Agreed

Wow, this is incredibly genius or incredibly stupid. I admire that you bring issues like this to light. I completely agree with you. I do not agree with the tactics our government is using to get information. I feel this could jeopardize not only the safety of our country but our integrity as a whole. Reason being is that these guys are freaking criminals to begin with and we're giving them criminal work to do. What makes our government think they won’t make a criminal decision to turn on us? I see no logic in this what so ever. We are trusting people with the minds of criminals to be our spies. What would happen if they were found out, so to say by Al Qaida and they do not hold up their end of the deal with America? We will lose valuable information and would have contributed to a bigger enemy line because odds are they would join them because they cannot beat them.  Our government not only make these decisions behind our back but they make sure that we the people have no say, and as an American, I feel this is tyranny and WRONG. Not only should we know what is going on in the midst of – our country but we should have a say because this is a democracy.

When Our Rights Go Left

The American peoples civil rights and liberties are essential to having a healthy country, but what happens when our rights are threatened by national security, and justified by patriotism? We lose our rights. Why is it that the department of defense made a list of extremist that should be watched and the first group on the list was evangelical Christians, when we are supposed to have “Freedom from discriminatory treatment based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, or political beliefs?” Are they afraid that a religious group is so extreme that they need to put them on a watchdog list? The government passes bills that are unconstitutional in the name of protection. Ever heard of martial law? Let me tell you about it. Martial law is a system of complete control by a country's military over all activities, including civilian, in a theoretical or actual war zone, or during a period of emergency caused by a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, with the military commander having dictatorial powers. In the United States martial law must be ordered by the President as commander-in-chief and must be limited to the duration of the warfare or emergency. It cannot result in a long-term denial of constitutional rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to a trial, and to free press. Martial law was ordered in contested areas during the Civil War (but the Supreme Court ruled President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional), and during the San Francisco earthquake and fire in 1906 when the city was in ruins, tens of thousands were homeless, and looting and disease posed great dangers to the public. Mis-use of martial law, such as destruction of the veteran's encampment in Washington D. C. under President Herbert Hoover, has proved unpopular in the United States. In many foreign countries martial law has become a method to establish and maintain dictatorships either by military leaders or politicians backed by the military. Martial law is not to be confused with "military law" which governs the conduct of the military services and applies only to service men and women.  When the president feels that we as a country are no longer safe he can declare martial law. During martial law the country is allowed to confiscate our firearms, ration our food, make curfews and if you don’t comply, they will put you in internment camps under the guidance of U.S. Army FM 3-19.40 Internment/Resettlement Operations, which outlines how internees (prisoners) would be “re-educated” into developing an “appreciation of U.S. policies” while detained in prison camps inside the United States. The US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest. The document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of— martial law. President Obama also is okay with HR2749 Food Safety Act, which can stop transportation, destroy vehicles, declare martial law, shut down supermarkets, and etc. These things infringe on our rights, like our, “Right to a fair public trial, including competent counsel, a fair bond, an impartial jury, knowledge of charges, and presumption of innocence,” and “Freedom of speech and assembly, including the right to dissent without fear of government spying or intimidation.” But it’s going to be okay, the government is doing this for us; they want to protect us. WRONG! They do things and sign things into office that are not constitutional, and blinding us to reality, by making it about patriotism and homeland security. They keep us off their back with minute issues like abortion and healthcare. Their job is an art of deceiving. If you ask me what true patriotism is, I would not say getting screwed by the government and proudly supporting it—but, I would say its loving the country we once were, and are not today, and remembering our forefathers who made this country, and not fighting other countries for Americas sake but to fight to make America fair, just, true and respected once again.

Nothing in Life is Free

In reading Blog 5, from the blog “WhatAmericansNeedToRealize" written by Briana McClellan, Briana agrees with an article stating the negative impacts on decreasing the amount of food stamps being distributed to the American people. I feel like she failed to see the big picture. Although she made some accurate statements, I fell like this is a perfectly reasonable way to cut spending to lower our debt. Of course the government spends recklessly – especially when it comes to food stamps. Briana claimed that the government is not “focusing on the impact that food stamps reduction will do for the lower income citizens. Instead they are focusing on getting the economy out of debt.”  The problem with what is said is that she is making it sound like all the people that receive food stamps are lower class and they have no other means of getting or acquiring food, and this may be partially accurate but I would encourage her  to do more research. I personally know people that lie, to get food stamps. I also know people that are just pure lazy that receive food stamps. Those are the people that need to be cut off. I do not believe that the government is going to take it away from the people who absolutely need it, like the disabled and the families who are below the poverty line. Even if they did, there are ways to survive. Nobody said life was easy. There is also no foul play when you work for what you have. People could work more than one job, go to food pantries, and they could hunt for food. Food pantries will always be around and there will always be donations. People might not be eating what they want but they will have what they need. Nobody will starve, that’s not already starving. You’re making this country sound like its out to get us and in many ways they are, but by lowering the amount of food stamps that they distribute a year, would not be a good example, this is just a way the government can potentially  decrease our debt;  its harsh but its reality. Furthermore, I do not believe that food stamps are the ideal American dream; people need to get a grip and stop getting handouts.

ILL-EDUCATED

Genetically modified (GM) crops or biotech crops are plants, the DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering techniques. In most cases the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples include resistance to certain pests, diseases, or environmental conditions, or resistance to chemical treatments or the production of a certain nutrient or pharmaceutical agent. Genetic engineering techniques are much more precise than mutagenesis where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change, but is still very damaging to the health of human beings. For example, food allergies affect approximately 5 percent of children and 2 percent of adults in the U.S. and are a significant public health threat.
       Allergic reactions in humans occur when a normally harmless protein enters the body and stimulates an immune response. If the novel protein in a GM food comes from a source that is known to cause allergies in humans or a source that has never been consumed as human food, the concern is that the protein could elicit an immune response in humans. Although no allergic reactions to GM food by consumers have been confirmed, in vitro evidence suggesting that some GM products could cause an allergic reaction has motivated biotechnology companies to discontinue their development. This is just one of the effects of GM foods. GM food has also been proven to cause breast, colon, and prostate cancer, to damages organs, to cause infertility,  to increase toxicity, decrease nutritional value, and cause antibiotic resistance for the body. They have built an industrial model of agriculture that does not agree with nature. The biotech industry is changing nature to accommodate the industrial model, and that, my friend, is dangerous. The pharmaceutical industry does not want you healthy, because if you’re healthy they do not make money. The twist is that the pharmaceutical industry is the biotech industry.
      The FDA does not require a single safety study when it comes to Monsanto’s genetically modified foods. Phill Angell, Monsanto’s Director of Corporate Communications, was quoted in the New York Times, on October 25th in 1998, as saying “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech foods. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” Monsanto is the only company that does not want people to know that their biotechnology is in the consumer’s product. Monsanto told us that PCBs and Agent Orange were safe and now they are in charge of our food— really?  Retired Plant Biochemist Arpad Pusztai was asked to do research for GMO products: his results were extraordinary. The mice that ate the GMO products had many significant health problems within 10 days of eating the product. Dr. Pusztai shared his concern with the media and was praised for his discovery, seeing as to how no human or animal safety tests had been done before. Pusztai himself vowed not to eat a single GMO product, and two days later he was fired and there was a campaign to discredit his work. It’s been proven that scientists who do research on GMO products and achieve negative results are defunded and harassed.
      Codex Alimentarius is a commission that was written in 1963 by World Trade Organizations (WTO) and Food Agriculture Organizations (FAO) to make guidelines for food standards.
Codex Alimentaius states that every dairy cow on the planet must be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (AKA steroids). The Monsanto company is the one who manufactures it. Milk production will increase from 10-15 percent, but it will make the cow sick. The cow will produce milk with pus because its teats will be infected and then they have to give the cows antibiotics to help the cow recover from the injection of the hormone. The commission states that every animal must be treated with antibiotics and growth hormones. Including every animal we eat that is controlled by them (WTO, FAO). This commission also states that all food must be irradiated which means heating or exposing it to radiation. This is not the way God intended for us to eat.
      Roundup is a chemical sprayed on the GMO foods we eat. They use the bacteria found in  Roundup that was defying  Roundup’s ability to kill plants. The active ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate. Glyphosate prevents important minerals from being accessed by the plant as well as destroys beneficial microorganisms in the soil that provide nutrients for the plant. This creates weaker plants and more robust diseases.  Roundup Ready crops are fed to our animals. We eat these animals that are eating nutrient-deficient foods. This can cause new diseases in humans. Plant and animal genes are being built on chemicals that can help them withstand more chemicals, in consequence of which our genes are being changed by consuming them. The government does not want to label items that contain GMOs. They say it makes no difference, but, really, if it were no different than organic food, what is it being modified? The FDA needs to stand up to the oppressiveness and the bullying of GMOs and do the research, and we, the American people, need to be open-minded to the truth about the corruption in our government and our food supply. You would say that eating organic sounds like a solution. The problem with this solution is that nothing is one hundred percent organic. Things that are allowed to have the organic FDA seal are allowed to be 5 percent contaminated.
      I have animals myself, both chickens and hogs, and even though they are being grown and I control their diet,  do you think they are 100 percent GMO and hormone free? No.I can’t prevent 100 percent GMO free food for my animals. The reason being is that no matter if I feed them organic scratch or slop, it still has the potential of being 5 percent contaminated. Earlier in class we talked about the illusion of choice when it comes to the media. But does it really stop at media? I believe that we have an illusion of choice when it comes to anything. We are constantly being deceived into thinking that we have control over our lives. Corporate influence is constantly corrupting our rights such as, the right to free speech, press and now the right to exist. They are rapidly poisoning the human race and raping our right to know the truth. Educate yourself, because the government can only lie and deceive the ill-educated.

Blog Stg.4

        In the article “It Depends on What the Meaning of 'Settled Law' is,” written in the Ann Coulter blog, Ann rips apart the political bias and injustices in our government. She is extremely on point. Ann’s statements which have potential for collaboration, looks very much like the statements that are on leftist issues. This blog post is to inform the American people. Her posts also seem more like attacks than points for discussion, but she is again: right. Although her credibility is flawed with certain groups, she speaks her mind, and on the truth. She is widely followed by people of the same ideology as herself, and she obviously does her homework.

The good news for the GOP is that Obamacare can never be anything but devastation for over ninety percent of the American people. That law is written so that nobody (other than crooked politicians and insurance companies) will or can experience anything good. When Coulter wrote, “Liberals will fight until they get their way -- and, as soon as they do, they announce their one victory is "settled law," helped demonstrate the eagerness of the liberal party to get their way and how they rub it in America’s face. I like how Coulter has many examples of the crappy job the government is doing at keeping justice for the people. The most likely outcome is that, this law will generate so much hate towards Democrats, that if the GOP plays its cards right, it will be able to destroy the Democratic Party forever. Unless the Democrats are destroyed, there will never be a return to godliness, freedom, civil rights and human rights in America.

Everything wrong is right, and everything right is wrong. Obama should be dragged out of the house and imprisoned for high treason against the citizens of the United States. He does not follow the constitution at all, he breaks it every chance he gets. Coulter shows this point of view when she writes, “When Republicans won't give up on an issue, it is because they are defending the will of the people, not pushing some harebrained scheme cooked up by a small group of zealots and imposed on the nation by an activist judge or freak Congress.” Very well said Coulter. We will not have our freedom much longer if we continue to comply and allow their (liberals) crap to be reality. There is power in numbers but only if the numbers stand together which we (the numbers,) are not. He is out to kill the middle class. He is a tyrant, and when things do not go his way he acts outraged and displays traits of a dictator. A good example of this is the government shut down. He punishes The People. For instance, our parks, monuments and etc. were shut down.

Coulter clearly is anti-liberal and wants a justified government. Not only did she address this issue with confidence, and legitimacy, but with the people of the U.S. in mind. This article is to all the American people, to not only enlighten them, but if they are liberal to let them know that she will not submit to their level.

Stage 3

I read an article in the Washington Post  named, “Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion,” written by Helen M. and Meg T. McDonnell on March 01, 2013. In this article, they are trying it show why abortion should not be legal. Their reasoning is that it could potentially violate standards of marriage and respect for life. This is very well true. The way they are trying to justify their pro-life views starts off with a question saying “Why don’t we lay down our signs, cease our marching and admit that we’ve been good and beaten for these 40 years since Roe v. Wade?” They then answer their own question by saying their views can help others understand and consider aspects of the U.S. experience when it comes to abortion. They proceed by giving the reader seven reasons why pro-life people of America stand their ground. This article was specific to those who are riding the fence when it comes to abortion, and their purpose is to win over their non-approval and deepen the reader's understanding of abortion.  As far as credibility goes, they do use statistics and numbers to prove their point, as well as history, scientific journals and past studies done on woman who have had abortions. The one thing they could have done better to make their argument even more convincing would be to use more substantial evidence. The logic and strategic way they wrote out the seven points to describe their take on abortion was nicely done. However, the explanations and facts could have been written more precisely. I did like the fact that they mentioned the problems occurring with the lower economic class and in minorities because of abortion. In their sixth point, I feel that they could have expanded the depth of their details when it came to the after-affects of having an abortion, such as mental health problems and higher risks of substance abuse, instead of just briefly mentioning it. This could have increased negative emotions in the reader and made their argument stronger. The article would have been accurate enough if .....they were talking to people who were already pro-life, but seeing as to how their demographic is people who are riding the fence and opposing  the issue of abortion, it does not suffice. In conclusion it is a well written article but does not do what it was intended to do, to persuade.

Gun Violence ? I've Never Heard of Such a Thing!!!

In the L.A. Times  article, “Families of gun violence, victims make their case, again,” you can see the pain and concern of the American people who are addressing the proposal of extended background checks to purchase a firearm. How many people have to die in a massacre before we feel responsible? Let’s see. 32,367 people died in car accidents in 2011, and who knows how many people where strangled to death, and everybody said something detrimental to another human being. Automobile accidents have to do with two parties, a person and a machine. There are also two parties in shootings, a person and a machine. The person controlling the machine is the backbone of the machine; it tells it what to do. Since vehicles are weapons on the road, and kill thousands yearly, the country should have a proposal to end the use of motorized vehicles. Or should we? Forget the complete anarchy that would occur; it needs to be done because it is a very dangerous weapon.

Now to pillows. Pillows you say? Yes, pillows. Pillows are things that are used for cute cuddly animal beds and for a fluffy get away for your head to rest at night, and they are also the best friend of strangling serial killers. Pillows can be used to suffocate people, but a solution for this unfortunate scenario that could one day happen to you, is here. Ban them you say? No, that would be ridiculous. Let’s just have background checks to own any type or form of pillow.

“You smell like an inbred skunk, and look like an alcoholic beetle!.....I’m sorry. I don’t know what got into me.” This brings me to speaking. You never know what a person is going to say; it could be detrimental. Just like when you’re operating a weapon, and you have unstable thoughts, when your operating your mouth you could potentially say unstable things. It’s been known to be said” sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me,” but this is not so. Thoughtless words are just as painful or destructive as physical harm. We must ban verbal communication, because just like the people that had unstable thoughts and misused a machine, your unstable thoughts can cause you to misuse your words.  Sandy  Phillips said, “We will not give up. We will not go away,” when it came to the background check proposal for guns, but then the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that “he would love to revive the background check proposal that failed in April, but saw no reason to since it still lacked 60 votes needed to pass.” Who won? This is another example of why verbal communication should be banned. This is a very important article to read, because of course there are no other articles addressing gun violence victims since the year of at least 1992. This is all new information and the world has never read such new and interesting failures of ideas to broadly solve violence.