Standalone post and a commentary in my classmate's blog

                                              http://bernadettesamerica.blogspot.com/
      In response to http://tylerahogan.blogspot.com/ titled "Are we really losing our 4th amendment?,
first of all, I must commend my colleague for starting the write-up with an inquiring mind when he asked “Are we really losing our 4th Amendment?”

      My colleague went on to cite an article written by one, Darlene storm (this article) as a basis to justify the belief or appearance that we are actually losing our 4th Amendment. I looked at Darlene Storm biography and it only describes her as a freelance writer with a background in Information technology and information security. This, in my opinion does not say much about or becomes a basis for one to conclude that we are indeed losing our 4th Amendment right/privileges. There is no educational or professional background of Ms. Darlene Storm, no professional article, nor educational or research paper attributed to her, and of course not accountable to anyone but herself. For  my colleague  or anyone for that matter to cite her article or believe in her article as a basis  or authority on issues bordering on the national security, and or a constitutional issue posted in  a “Computer world magazine “is not serious.

      It appears that Ms. Storm got her information from the (ACLU said) and (ChristianPost wrote) just as my colleague got his quote from Ms. Storm’s write up without doing any independent study to ascertain the veracity of such bogus claim. There is indeed no argument or even doubt that some of  our constitutional rights have been restricted to some extent by several acts of both the congress and the Department of Homeland security(DHS) since after September 11, 2001 attack on the world trade center in New work by some Middle east terrorist elements.

      To throw out a bogus or misleading story such as the one that my colleague cited according the article by Darlene Storm in a Computer World Magazine is ridiculous and self-serving at worst. We all know that there are checks and balances built in into our system of representative government. If one believes in the claim of warrant less searches of electronic devices on citizens by the Department of Homeland Security, there are several ways one can seek recourse to challenge these laws. Some courts in this country have in the past shown their independent resolve to deal with these kinds of breach of citizens’ rights and are willing to do same in the future. In our effort to balance security against our freedom in today’s world, we may have to sometimes be subjected to some temporary inconveniences such as the searches at the airports, and at the border entry points.  Finally on this article, both my colleague and his source failed to cite even one verifiable case or incident of their claim. I hope I do not come across as if I am on the side of the government but for the sake of argument, the write up is very flawed.

      On the second source cited from yahoo search on article written by one Scott Bombay called “CISPA, the Fourth Amendment and you” this article talks about a new legislation currently making rounds in congress in which the federal government works with private companies to fight hackers and cyber criminals in and outside of the United States. There are no more surprise according to  recent news I heard on NPR( National Public Radio) citing recent senate intelligence committee report in which it concluded that the greatest future attack on the United States may not be a conventional warfare but a computer cyber-attack or cyber espionage from countries such as China and North Korea. In fact it went on to cite several incidents of such computer security breach by North Korea and Chinese military industrial complex

      So the question becomes, can we as nation work to find a common ground where both the government and private sector can work together in the best interest of the American people. Our democracy works better when both the government and the private sectors work together for common good of the people. By the way, the government and private sectors have been working together for a very long time in this country; for example, background check which companies conduct on almost anyone looking for job is a joint effort between the government and the private sector, and none seem to have any problems about it.

      The mistake my colleague made in his write up is that he failed to give his readers detailed information regarding the contents of the legislations nor the side he takes on the issues/concerns that he raised. There is a mention in the article that President Obama has promised to veto the CISPA. It would have been interesting for the readers to know why the President has threatened to veto this piece of legislation. The United States needs to upgrade her laws in regards to cyber security because of the great potential for abuse and misuse by both citizens and corporations, and the government herself. The United States needs to be proactive in the area of cyber security so that what transpired on 9/11/2001 may never occur again. It is a fair game of “balancing act”; protecting citizens’ right while at the same time finding ways to checkmate cyber criminals and cyber security of this great nation

      In conclusion, the issues/concerns my colleague raised are important regarding the 4th Amendment protection and the cyber security laws that may intrude on citizens’ rights.

My colleague presented his write up in a manner that keeps one wondering what was the purpose of his write up; is he just creating awareness of recent legislative laws, arguing against it or  in support or what?. What is the core information about these legislative laws? What are the specifics of these laws? What reliable source rather than some one’s commentary could be cited to get full details of these laws.

U.S National Government

 http://bernadettesamerica.blogspot.com/

UNITE STATES FOREIGN AID TOWARDS AFRICA:MISGUIDED POLICY;

MUST EITHER BE REVISED, OR TOTALLY ELIMINATED

 Below are the words of president Obama in Accra, Ghana, July 2009

 “Obama Calls on Africans to Claim Their Future [...] So I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world -- as partners with America on behalf of the future we want for all of our children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility and mutual respect. We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans. President Obama, Accra, Ghana, July 2009”

While there are there are no doubt that United States is the richest and most democratic government on earth, it may also be considered the most giving country of all countries in terms of Foreign Aids.  According to available facts, the United States of America spends approximately $50 billion a year in Foreign Aids, of this amount, it is estimated that about $9 billion goes to the African continent.  Almost 50% of this Aid goes to about six countries that are considered United States’ allies in the campaigns against terror and drug trafficking. The countries are Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Columbia, Egypt, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Pakistan. These six countries have so much in common: corrupt leadership, undemocratic.

According to Transparency International which publishes an annual corruption index, It’s is called Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).www.transparency.  In the case of Africa, there is an abundanceof human, natural, and economic resource to make the continent one of the most affluent and progressive continent but bad governance, dependency on United States constant and free Foreign Aid with no string attached has helped in creating a continent of dependency and corruption. While countries like China and Russia are too busy pursuing a vigorously economic and long term strategic partnership with Africa, United States is too busy chasing around drug lords and militant fundamentalist all over the globe. The money the United States government spent on Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, if a quarter of it has been spent on Africa, the continent would have experience a “facelift “both in human and economic aspects.

United States needs to give or help African continent and her people develop the tools they need to be self –sufficient. While the Middle East is no doubt strategically significant to United States economic and military interests, Middle East compared to Africa has limited resources; namely oil. Africa has the all the natural mineral resources abundantly than any other continent.  Having suffered colonialism and slavery trade by the west and especially America, Africa and her people still considers America as her best hope and friend, especially in times of great difficulty.  While several countries have tried in many ways to harm America and her people, through terrorism, economic sabotage, copy right piracy, industrial espionage, one could hardly tie any of these efforts to Africa or her people, even though Africa’s long suffering could well be liked to slavery and colonialism.

I am herby arguing that the United States should forge a more comprehensive strategic and economic alliance with Africa. United States should pattern with Africa in becoming a democratic and economically dependent continent. Unlike the Middle East where the United States spends billions of her tax payers’ dollars supporting a futile democracy, the good news is that in the case of Africa, all the resources needed both human and natural are there, and just need to be developed.  It amazes me that the United States is willing and able to lose as many lives as needed to pursue her military and economic goal in the middle east, yet when it came to Africa as in the case of Somalia for example, United states packed her bags and left after one of her military helicopter went down and a few soldiers killed, and has never returned back again. Today, Somalia, and some other east African countries have been run over by Muslim fundamentalist, militants and terrorists.

Could you imagine that in Nigeria for example, ( the most populous country in Africa) Chinese companies and their government are too busy buying  and setting up companies and working hand in hand to develop the economy of the country. During a formal audit of one of Nigeria’s major power plant built by a Chinese company, the operational manual of the plant was printed in C       Chinese alone that caused the Nigeria government to shut the plant down because Nigerian engineers could not read and translate the working manual. While this sounded like an oversight or minor mistake, the real reason is that the Chinese wants to be the only ones operating this plant, and so far it is working. In Nigeria today and other African countries, Chinese government are building and funding several technical schools, hospitals, and other essential infrastructure all over Africa. Chinese based language schools are “hot cakes” in several parts of Africa. I am ready to bet anyone that in the next 15 to 25 years, the next “great war” will be fought in Africa, but this time it will be economic dominance and not a nuclear war.There is a saying in major cities all over Africa that the former president Bill Clintonand Present Obama are more popular that any African ahead of state in their respective countries.

History will not have it will if the first United States President of African Immigrant father did not significantly impact the continent is a very significant way.  If President Obama could not convince the policy makers in Washington Dc to have a second look at Africa, in my opinion, no other president in the near future will. United States should help Africa by fighting corruption; not recognize fraudulently elected official, not allow them to travel to the states, restrict US banks from doing business with rouge and corrupt leaders. It is estimate that about 40% of Africa’s GNP is wasted through corruption.

 The United States should help Africa develop Africa’s economy because Africa will be the next emerging economic power just like South Korean, China, Taiwan, Brazil, because new middle class in Africa means new market for American industries and products and services. Just as America depends on China for cheap products, the same can be said of Africa. Allowing China and Europeans to continue with free “economic grab” is in my opinion a big economic and strategic and costly mistake for Americas in the years to come

Standalone post and a comment in my classmate's blog

In response to http://seankaskel.blogspot.com/

          I do not personally have any issue with a man or woman of the same sex marrying each other neither do I advocate for same sex marriage. Based on my Catholic upbringing and culture, I have only known marriage as a sacrament (holy union) between a man and a woman, as a senator once joked, “ God created and Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, as if these were Americans or Anglo-Saxons.

  On Thursday, March 28, 2013, My classmate published an article titled "My colleague’s argument supporting same sex marriage while it is interesting and even convincing, I am concerned that it appears to be confusing two separate, though fundamental issues.

          My colleague’s makes strong argument regarding laws that she considers in today’s America as absolute or archaic. This argument is rather fallacious in the sense that while it argues that governments (states/federal) should legalize same sex marriage, it also seems to be arguing that the same government(S) should keep their hands away from individual’s right to marry whomever he/she wishes to marry. By asking government to legalized same sex marriage, it also seems to be granting the same government more power to regulate/legislate individual’s private affair.

          While it is true that almost half of heterosexual or traditional marriages in American in the last several years end up in divorce, several factors are responsible for this trend. One may even say that “the new or openness or more acceptance of it by more people of same sex relationship/marriage may be a contributing factor to this trend. The fact is in my personal opinion, that most people who are now considered open gay or lesbians have once been involved in some sort of heterosexual relationship or marriage at some point before they now discover that they are fully Lesbian or Gay.

          Why is easy for the same sex advocate to quiet easily go after the government yet say little or nothing about religious institutions that are supposed to the protector of the rejected and  oppressed people of the society? Why are the battles of same sex marriage not fought in the churches, synagogues, mosques and of the world?

          My colleague’s write up confuses individual’s fundamental right with cohabitation right.

          My colleague’s argument would be more profound and even more convincing if it advocated more added right or privilege for individual who choose to cohabitate rather the use of the word “marriage”. It would be interesting to find out if at all Lesbianism was part of human evolution or creation and if so, how did the framers of the constitution dealt with it, and if it is not, how  and when did it evolve in today’s world and what is the cause of it?.  Are there historical context for this or not. We have heard stories of witches and wizard for example, and how the laws dealt with such. Is the issue of same sex marriage, one between the heterosexual and the non-heterosexual (Gay and Lesbian) or government and some segments of her population? Is the issue here, between marital benefits of same sex individuals and those of heterosexuals, or the government denial of individual’s right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? These are several issues my colleague’s argument failed to explore or clarify.

HANDGUN CONTROL VS II AMENDMENT

http://bernadettesamerica.blogspot.com

      The Amendment II of the U.S constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. This sound ok, the question is why?  Why did thepeople who wrote the constitution thinkthat they had to spell this out?  It seems to be setting a limit on the power of the federal government. So, perhaps it’s the government they were worried about, maybe the people need to have guns because if only the government had them, then we the people wouldn’t be safe from the tyranny.

       If that really is what the Amendment II means, then it isn’t doing us much good these days. Even if every citizen owns a handgun, will that be enough to ward off a potential tyranny of a local police department not alone the pentagon! You are going to need at the very least the hydrogen bomb, some jets, and some rocket launchers. Is this what the constitution had in mind?

       Is it the right or even the duty of every American to own a nuclear submarine or tanks? Will the Founding Fathers of this great nation be happy to hear that there are now over two hundred and seventy million weapons floating around in this country? Does the Amendment II mean that over 13,000 people a year at least are supposed to die from gun-shot wounds not to mention the many thousands more who get banged in their arms or feet? Is the mayhem on our streets today, the fault of the guns or the fault of something in us? Is the control of guns going to reduce the death toll caused by guns? Has gun availability to citizen’s help reduce the crime that everyone claims is the purpose of owing a gun?

Why would the Founding Fathers give the new settlers at the time a sense of insecurity among themselves by authorizing them to arm themselves against each other?

Last year alone, over 17,000 American were killed in the United States, of these, 67% were done with handgun.

      It is a true that Guns don’t kill…. People do, but they do so mostly with guns and handgun make it all too easy. The fact remain that handgun are the preferred method of murder according the FBI uniform crime report in the last 20 years. Automobiles are also dangerous; therefore we require new drivers’ training and driver’s licenses. We should at least do the same for deadly handguns whose only purpose it kill or destroy. In this country, firearms have claimed the lives of over 950, 00 Americans- more than the total numbers soldiers killed (755, 00) in all wars from the civil war to through the war in Afghanistan. If the US were losing this many people to some kind of killer virus or to war, there would be public outcry. In this Country, gun wounds to children ages 16 and under have increased 250% since 1986 in urban areas according to a leading pediatric surgeon.

In Switzerland, for example, every adult male is required to own a gun and yet the murder rate is very low……why?

It because every adult male is a member of the Militia and are issued rifles and ammunition by the government. These long guns are registered and all ammunition must be accounted for. Guns are very tightly controlled…… there is background checks, a permit to possess a handgun, and a hand gun registration

      It is a sad commentary that today most American public schools, especially those in major cities as New York, Chicago and Detroit, and recently Colorado, and Connecticut, a new curriculum  has been added “ HANDGUN DRILL” . Many children today are afraid to go to school each day, on the other hand, parents of these kids are no longer sure if they may see their kids back from school alive or dead.

     In other to do something about this problem, we must use some kind of preventive medicine. I believe this begins with tighter regulation of the most deadly of all murder weapon- the handgun. Every study on homicide has revealed that handgun crime rate is directly proportional to easy accessibility of the handgun. Assault-type weapon should be banned from private use. The Framers of the constitution specified that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” Well, the last time I checked, the United states has the best and most powerful, and a well regulated air force, the marines, the Navy, the Army, the CIA, FBI etc… so we do not need a Militia as the case may be in third world countries where there are no free states.

Neo-Imperialism and the Arrogance of Ignorance

It is rather puzzling that a conservative writer as the one above would use the word NEO IMPERALISM to try to make a point and score a cheap political point against the Obama administration involvement in Sub Sahara African conflict as is the case in Mali. To go straight to the point, this writer uses unrelated analogy or argument that due to recent United States involvement in several countries with dominant Muslim population to argue that it will be conceived in the Muslim world as an attack against Islam is rather silly and does not add up. The writer should openly argue that the poor Sub Sahara African countries have not much resources to offer the united states in return, as regards to countries, like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Libya, therefore the Unites States should not bother with helping the poor masses of these countries  to live a peaceful life from Muslim extremists. It is rather sad how this conservative writer has forgotten so soon how United States has political romance with one of the greatest Muslim dominated countries and the seat of Islam without seeing anything wrong with it. Saudi Arabia which has one of the most anti-democratic laws enshrined in their constitution and their daily lifestyles, but it is ok to be considered our friend. Saudi Arabia is the seat of sharia law that is spreading like wild fire all over the Middle East countries and several African countries. In Nigeria today, for example, the so called Boko Haram Muslim extremists are bombing churches and places of worship by Christian with impunity. Who would believe that 10years after the then President Clinton sent cruise missiles in an attempt to kill Osama Ben Laden ,the same Terrorist group would find their way to bomb America on September 11, 2001.  When former president Clinton took that risk to eliminate the terrorist, several conservatives complained that he his real intended motive was to distract the American people from his legal issue with Monica Lewinsky. President Obama will not let history repeat its self  when it comes to his effort to eliminate the terrorist no matter how far they may be or religious affiliation the may belong. This writer is attempting to galvanize the Republican legislatures to oppose the president’s effort to complement the French in their effort to stabilize that part of the world from the grips of the terrorist. President Obama is a student of history and knows the consequence of such past failure to act.

As a matter of fact, the African are pleading with the United States to come to their rescue. This is in fact will give the United States a better image in African against how Africans perceive her now as former slave master. Mr. Franklin should also remember that Obama is descendent of an African immigrant so he is the best man to deal with African issues.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/01/neo-imperialism-and-the-arrogance-of-ignorance/

The Critic of Law that Backs Guns in Class for Teachers in South Dakota

In the entire nation today, there is no doubt that the recent killing at elementary school in Newton, Conn, and the one in Colorado has  once again raise the issue of what is the best way to protect our children  at the place of their schools from killing by  their fellow peers.. The quick rush by the legislatures in South Dakota to allow school personnel to carry hand gun on school premises is rather regrettable and ill-conceived at best. How can the Legislatures with clean conscience come to a conclusion that such measure will help deter the intended outcome without first conducting research or considering other measures that may better suit the issue at hand. It seems to me that what they are saying is that more  guns in  schools but in the hands adults is the solution to will help deter a young person with emotional issue who may be suicidal in the first place from carrying such act.

Do these Legislatures consider the legal implication that may bear on those school personnel   who will act as first responders in those kinds of situations? Is the purpose of this Legislation to prevent young people from killing each other or who ought to be killed in those kinds of situations? What kind of metal or psychological requirements or evaluations will these school personnel’s go through to be able to carry these guns? What happens if kids have access to these guns through the negligence of these school personnel?   Factual evidence has shown that a measure as simple as the use of metal detectors through entrances to airports, court houses, major sporting events have helped reduce or in many cases eliminated the introduction of fire arms in those places.  South Dakota brags about that their kids start using guns at very early ages, but fail to distinguish hunting guns from hand guns. I hope this type of legislation will not be a trend in other states across the nation. This is what I call legislative quick fix for a problem bordering on mental health and proper education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/south-dakota-gun-law-classrooms.html?hp&_r=0

Incoherent Immigration Reform

INCOHERENT IMMIGRATION REFORM, BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

While I very much agree with the premises of the above mentioned commentary regarding the ongoing Immigration reform or debate going in Washington, I found the article rather as another relentless attack on immigrants from Central America, Latin America by another Republican institution.

First of all, the picture on the above article is rather demeaning to people of central and Latin American descent. While Mr. Hanson attempted to give us the impression that he is neutral in his write-up, they say that a picture carries a thousand words. At what point in the national discourse on immigration has one ever seen the faces of some of the Europeans who are in this country illegally, type of criminal activity or rather their positive contributions to this country .The insinuation that for decades past immigration reform or lack of

it there was, has favored more proximate Latin Americans arrivals who can easily cross the US border is rather overblown or racist at best. Yes, while people of Central America cross the border, several Asians and European come here on visitors visas and never return back. It is easy to identify one as of Latin American descent due to their cultural uniqueness and skin color, against someone from west Europe or eastern European countries and the Balkans. The facts remains that even though Latin Americans have closer boarder to the US, no one can cite any real danger besides some of their citizens seeking economic opportunity that these countries have brought against the united states. Has Mr. Hanson wonder why major US companies go as far away places as china, Vietnam, south Korea to build their factories when we have lots educated and willing Latin America pool of works a few miles away from the border.

Why is it ok to build factories in Philippines or China while our Latin American neighbors wallow in abject poverty and underdevelopment­. Does Mr. Hanson ever realize that most of economic bedrock of this country come mainly from the once states that used to be part of Mexico. Latin Americans have paternal heritage in this country besides economic opportunity more so than any other group of immigrant besides the Native Americans.

It is not true that due to high turnouts of immigrants from central and Latin America in favor of the democrats in the last election that Democrats are now advocating for immigration reformation, and as a pathway to citizenship. Present Clinton, a Democrat, was the last President that made it easy for immigrants to transition easily to citizenship. He was also accused of pandering for new immigrant vote at the time. Late president Regan gave amnesty to several illegal immigrants but he was considered a compassionate republican.

The unfounded allegation that the Mexican government supports illegal immigration as a political safety valve and a valuable source of cash remittance is another American chauvinistic attitude towards her closest neighbor. On the same token, that Americans love for illicit drug from Latin America is promoted by the American government, or America made firearms that are women and children is being promoted by the US government. The point I want to make is that every nation has her own problem due in part because of the factors unique or character of that nation. Until that day that the statue of Liberty no longer says give me your poor, tired , weary, huddled masses yearning to breathe freedom…., America will remain the only hope for the common masses of the world.

Source Incoherent Immigration Reform