Marco Rubio doesn’t think sexual orientation is a choice but wants states to decide marriage

    In an interview on Face the Nation, Marco Rubio stated that he believed that he believed that sexual orientation is not a choice, not a very popular view for the conservative side of things.  He also stated that he still thinks that the decision to allow same-sex marriage should still be something that is controlled by the states. He says that marriage has always been decided by the states and that it should stay that way. He says that the courts should not be able to make that decision and does not believe that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. He also says that he feels that marriage is just between one man and one woman, but is also not against gay marriage.

    I feel that Marco Rubio is trying to please everyone by sharing this, but I feel that he is more coming out as someone who just wants to seem like he is not on one side definitely. I feel that he is coming across as a flip flopper and he needs to just choose what he believes. If he believes that it is not a choice then I do not see why he would not believe that it should be allowed. If you feel that it is not a choice then I feel that if someone has no choice that they should just be allowed. He also says that he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, but that he is not against same sex marriage. I feel that these views are pretty much the opposite of each other. Not being against same sex marriage, but not believing that it is really a thing. I just feel that these are one of those instances where you have to choose one or the other.

New Hampshire could be make-or-break for Jeb Bush

   Though he has not formally announced his candidacy, Jeb Bush seems to be one of the front runners for the Republican nominee. It will not be that easy for him though because the Republican party has become more conservative over time and there are many more worthy opponents that will be running against him. New Hampshire seems to be a very important part of Jeb Bush's push for the candidacy. With the Democratic primary seeming to be an easy victory for Hillary Clinton, Bush wants to show that he will stand a good chance against her. More independents will become interested in the Republican primaries so Jeb Bush's moderate stance could help. Showing that he can do well in a state like New Hampshire will prove that he is the best candidate to go up against Hillary Clinton.
   I feel that it is very important for Jeb Bush to do well in New Hampshire. If he can do well and still keep his more moderate stance, things will be much better for him. The Republicans may want a more conservative candidate for their nominee, but in the overall election it may be better for him to be moderate. He needs to perform in the states like New Hampshire to really be taken seriously as a candidate. Without the same support that his father and brother had he needs to show that he is a strong and serious candidate. I think that having a president like Jeb Bush would not be a bad idea. Because he is a Republican I feel that more progress will actually be made in the capital. And also because he is more moderate not many things will change all that much. I feel that a more moderate president from either side may be the best thing for the country.

At Republican Gathering, All Talk Is of Hillary Clinton (None of It Is Good)

    Hillary Clinton received a lot of  scrutiny from the Republican party. They seemed to go after everything about her, nothing seemed off limits. They went from her common and unannounced visit to Chipotle all the way to her husband Bill and his infidelity. Senator Rand Paul went after the disintegration of Libya, her email scandal, and the acceptance of contributions from foreign nations. Governor Scott Walker went after the fact Hillary is out of touch with common people. Claiming that she has probably never been to Kohl's or even shopped herself in the last ten to fifteen years. He also said that Hillary as president would not be Bill Clinton's third term, but Obama's third term. At this gathering, many potential candidates tried to show that they were "strong enough" to go up against Hillary. 

   I feel that with a candidate as strong as Hillary Clinton many of the possible Republican candidates feel the need to go on the offensive very early. They may be threatened by how much support she has and how little her opposition is. In a way them "throwing dirt" at her early on can help them. They can get people on the fence about her away from her at an early point by bringing up all of her issues without a platform for her to directly defend herself. I feel that it is a tad bit childish to do so as soon as she announces her candidacy without really talking about what they plan to do themselves, but it may also be the smartest move.

Indiana Law Denounced as Invitation to Discriminate Against Gays

    There is a new "religious freedom law" in Indiana. The law allows businesses to refuse service to any gay people if it goes against what they believe. The law could be used to help those in minority religions to be able to practice without scrutiny. But many see it as a way for it to be possible for businesses to use their personal beliefs to reject others. The passing of this law has caused many to protest, seeing the obvious problems with it. Many people have called it a disappointing invitation to discriminate. Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage was rejected last year so this is a type of last line of defense. The bill was somewhat disguised, but the public sees it as a blatant debate over tolerance of the gay community. Eric Miller says that it supposed to protect businesses from the punishment that they might receive if they choose to participate in a homosexual wedding.
     Personally I feel that this law is a complete step backwards. I think it just enables intolerance and stops any forward progress that is being made. To me, I feel that this law is just like businesses not serving people of color during the time of civil rights activism. Giving people the choice to just deny people because of their religious beliefs is just way too broad. It starts at deny gay people and then to denying interracial couples because you don't think that it's ethical either and being able to deny anyone who is not like you. Religious freedom is great, but if it's used as a way to discriminate against people then it's very hypocritical. As a religious person it's very sad to see things like this because if we are so "in-tune" with God then we should be accepting of all people. Even if you think what they are doing is wrong there is nothing wrong with people tolerant.

Obama Signs ‘Student Aid Bill of Rights’ to Help Protect Borrowers
    President Obama signed a bill called the "Student Aid Bill of Rights" to help make college more manageable to students. A big problem in this time is that students are having too much debt after they leave college and are left with debt. Debt is becoming more of a definite thing after college than finding a good paying job in your area of study. President Obama asked federal agencies to take steps to make paying for their education easier for students. Opposition proposes that he should be more concerned about making sure that more families can avoid the borrowing process completely. He hopes to make the process a lot easier and more understandable for young people who just graduated high school.
     I feel like this bill can be very helpful. As someone who has to deal with a lot of this process, I feel that this bill could really be a big help. It's one thing to have to deal with having to receive loans, it's a complete separate thing to try and understand what all of it means. At the point when you're just trying to figure things out at a young age you don't really understand a lot of what those forms are saying. And sometimes that can lead to us putting ourselves in unfavorable positions. I feel that with this bill, federal agencies will be more about trying to help us and less about putting us in debt. With this help, I think everyone benefits. College kids actually know what they are getting in to and loan companies actually get their money.

Judge Blocking Plan for Immigrants Is Praised as Fair in Texas
     Judge Hanen of Texas is planning on going against the executive decision for immigrants. In his 13 years as a judge in Texas, he has dealt with many cases of convicted criminals being deported to Mexico and returning illegally. He is very clearly against the President's decision to shield illegal immigrants from deportation. He feels that the government should spend more time dealing with border protection and feels that they are the reason why so many illegal immigrants are here. Judge Hanen receives a lot of praise where he lives for his decisions. He strongly feels that granting asylum to illegal immigrants is a huge mistake to make.
     I feel that Judge Hanen does have some type of point in what he is doing. He sees the issue from a more direct view and knows the consequences. I feel that overall the bill that the President is producing is not an issue, but I do feel that some revision is needed. Judge Hanen understands that convicted criminals who have been deported should not be allowed to stay after they have returned illegally and I agree with that, but I do feel that the bill for the most part is a good idea. I feel that many people who come here illegally are just trying to find a better life.

Finally, Net Neutrality

On February 26, the FCC had to make a decision to either allow cable and broadband companies to control the flow of the internet or to make stricter rules regulating them. They chose to make stronger rules to stop cable companies from doing "shady" business. By classifying the internet as a telecommunication service, cable companies cannot block or in any way speed up or slow down any sites for a fee. New laws and definitions are needed in the ever-evolving internet. These new laws give users a free internet, one where they can't be denied access or information. There is opposition to this decision, of course by many cable companies, and by Republican lawmakers. They feel that this definition does not allow a free internet, but instead gives FCC more power. They feel that this power will cause the FCC to try and control the prices of broadband, which is exactly what they are against, they want a market free from any type government control of that sort.

I feel that this issue is important because how the internet is distributed is very important. The internet should be equal opportunity and should not be controlled by cable companies. The FCC made the right choice. Nobody should be restricted from a certain site especially not because of cable companies. There shouldn't be restrictions based on how much a particular company pays. The internet is a place where everyone should be on a level playing field. Nobody should be favored with better speed because they are more well known or because they pay more. I feel that there will be more issues with this in the future so it is good that they set new rules at this point.