Opinion on "Are You a Citizen? Not Any More!"

My classmate wrote a commentary about U.S. government. He explained about a new bill proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown, called Terrorist Expatriation Act. This new bill gives excessive power to the government. If the Terrorist Expatriation Act is passed, it will allow government to take away the citizenship of anyone who has been proven that, he or she has “provided materials or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.”
My classmate is correct to say that “it’s just too much power for our government to wield.” With this kind of power our democracy will lose its influence. It gives too much authority to the government to interfere with or privacy. He also mentions, what is the definition for “actions against the United States?” As we have notice in many court cases, there are different meanings and views on one subject. One question that arose in my mind after reading this article is what or who gives the ability to the government to take the citizenship of someone? I also thought about, what will be next step after taking the citizenship of someone and what is going to happen to that individual? I understand that the government is trying to keep this country and its citizens safe but I agree with my classmate that this is not the answer.

Oil over Enviroment

In the article U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits the author discuss that “The federal Mineral Management Service Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species.” This should be a concern to all of us because affecting the environment, not only influence marine life but all the living things that surround the ocean including us. My first concern is the environment and the other is the way our government is ignoring its own policies. Why is the government allowing these companies to drill if it is dangerous and against the law? The author also mentions, “Agency records also show that permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal law.”

The Immigration Problem

The new law Arizona passed on April 23, 2010 and signed by Governor Jan Brewer is the harshest legislature against illegal immigration that the Unites States has seen throughout its history. The law gives the power to police in this state to question anyone if there is a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the individual is an illegal immigrant. The Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act passed by Arizona sets the stage for conflict in the United States.
The law gives state police the ability to ask anyone who looks suspicions for their papers. But, the reality is that this may increase the racial conflicts that this country is already facing. “If you live in Arizona and look like you're from Mexico, El Salvador or Guatemala, you're a suspect who must prove your citizenship or legal status.” This is very intimidating for the whole Hispanic/Latino community. One thing that this legislation has guarantee is placing the topic of immigration back on the national agenda.
Perhaps, the new Arizona law is not national government legislature but it set the stage for one question: Is this new law violating our constitutional rights guarantee by the national government? First, it would be violating our fourth amendment. This amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. In my opinion what Arizona is doing is consider is an unreasonable search because it has no evidence whether a person is an illegal immigrant or not. Not just because a person has dark eyes and hair or looks like a Mexican mean that he or she does not have a social security number. Since the Fourteen Amendment protects us from state government to take our right given by the Constitution, Arizona shouldn’t have the right to ask for our papers. Arizona is correct in asking the national government to act on the issue of immigration, but the “round-them-up-and-send-them-back approach won't work.”

The article from my classmate, “Freedom to Blog,” made me realize how unsafe the world we live in really is. I agree that the United States has procrastinated on the removable of plutonium, but I also think that the U.S. is not doing wrong by keeping some quantity of this element. If other countries have this kind of danger, it is unreasonable for the United States to lack this strong defense in case it is needed.
The world is not and has never been a safe place. I wish to believe that we can trust everyone, but the sad reality is different. Keeping plutonium is very dangerous to everyone regardless who has the control over it. However not having this element in the United States is not going to solve the problem nor keep us safe from other countries using it against us. It is true what my class mate said about the U.S. feeling insecure without its nuclear weapons, like a soldier with out his gun, but not having a gun is only going to make you vulnerable to everyone else who is holding one.
Making peace is extremely difficult, this is the reason why I think the United States should hold on to some plutonium. I also agree with my classmate that we should not only stop the production, but also remove some of the surplus we have stored. The perfect ideology for me would be that the whole world will agree in eliminating nuclear weapons.

Giving money to GM

2009 was a difficult year for the United States’ economy. It all seemed gray for my class: ’09. In fact my teacher used to say, “Class of 2009 will be standing in line.” In other words we will be standing in the line of unemployment like many did in 1929. Luckily the government is taking action so we don’t have to go through the same fate our grand-grand fathers did. Unfortunately the government doesn’t always make the right decisions: For example, giving millions of tax dollars to General Motors.
The taxpayers’ money saved a private cooperation, and now about 60 percent of GM belongs to the United States government. Should the government be interfering with the economy so much? When the national bank was created there was disagreement whether it was constitutional or not. The government should do whatever is necessary to protect it citizen but, in this case I believe giving GM so much money was not essential. The money being use for GM could have been used for other things our society needs, for example, money for Social Security, Medicare, and welfare. The government could have also used the money to create new job. With new jobs the unemployment rate will be less and the country can grow faster.
The phrase “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” come to my mind when I think of how much money was given to GM. In the past General Motors closed factories in the city where the cooperation was born to open new factories in Mexico, where it gained more profit. At that time the cooperation was not losing profit, but by opening factories in Mexico profit rose because of cheap labor. As a result, more than half of the population of Flint, Michigan lost their jobs. People were force to evacuate their homes and others were obligated to take extreme measures in order to survive. Other people decided to leave the city because it was impossible to survive in the city were generation after generation have work in a GM factory.
About forty decades later we are giving our tax money to the same cooperation that took our grandfathers’ jobs.

Social Security Crisis?? ohh noo

A blog from the Smirking Chimp caught my attention because the author discussed the Social Security crisis we are passing through. The second thing that immediately captured my attention was the author and title of the blog. The author of Boo!! The Scary, Scary Social Security “Crisis” is Back! is Dave Lindorff. He is an older man and I was very interested in his opinion about the Social Security.
I heard about this topic and was shock at the news that “this year, six years ahead of what had been predicted only a few years ago, the Social Security system would be paying out more in benefits than it takes in from the payroll tax.” This would suggest that in the future there could be no Social Security benefits. Today our unemployment rate is high, which means, with less citizens working, “there is a lot less money being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.” The government’s solution for this is “is cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, and privatizing--taking away the guarantee of a monthly benefit check, and replacing it with the "miracle" of the financial markets.” Dave Lindorff opinion towards this is that “American workers need to reject this campaign of misrepresentation.”
In my opinion Dave Lindorff is correct. As a young citizen I realize that time will pass and with it so will my youth. We need to keep benefits that protect us when we are most vulnerable. If other countries like Germany and Canada can provide its citizens with essential resources, I believe that the United States should not fall behind. We are trying to safe the world when I have not saved our selves.
Dave Lindorff probability published this blog to obtain the attention of the vast majority of U.S citizens. His intended audience is all of us who were born in this country and work under this structure. It is an issue that involves everyone because we are all connected to some way or another to the Social Security system.

In the New York Times, Roger Cohen wrote an article called An Eye for an Eye. Here he discusses how the United States of America is taking a similar path as Israel. An eye for an Eye: meaning that the United States is taking actions in its own hands. In other words, if an Israelite takes the life of an American citizen, the United States has the right to do the same.
Roger Cohen argues that “Drones firing Hellfire missiles have eliminated several Al Qaeda leaders. The drone strikes are concentrated on Pakistan, with which America is not at war.” Because we are not involved in a combat with Pakistan I agree with Cohen that “Revenge killings don’t pass the test for me. They’re unacceptable under international law.” It is very unfair to go to another country and without having a conflict with it and be able to have firing missiles.
Cohen intended audience is us, United States Citizens. Since we live in this country we have to take into account what is going on. During the 9/11 attacks, the united states was not involved with itself. We became part of another country’s actions. It is our responsibility for our sake as citizens of the world to don’t overlook others. But, that doesn’t mean be in other peoples’ business all the time. The United States gets involved in many international issues and this may lead to some good and bad outcomes.
In his article, Roger Cohen mentions the global war on terror or GWOT. He says, “The global war on terror (GWOT) is untidy. Still, the current accountability void for U.S. targeted killing is unacceptable.” In addition to the intolerance of this situation, “Obama, who campaigned against the “dark side” of the war on terror and has insisted that America must lead by example as a nation of laws, owes Americans an accounting of his targeted killing program.” It seems that the government is just ignoring the situation. If the wound is not presented, perhaps the pain cannot be felt.
Through his article, Roger Cohen attacks the United States government for acting as the common saying goes; “An eye for an eye.” In his last sentence he says, “[America] will end up eyeless in GWOT.” I believe that as individuals (citizens) and as a whole (country), we should not take action in our own hands.