Has Obama labeled minorities?

Earlier today, President Obama made his announcement on 'No Excuses' which was a direct challenge to minority men to make better choices with their lives. Although he didn't directly say it, President Obama was making a clear statement to "Young men of color" to make better decisions, break the label of the stereotypical African-American male that society sees. Another statement by Obama involved his past home life, in which he related to kids of all ethnics when he spoke on his lack of a father at home. He claims this had led him to make some bad choices and the only reason he got on the right track was through his community.

After his talk about his target group, Obama continued on to the funding of his operation, and at the moment has a 5 year plan to pump $220 million dollars into at risk areas for early education to help keep kids on track. This coalition for the greater good may just be the start of something bigger in Obama's road to equality. However this does bring in a major question into play.

Just what is equality, because based on my interpretation of the Presidents comments it seems that his focus lies more in the African-American population, rather than all children at risk. Although I support the Presidents new initiative to improve the nation through vast donations from public corporations, it seems that he may be treading on thin ice. His focus on a single minority is almost an open invitation for criticism and attacks from a broad spectrum. I believe the Presidents intentions are pure, but the concept of aiding a singular group seems to be against the American belief of equality that we recently learned about.

What has politics come to...

Arizona is widely known to pass legislation that is consistently considered questionable to the American people as a whole. But this is there second attempt at legislation that could possibly permit active discrimination. A past attempt included Arizona’s Immigration bill which was later repealed due to its infringement on international territory. Now the specifics of this new bill are still unclear to most of the population, however it appears that it will look something like this. Small business owners will be given the right to deny service based on sexual orientation as long as a religious claim is made.

So far this bill is well underway to becoming an Arizona state law that could open the path to other laws of discrimination in the future. However this bill has to pass the Arizona governor whom many can see supporting either side of the argument. This bill may become law at some point, but the life expectancy on a bill such as this one can be expected to be extremely short due to its nature. Within a year if this bill is ratified we may see it on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Many Americans use their religion as an excuse to look down on others when the principle of nearly every religion is to treat others in a manner that you would like to be treated and that all beings are equal. To see a law like this even considered due to religious reasons is an abomination on what religion stands for. Across the globe foreign nations fight for the right to speak out against their governments, to act against crimes against humanity, and to be secure in their own devices. In America we have given those rights to every human that lives within our borders, and now that we have so little left to fight for we have turned to a point where we wish to restrict the rights of others that we don’t see eye to eye with. It has come to a point where every citizen attempts to limit one another. The NAACP has come so far and accomplished so much for the rights of African Americans, but they fail to see that legal equality has been reached, and now many Americans see them as a threat to the rights of others. Factions similar to the NAACP exist all across the nation and now pose a threat to the rights of others.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=us_c2

Paul takes Obama to Court

It has been found that government secrets within the pentagon become common knowledge during wars when the American people become discontented. Many people across America love to think that the United States government hides things, or creates conspiracies to influence the American people. It is believed that they hide items of information that could affect you, me, and everyone around us if they were known by the general public. The government’s power and influence allow our National Security Agency to keep any secrets they posses secure during times of peace to protect us, and times of war to strengthen us. I personally believe that the what the NSA does is in the hopes that it will protect the American people from harm.

Although their intentions may have been in the interest of America it seems that the NSA could have severely betrayed the trust of the American people. The NSA has the means to monitor every American citizen extensively. The NSA can tap any phone, monitor every email, and as it has been revealed by Edward Snowden, have the ability to save every bit of data they wish. Some Americans believe this is too much power for them and that it violates the rights of citizens. Now President Obama and a few Directors of government agencies have a lawsuit in their lap that will take MTAP to a federal court for a class-action suit. Senator Rand Paul is filing a class-action suit against portions of the Obama administration saying they are abusing certain powers and that it takes effect on all Americans and is a complete and total violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment as stated in the Bill of Rights gives us the right to be secure in our effects (this includes phones because they are a possession) against unwarranted searches. It allows us to feel safe in our own homes, protection from police harassment, and even profiling. It has been claimed the MTAP violates this amendment because through its three hop collection it is actually gathering data on nearly every phone call in America due to the network of human interaction. But does the NSA actually violate Fourth Amendment rights? Arguments can be made by either side and its apparent that strogn cases will be made for both sides. We will all know the answer however when the Supreme Court gets to decide as it is apparent they will have to in the end. In the upcoming months we will see this trial between government and citizen develop. As for me, I feel that the federal, or supreme courts will uphold the actions of the NSA due to necessity.

CNN believes that this lawsuit has more purposes though. According to their article they believe Rand Paul's challenge of the United States policy is a political attention grab that is motivated by the idea of Paul vs. Candidate X in 2016. If this is true it is an ingenious move for a power grab and has the ability to work due to bipartisan support. If he continues on this path of unifying ideas of both parties he may gain the ability to win the 2016 election.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/politics/rand-paul/index.html?hpt=po_c2

The American people leave their faith in the power and authority of the US constitution to protect them from harm and ensure them the ability to live out the American Dream. However as government power has grown since the first federal aid programs founded in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal it has become more apparent that the rights of American citizens are getting closer and closer to being eliminated. Politicians are failing to recognize what their responsibility is as representatives of the American people. Rand Paul's stand happens to be a beacon of hope through his actions in the defense of civil liberties. 

Is Religion Evolving?

Many Americans find the Freedom of Religion to be important for any person, whether they believe in a faith or not. That is why the freedom of religion is in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing that no persons faith could ever be limited by the United State government. So what exactly happens when the US holds a debate on creation vs. evolution?

It looks something like this:  Bill Nye and Ken Ham

This debate was considered highly controversial because a small amount of evolution is taught in science classrooms across the United States. However creationalist views are not allowed to be taught in schools due to their relation to religion. This debate began to spark the idea that perhaps religion is no longer as free as it had once been and that perhaps evolution is being taught even though it could be considered infringement on the freedom of religion. For those of you who enjoy studying the topic of evolution don't worry. The Scopes trial, which was settled by the Supreme Court, stated that evolution was allowed to be taught in schools because it is not a religion rather scientific evidence.

So what exactly happens in the Government less than a week after this debate was held? Let's just say that the President himself feels that religion may be threatened by many factors of modern society. However, the President wasn't referring to the United States. His focus was and still is that the position of countries across the globe controlling the religion of others. Theocracy controls the Middle East, destroying all opposition and even creating religious groups of terror. Another example is North Korea in which its people are forced to worship the Kim Jong family which are represented as gods.

Obama's Thoughts

While Obama is not truly allowed to comment on any one religion due to the separation of Church and State, he has openly expressed support for the Pope who continues to be a missionary for the world. Although it is impossible for Obama to try and combat the growing apathy for religion across the globe, he still continues to support the religious refugees across the globe and hoping they here his prayers, as well as the other faithfuls.

My Thoughts:
I believe that at this point it has to be understood that to take a side in this argument is completely based on a personal mindset. Those who believe in Creationism or Evolution have every right to do so without fear of persecution. This debate made one step forward but two steps back for both sides. A debate of this topic isn't meant to be made public because it leads to the idea that the two ideas have to conflict with each other and have no way of coexisting. The easiest way to solve the problem of religious persecution in the United States is for people to realize that it is a choice, and every choice made is made based on personal reasons that nobody can understand.