The evolution of super PACs..

The article, "Jeb Bush prepares to give traditional campaign a makeover", discusses an interesting twist that could develop in the 2016 presidential election. While Jeb Bush has not yet formally announced that he is for president in 2016, his fundraising efforts have already been going strong. According to the article, the super PAC affiliated with his probable run for the presidency, "Right to Rise", has already raised tens of millions of dollars. The twist comes with how Jeb is going to treat this super PAC. It appears that he may entrust several duties of the campaign to the super PAC instead of being handled by the campaign itself.  The campaign itself would handle items directly to Jeb while the super PAC would cover the rest. The idea in this strategy is that a super PAC can legally raise unlimited amounts of money making them the logical choice to cover campaign spending. The only drawback is that Jeb will not be able to directly coordinate with those in the super PAC. For the primaries, his strategy may lead to a super PAC for an individual candidate outspending the candidate itself in American history.

This idea for campaign finance really intrigues me. I am astounded that any one candidate would be able to relinquish such a task to an outside organization. He must have a lot of faith in the people on this committee because his whole election may depend on if they are competent enough to spread the Jeb Bush message.

Rand decides to run for President, but will one group run with him?

The article, "Rand Paul Announces Presidential Run", tells that Rand Paul, a U.S. Senator from Kentucky, has decided to run for President in 2016. The article goes on to relate key excerpts from his speech at his announcement rally. The main takeaway from this speech is... what specific group is he trying to attract? At one point, he chastised both Republicans and Democrats for the current political backup in D.C.. A point that all voters would agree on. From there, however, his stances began to become more divisive. He stands with classic Republican thinking on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, the Iran nuclear deal, and cutting taxes to increase industry from larger corporations. On the other hand, he stray to the left when he describes how he wants to eliminate invasive government surveillance into American citizens along with reducing drug sentencing laws. He is also appealing to Libertarians by promising to shrink the size of the federal government.

While it is smart to appeal to a broad group of voters, I believe that Paul is doing this too early. He must first appeal to his party directly before he can appeal to whole spectrum of voters. I, for the most part, agree with his views, but I am dubious as to if he will escape the primaries. Time will tell if his diverse strategy will allow him to complete his run to the Oval Office.

Anniversary that no one wants to remember...

The article, "Deadly WWII firebombings of Japanese cities largely ignored", reminds all people of one of the most horrific events in modern history. March 10, 2015, will mark the 70th year since the firebombing of many Japanese cities including the capital of Tokyo. It is the deadliest conventional air raid with 105,400 confirmed to have perished in the attack. This destruction and slaughter was caused by a combination of two things, wood and fire. The bombs dropped contained napalm as it was a recent development at the time. Napalm acts as an incendiary igniting fire to objects with which it reacts. The napalm in the dropped bombs reacted with the wood of Tokyo's buildings, and a large fire began and spread uncontrollably. The scale of this attack is on par with the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

This day commemorates a remorseful day in our government's history. It is deeply depressing that this day is not remembered as much as the atomic bombs. Being reminded of the horrors of war acts as a reminder that all efforts should be made to prevent conflict. World War II was not going to be resolved by simple diplomacy, but its memory should urge current nations to resolve their matters through peaceful means if at all possible.

Guns on Campus?

The article, "A Bid for Guns on Campus to Deter Rape", discusses recent bills in several states that will allow weapons on campus. First off, the article never specifically reference the Bill of Rights, but controversy over the 2nd Amendment is implied. Ten states currently have bills that allow guns or loosen current gun rules related to guns on campus. The supporters of the bill cite a couple main arguments to support weapons on campus. The first argument states that women would be more protected from sexual predators if they were allowed to carry a weapon on campus. The other argument is that armed students and teachers would be able to prevent large shootings such as the Virginia Tech shooting that occurred in 2007. Opponents to this movement state that college recklessness and high rates of binge drinking which could lead to more gun accidents.  Nine states allow guns on state-sponsored, college campus, and we will see if more will join them during this legislative session.

Personally, I support the right to bear arms as given by the Bill of Rights. I believe that this right should transfer to college as well, but I would also support some areas of campus being off limits such as dorms. This would limit accidents and potentially hazardous storage. Students could give their weapons to a dorm adviser who would lock them properly in a safe until they are checked out again. A system like this would be especially useful for colleges located near good hunting grounds, so the students could use that as a weekend activity. All in all, I believe guns on campus is a good idea if implemented correctly.

Sweet Home Alabama, for same-sex couples too... (possibly)

The article, "Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Gay Marriages In Alabama", discusses the Supreme Court decision this past Monday (February 9, 2015) to refuse to halt same-sex marriages in the state of Alabama. This makes Alabama the 37th state where gay marriage is now legal. This should mean that this matter is settled for goo, right? Wrong. The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court sent out an order telling lower-level judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, effectively defying the federal government. The governor of Alabama also made a statement saying that he would not take any action to deter or encourage the issuing of these licenses. Therefore, only some same-sex couples were able to get marriage licenses in the state that day and many were denied. This is a clear example of federalism within the governmental system of the United States. A state is denying a ruling that it deemed to be too far of an extension of federal power. It is pretty ironic that such an action would occur in that part of the country. Only time will tell if Alabama will win this struggle (I highly doubt it.)

Alright guys, I am sorry to open this clusterbomb of an issue again, but it was too good of an example of federalism to let go without discussing. I was shocked when I read this headline. I personally thought that this would be the second to last state to legalize gay marriage (looking at you Mississippi). This whole process has gotten so dragged out that I am looking forward to the definitive, nationwide ruling of the Supreme Court to come, just to bring an end to this debate. I am typically for state's rights, but I am going to swing a little left here. The individual states have no right to decide upon the natural rights of the citizens of the United States of America. In a completely SECULAR sense all people deserve the natural right to marry who they please (and by "whom" I mean another human being). Now when gay marriage is legal throughout the United States, should they be entitled to the same medical coverage as a heterosexual couple? No, they shouldn't as they should not need birth control, etc.

That's just semantics though. This may make it sound like I am for the empirical concept of homosexuality which I am not. From my Christian point of view, homosexual acts go against the divine Word of God and are a blatant misuse of his creation. For all you far left-wingers who always say that this teaching came from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition which in itself is wrong, look up 1 Timothy 1:8-10 and Romans 1:26-27. I'm not one to argue with St. Paul.

To conclude, I have to respect the separation of Church and State in this case. If a statute of the government limits the free will of the citizens (which God inherently gave every living person), that statute should be abolished. As long as the legalization of gay marriage does does not inhibit my right to hold and practice faith in my beliefs, I cannot find any SECULAR reasons that it should not be legal.

  

The F.C.C. has come to its senses

     According to the article, "In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility", the F.C.C. is expected to propose legislation that would classify the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act. More specifically, this would make high-speed Internet a telecommunications service as way of ensuring the principle of net neutrality which forces Internet providers to treat all data equally no matter who created it. The F.C.C. is attempting to create regulations that will stand up to legal scrutiny while being politically acceptable. President Obama has called for the protection of the open internet as more and more people use it as a part of their daily lives. The Internet Association has also spoken out in favor of net neutrality. This elite association includes companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Netflix. Those who would stand to gain from the destruction of net neutrality are the monopolies of cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast along with other Internet providers such as AT&T. 

     My opinion on this issue is very clear, net neutrality must be maintained. Internet service providers do not have the right to pick and choose what data can travel at which speeds. Abolishing neutrality would allow these companies to maintain control over the internet through download speed times as start-up companies would not be able to pay fees to the providers for faster download speeds. Making the Internet a utility is a great plan in my opinion. Companies do not pay electricity providers extra fee to make their lights brighter, so a company should also not have to pay an internet provider an extra fee for quicker download times. The internet is a free and level playing field for all to create, explore, and live. Maintaining net neutrality will help to ensure that the Internet remains as a beacon of progress in the modern world.

Below are some links to videos that go more in-depth on net neutrality, and its significance to the modern world...

John Oliver (WARNING- Some inappropriate language is used; Comedic take on the issue that actually does a good job of giving background information on net neutrality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

Hank Green (Down to earth representation of the arguments of both the Internet user and Internet provider): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2aso6W7jQ

GCP Grey (Really technical but cool explanation of the concept of net neutrality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw   

Court Rules in Favor of Facial Hair

The article, "Ban on Prison Beards Violates Muslim Rights, Supreme Court Says", discusses a recent Supreme Court on a Muslim's right to grow a beard in prison for religious reasons. The prisoner is in an Arkansas prison and was denied the right to grow a half-inch beard. In its defense, the prison stated that the rule was for security issues as they were concerned that the prisoner may hide weapons or a SIM card in his beard. When examining this case, the Supreme Court first looked to see if the ban was burdening to a religious practice, which they deemed it was. The Court then had to see if the defense had a compelling reason for this rule. Justice Alito struck down any notion of a compelling reason by stating that the contraband would have to be very small to keep in a half inch beard while making sure that it did not fall out. Justice Alito also noted that the prison does not have a rule on the restriction of haircuts for the inmates, so a prisoner would be more likely to keep contraband in his long hair instead of his half inch beard. After all of this debate and discussion occurred, the Supreme Court came to a unanimous ruling of striking this prison law down.

In my opinion, I agree with the Supreme Court on this ruling. A man should be able to practice his religion to a reasonable extent while incarcerated. The request of the inmate was reasonable as he did not ask for a full, ZZ top like beard (Picture), just half an inch. It would be nearly impossible for the inmate to hold anything harmful in a beard of that length. Arkansas is one of the few states who still has a ban on short beards for inmates. Shockingly, all of these states are in the South. In conclusion, the Supreme Court made right decision concerning a reasonable matter of religious liberty.