The Next Speaker of the House is….Wait, Who???

     With the news that John Boehner will be resigning as Speaker of the House at the end of October, it will be a race to see who takes the gavel from him. While many are confident the next Speaker will be a  man, I am sure the Republican Party will voice their support for a woman to take the Speaker's gavel. Given the highly-charged issues of women's rights, attack on family values, and other rhetoric of the Republican Party, it will fall to someone that can go toe-to-toe with the candidate Republicans all hope will be the Democratic Nominee. Out of the twenty-two women within the Republican Party who serve in the House, I have narrowed my predictions to three women. They are all qualified based on their merit and tenure. Each candidate brings a unique perspective to the position and if elected by their peers, would able to take command once the gavel is in her hands. I will present them not only on longevity, but also on who is best qualified. The three women that are ready to take the Speaker's gavel are:

1)     Llena Ros-Lehtinen (Representative of Florida's 27th Congressional District)

        She has been in Congress since 1989 representing Florida as the first Cuban American elected, the first Latina elected. She has had prominent "rising stars" on her staff including the current Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. She is already in a position of leadership within the House as the Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a vocal member within the following caucuses - Pro-Life Women's, International Conversation, Hispanic, and Taiwan. She is just enough of a proponent of LGBT individuals that wouldn't register with Republicans during a primary and would be able to carry women and hispanics during a general election. Her stances on pro-life women's issues and Planned Parenthood would guide the next Congress into ways to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood (even though no tax dollars fund abortions). She would be the resolute leader the Republicans are clearly lacking after the ongoing departure of Speaker Boehner - who couldn't control members of his own party including those aligned with the Tea Party Caucus.

2)     Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Representative of Washington's 5th Congressional District)

        She has been in Congress since 2005 and she hails from the state of Washington - a great state to retire to by the way…it's the New Hampshire of the West Coast.  She has given the State of the Union Response back in 2014 and many political pundits stated she did an amazing job and great response. She is the highest ranking woman serving as the House Republican Conference Chairwoman - which makes sense for her to be the next Speaker if the former mentioned Congresswoman declines the position. She is a member of  the Energy and Commerce committee which will play a big role regarding domestic issues in the 2016 election. She receives high praise from the Family Research Council, Gun Owners of America (as of 2014) and other Conservative groups throughout the nation. She is also a member of the Tea Party express of 2010 election cycle.

3)     Marsha Blackburn (Representative of Tennessee's 7th Congressional District)

        She is a well-known member of Congress within the Tea Party Caucus and those that identify as Tea Party members within the Republican Party. She is an avid opponent of Planned Parenthood, a staunch supporter of traditional marriage and doesn't support any politics that favor LGBT Americans. She has a favorable rating with all of the known conservative groups. If the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party does indeed want to overtake the party - Congressman Marsha Blackburn would be at the head of the line with the flag "Don't tread on me" waving and proclaiming strong conservative values that make Reagan look liberal. For the record, Marsha Blackburn is only one of a few female members of Congress that use the term "Congressman" to identify herself.

     Out of all of these members, the most logical choice would be Congresswoman Llena Ros-Lehtinen.  For the Tea Party Caucus to proclaim "victory" - without a naval warship - then Marsha Blackburn is the choice. For a new voice while bridging the gap between the establishment republicans and new age republicans, the choice would be Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

If the Republicans want to attempt to challenge Hillary Clinton (who is their only person running in a democratic primary apparently) in next year's election and have Republicans take the House, the Senate, and the White House, then the logical choice would be Congresswoman  Llena Ros-Lehtinen.


I guess time will tell. How interesting would a Latina Speaker of the House be if it came from the Republican Party. It would cover two political demographic bases and maybe secure the White House…unless those groups actually do research on the current Republican Party and then a Democrat will win since they have nothing to justify their stances on such issues.

The Road To Equality For All & Ending Poverty via “The Rubio Way”

Before I start - I know I stated in my last piece I would discuss more on the Duck Dynasty controversy; however, I just can't drag it out any more than what it has already been within the media and honestly it is just something I'm over with.

     Equality.  It is a word that has a different meaning for everyone. There are many areas of equality: women’s equality, LGBT’s equality, educational equality, income equality, voting equality, and many others. Sometimes it is just simply equal representation for all citizens.  It is interesting the ways how far equality has come in the history of the United States. 2013 was a great year, and 2014 will be too; but there are a few speed bumps to overcome in order for 2014 to be just as great. One such state is Utah.

      The state of Utah passed a law stating marriage to be recognized as between a man and women. A federal court struck down the law as unconstitutional and said the state cannot discriminate against those same-sex couples wishing to get married.  As a result, Utah became the newest member of the “Marriage Equality” club.  The victory was short-lived as the United States Supreme Court has halted the federal court’s ruling.  As a result, the governor of Utah – Gary Herbert – has stated that the state will not recognize the same-sex marriages that have been performed since the federal court ruling (which is roughly over 1,300 within the state). From my understanding, the ACLU chapter in Utah has already filed to challenge this action, and the halting itself (not sure about that but I will get back to you all on that matter).  From what I’ve gathered, the ACLU position isn’t as solid as many would like it to be and if that is indeed true, the Supreme Court would rule against them.  The thing that made Utah such a victory was that it was a conservative state and also passed a law only recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman.  There have been other laws or amendments in other states that are strikingly similar – such as Amendment One in North Carolina. If marriage equality could come to Utah, it could come to other states that deny LGBT citizen’s basic rights.  The Supreme Court’s interference, while constitutional, is still disheartening given so much they have already achieved with it comes to LGBT rights in the United States (DOMA & Prop 8 court cases). Marriage is about love and if two people love each other, then they should have the right to get married. A loving home is a good thing for society…and it’s future generations.

       Speaking about the society’s future generations, it has been fifty years since the “War on Poverty” started and while we have made strides to reduce poverty in the United States, we could always do more.  According to some Republicans, like Florida Senator Marco Rubio – who many see as a potential 2016 Republican candidate – seems to think the best way to alleviate the issue of poverty is to support marriage as it takes two paychecks to support a family, two loving parents to raise children, etc.   While the rhetoric seems like a good touch for the potential candidate (which I really don’t think he will be the nominee due to his bang-up job on immigration reform and the republicans still have a Hispanic issue to contend with), it seems odd that the senator would be against marriage equality.  If he really wanted to end poverty by supporting marriage, he would draft legislation to support marriage equality.  After all, two paychecks are better than one, there have been studies that show children growing up in same-sex parent households are no different (in fact better in some studies) than those who grow up in different circumstances. I’d rather have a child grow up in a house with parents in a committed same-sex marriage than a one-parent household or an abusive household setting.  It seems that the Senator, as well as other Republicans, are playing the usual “election year politics” card…but Senator Rubio has a little more to lose since he is continuing to groom himself to be the GOP nominee by switching from one important topic (Immigration Reform) to another one (Ending Poverty).   It probably is not the wisest thing to mention that the way to end poverty is to throw more money at the states and cut the funding to many anti-poverty programs that help many constituents in his state (and in the forty-nine other states for that matter).  Even conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation have already begun criticizing his remarks on poverty and his way to end them.  If Senator Rubio wants to be the GOP nominee in 2016, he still has a lot to learn when juggling important issues and stick to the battles he can win – deficit reduction, needs of the voters in his state of Florida, assistance with immigration reform, etc.  I just hope if he breaks a sweat while playing politics he will have a bottle of water within arm’s reach.        

Ducks Out of Line

It’s been a few weeks since the fiasco surrounding Phil Robertson, one of the bigs on the A&E’s show “Duck Dynasty.”  While he has been suspended - and reinstated I might add - for his comments regarding race and homosexuality, it is important to remember some basic guidelines that focus on two important freedoms: the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion (yes, they are located in the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States…in case anyone forgot).  The other things, besides the statements made, are the actual facts encompassing the controversial remarks and the perception of “truth” by others.  Finally, the hypocrisy of both the media and general partisan audience that has been offended to some degree or another is reaching new proportions in the twenty-first century.

Found within the first amendment, of the Constitution of the United States, are the following words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”  Now there are certain circumstances such as slander, etc. but the only thing that could be deemed slanderous is he discrepancy in history regarding race in the rural south (and the south in general).  Anyway, let’s begin with the discussion of the freedom of speech.  Given the wording found in the constitution, it would seem that Mr. Robertson is entitled to state whatever he’d like…whether or not he is right.  He can still state his opinion…and in this case, his beliefs.  [However, the freedom of speech mainly refers to free speech against the government and therefore a company does have the right to dismiss any employee that doesn’t agree with their standards.]  Speaking of beliefs, it is vital to remember that the United States is not a Christian nation (or a Hindu nation, but you get my point).  There is “no ring to rule them all” (yes, I’ve seen the new Hobbit movie and I hated it – just like I hated the books) because the United States is a pluralistic society.  Why do you think so many countries, and people, around the world don’t like Americans – and thus attempt to extinguish lives of Americans around the world?

Now, the interesting thing about Mr. Robertson is that he believes in the Holy Bible.  There is nothing wrong with believing in it; but, it’s necessary that those who believe it understand it and adhere to all of it.  The Bible is like a bag of M&Ms – you don’t open a bag and eat just the ones you like, they are all the same (calories and all) so don’t pick and choose which ones to eat – so you can’t pick and choose which verses to follow and which ones to omit.

In the next blog piece, I will try and tackle some of these things that Mr. Robertson believes in and the actual understanding of what is in the Bible. I will also discuss his remarks on race.