability to regulate the speech of its citizens. I think that this ideal is core to our individual liberties, and should be enshrined and defended. That you are offended should have absolutely no effect on what I can say - you can leave the area/change the channel, but you cannot force me to stop talking (well, assuming we're in a public space. Obviously you make the rules if I'm on your property.) Freedom of speech is just a blatant lie if we add exceptions for whatever the particular indignant self-righteous offense of the day is. Regulating speech on the basis of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, which ties into prior restraint on the basis of national security, is a reasonable restriction on free speech - your right to speak ends when you threaten the life of others, but beyond that, there shouldn't be much in the way of regulation of free speech. Freedom from indignation is not a constitutional right.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:52 PM

Although many nations around the world are democracies, the U.S is unique because it gives its people more personal freedom. The U.S. isn't conscerned with other people getting offended, as long as each person has the right to expression it is okay. The only ban that we have on this is clear and present danger. There are certain guidlines that have developed in order to rule an action potentially dangerous or not. Other countries are astounded by this practice.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:38 PM

No protections for those that shrieks obscenities and the clause to discern speeches that invokes clear and present danger are there. This just lacks bold enforcement. Governments are scared of crazy Americans' revolts and teachers fear students. Of course the rest of the world looks down on us. We lack culture, sophistication and moderation.

 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:32 PM

This article talks about how France prohibited people from talking about prophet mohammad and how although they are a democratic country free speech is not as open as it is in the US over there are stricter rules. I think one of the great things about America is the freedom to make your own choices and speak up and how you are aloud to say what you want. People who have problems with the government are aloud to voice there opinions here it would be against the 1st amendment to limit free speech. Obviously there are offensive things people should not say but we are aloud to voice our opinions when and how we want. 

Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Still left wondering about Obamacare? Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff and PostTV’s “In Play” have the Kliff Notes version for you.

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This article is a nice simple overview of Obamacare's major points. Obamacare is a large, complex piece of legislation with many moving parts, so it's nice to see an article that breaks it down simply. Of course, this is but a step in the right direction and will not completely bring our dysfunctional healthcare system up to par with that of other developed nations. If more people read basic informative articles like these, I doubt we would see quite the vitriolic opposition to Obamacare that we do.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:29 PM

So requirements for obtaining Obamacare is basically asking us to be a bit...poor? Having national healthcare is the same as not having one because only the basics are paid. Honestly, my insurance company can do just about the same thing and I don't mind the bills if they can cover for EVERYBODY part I injured.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:43 PM

This article talks about Obama Care and how everyone will have to have health insurce eventually. It also talks about how Insurance companies cannot deny anyone from buying their healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. This could be beneficial  because there's many sick people who cannot afford heath care when they really need it, and no one will get screwed over.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:44 PM
This article includes FAQs concerning ObamaCare. All the questions asked and answered include a quick explanation of ObamaCare, all the existing insurance difficulties, process of enrollment and the legality of remaining without health insurance. The health cares lunch was very big and messy for Obama so it is interesting that it has taken this long for an article like this to come out.
Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
A bus driver for the Burnsville school district was fired last week for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus, even after he was warned to stop — a move he considers a violation of his freedom of speech...

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Once again, another case of a federal authority figure leading people in (Christian) prayer, getting in trouble for it because of that little thing called the First Amendment (that's the thing that made Christianity the official religion and put "in God we trust" in everything right?), and then feeling outraged because this constrains their right to freedom of expression. This time it's a school bus driver leading kids in prayer. Look, I'm sure your intentions are as positive and heartfelt as any, but you can't foist your religion upon others. This isn't a hard thing to grasp. I'm also really tired of hearing people defend the leaders in these kinds of situations saying that "if you don't want to pray you don't have to pray" - it's a captive audience and this is a clear government sanctioning of a particular religion. Pray all you want on your own, but that's not what's going on here.

more...
Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:36 PM

This article talks about a bus driver who lost his job because, even after a few warnings, he chose to pray to students on his bus. He believes that him getting fired violates the first amndment, right to religion. I can see his point on this, but I feel like if you're doing something like this is public and offending others then youre in face in a sense violating their right to religion, so it's a lose-lose situation, and he was bound to lose his job.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:43 PM

I think that although i am a christian it  can be very uncomfortable when people get a religion forced  on them. Praying on a public school bus can probably be uncomfortable for some kids and although it was in good intentions it is probably not the best. It's good for people to share their religion but on their own time not during school. If it were a private christian school then that would be completely acceptable. 

Ashley O.'s curator insight, March 7, 2014 9:45 PM

That is unfair, he has every right to express his faith, just like those who are not religious and express their personal views. 

Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE]

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE] | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Wednesday on the constitutionality of opening government meetings with prayer, but the justices seemed unsure how to rule.

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case involving the constitutionality of government-backed prayer. The town of Greece has been brought to court over its use of prayer to begin town-hall meetings. As an Appeals Court ruled against the city, the case has now gone to the Supreme Court. Many in the court, such as Chief Justice Roberts, are unwilling to rule against the city since that would force one to demarcate what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable prayer - an apparently touchy and gray area. At the risk of oversimplification - look, figure out the legal minutiae, but it seems pretty unambiguous to me. The First Amendment expressly forbids the government from endorsing a particular religion. Beginning town-hall meetings with a prayer is a government endorsement of religion. Done. People who support the city with the reason that "you don't have to participate if you don't want to, but you should be able to pray if you want to" - if you pray on your own that's perfectly fine; nobody's opposing that. It's the government endorsement of a religion that's the problem. Pray all you want. How would you feel if we changed it from "under God" to "under Ra" or "under <pick a god from the thousands of other world mythologies>"?

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:45 PM

The case won't be settled anytime soon due to that covers  controversial issues between the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and speech, and the separation of church and state. It will be interesting to see where Anthony Kennedy's vote goes toward on this case.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:17 PM

I can't understand this government's "endorsement of religion". Does the free excercise clause only pertain to prohibition of enacting a single religion? Does it exclude the right to be proud of having a religion? Would it be distasteful if a teacher wear a rosary? As long as a religion is not enforced upon the unsastisfied individual, then let the government and its civil servants be humans with religions (practice as they so choose to).

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:29 PM

This article talks about prayers being said in a court room. I don't see why this is such a controversy, let people be and pray if they want to. Yes I get the separation of church and state thing, but this really doesnt affect the "state".

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!)

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!) | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
In the 12 months since his reelection, the president has achieved far less than he expected and suffered one mishap after another.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Incident after scandal after setback has plagued Obama in this first year of his second term. Despite his triumphant message during election speeches, his second term has so far been little but policy gridlock and a series of setbacks. This is reflected in the graph of his approval ratings throughout this term, with sharp spike after the rally event of the shooting at Newtown but a steady decline ever since. His approval ratings are currently near their lowest point in his presidency. Some of the most looming issues for his presidency are currently the rollout of Obamacare and continued revelations of NSA spying (although the latter has unfortunately waned in the public eye). How much of the gridlock and setbacks can be attributed to Republicans is debatable, but they certainly don't seem to "mostly want to work with me" as Obama seemed to claim during his reelection.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:30 PM

Kind of a biased article. Catalogued how Obama managed to screw up his second term by promising to have more actions and less talk (as they've always done) but he ended up swallowing his words. Wasting huge national sums on....gun control (because a crazy dude killed 20 elementary kids)...really how hard is gun control that you have to spend so much on it. In his second reelection, he stated that he wanted to focus more on immigration laws. Wait, I haven't heard anything significant about such matters. Ah well, I guess he's trying to save the economy. No, not happening either, because he came up with a very smart plan, the National Healthcare (no really, its a very merciful plan but it needs MORE planning yeah?) and that basically screw up another large chunk of dough. Oh boy, I guess he still has his Congress to help him out. NOPE they're full of Republican babies. Then Obama wanted to help out with Syria, asking Putin to withdraw their rejection but Snowden is stuck in Russia, revealing unwanted, embarassing government documents. Obama is at a standstill.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 7:57 PM

This article talks about Obama's struggles as president throughout both terms, and his struggle with dealing with the republicans. At the moment, our presidents approval ratings are at their lowest because it seems as though Obama's getting nothing done in office. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:09 PM
I think that Obama was not expecting all these setbacks. He set high goals for himself and he was determined to carry them out. Things have not gone as planned for Obama and his polls have gone down. In the video the guy said "the obamacare website is one month old and still like all one month old it is still shitting its pants" so that speaks for itself and how obama is doing.
Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (1 or 4 total) -- Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist?

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (1 or 4 total) -- Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist? | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case about the constitutionality of a New York town's practice of beginning local legislative meetings with mostly Christian prayers.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Supreme Court Justice Breyer recently made a comment in hearings of a case involving the constitutionality of directed prayers at town hall meetings that seems to indicate that he is nontheistic. When Scalia asked the town's lawyer what the equivalent of a prayer for the nonreligious would be, Breyer interjected that Scalia might be directed the question to him, which seems to be an admission of a lack of belief. As an atheist myself, this is something pretty nice to hear: hopefully it's part of a larger trend of the public "normalization" of atheism/agnosticism. Of course, Breyer certainly didn't get into the court as a proud secular humanist, but it'd be nice to see the day when public officials don't have to proclaim their false religiosity to avoid public crucifixion (ha, ironic choice of words there). It's also pretty interesting to see Scalia, a devout Catholic and conservative, ask the town's lawyer a question that would seem to indicate favor of prohibiting the town hall prayers.

 

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:05 PM

I can see how this irritates people but not enough to ....offend them. Seriously? Who cares if people are praying, "beginning legislative meetings with Christian prayers" is a practice done by Christians (if they're so fervent, FOR CHRISTIANS. If you are not a part of that group, then shut them out and look bored. 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion, so are judges and politicans not the people? Getting upset over such trivial matter, beliefs inherent in a faith BELIEVED by THE PEOPLE --is in itself a discrimination. I refuse to pity those that feel "outcasted", if you're so bold on nonconforming, you're expected to be 'strong' when people practice their religions. Not weak and complaining all the time.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:02 PM

This article talks about Justice Breyer and how he admitted to being an atheist. I don't really think that this should be of much importance, even as a christian myself, because our nation is based on separtion or church and state, right? If a justice chooses to be an atheist, then let them.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:12 PM

I think that the supreme court has made it a point to be very neutral when it comes to religion topics and that in public situations no religions should be favored. But all of the supreme court members have always been religious so it is interesting that he may be athiest and it would be interesting to see how the country would perceive that. 

Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY Friday, 11/8 --ONLY ONE Scoop -- Nate Silver on 'This Week' (See the instructions for your Scoop)

ESPN's Nate Silver, the roundtable analyze the political picture for the 2014 election.


Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Nate Silver joined the ABC round table this video to discuss the future of both the Republican and Democratic parties in the next few years. The Republican Party has taken a major hit in approval ratings as fallout from the government shutdown, with voter polls for the upcoming 2014 midterms giving Democrats a 48% - 40% lead over the Republicans. This number doesn't tell the full story however, as Republicans tend to turnout more at the polls and redistricting has greatly benefited the Republican. The outcome of the congressional midterms remains to be seen and will be won on a district by district basis. The group segued into discussing the two major recent state gubernatorial elections: Virginia and New Jersey, both notable for the likely winners: Chris Christie (R) leads in the heavily blue New Jersey, and a mediocre Democratic candidate is likely to beat his Tea Party opponent in purple Virginia.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:29 PM

This video discussed the chances of Republicans or Democrats winning the House in the upcoming midterm elections. Many of the issues that seem to be swaying voters one way or another are social issues, so if they want to win, they need to choose the social issues that appeal to the largest amount of voters.. Voters want to vote for a candidate that they think is most like themselves. 

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:16 PM

Congressional approval rating is down to 12% approved due to the Repubs' demand for a shutdown and the Demos' disorganized healthcare bill. Guesses for the coming House election has Demos and Repubs on an equal stand, Demos leading by only 8%. Who's to say states are getting ready to shift colors. 8% is nothing to give the wins to Demos. The healthcare bill doesn't seem to work itself out anytime soon, and as laid offs increase, the anger for govt shutdown decreases over time. I don't see any faction in the lead, the 48 to 40 percent will equal out quite soon.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 7:18 PM

This video talks about how Nate Silver predicted 2012's election outcome. Later the midterm election is talked about. Apparently the rating fot democrats and republicans are low because of  the government shut down and problems with  Obamacare.It's evedently clear that the minority opinion is becoming stonger and stronger.

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Is email ever private? Take a tour of the path traveled by your email

BY 11/3 -- Is email ever private? Take a tour of the path traveled by your email | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: Critical questions are being raised about data safety in light of hacking reports and news about NSA data collection. NBC’s Stephanie Gosk explains what happens after you hit ‘send’ on an email message.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This video explores the path of electronic communications through our current internet infrastructure. Interesting to note is that despite the common misperception, the internet exists within physical infrastructure, as a system of cables connecting large servers throughout the world. These servers, such as a Google data center shown in the video, are tremendously important as they are proverbial baskets in which we've put our electronic eggs - all your Google account data (Gmail, Drive, etc.) are stored in that center. The centralization and complexity of this architecture makes the current revelations about NSA spying all the more frightening. If all of our online lives are stored in these centralized, potentially vulnerable centers, then what does that imply for our privacy?

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:07 PM

This video enlightens us in depth of the workings of email and how it is possible for others to view and who could possibly be watching where it goes. Suprisingly the data doesnt stay in the states but actually travels over seas. This video just re stated all that we know and gave more detail about the whole situation.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 6:43 PM

This video shows us that it true when they say anything you put on the internet will be there forever, and many of us blow that off. I feel that we all need to be a little more mindful of what we say and do online, and we should keep a lot more private.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:53 PM

Lately there has been a lot of controversy over the government reading peoples phone txts emails social media phone calls ect. I think that the people have the right to privacy as stated in the constitution. 

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Booker Brings Dash Of Diversity To Still Old, White Senate -- Demographics of Current Congress

BY 11/3 -- Booker Brings Dash Of Diversity To Still Old, White Senate -- Demographics of Current Congress | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Cory Booker becomes ninth African-American to serve in the Senate, replacing Frank Lautenberg.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This article analyzes the demographics of members in the US House of Representatives and Senate. Though the presence of minority members has increased, both the House and the Senate tend to fit the image of organizations dominated by old white men, the Senate being the older, whiter, maler of the two. It's interesting to note that Cory Booker is the first elected black Senator since Obama back in 2004, and one of only two black members of the Senate. Though the data in this article is quite interesting, none of it is surprising. Both legislative bodies have always had this image as clubs of old white men. It's nice to know that the presence of "minorities" (women and ethnic minorities) is increasing in both houses.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:30 PM

The electio of Senator Cory Booker will add some diversity to the Senate because he is a a relatively young African American. Most of the Senate consists of old white people. This trend is starting to change a little, especially the Democratic side. A more diverse Congress will be able to better address the concerns of different groups of people.This is reflecting the nation a little bit more, the diversity of this nation.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 4:07 PM

This article talks about the young and new african-american senator and the diversity in the senate. With our country being as diverse as it is, so should our government. That would lead to a better represented population.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:05 PM
I think it is good for congress e to be diverse and have different ethinicities, different genders, different ages, and different parties. When passing bills and making decisions you will get a diverse group of opinions making it better for the people
Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/31 -- Nightly News: Obama’s approval rating drops to all-time low

BY 10/31 -- Nightly News: Obama’s approval rating drops to all-time low | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Patrick Girardet's insight:

It's unfortunate but not surprising that his ratings have suffered as of late. While he might have gotten a little boost from the politics of the government shutdown, continued NSA revelations and the failure of the Obamacare rollout (great thing to have your name attached to at this point) have brought his numbers down. Obama, presumably in part due to the name attachment to the policy, has gotten more flak than deserved for the rollout - he wasn't the one responsible for hammering out the details of implementing the policy. That was Sebelius, and while Obama might have appointed her, this is her responsibility.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:00 PM

This video explains the president's approval ratings have dropped and the affect Obama's leadership has on the nation.  I think the trials of Obama have been difficult and must be difficult for him to juggle everything. It makes sense as to why Obama has lost approval ratings because the public is tired of not getting what was promised. Especially now with the NSA leaks as well...He may continue to lose approval.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 5:39 PM

It's not shocking that President Obama's presidential rating and personal rating have gotten dropped to an all-time low. I agree that President Obama should show more involvement with fixing the Obamacare issues because as of right now he's shown very little, and that's one of the many reasons his rating is so low.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:47 PM

Obamas ratings have dropped a lot since the beginning of his presidency the obamacare does not seem to be working out for him very well. His ratings used to be a lot higher and now they are making a record breaking low. 

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/31 -- How the NSA is infiltrating private networks

BY 10/31 -- How the NSA is infiltrating private networks | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The NSA, working with its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), secretly taps into the internal networks of Yahoo and Google, the two biggest Internet companies by overall data traffic.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This article explores the vast internet infrastructure of companies like Google and Yahoo and illustrates how the NSA might be infiltrating them, despite them being private networks. This is in stark contrast to the head of the NSA's assertions that NSA requests for information from private companies like Google and Yahoo are done through regulated and specific requests for information on terrorism. It's unbelievable how the revelations just never seem to end - it's not even surprising anymore. I definitely agree with the comment. Pretending to defend freedom while taking it away on a much broader scale is utter hypocrisy. We need more oversight of our intelligence community, and not just from within it, as weak attempts after Snowden at reigning in excesses have done (as though that's going to do anything).

 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:12 PM

This article detailed exactly how the NSA has cracked into Google's data centers. The full repercussions of this scandalous news hack does not seem to fully register to the American public. The NSA has to be stopped and will not stop unless the American voters do something about it, whether it be through protest or voting in new representatives. It violates our constitutional rights.

Adriana Cruz's comment, January 25, 2014 3:31 PM
This article talks about how the NSA has infiltrated into the public in order to ensure safety. For example, the NSA can monitor all Google Cloud actions. It is very interesting to note that the Washington Post is willing to share this information to the public; it almost seems risky. At the same time, it makes me feel very unsafe in that the government could monitor anything that I do online.
Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 7:52 PM
It is illegal to have a website that the gvt cannot get into but that does not mean that the gvt should tap into google or yahoos networks through wiring and invade peoples private information. It is against the rights of American citizens.
Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/24 -- Ted Cruz returns to Texas as a hero who is reshaping the state Republican Party

BY 10/24 -- Ted Cruz returns to Texas as a hero who is reshaping the state Republican Party | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Although a newcomer, he is rapidly becoming the model for GOP politicians throughout the state.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

You might be a little right of center when Rick Perry thinks that your attempts at killing Obamacare go too far. Ted Cruz is a highly polarizing figure currently enjoying great political success due to a fervent Tea Party base fed up with "politics as usual" and enamored of Ted Cruz's brash, unapologetic far right approach to politics. His current political stature is almost unheard-of for a junior Senator, leading the Republican effort to shut down the government to extract concessions on Obamacare. However, the failure of the shutdown for the Republicans and the Republicans' brand new abysmal poll ratings have turned much of the conventional Republican establishment against Senator Cruz. To put it mildly, I can't say that I'm too fond of Senator Cruz's politics. I find it ridiculous that the rest of the Texas Republicans are trying to style themselves after this hometown hero (who didn't actually get anything done other than provide media fodder and give a few hundred thousand government workers a nice vacation), trying to one-up each other with increasingly lunatic positions and statements. Nice to know that it's come to Houston: Have to deal with pensions in the budget? Just default on them. It's brilliant economics courtesy of Houston city council member Helena Brown. I hope this movement doesn't remain politically prominent for too long.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 11, 2013 6:14 AM

In this article, it describes how Ted Cruz is either one or the other, really liked or disliked, in the country. But right now he is very liked by Texas returning as a hero although disliked in the Senate. I like how Cruz is receiving credit in Texas because I like how he stands up for his beliefs and takes risks. I think its fascinating how they predict Texas will become purple but I dont necessarily believe that a continuously red state for multiple years will all of a sudden go purple.

 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:06 PM

Ted Cruz's impact on Texans and the Republican party.Cruz has inspired GOP candidates to rally for secession, rolling back immigration laws, impeaching President Obama, and amending the Constitutional direct election of Senators. People are following him and changing their views on certain things. This article also addresses the fact that Texas is becoming a more diverse state, with a fainter red part but not entirely blue part, making it a "purple state." 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 5:23 PM

The article establishes Ted Cruz as a controversial senator from Texas that has quickly gained the attention of most Americans, and explains the possible political changes in Texas due to Ted Cruz. It's interesting to see that he could possibly create a major political change in Texas, where the state goes from a firmly conservative and Republican state to more of a purple state. Cruz also could possibly spark a big change in the ideology of the Republican Party.

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Peter Baker talks about his book, “Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House.” He calls the relationship between the duo, “one that drifted apart.”
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This video discusses a new book exploring the relationship between President Bush and Vice President Cheney during their time in office. This relationship, despite the stereotypes of Cheney as the puppetmaster, began as a close cooperation which grew weaker and more estranged throughout the course of the presidency, with Bush essentially replacing Cheney with Condeleeza Rice in his second term as his lead advisor. It's interesting that such a liberal news source had a discussion about the two without any criticism or negativity, and also intriguing that there's more nuance to the relationship than previously thought.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:14 PM

The video explains how Cheney was influential in Bush's decision-making, but less and less was he influential towards the end of Bush's 2nd term. This discussion was very interesting to watch as it painted Dick Cheney in another light, other than being the lackey to the younger Bush. Without Cheney's participation and adcive, Bush wouldn't have lasted the White House for past one term.

 

Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 10, 2013 11:11 PM

This video discusses the relationship between Bush in cheney and how it was not all as it seems and in their new book, Days of Fire, you can see that. All though they had their differences and grew distant they came together when needed. I think it was a nice video and good to hear a little behind the scenes of the truth of their relationship and how it wasnt all good.

 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:28 PM

 This video is about bush and chaney while they where in the white house. It outlines the breaking and falling apart of their relationship and how bush really didn't have any power and chaney was the one really making the decisions, like a "puppet master". I think that their relationship as friends and as colleges was strained due to the media, the policy agenda and the war in Iraq.

Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Congressional Democrats are increasingly expressing support for allowing Americans to retain the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act.

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Two competing bills are making their way through Congress to address perceived faults in Obamacare, namely that some people that had health insurance are being kicked off their plans and forced to buy more comprehensive plans that meet Obamacare's requirements. The Republican-sponsored bill is drawing significant opposition from the White House as it would severely undermine the bill by allowing insurers to sell insurance plans that don't meet Obamacare standards. The Democrat-sponsored bill isn't drawing the same level of opposition from the administration, though the differences between it and the Republican bill weren't made that clear by the article. While I understand that Obamacare's success depends upon a large pool of healthy people with comprehensive insurance plans, I'd like to see more specifics about the bar for insurance plans under Obamacare.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:33 PM

Enrollment is low for the Affordable Healthcare and Demos are planning to ditch Obama. His top aides suggested cancellation but maybe Obama is saving face, he doesn't think the plan will dry up...oh but it might just will.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:53 PM

This article talks about how Obamacare is doing lots of things it said it wouldn't, like getting rid of American's insurance coverage when the president said they would keep it. Democrats and republican's are agreeing with each other on not making american's keep the obamacare.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:30 PM
This article talks about how some democrats have been threatening to abandon Obama on Health Law Provision. It says that the Democrats in congress have been more supportive of the idea that Americans should be allowed to keep the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act after Obama already stated that they could keep their existing insurance. Obama is just digging himself a deeper hole.
Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Of the 106,000 enrollees, only about 27,000 were able to sign up through the federal health-insurance site.

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Let's be real Pelosi, you can't spin the numbers in the article into a sign that tons of people want Obamacare despite the website's difficulties (not that I contest the notion that affordable insurance for all is something that we need and should be working towards). This article talks about Obamacare's newly released enrollment numbers, which state that 106,000 people signed up in the first month. This is below administration projections of 500,000 in the first month, and even more disquieting since only 27,000 managed to get insurance through the healthcare.gov website. These numbers are pretty small compared to the millions of uninsured Americans this law aims to help. It's clear that while Obamacare might be a step in the right direction, it has its flaws and is nowhere near a comprehensive solution to America's healthcare situation.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:22 PM

The figures are not up to what was predicted because the people lose trust in such a brittle plan. Its new, disorganized and made with haste, those who signed up stopped midway because they were informed of its problems or because they thought about how the elites' not getting proper pay might trickle down to their jobs.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:26 PM

This article talks about the 106,000 people that enrolled inObama's health insurance in just the first month. That number was way lower than the predictions they had made. It also talks about attempts to pass laws that allow people to keep their old health polices. Its honestly not that shocking that people wouldn't jump to join the new healthcare plan.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:22 PM
I think that obviously Obama and his administration had i hopes and expectations for the health care and it was not as successful as they would have liked it to be in the beginning. I think that the website having difficulties and congress not complying is making it a lot harder and not going over as smoothly as planned.
Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Some states are citing a conflict with state laws to defy the defense secretary’s order that gay spouses of National Guard members be given the same federal marriage benefits as heterosexual spouses.

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This is just reprehensible. Six states are denying the spouses of same-sex military members benefits at National Guard bases, telling them they have to go out of their way to a federal base in order to get the same benefits enjoyed by the spouses of heterosexual guard members. Naturally, the states doing this all cite that their state constitutions do not recognize same sex marriage and thus they can't and won't give out the benefits. Of course, the majority of states in the US don't recognize same sex marriage either but that hasn't stopped them from agreeing to the federal ruling and giving out benefits to same sex couples, but I guess the Supremacy Clause doesn't mean much. Nice job beating your patriotism against your chest with support for the troops until those troops contradict some of your discriminatory social beliefs.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:12 PM

Some States deny the confirming of marriage benefits for homosexual couples. Personally, I find this a little funny, because the article notes that these States want to "uphold their integrity". Uhm, what sort of integrity? That homosexual marriages are not....marriages- that is, believed by the people and conservative state legislators? I can't figure out this lame excuse of "integrity", because really, refusing to accept other people's decisions are no sort of integrity. (Feeling neutral about gay marriages does not mean I fervently support it).

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:09 PM

This article talks about Texas and other states refusing giving the same marriage benefits to gay couples as man/woman couples in the national guard. Defense Secretary Hagel had ordered that gay spouses of the National guard be given the same rights, but Texas and others aren't budging. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:58 PM

I think that gay people should have the same rights as other marriages. I think that especially same sex military couples should get the same benefits as everyone else. It doesn't affect anyone but them so it is obnoxious and annoying not to give it to them. Yes the states that are resisting to give the gay couples the benefits are very conservative it does not mean that we should not give everyone the same military couple benefits no matter who they are it is there right they risk there lives to serve our country and can't get couple benefits all because they are gay. That is absurd and ridiculous. 

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (2 or 4 total) -- Video: 'This Week': Twitter Transforms Politics

The roundtable debates the role of social media in politics following Twitter's IPO.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This video explored the recent contributions of Twitter to politics in America. By allowing retweets to generate a discussion, many argue that Twitter helps bring politicians closer to their constituents. It's certainly helped a lot of politicians get closer to their constituents, such as (now Senator) Cory Booker of New Jersey (he seems to be doing pretty well for himself these days...) As with any medium however, it carries some downsides to it. By again shortening the media cycle's attention span, Twitter contributes to a media completely focused on political sound bites over longer, more drawn-out discussion (you might be pithy but it's pretty hard to carry out a political discussion that covers all subtleties in under 140 characters). By allowing you to choose whom you hear from on Twitter, it's possible to create a completely isolated political media bubble on Twitter, as can be done with other media sources, further contributing to political polarization. Ms. Roberts, the fact that you've never been on Twitter is pretty apparent when you claimed that Twitter makes it harder to spin and deceive - this ideological internet isolation means that people across the aisle can have two completely different ideas of what is happening in the world. If anything it makes it easier to spin: tweet some ridiculous comment about a political event to your ideologically self-selecting followers and a few thousand retweets later you've changed quite a few minds.

more...
Maddie Callen's curator insight, December 20, 2013 11:39 AM

twitter has greatly changed politics for better or for worse. consituents can communicate with representatives even easier. some politicans are thought more of as celebrities now especially during election time when they will be on the cover of magaizines and on tabloids. politicains can sometimes seem unproffesional on twitter using slang and abreviations but i think they should try to sound more proper.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:39 PM

Almost 100% of politicians are involved in the practice of twittering. It's another way to rant, complain and tattle tale through personal media. There's no way for policies to restrain politicians from interracting with the public through media. Politics can now reach out to the lazy, young generations and plus they can control the news they want to put out individually.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 10:06 PM

This video talks about how twitter is changin politics and the information communicated through it, using twitter makes it that much faster and easier to get information out there. Twitter has such a large ammount of users interested in politics, that it made sense for politians to create accounts. It's cool seeing politians, old and young, adapt to these new trends!

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (3 or 4 total) -- Video: 'This Week': Rick Perry in Iowa

ABC's Jeff Zeleny goes one-on-one with Gov. Rick Perry on his first trip to Iowa since 2012.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

In this video, Rick Perry discusses a number of current political issues and the state of the Republican party, foreshadowing a possible 2016 run for President. He commented on Chris Christie and his recent victory in New Jersey, hinting that he doesn't consider Christie a true conservative, but that this would become a question to be discussed during the 2016 Presidential race. He also said that he enjoyed Ted Cruz's 21 hour filibuster of Obamacare but disliked the resultant government shutdown, saying that Cruz and other Republicans should have been more pragmatic in their approach. The video also discussed Perry's recent activities like meeting with business leaders and making appearances at gun stores, possible attempts to raise his profile for 2016.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:33 PM

This video is a discussion with Rick Perry, talking about issues like Obamacare. He is very bold and is not very afraid to say that he is against the act. He obviously is unhappy with the current situation in the White House, and wants to make a change in 2016 by running for the presidency himself. I am interested to see how the 2016 election turns out for him.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:50 PM

With one year left in office, Perry is planning on running for the 2016 Election as is predicted in his trip to Iowa.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 8:28 PM

This video talks about Rick Perry and his plans to run for president in 2016, Perry discusses his views on Ted Cruz and his agreements/disagreements with this tactics. He also says that Christie may not be a true conservative.

Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
A LaFollette pastor headed to court next week for having dozens of poisonous snakes at his church said the laws he allegedly violated in Tennessee infringe on his freedom of religion.

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

A pastor is challenging his supposed violation of a Tennessee law prohibiting the handling of venomous snakes without a license (which can only be obtained by an institution), claiming that since he was using the snakes as part of a religious ceremony, that the law infringes upon his First Amendment rights. As explained by a lawyer in the article and video, general purpose laws such as these are not designed with the purpose of infringing upon a right, but rather to prevent a public nuisance, and thus judicial precedent holds that the law remains constitutional even though it might affect one's religious expression. This same case of snake-handling as a religious ceremony protected by the First Amendment has already come up before the court in the 1970s, and the law was upheld then. Furthermore, in the 1870s, Mormons tried to do the same thing with polygamy and were shot down by the Supreme Court. Judicial precedent doesn't seem to be on the pastor's side. I can definitely side with the likely outcome of this case - while I have a harder time resolving issues involving consenting adults performing actions that harm none other than themselves, snake-handling is most definitely not such an event. A church is a public institution (not in the sense of government-owned, but you get the picture) with a large number of people that just walk in there; handling venomous snakes there doesn't strike me as something with limited potential impact on others.

 

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:54 PM

Religious or not. Law or not. Who cares?! If people's lives are clearly at risk, why are such practices disputable? It's apparent that if people are not professional at handling dangerous animals, do not do so. Period. Why is the government dragged into this? and why is this stupid minister leading a blind crowd?

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 12:55 PM

This article talks about a Pastor who has to go to court because he had poisonous snakes at his church during service; however some may say that this violates one's freedon of practicing religion. In court he justifies his act with the 1st Amendment. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:18 PM

I think that if you bring a poisonous snake into your church it will probably not help bring people back. So on the pastors part that was just a weird and irrational demonstration that he could have gotten his point across in a different way. Although you do have freedom of expression and speech i do not think that is how it should be used. 

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Tale Of The Tape: Comparing The Budget Committee Heads

BY 11/3 -- Tale Of The Tape: Comparing The Budget Committee Heads | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray are likely to at least set a friendly tone during budget talks.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This article illustrates the differences between the two heads of the House Budget Committee heads. Whereas Ryan is a well-known and controversial figure famous for his VP run and large proposed cuts to entitlements to balance the budget, Murray takes a more moderate approach, with a low public profile and much more restrained proposed cuts. Murray would like to wind back the sequester, while Ryan wants to keep it in place. Hopefully, the two can come to a mutually agreeable consensus on a budget that will put us on a path to a fiscally sustainable future.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:25 PM

This article compares the leaders of the House and Senate Buget Committees. It is very good to know that two people who disagree about policy issues can still get along; which is very difficult to find nowadays. In Congress nowadays, this seems to be very rare. However, this does not mean it will be easy to compromise about the budget since the two parties they represent might not be willing. Many members of Congress should look at their example and learn from it.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 3:36 PM

This article talks about Paul Ryan and Patty Murray's  different approaches of handling the budget issue. They both each have their own style which approaching the decisions, and different plans as to how to solve the issue.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:42 PM

Both Paul Ryan and Patty Murray are extremely different I think it should be interesting to see how they will work together it says they both come from similar backgrounds. When Paul was 16 his father passed away and when Murray was in her teens her dad developed an illness and her mom found a job and they lived off of welfare so they are both raised with common backgrounds but their ideologies now are extremely different so it should be interesting to see how they work together. 

Rescooped by Patrick Girardet from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Residents of rural areas feel shut out of their states' politics, so why not create their own?

Via Teresa Herrin
Patrick Girardet's insight:

This article sheds light on an interesting trend that's been picking up some steam in certain areas recently: that of groups of counties wanting to band together and secede from their state and form a new one. It is typically rural, more conservative areas in otherwise liberal states that want to do this, as they don't feel that they're being adequately represented in their state capitols. For example, the northern California region has been wanting to secede from a state it feels focuses solely on the more urban and liberal south. Although the desire for adequate representation is nice, this strikes me as a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. Though a generalization perhaps not applicable to the specific counties cited in this article, it often seems that rural conservatives are glad to receive federal government assistance (during disasters, farm subsidies) but then love to tout the values of limited government. A political unit as large as a state is necessarily going to require compromise and tune out some of its minority voices - this is the compromise inherent to larger political subdivisions.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:12 PM

This article talks about citizens, counties, and groups in general in certain states claiming that they want to secede from their state and make a new one. The main group that seems to have a problem is the Republicans living in a Democratic region. For example in Colorado, a vote is going tobe held for secession. I  think that if people have problems with beliefs and the way things work in a certain state, that they should leave. You cant change the whole state to meet all of your standards.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 3:29 PM

The article says that many counties's rural residents  are feeling the need secede and create a new state. Northern counties want to create their own state because they don't agree with the rest of colorado. While the creation of a new state seems a bit extreme, I feel like these residents need to be better represented to avoid ideas like secession. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:00 PM
I think this is simple if you don't like where you live move. It would be completely outrageous to secede and create another state let alone new gvt. The economy would fail and it would be a mess.
Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/31 -- NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say

BY 10/31 -- NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Agency positioned itself to collect from among millions of accounts, many belonging to Americans.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Everytime a new revelation related to PRISM and the NSA's related programs comes out, it's hard to tell whether it's true or whether it's something that will be replaced in magnitude and invasiveness by a new revelation. Google employees apparently exploded in rage here but there was controversy about such internet companies giving the NSA a free back door to their servers when Snowden's revelations first came out. The companies then all vigorously opposed the assertions and said that any intelligence requests were carefully vetted. This article claims that the NSA has in fact had a secret back door to the servers of such internet companies without their knowledge, using this to collect and store data on hundreds of millions of Americans and foreign citizens. It's important to note that the NSA has been able to legally construe FISA to support their actions spying on Americans and foreigners with the right claims.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 2:49 PM

This discusses how public networks like Yahoo and Google are being tapped into by the NSA in order to provide security for Americans through access to lots of personal info. These networks have stated they do not want their databases to be tapped into by the NSA, but that is meerely just a claim. Although, both yahoo and google have started to make a move by encrypting their data in order to prevent any hacking. I think that this is going too far. What happened to privacy? Isn't that OUR right. The NSA is using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to justify their recent moves and decisions.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 5:02 PM

This article talks about the new program made by the NSA called MUSCULAR, which allows them to exploit data centers and flows from companies like Google and Yahoo. This article tells us about the negative feelings towards the federal government as overreaching its powers, the NSA says they only collect information on valid foreign targets, but who really knows.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 7:55 PM
I think that it is good for us to know what the government is doing but also it makes the USA look weak if one of our own is going and publishing private information that is vital to the security of the US. I think that on the otherhand i do not really want to know all of the spying that the government is doing i would rather not know if the gvt feels the need to infiltrate yahoo and goodle for information that they think could potentially harm the US then go ahead and do it but i think that again citizens have the rights to privacy and Snowden did a very couragous thing by standing up for the rights of the US citizens.
Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/31-- Sebelius apologizes for healthcare website debacle

BY 10/31-- Sebelius apologizes for healthcare website debacle | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Patrick Girardet's insight:

There was nothing Sebelius could do other than apologize. The rollout of Obamacare has been a disaster and what went into planning it is utterly laughable. Did they really expect only 50,000 people to want to go on simultaneously at most? Hopefully she can fix this quickly enough to keep the momentum going and not create some cracks to be exploited with regards to Obamacare, both politically and with the policy itself.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:09 PM

Sebelius keeps apologizing for the problems with the Obamacare website, taking complete responsibility for the dysfunctionality of the incident. Officials in charge also reassure the public that, within 30 days, the site will be up and ready to be used to sign up for coverage.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 4:40 PM

This video tells us how Sebelius takes the blame for the failed lauch of Obamacare. Sge later ended up answering the people's questions based on promises the president made. I think it was smart of Sebelius to take the blame for it because it encourages people to trust her and she is wise in saving others deserving of blame.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 7:47 PM
I dont like Obama so I do not really like his healthcare and the fact that the website was having problems makes it even more sketchy and harder for it to be promoted and talked about well.
Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/24 -- Rand Paul pushes constitutional amendment on Congress - Burgess Everett

BY 10/24 -- Rand Paul pushes constitutional amendment on Congress - Burgess Everett | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Forget the Vitter amendment. Rand Paul wants to make sure that Congress can’t ever again write laws with provisions specific to lawmakers.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

Rand Paul is pushing for an interesting amendment to the Constitution which would bar Congress from passing legislation that wouldn't apply equally to Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court. He's motivated by provisions in the Affordable Care Act giving legislators and aides special federal subsidies to sign up for the exchanges, a contentious point that the Republicans wanted to remove from the ACA as a concession during the government shutdown. I wonder if there's any historical precedent for this amendment - if there's anything like it that's been proposed before or some sort of political discussion about Congress passing laws that don't equally apply to the people and the federal government. Keeping members of government accountable and responsible by requiring them to feel the effects of the policy they create is a principle consistent with the ideals of equality under democratic law. While I doubt this amendment will make it, it's certainly an intriguing and solid proposal.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 11, 2013 6:00 AM

In this article, Rand Paul is pitching the idea to add an amendment that prohibits Congress from passing laws that Congress is exempt from and having to dealin with lawmakers. Its clearly aimed at Obamacare for the reasons that when it is in action, exchanges must be made by the congressmen and rulings from the O.P.M. in order to receive federal contributions. It is unlikely that Congress will go for more restrictions.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:53 PM

A kentucky senator, Rand Paul, wants an amendment forbidding senators and representatives to pass laws that don't apply equally to Congress and the citizens. Specifically aimed at Obamacare, this amendment will force lawmakers to disclose exchanges and rulings from the Office of Personnel Management in order to receive federal employer contributions. Amending the Constitution requires a majority vote in both chambers before it can be ratified, and I think Paul has a difficult task ahead of him to convince lawmakers to give up their authority to make laws.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 20, 2014 11:54 PM

This article tells us that Rand Paul wants an amendment forbidding senators and representatives to pass laws that don't apply equally to Congress and the citizens. Paul specifically aims this at Obamacare, his proposed amendment will force lawmakers to disclose exchanges and rulings from the Office of Personnel Management in order to receive federal employer contributions. It seems Paul has a difficult task ahead of him to convince lawmakers to give up their authority to make laws because amending the Constitution requires a majority vote in both chambers before it can be ratified.

Scooped by Patrick Girardet
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good. | Patrick Girardet BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.
Patrick Girardet's insight:

The website implementation is absolutely embarassing and speaks to both a failure of foresight in resource allocation and to a warped federal system to select contractors which favors the companies that know how to game the government system rather than the most skilled and effective ones. Obamacare's success, with the absence of a public option, now depends on the government's ability to get as many healthy people signed up as possible on these exchanges. A simple and painless sign-up process is critical for this. It will be interesting to see what Sebelius has to say next week when she testifies to Congress, as she'll hopefully give more information as to what they're planning to do going forward with Obamacare than Obama did in his apparently superfluous speech.

more...
Rabika Rehman's curator insight, October 24, 2013 10:37 PM

Obama thinks that the afordable care act is more than just a website.This reform is upsetting insurance company,they are already making changes with their individual policies because they are non-complaint with the obama care. The fact that it's more than a website should scare people.

Maddy Folkerts's curator insight, October 25, 2013 9:21 PM

I don't agree with this article that the website problems means all of ObamaCare will be a failure. It's more of a technical issue than an issue with the whole plan of the policy. This article was extremely biased and touched on irrelevant problems rather than arguing the actual important, debatable topics.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:47 PM

Obama encourages people to apply for benefits over phone. The article itself is very discriminating and has a very derogetory tone. ObamaCare's real goal is to focus over health care. The disadvantage of ObamaCare is that the enrolled people will mainly be the most expensive patients. Even in the video, obama says that the website is slow and there are problems, but the intentions are good. Some people are going to be paying higher prices than they usually do.