Requirements which should be set upon those who qualify for unemployment insurance has been a topic of debate since Roosevelt signed the historic Social Security Act of 1935. Since then it has been a widely held belief that government is to step in when faced with high poverty and unemployment rates- at least to certain extent and with guidelines in accordance. Representative Charles Rangel writes of hit opposition towards the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act in an article written for the Huffington Post. This act passed by Congress institutes many additional requirements that make it difficult for the unemployed to collect their benefits. Given the arguments Rangel makes (or better yet those he didn't make), he is most likely writing to people currently benefiting from unemployment benefits, and those of whom approved of the payroll tax deal. He is quick to point out all facts supporting his point of view, but fails to address any problems that the system may have. It is evident that there are issues with the current unemployment system. Republicans continuously point out that many jobless individuals would rather collect unemployment benefits than look for work, and that there are many people who abuse the system. Rangel goes on to say, "This argument is both insensitive and baseless." While insensitive, maybe, I wouldn't agree with baseless. These problems are real and plainly visible. To pull a blind-eye towards these issues is incredible to say the least. Although the way Representative Rangel forms his argument is questionable , I agree with the overall point he is trying to make. Rangel mentioned opposition towards drug screenings in an attempt to combat addiction but never explained why. If we take a look at research studies, they show us that employment is strongly linked with recovery from addiction. Making it harder for the unemployed to get back on their feet while seeking jobs will only hurt the individual. Furthermore, drug-users knowing they will be tested will often times switch to a more dangerous and lethal drug, such as cocaine, or synthetic cannabinoids such as K2 or Spice,  which stays in the bodily system for a shorter period of time. 

Representative Charles Rangel. "Unemployment and Poverty in America." Huffington Post: 22 Feb 2011. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-charles-rangel/unemployment-and-poverty_b_1295005.html>

I have sat with my fingertips at the keyboard for a good 2 hours... I'll try this again in the morning

An article that appeared in the Huffington Post describes one man's reason why Barack Obama's name should not appear on the Pennsylvania ballot. Thomas Barchfeld is arguing that Obama is not legally allowed to be president. Although Barchfield has openly stated that he disagrees with Obama's policies, this is not the reason for his opposition. Barchfield points out that in the U.S. Constitution, in order to become president of the United States you must be a "natural born citizen". The Constitution', however, does not explain what exactly this means. Since the Constitution does not explicitly define "natural born citizen", it is up to the Supreme Court to decipher its' meaning- which it did in the court case Minor v. Happersett of 1875. This court case ruled that a natural-born citizen can only be someone born in the United States to citizen parents. Barchfeld argues that because Obama's father was born in Kenya, it is unconstitutional for him to run for president.
This is an interesting idea that Barchfeld raises. Many argue in opposition that it has been generally inferred for at least a hundred years that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born in the United States. However, the Supreme Court did make a decision which has yet to be overturned.