Hey, Obama, stop spending.

Obama says that the goal for us now should be to create jobs. "To give… companies greater incentives to grow and create jobs, I've proposed a new tax credit for more than 1 million small businesses that hire new workers or raise wages…"

But where exactly is he getting that money from? And how are companies supposed to hire new people or raise wages when many companies are in enough financial trouble that all they can do is cut employment?

Or more importantly, where are we actually losing our money? Unnecessary spending could be a place to start. Take, for example, the football stadium built in MN and opened in the spring of 2009. Now, this is just my opinion, but I think that building an outdoor stadium in MN was a mistake on many levels, including cost.

  “Total construction costs for TCF Bank Stadium are $288.5 million, including site preparation and infrastructure improvements. The University is funding 52 percent of the cost… The state of Minnesota will fund the remaining 48 percent of the cost, or $137.2 million.”

Why would the state of MN spend a tenth of a billion dollars on football??

We have got to stop spending money on things that don’t matter. Sure, football matters to a lot of people but I’m pretty sure sustaining a person's individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness matter a little bit more in our economic state than constructing a football stadium. Football doesn't feed, clothe, or create jobs for very many people.

It’s in our Declaration of Independence; the government has the responsibility of protecting our rights. And if, for some reason, the government does not protect our rights then we have the right to change our government. We should do something about superfluous spending by our government.

That would save us from losing more money. It would save us from continuing in a downward spiral. That is what we have to do. Stop spending.

Hey, Obama, stop spending.



Article Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/06/obama.democrats/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

http://stadium.gophersports.com/about_financing.html



Picture Source:

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1285

Where’s This Money Coming From?

Obama has presented a plan to help families in need because of our economic crisis. CNN writes:

“Specifically, Obama will push to increase the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit rate from 20 percent to 35 percent for families making under $85,000 a year. Families making from $85,000 to $115,000 also would see an increase in their tax credit, the statement said.”

There were other ideas included in this plan and all included paying American citizens extra money to help them get by. My only question is… Where is this money coming from exactly? We are in debt up to our eyeballs and we still have money to give out to people? I don’t get it.

It’s like putting a band aid on a cancerous tumor. It makes it seem like we are doing something but it doesn’t get to the source of the problem. We have to attack our country’s debt at the source. We have to find out where we are losing money and stop up the drain before we can give any more money away.

Obama, I thought you were smarter than that. Remove the cancer before you put the band aid on.



Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.middle.class/index.html?iref=allsearch  



Picture Source:

http://ballyhooligan.wordpress.com/2009/07/

Freedom of Religion Put to the Test

The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences origianally banned all head covering that obscured the face, with the exception of medical reasons, for safety and security of the students and staff. However, changes were made to the ban. Now, all head coverings that obscure the face are banned, with the exception of medical and religious reasons. The community of Muslims at the College were concerned because the ban meant that women couldn’t wear their traditional niqab.

Muslims believe in something called an awrah which is the parts of the human body that should not be exposed in public and depending on where you are from, a woman’s awrah can include every part of her body including her face. It is considered sinful to expose a person’s awrah. It’s a lot like America’s laws that prohibit indecent exposure, except it is deeply connected with Islamic religious life.

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed a third-party complaint. He wrote to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating based on religion. Hooper knew the college wasn’t directly discriminating against Muslims but that the policy would end up discriminating against Muslim students and employees in the long run.

Aisha Bajwa, president of the Muslim Students Association at the college, said the the original policy was "unjustified and unconstitutional." She does not wear the niqab but she still feels strongly about the right to wear one. She also pointed out wearing student IDs at all times is enough to identify students and keep them safe.

Some people feel, on the other hand, that the niqab and other coverings are a threat to security and safety and that is why bans on them are allowed to go through.

I agree very strongly with the school’s final decision and with Ibrahim and Aisha. Religion cannot be prohibited by law in this country. It’s in the first ammendment of our Constitution. There are other ways of keeping things secure than banning religious practices. It is so unbelievably wrong in the U.S. to restrict religion. Don’t allow it to happen.



Article sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/08/massachusetts.security.policy/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b


Picture Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/niqab_1.shtml

Text Messages Save Haiti

Red Cross raised $3 million just by text messaging. Spokesman Jonathan Aiken said those $3 million were a large amount of the $10 million total that Red Cross raised for earth quake relief in Haiti.

"That's a phenomenal number that's never been achieved before," he said. "People text up to three times at 10 bucks a pop. You're talking about roughly 300,000 people actually spontaneously deciding, 'I can spare $10 for this. And that's remarkable."

The message was forwarded through text messages and tweeted by celebrities such as singer Adam Lambert, actor Ben Stiller, cyclist Lance Armstrong, and actress Lindsay Lohan. These celebrities posted tweets that were sent by text message to all of their fans. “Help Haiti” was posted all over twitter. The red cross is also involved with Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. It also has its own blog, and hosts an online news room that shows updates on relief efforts.

What I find amazing is how many people just spared $10 because they heard about it and felt like giving. Three million dollars is a lot of money and they raised it so easily. I can’t believe our country is in so much debt if we have to power to band together and help Haiti, couldn’t we band together and help our own country?

There’s got to be a smart way to do this. It’s not like we are all out of money. This Red Cross fundraiser proves that. We just aren’t spending our money very well. We aren’t organized enough in our efforts to decide where the money should be spent and we spend money debating it. Isn’t there a better way to do things? The Red Cross had no trouble at all raising three million dollars. Why do we continue to sink into debt? We should pull together and pull ourselves out of this mess. Some how. In some way.

We are not all dirt poor. Yet.



Article source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/14/online.donations.haiti/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29


Picture Source:

http://www.thebluedot.net/blog/tag/refurbished-cell-phone/

It’s a Free Country

Paul wrote an article on his blog about a couple from Georgia. Harvey and Paula Darden accidentally ended up at the White House for a tour on the wrong day. After they were put through security, they found themselves at a Veteran’s Day breakfast.

No one kicked them out just because it wasn’t the right day for their tour. When they suspected they weren’t in the right place, Harvey Darden spoke with a White House staff member who asked Darden if he was a veteran. As it turns out, Darden was actually a Navy veteran, so the staff member told him to ‘go with the flow.’ They did. And they met President Obama, the first lady, and the vice president. The couple didn’t even really realize that they had showed up on the wrong day until they arrived at home and checked their e-mail.

The article that Paul based his off of stated that it is not uncommon for tourists that clear security to be included in other festivities. White House security performed a criminal background check on the Dardens and when it came up clean, they were allowed to join the Veteran’s breakfast.

Paul wrote that it doesn’t make him “feel secure about the job being done in the White House… When people can just slip through the cracks… People will start intruding where ever they are able.”

I do not agree. As long as no one that is a threat to our nation’s security is allowed to enter the white house, it doesn’t matter if a couple from Georgia meets the president. This is, after all, a free country and people can do as they please as long as they don’t put others in harms way. It’s the same with accessing government information; it is open to the public as long as national security is not put at risk. Harvey and Paula Darden were not a threat to anyone or anything by simply attending a Veteran’s breakfast and therefore have a right to attend that breakfast.



Article Sources:

http://gigaphone.blogspot.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/16/surprise.visit/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29



Picture Source:

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/pages/God-makes-decision-for-undecideds-with-death-of-Obamas-Grandmother-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html

You Can't Predict the Future if You Don't Open Your Eyes

Jessa wrote an article on her blog about a man who killed four police officers in Seattle Washington before he was shot to death by police. His name was Maurice Clemmons and he was 37 years old. Jessa said that this was very sad that the world is coming to situations like this; manhunts and shootouts are common place. I have to agree that this is very sad and I wondered if this incident could have been prevented. I decided to do a little digging.

As it turns out, Clemmons was sentenced to 108 years in prison in Arkansas for an unnamed reason when he was only 16 years old. He was described as violent and “mean” according to W.A. McCormick, a deputy prosecuting attorney at the time. He was such a security risk that he had to be shackled to his chair in court and deputies stood near him to keep him from trying anything.

Inside prison, he was just as bad. Larry Jegley, the prosecutor who put Clemmons away told of his conduct: "Failure to obey, engaging in sexual activity, possession or introduction of drugs, firearms…"

McCormick wrote to the parole board several times stating that Clemmons should never be paroled. He strongly believed that Clemmons should never be released from prison.

However, Arkansas governor of the time Mike Huckabee released him on parole after 11 years of his sentence was served. Huckabee had this to say about the matter: "I looked at the file. Every bit of it. And here was a case where a guy had been given 108 years. Now, if you think a 108-year sentence is an appropriate sentence for a 16-year-old for the crimes he committed, then you should run for governor of Arkansas."

Huckabee says that he knew all about how violent and aweful Clemmons was. He said he read about how dangerous and mean he was. But he released Clemmons on parole because he didn’t think it was fair for a 16 year old to be locked up for the rest of his life.

Then, four police officers were shot and killed. Four families are suffering now because of Huckabee’s choice.

"I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago. I acted on the facts presented to me in 2000. If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision…” Um hello! The facts presented to you screamed murderer in the making. Stupidity isn’t an excuse that those families will except very easily.

The governor of any state should not be given that much power. It seems like everyone but the governor knew that Clemmons was a public risk. Why was ignorance allowed to make the final decision?



Article Sources:

http://jessahuber.blogspot.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/03/washington.clemmons.huckabee/index.html?iref=allsearch



Picture Sources:

http://mandarin.about.com/od/vocabularylists/tp/professions.01.htm

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

An eye for an eye…. Or noses and ears?

Claire wrote on her blog about two brothers from Pakistan. Ammanat Aliand and Sher Mohammed followed Fazeelat Bibi, a young woman whom they knew very well, home from work one day. Bibi had rejected Mohammed’s offer of marriage and the two men along with three others attacked Bibi, strangling her with a wire. When they thought she was dead they chopped off her ears and nose. They said it was to ‘set an example.’
The two men were sentenced to life in prison and fined 700,000 rupees ($8,300) to pay for the victim’s medical bills. Also, the court ordered the two men to have their own ears and noses chopped off. A high court must approve this sentence, however, and a doctor has to examine them to make sure that they will not die from this. This heavy sentence is in support of anti-terrorism in Pakistan.

Claire states that she feels this sentence is too rough of a punishment and I have to agree. Terrorism is truly a state of mind. A terrorist is a person who is influenced by violence and uses violence to promote their personal beliefs; therefore, if the government in Pakistan wants to stop terrorism, they really shouldn’t become terrorists of their own kind. The article that Claire used as a source for her blog mentioned that the high court has a history of turning down sentences like this and I sincerely hope they turn this one down as well. Aliand and Mohammed can be punished in nonviolent ways. That is the kind of ‘example’ that the government of Pakistan should set.


Article Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/pakistan.harsh.justice/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

http://claireilliesblog.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/human-rights-ads-20-capital-punishment/