Times are changing

The author in this commentary named, Watch out for your girlfriends.. , is commenting about gay marriage and specifically about an article opposing gay marriage from the religious right. The author is in favor of legalizing gay marriage in Texas and I agree that Texas should. There were a few good points made. For example the revenue these gay marriages would bring and what developed countries have legalized it.

While the U.S. Supreme court is going to make a decision in the near future about gay marriage. Regardless of the outcome it will still be debated for years to come, look at Roe v Wade. This is one of the main things that separates a Liberal from a Democratic. 

 While I don’t necessary belief in the lifestyle, but I have no problem socializing with gay people, gay marriage should be legalized.  First and foremost we most protect against infringement of personal liberties. We might not believe in certain lifestyles such as being gay, doing drugs and gambling or even more extreme cases such as demonstrations by extremism groups like the KKK. These rights must be protected. A point made by the author is that gay couples can’t have children, so they would adopt kids that don’t have a home. This would help youth without a home. I see this as something good, but as something bad. The good part would be the obvious. The child would have a home, but the bad part is that the U.S. isn’t that liberal yet.  A Gay couple with a child is almost like an interracial couple with a child in a pre civil rights movement in the south. This is just a lot of hardship for a child, but I believe in a few decades this won’t be a factor.

WIll the Democratic Party become dominant again in Texas?

Is the neglect of immigration reform going to push Texas to start leaning left? Just like Texas Democratic Gilberto Hinjosa claimed? .  No

This goes against my theory that there will be a party realignment nationwide where the Democratic Party will be the dominant party, but not in Texas. One of the main reasons is because the Republican Party recently started dominating politics in Texas. Past cycles of party alignment indicate this is too soon even though Latino voters are growing in numbers in Texas and there is a large interest in immigration reform in the Latino community, but the problem is the interest doesn’t translate in actions, such as voting, holding political offices and being actively involved in politics. Some of this population of Latinos in Texas might not even be able to vote because they didn’t register, aren’t citizens or are undocumented. The Mexican Americans that have been in Texas for generations sometimes get accustomed to the Texas traditions and align themselves conservative viewpoints.

We all witnessed the rising of a young upcoming Democratic politician from Texas, Julian Castro, in the Democratic National Convention. He may possibly run for governor in the next Texas gubernatorial election. Does he stand a chance in winning this? No, New York State has more of a chance becoming a red state then Julian Castro becoming the Governor of Texas. I think Julian Castro can have a large positive impact in the Democratic Party, but will be limited in Texas. The Republican Party will have a stronghold on Texas for years to come regardless of the population growth of minorities in this state.

Commentary on the post called, "You can't have your cake and eat it too"

This is a commentary on a post called , You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too. Yes, I agree this voids the churches 501c status as a non profit tax exempt organization that is limited on political activity. This type of freedom of speech doesn’t extend to churches when political endorsement is pushed.

While the actual phrase of separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution. There is an establishment clause in the first amendment basically stating the separation of church or state. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black that” on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.” A church supporting a candidate doesn’t actually go against separation of church and state, but let’s think about it the other way around. The GOP supporting Christianity in general.  Is this a violation of the establishment clause? I think Christianity and religion in general is a good thing that promotes closer communities. I don’t think that GOP which holds many elected offices should be so closely tied with Christianity. The church and state has been dissolved together in GOP.

Opposition to Planned Parenthood

There has been a lot of controversy between Planned Parenthood and Texas Conservatives because of Planned Parenthood's affiliation with abortion, which by law federal funding can’t be used for abortions. Texas legislators passed a law that any program affiliated with abortion will not be in the Women’s Health Program.  By passing this law this essentially stopped federal funding to Planned Parenthood which provides about 90% of the funds because it isn’t under the Women’s Health Program. 

The main reason that Texas legislators made the right decision is because the federal government should not provide funding for medical care of any. This is the individual’s responsibilities. Government dependency should be at a minimum, but on the other hand I do agree with a lot with what Planned Parenthood stands for. One of these is the freedom of woman to make choices whether it is using a contraceptives or the pro-choice viewpoint. I find Planned Parenthood’s mission coincides with my strong thoughts about individual freedom:

“Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence.”

But I also believe that minimum government will help individuals accomplish this goal. Not the other way around when the government gets involved and funds programs like these. 

To some this idea of the Government not funding programs like this seems selfish. The only way for this country to become stronger is first by becoming stronger as an individual and then becoming stronger as a whole. My overall view point on this wasn’t a conservative one of pro-life, but one of minimum government and government dependency.  The perfect balance is if Planned Parenthood could be funded by other sources other than the federal government. In a perfect world this would come solely from private donors.

What does a conservative living in Austin think?

I read a few blogs by a self described conservative living in a liberal Austin called Robbie Cooper and that’s exactly how he portrays himself in the blog called Hilary covering for another lying democrat. He comes off in a very strong offensive matter from the beginning to the end. One example of this is when he mentions that Hilary Clinton is covering up for lying, dirty scumbag democrats. The purpose of his commentary is to point out how Hilary Clinton and democrats in general should have had more security in the U.S. embassies that were attacked and also how the situation should have been handled differently. He also had a viewpoint that the administration was apologetic after the attacks and didn’t view them as terrorist attacks. His claims to these arguments aren’t backed up by facts just opinions making it a very weak argument. The intended audience here is more of a right wing conservative one. The author is trying to fire up the conservatives for the upcoming elections and did a good job in that because he portrayed high leading Democrats in this national as liars and cover-up experts. Opposing parties always love to hear how bad the other party is doing. One good example of how he is firing up the conservative is when he describes the seriousness of these attacks, which had an outcome of four Americans dead and puts that patriotism in there when he describes how the coffins are draped with the American flag. I don’t believe that Hilary Clinton was trying to cover up for the President, but as any good politicians would do he/she would try to divert that attention somewhere else. Overall, I like his strong and sometimes very offensive commentary. It was full of intensity, but it was weak in providing facts and almost all opinion.

Fisher vs. University of Texas

On October 10, 2012 just a few days from now the U.S. Supreme Court will have a hearing in the Fisher vs. University of Texas case which is in the Houston Chronicle in commentary, The University of Texas is wrong about racial preference. This case is challenging how constitutional it is to have an admission process that gives preference to a few selected minorities. The author of this is commentary is Joel C. Mandelman. He has a more conservative political viewpoint that is noticeable because he mentions that the University’s current admission process is reverse race discrimination. This viewpoint coincides with Conservative’s political philosophy that the government should be used to enforce moral behavior and less on civil rights and social programs. There is also a mention of Liberals, which he doesn’t include himself in that group.  I agree with the author’s opinion that preference for minorities is unconstitutional as stated in the fourteen amendment. He states that Texas A&M doesn’t have a racial preference admission and still doesn’t lack a quality education. While this might be true there was no statistics to back this up. There was one good point that he made. The purpose of the University of Texas having racial preference in admissions is to add more diversity in the University, but no quota for a certain minority is made because it is illegal to have a racial quota.  When would the University know when to stop racial preference? 

I view admissions that takes race as a factor as a step back for individual liberties. An individual should be admitted solely on the individual’s qualifications and accomplishments and not factor in race. Yes, this country had a bad past which dealt with slavery and segregation well into the 1960’s. Those days of racial prejudice aren’t totally gone, but are at a minimal and don’t hinder an individual from moving up in society.