Gun Ban Critique and Conversation

            In Nhi Vo's recent post about a gun ban in Texas, her argument is pretty much straightforward in agreeing with the ban taking action, and trying to eliminate guns in not only Texas but the whole nation as well.
            First, I would like to pick out some details in Vo's post that could possibly make her argument stronger. For example, though the term "Gun Ban" is obvious of what it spells out, she could have elaborate more on the term such as when did the idea play a major role in the U.S. nation? Who is going to effected by this idea? The law enforcement? The citizens of the U.S.? It's as if your telling a person who has never heard or have no idea what a gun is.
            I believe these little and simple questions answered could help understand what the term is and help lengthened your essay. Furthermore, the comment Vo states, "that Democrat" is vague and could be cleared up just a little more. One being there were multiple Democrats mentioned in the article, so a person reading that comment won't exactly know which democrat Vo was talking about talking about.
            Finally, instead of stating, "according to this post" Vo could have stated, In an article(embedded link) by Dave Jolly, he states "so on so is for gun control".
            In my general opinion , I believe a violent revolution and rebellion would occur almost immediately once the president signs the bill for a gun ban. In the article "What you’ll see in the rebellion", by Bob Owens, he states "Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment." Moreover, the more guns being stripped away from people, the more activity we could see from the other side of the border. Meaning there could be a higher chance that we could see more guns sneaked in than usual, and possibly a higher rate of crime increased than expected.

 

Texas and the LGBT Group's fight toward equality

            Texas government and the LGBT group. There are multiple controversies played between the today's system that apparently gives so called "equal opportunity" to everyone and for those that know that "equal opportunity" is easier said than done. However, the group that confronts the challenges in their everyday lives are continuing to seek hope in their future gradually coming. With President Barack Obama being the first president to support gay marriage, this is one of many checkmarks that will lead to equalization for the LGBT group in not only Texas but other states as well.

            In one of my posts The San Antonio Ordinance, I talk about the LGBT group and the San Antonio ordinance controversy. Moreover, I state, "the ordinance prevents local businesses from discriminating against LGBT people. In addition, the ordinance prevents public officials while on duty to discriminate against the LGBT group(Lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgender)." This is just one of many examples I found that the group is gradually winning the battle for equalization.

            With further research, I discovered the LGBT group isn't slowing down in an attempt to achieve equality and fight against discrimination towards their homosexuality. For example, in a recent article from LGBTQ Nation ,by Chris Tomlinson, Tomlinson reveals, "Two same-sex couples have challenged Texas’ constitutional ban on gay marriage in a San Antonio federal court."

            Yet again, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has pledged to defend the law. By definition the law passed in a 2003 legislation states "a marriage is to be between man and woman, and forbids non-marriage types of same-sex unions."

            General Abbott testifies,"The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that states have independent authority to establish their marriage laws. 'Texans adopted a constitutional amendment defining marriage. We will defend that amendment.” However, with previous victories among the LGBT group in Texas, I believe the two couples have a chance to win the fight for same sex marriage. One value evidence is that the Texas Constitution bans on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution

           

            I believe the more and more cases and this case in particular will catch a lot of legislator's  eyes in seeing what will happen if were the couples to win the case, and give other state governments an idea to allow same sex marriage. Furthermore, the more thought and reasoning will take please in realizing that no matter the sexuality everyone still deserves the equal opportunity the national constitution has written out to do so. And, what the restriction has put up is an uncivilized act to steal away homosexual's rights, when many people damn know that a happy couple no matter the sexuality deserves the right to be married and get the recognition of marriage.

              

 

LGBT Support

             In Nhi Vo's recent post about the LGBT group, her argument is an mediocre support for the group. But don't get me wrong I have one hundred percent support for the LGBT group. However in regards to Vo's article it could've been written better.

            For example, Vo writes, "There were some House Bills which were discussed to help them through years, but still ended up with none of positive actions. I do not know what they really think, but they are so stubborn on giving those a better life living with their real sexual and gender identity." The statement "there were some House bills" is vague and skims over a major controversy in the U.S.

            To make her argument stronger she could have suggested at least one bill from the Texas Legislation that reveals the struggles the LGBT group encounters every day. For example, Vo could start out with an argument: In an article mySa, by Kolten Parker, the author reveals, "Senate Bill 237, by state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Texas but likely will face opposition in the Republican-controlled Legislature". And then can elaborate more on the reasoning's of why the bill is proposed and why there are oppositions to it.

            Sorry if I'm picky already, but on her statement "they are not provided any protection from discrimination, hate laws based on their sexual and gender identity." it is invalid. In one of my articles, I discovered an article in Texas Tribune, that revealed the LGBT group is gradually winning the battle for their rights.

            An overview of the article, an ordinance in San Antonio proposed there shall not be any discrimination against a person that is lesbian, gay, bisexual , or transsexual within a local business. Even though there is always going to be oppositions to the bills concerning the LGBT group, it's more than likely the group is going to win the battle of equal rights.

 

Healthcare in Texas

            In 2012, it was difficult for many Texans to gain health care insurance. That is why Texas was and still is ranked the worst state for uninsured citizens compared with other states. With the Affordable Care Act already taking action in every state, I assume Texans are going to have an "walk in the park" opportunity to gain the health care coverage that many desperately require. However, Governor Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz seem to oppose the act in taking action. Furthermore, healthcare is one of the biggest issues that the Texas government fails to succeed in taking care of Texans.

            For those that don't know the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), it is a law passed by President Barack Obama, and is a response to the national shortfall of health insurance to expand the risk pool. According to the Census Bureau's 2012 American Community Survey, it reviewed Texas had the highest rate of uninsured people in 2012, but also the highest portion of uninsured children, elderly, and unemployed people. Yet, Governor Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz fail to realize how important this act is for many Texans; both, want to advocate in going against the Affordable Care Act.

            I believe both have an hatred towards President Obama and his healthcare act, that both find barriers for the act to take action. For example, Governor Perry proposed extended regulations toward the "navigators" (hired to help people access the Marketplace and enroll for coverage), even though the same counselors have assisted Medicare enrollees for years. He demanded the navigators to have fingerprints and extended background checks, and forced extended training that isn't required under federal law.

             Finally, Senator Cruz demanded that Obamacare be defunded and threatened filibuster, selective repeal, a government shutdown, even defaulting on federal debts. To add to Governor Perry's selfishness and self pity, he rejected an generous offer from the federal government . What was this offer? Well President Obama offered to give an approximate of 100 billion dollars to the state of Texas for an Medicaid expansion. The 100 billion dollars would have been spent buying health care in Texas, and help about six million Texans that desperately need health care coverage.

            Governor Perry responded, "Texas will not be held hostage by the Obama administration's attempt to force us into this fool's errand of adding more than a million Texans to a broken system." Are you crazy Rick Perry? Texas' share of the cost would have been just 7 percent of the total; but, according to Governor Perry and the Republican Legislature, "One dollar is too much".

            I wish the whole Texas Republican party realized how important it is to make sure every Texan including the unwealthy and young children obtain health care insurance. But at least the Obamacare is going to take into effect in the future even if it will take a while. After all, "it’s better late than never."

           

           

 

Big JollyPolitics Critique

            In an article from Big Jolly Politics by David Jennings, it's about the Texas DREAM act and the importance of the act for those that struggle to gain legal status. Also, the article is about the authors feelings of Greg Abbotts position and where he stands in relations with the act.

            In summary, many republican candidates that are running for Lt. Governor in Texas have gone against the DREAM act(which originally was introduced twelve years ago by Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch). The Texas DREAM act is a conservative policy signed by Rick Perry, it requires children whose parents brought them to the U.S. without going through the proper procedure for legal status. With the candidates for Lt. Governor already going against the act, it's  harder to not go against the policy for Greg Abbott. Many people including the author believe Greg Abbott should take responsibility and be a leader in the Texas GOP. Furthermore, he needs to help the base understand that the conservative policy would be helpful for the Republican party.

            The authors intended audience in the article could be a focus toward many republicans in office or those running for office. However, the author mentions Greg Abbott multiple times. The author sends a direct message to the soon to be governor stating that he needs to make his own decisions on behalf of the policy that could impact the future for immigration. Also the author states, that Greg Abbott needs to make an effort to not be influenced by the candidates(Lt. Governor) opinions because they could alter his view. In the entire article, it seems the author did not make use of any evidentiary support with his statements.

            The authors argument works for those that believe every person deserves a chance to gain legal status, especially the children that had no choice but to come here illegally. However, this argument wouldn’t work for those that believe "illegal's" shouldn't have an opportunity to gain legal status including the children. And for those that believe every person from a different country should go through the legalizing process in order to be in the U.S. Why? Because the authors argument is a support for the children that were brought to the U.S. illegally. For example, the author states, "It makes no sense to educate these children and then deny those that are capable of furthering their education the opportunity to do so."

            In agreement with the authors argument, I believe there needs to be a leader to rise from either party: Republican or Democrat. In the author's view, the leader has to be Greg Abbot, and believes Greg Abbott has to be a person who will stick to his gut and not be influenced by other candidates thoughts on the Texas Dream act. Because it is the right thing to do for these children and it is in the best long-term interest of the State of Texas.

Perry’s latest move against Obamacare

            In an editorial from Forth Worth Star Telegram, the article is about Governor Rick Perry's approaches to the Obama care that recently passed on October 1st. In summary, there is a growing rate of uninsured residents in the state of Texas.

            As a result, the Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare); which, is to give all American citizens more rights and protections and expand access to affordable quality health care to everyone.

            However, Governor Perry doesn't approve the new act , and made decisions to make barriers that could interfere with enrolling eligible people in insurance plans under the act. For example, he instructed the Texas Department of Insurance to come up with new rules to regulate the navigators, including requiring them to take an additional 40 hours of training and rigorous testing beyond the federal training. Also, Governor Perry required the navigators to do background checks and take fingerprints, among other things. So, by the time the navigators have gone through the background check and the extensive amount of hours for training. The ACA navigators in Texas would have been at work for weeks helping people get the healthcare coverage they need.

            In this editorial, the authors main audience are for those that are in need to obtain an healthcare coverage, and perhaps for those that seek to get an occupation for helping the people that are in need for health coverage. The creditability he provides  brings the importance of the Obamacare, and shows Governor Perry's philosophy of the act is naïve and selfish. For example, the author states, "A better way to protect the people of Texas would be to make sure more of them are insured. The latest report from Center for Public Policy shows that almost one in four Texans, or 6.1 million people in the state, were uninsured in 2011. Of those, 1.2 million were children."

            In agreement with the author's argument, the only way to make sure that all citizens are completely protected with health care coverage is to act upon immediately, and not try to come up with restrictions upon the act.  

  

 

The San Antonio Ordinance

The article that I found in Texas Tribune by Jody Serrano, is about the San Antonio city council having a controversial ordinance this past Thursday. In summary, San Antonio didn't have a protection for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender against discrimination. For example, before, these types of individuals struggled to find occupations because of their sexuality. Until, the ordinance passed on September 12, the ordinance now prevents local businesses from discriminating against LGBT people. In addition, the ordinance prevents public officials while on duty to discriminate against the LGBT group(Lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgender). However, Attorney General Greg Abbott, a leading candidate for Texas governor, said "legal action will surely follow" the passage of the ordinance". Greg Abbott meant that the ordinance claims to violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution by threatening to remove any appointed city official who discriminated against a person on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I encourage people to read this article because it shows that there is still a ongoing battle between those that support and don’t support the LGBT group. And, this ordinance is a small step toward equality for the LGBT group.