Blog Commentary

Blog Commentary

Blog Link: http://1689014.blogspot.com/

For a person who aims to remain relevant as far as the US polls are concerned, he/she can utter anything that will elicit different reactions; Donald Trump is practicing that. However, spreading hatred and malicious information in order to gain fame and succeed in becoming a president is a miscalculation for Trump. Though the whites make the largest population in USA, Trump seems to be underestimating the blacks and their white sympathizers who see them as their equals and not enemies.

The unapologetic Trump has gone ahead to provide figures from a non-registered agency. This shows the dirty games he is trying to present before the electorates where some may fall prey of the misinformation and vote him in.  The continued hatred against races and religion from him shows the high magnitude of hatred he will have against some aspects of national interest when voted in.

What Trump does not put into consideration is that he is vying to be the president of a world superpower and not a state. In addition, if he is voted in, he will be required to treat all residents of the United States equally. It is ironical for a person who aims to be the president to disobey the constitution by misinforming people, for instance, his recent comments about Muslims has made some people regard him as an entertainer and not a person fit to occupy the white house.

He might be ahead of the rest of the GOP presidential candidates but he should remember that becoming republican’s presidential flag bearer does not guarantee him presidency. There are democrats who have formed the government in the last two general elections.    

The Gains of United States Government

     The stability of a nation depends on how good the government of the day is performing. The federal government has so far done remarkably on a number of factors that have greatly influenced the growth of the economy. Conservatives are overheard faulting the government due to its inability to make changes. It is however fundamental that the wider role the government plays in ensuring a stable economy be considered from a wider perspective. 

     Though the democrats have formed government during the last two general elections, the anti-governments are quick to renounce the efforts by the government to solve the ever-growing struggles, such as excessive unemployment, burdensome debt, and wasted lives. The efforts by the United States government to foster peace have greatly bore fruits, more specifically with Iran and North Korea due to easing the stance on foreign policy, and preventing the rise of a war that can be more disastrous to the world.  

     The clean energy revolution spearheaded by President Barack Obama is another Initiative that the government has engaged the technologies necessary to ensure that climate change as a result of carbon emissions does not increase in the years to come. This is evident by the large fund allocations of a half a billions dollars in its conception year resulting in economic growth and reduced carbon emissions, unlike in the past 40 years where they were increasing. Although private companies are the widest providers of energy in the United States, the government has put in enough efforts to ensure that the private investors have a serene environment in the quest of providing sufficient energy. 

     Another notable positive impact by the current government is the health insurance cover. The opposition has faulted the use of Obama’s name, claiming that it sound personal and ill-intended. However, the fact that the initiative has reduced spending on medical services to as less as 50% is encouraging more so when the services are better than those offered before the program was put in place.

Blog Stage Six: Comment on a colleague's work #1

Editorial link: http://hansolmun.blogspot.com/

The editorial addresses the issue of immigration in the US and gives an opinion that it should be promoted. Although it lacks an introduction, its purpose and theme are clearly identified in the manner it emphasizes on the issue of immigration.  Irrefutably, the editorial has extensively engaged the issue of immigration and does not mention specific personalities. Also, a desirable aspect is that it refrains from name-calling and does not in any way involve petty tactics of persuading the readers. Rather than mention specific names of individuals against illegal immigration, the editorial directs its complaints to the US government.

The editorial's pro-active approach to making the situation of immigrants in the US better cannot be ignored. It gives a suggestion that students and other foreigners seeking better and brighter futures by migrating to the US should not be driven away or punished. It goes on to mention that most immigrants do not have the intention of doing anything bad for the US as a country. Thus, its solution is that the US government should allow immigrants to reside, learn, and work in the US.

Apart from its outstanding content, the editorial is short and clear, and thus can be easily understood and interpreted by a reader. Although there are few grammatical errors here and there, the editorial's message is understandable. Moreover, the transition from one idea to another is commendable. For instance, the author begins by giving his stand on the issue of immigration specifically in the US, and this is followed by various reasons and facts in support of the position or stand. The author also wraps the editorial by giving a concise suggestion or solution of what should be done to address the challenges faced by immigrants in the US.

U.S. National Government Authority in Regulation of Guns

In the year 2013, the U.S National Government executive branch announced a plan for cutting down the rising incidents of gun violence. This was in response to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and other previous mass shootings. This plan had also proposed new laws that required to be passed by the Congress as well as actions that did not require the approval of the Congress. Since then, no new legislations have been passed from the proposals. The question is. Does the legislature have enough authority to pass new laws or can the Federal Courts use the present laws in regulating the use of guns?

An argument based on an individual’s fundamental rights shows that the government authority to regulate guns is restricted to a certain degree. Over a long time, the Supreme Court has been consistently involved in upholding the individual right to own arms. For instance, the fundamental right to own a gun was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller case. The court had the view that an individual’s right to possess guns was listed in 1989 under English Bill of rights as one of Englishmen’s fundamental rights.

Moreover, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution can be considered to protect this fundamental right to own a gun. It clearly states that, to maintain security in a free state it is necessary to have a militia with certain restrictions and there should be no infringement on the people’s right to possess arms. The phrase that states “the people” in the amendment can be taken to apply to all persons.  This also indicates that a few powers are delegated to the Federal government in reducing gun rights.

Currently, nothing in the common law supports a total ban on possession of specific weapons. This is as long as a person is of the right mind and is a law-abiding citizen. The government may look up to the Commerce Clause to provide it with constitutional authority to propose and pass gun control laws. However, the Clause is not in any way related to the purchase and sale of guns and is not applicable to the government gun control efforts.

Although, the government is very much willing to enact gun control laws that will help in controlling the use of guns, the big question is whether the constitution supports these efforts. The source of their authority is questionable, and thus, the government authority to reduce gun violence is restricted.

Critique on commentary ‘Texas illegally cuts Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid reimbursements’

Audience being addressed by the blogger is Texas health and Human Services Commission. This is due to an action take by this commission, on terminating Planned Parenthood clinics enrollment (Green 2015). It is stated that, these clinics were no longer capable of conducting medical services in safe, ethical, legal and professional manner.

Planned Parenthood offers numerous services ranging from abortive services along with fetal tissue research. Despite being under no duty to offer abortive services, Planned Parenthood proclaimed that it would give up receiving reimbursements, based on fetal tissue research. It is claimed that, evidences brought against Planned Parenthood was obscenely manipulative, in order to make the firm appear as an evil factory (Green 2015). It is also perceived that, those evidences against Parenthood clinics would make their opponents appear as caring much about continued existence of Planned Parenthood, and not much about fetal tissue research merits. Furthermore, debates about how ethical are fetal tissue research and whether abortion ought to be banned was not enough reason to have congress debate. This is because, this kind of debate required to be different or unusual enough for anti-choice activists to win.

I agree that terminating the services of Planned Parenthood clinics was illegal. This is because, firstly, Texas did not perform investigation on parenthood’s practices, and thus, did have to stop executing Parenthood programs without any cause. This was also similar case that happened when Louisiana attempted to terminated Planned Parenthood payments, but did not succeed as federal judge ordered them to continue with payments until court placed a conclusion. Moreover, Texas State Health service department refusing to provide birth certificates to immigrant children is causing a bad week to reproductive rights in Texas.

Critique of an Editorial on US Government

The critiques are about an article published in New York Times on 30th September 2015 titled Spending Bill Passes, Averting a Shutdown by David M. Herszenhorn on 30th September 2015. Herszenhorn is a renowned news reporter and an editor at New York Times. Herszenhorn started his media career in the early 1990s and over the years, he has become one of the key political news reporters and editors in the US. Given his experience in reputable news agency, Herszenhorn can be perceived as a credible author. The main target audience for the article are the American citizens.

According to the article, Congress approved a temporary Spending Bill in the last minutes of the fiscal year. The Bill aimed at increasing government spending to help federal agencies to continue running efficiently. According to Herszenhorn, the approval of the Spending Bill was due to strong support by Democrats in the House. He indicates that Democrats have been using the tyranny of numbers to force policy changes in the government. According to the House vote, the bill was approved by 257 members against 151 members. Out of 257 votes in favor of the bill, 186 votes were Democrats while 91 were Republicans. All members against the bill were Republicans. This indicates that the Democrats are using the majority power to impose some policies.

Herszenhorn argues that the Democrats support for the bill to increase government spending has increased the battle between Republican and Democrats. The evidence to support his argument are statements made by Mr. McConnell on how Democrats in the Congress for blocking all efforts to implement regular spending bills. Mr. McConnell indicates that Democrats are against all fiscal measures proposed by Republicans such as increasing government spending. Herszenhorn indicates that Democrats have blocked all spending bills that were proposed by Republican and approved by appropriation committees. The strong battle between Democrats and Republican has forced Republican speaker, Mr. Boehner, to express his intention to resign from office. Herszenhorn also indicates that the increased government spending will have a significant effect to the US. He indicates that the country federal debt has continued to escalate and the US can lose it ability to pay.

In my opinion, I agree with Herszenhorn opinion that Democrats are using majority leadership to pass major government policies. Republican have remained powerless since most of their proposed bills especially on fiscal measures have been blocked in the Congress. Nevertheless, approval of spending bill is likely to help the government to accomplish most of their missions such as heightening the security and infrastructure development.

Anti-Muslim Response

Anti-Muslim Response

Recently conducted article named  “Hillary Clinton “Appalled” By Trump Response to Supporters Anti-Muslim Remark”is concerned about active elections rally 2016 in the United States. Precisely, it dwells upon Donald Trump opinion about so called “Muslim problem” in America and his reply on this issue during his front-run election presentation speech. In fact, he has supported the rumor that current US president is not an American, but Muslim.

Therefore, this case has received a number of contradictory opinions and judging thoughts on the event (Meckler). Although those rumors have been denied long tome ago, today Republican candidate has given a new impact for their spread over the United States. Therefore, the strongest opposed meaning was given by Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate. In fact, she completely disagrees with Trump`s claim and considers such question as “a way out of bounds.”(Meckler) What is more, she commented on his possible apologies via his campaign trail break. However, Hilary Clinton emphasized differences in Republican and Democratic policies concerning racial prejudices (Meckler). That is why she advocates racial equality in the US, suggests to cease hating each other and not to follow Trumpet`s example.

Therefore, this article is worth our attention not only in terms of forthcoming elections in America. On the contrary, it shows that anti-racial treatment against Muslims still exists in this country. In fact, not only politicians reveal such opinion, but society as well. That is why Clinton has used Trumpets violent claim for her own election campaign. Although she seems to be an advocate of racial equal right, still it is not evident that she cares much about that. Therefore, I think this article opens some real sides of American politics and the process of pre - election rally.