Trump’s Frequent Racist-Tweets are Endangering the Minority Population in the U.S.

Donald Trump, despite being the holder of the highest office in the U.S. has become more aggressive and dangerous in expressing his dislike for the non-white minority population of the country. As days and political activities advance toward the 2020 presidential elections; or toward Trump’s possible impeachment before the presidential elections, he has been unleashing double-edged racist slurs one after another.

Although many perceive it as Trump’s way of rousing support from his white-supremacist supporters, minority groups are also concerned that his racist attacks are endangering their safety as citizens of the U.S. Attacks that even lawmakers are not spared, since 4 women Democratic House Representatives and Democratic House Committee Chairman Representative Elijah Cummings, all of color, were not spared.

If no less than the president of the U.S. is tweeting and mouthing hate remarks directed at respected and prominent elected officials, then his supporters will likely feel justified to follow their leader.

Trump denies being a racist, which drew affirmation from websites frequented by his white supremacist supportes, including the openly neo-Nazis. He also elicited chants of “send her back” during his speech in his rally in Greenville, North Carolina, in support of his verbal attacks against Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, one of the House Representatives making up The Squad. In fact, after his attention-calling racist tweets in July, Trump enjoyed an increased approval rating coming from Republican voters.

Will Increased Approval Rating also Mean More White Supremacist Violence?

Ordinary non-white citizens feel they are no longer safe, as some are already looking into installing CCTV cameras in their homes as added protection. They are well aware of the importance of elections, and what some candidates are capable of doing just to get the vote they need to get elected or at worst, be re-elected in their current government positions.

There is no telling what deplorable acts of terrorism white supremacist fanatics will do, in order to prevent members of the minority groups from casting votes that could unseat Trump. They have been emboldened by Trump’s statement of “I don’t know if I can stop them (Trump supporters).” After all, the statement suggests that when it comes to imposing anti-racist laws, Trump becomes less aggressive.

Remember the Charlottesville incident in 2017? It involved a neo-Nazi rallyist who drove his car right into the group of counterprotesters voicing disapproval over white supremacists taking to the streets to promote Nazi ideology. The incident resulted to the deaths of a counterprotester named Heather Heyer and two police officers, and the life imprisonment of the neo-Nazi attacker, James Alex Fields, Jr.

The sad part about this incident is that Donald Trump still called the white supremacist rallyists as a bunch of “fine people”.

Installing surveillance cameras not only in homes but all over a community is one good way of monitoring people who may have intentions of doing harm. It is not uncommon for acts of aggression to happen especially when an election period draws near. In Texas and Chicago, surveillance cameras are installed in polling places to ensure, not only the integrity of the voting process that transpires, but also to heighten the security.

As a note, those interested to heed the advice of security service providers will find bargain deals for surveillance cameras at the Amazon Great Indian Sale on Electronics.

Legality Behind Astronomy

The physical law becomes the formal training of future scientists in the field of astronomy. In the coming years, astronomers must have to anticipate the kind of law that determines the way of human beings in dealing with each other. However, there are few who consider that the best place to exercise and practice the said law is the outer space. In fact, at the moment anybody or anything move into the outer space, it is our ability to go beyond the higher ground.

These laws will generally affect the human kind. However, it is essential to remember that we must still bend to higher power.

Historical Legislation of Astronomy

The Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space or COPUOS of the United Nations established the legal instrument that inhibits the execution of astronomy. This was the first legal instrument ever used. The birth of this law was dated ten years after the Soviet Union stationed the first artificial satellite in revolution around the planet.

Twelve years after, there are four additional laws that arrived. These were all simplifications or explanations of the substance from the first law. Moreover, all of the five laws are conducted at regulating astronomy on the space in an organized manner like the activities performing by Seeplutonow. Additionally, they were all created with satellites while exploring the solar system.

The Laws of Outer Space

The major objective of all the laws is to perform space activity with the incorporation of global cooperation. This is to give benefit for the general public and to utilize the outer space for peaceful intentions. Below are the titles of the laws that are intended for the outer space.

  1. The Treaty of the Outer Space of 1967
  2. Agreement on the Rescue and Return of 1968
  3. The Convention Liability of 1972
  4. The Convention Registration of 1975
  5. The Agreement of the Moon of 1979

Final Thought

Numerous space laws are created by COPUOS. They are generally associated with satellites specifically designed for use by the civilians, shuttles, and stations within the space. Basically, these laws have a major effect on the performance of space astronomy most of the time. And this may call for on campaign speeches.

Closing Of US Mexico Border: Trump’s Real Intent is to Close Ports of Entry

Apparently feeling high on the belief that he has been exonerated from special counsel Mueller’s report of a possible collusion with the Russian government, US president Donald Trump stirs up another controversy. At a rally held in Michigan on last Thursday (March 28, 2019),and in a brief press conference in Mar-a-Lago, in Florida last Friday, Trump reiterated his signature campaign promise of closing the US Border to prevent migrating asylum seekers from coming in.

Trump’s announcement actually came as a threat directed at the Mexican government. He accuses Mexico of not doing anything to stop the unending flow of refugees arriving at the border, coming from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Naturally, his threat drew negative reactions, more so when he followed up his threat with tweets that he will make good on that threat this week.

Does Trump Really Have the Power to Close the US Mexico Border?

If Trump insists on imposing such action, he will do so at the risk of violating immigration laws that forbid anyone to deny protection to people seeking sanctuary in the country, regardless of the manner with which they gained entry. It can be recalled that Trump previously attempted to suppress the entry of a massive number of immigrants arriving at the border by invoking national security rules. However, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the San Francisco District Court placed a restraining order on Trump’s planned action.

Closing the border therefore, and specifically for that purpose is in defiance of immigration laws and of the judge’s order as well.

Trump is Using Border Wall Closing as Excuse to Carry Out Another Tactic

A senior Trump administration officer explained by way of telephone interview with Dara Lind of Vox, is that what the president had actually meant was to control the flow of people coming in by closing official ports of entry at the border. Although the senior administration officer added that closing of port entries is a last resort, border agents are currently being moved to the border areas to àttend to the refugees apprehended.

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney explicitly stated

”we need the people from the ports of entry to go out and patrol in the desert where we don’t have a wall”

As a result, reduced number of border agents manning the ports of entry has already slowed down flow of traffic. Business communities at El Paso are already apprehensive about the long- waits occurring at the ports. San Diego, does not want a repeat of the November 2018 temporary shutdown of the San Ysidro port of entry. Even if the border agents were deployed only for a few hours to respond with force against an organized group of asylum seekers, the temporary closure resulted to the loss of $5.3 million in business revenues.

What Trump wants to happen is to discourage American companies from moving operations to Mexico, using it as leverage for Mexico to act on the asylum seekers making their way to the US border. To Trump, he considers it as the price Mexico has to pay. Yet, he seems to disregard the fact that an estimated $1.5 billion worth of business transpires daily along the US Mexico border, as millions of people legally cross the border as part of their daily routine.

Politics Making Public Health Solutions Possible

For most health centers such as the Gastro Center NJ, researchers and medical practitioners, the nature of public health is a struggle to comprehend and recognize the reasons and repercussion of demise, ailments, and incapacities. Frequently an even bigger struggle arises when legislators try to put work out that understanding, to transform comprehension into deeds for our collective welfare and health.

Importance Of Politics In Public Health

Science can find answers to persistent problems regarding public health, however only politics could transform the majority of those solutions into actuality. Whether it is for the best or not, politics has a decisive role in affairs concerning health.

Politics is pivotal in identifying how the people and legislators distinguish and describe problems with the prevailing social environments as well as policies and regulations, in assisting specific types of interventions for public health, and in producing a variation of challenges in the execution of policies.

It is vital that public health experts and specialists comprehend the political aspects of problems and the recommended solutions, whether or not they have positions in the government, research and advocacy groups, or in the industry of health care. This awareness can aid leaders to better foresee possible temporary restrictions as well as opportunities for change.

When it comes to public health, actions from the government is usually involved to generate results, such as the prevention of injury, harm and diseases or promotion of wellness, that most people are improbable or incapable to yield on their own. To achieve public health, it should be perceived as something that needs collaboration and collective effort and not as an undertaking for a single person.

Collective And Voluntary Action

Even though this outlook is profoundly embedded in majority of students, researchers, and practitioners in public health, this perception counteracts to a basic stress on economic individualism, property rights, and competition in the political culture in America.

America lies in its anti-statist ideas, wherein Americans are not much troubled with the actions done by the administration to individuals to benefit than what the government could do to control or have power over them. As far as Americans favor collective and collaborative action in the quest of public health or anything that is for the social good, they display a solid preference for charitable or voluntary group and involvement.

Distinguishing Conservation And Efficiency To Better Deal With Global Energy Crisis

Strømavtaler or power agreements as well as resolving the sporadic energy crisis has to take a good deal of social responsibility and action merged with the support of the government. Because of the escalating energy outlays, global front-runners are compelled to conclusively begin to explore energy alternatives and make available the finance needed to make and implement these changes. Concerns such as global warming are a mainstream truth and triggers global alarms on pollution and energy consumption.

Before political leaders, whether local, national or international, as well as the people address these concern on energy crisis, it is paramount to understand the dissimilarity between conservation and efficiency.

Energy Conservation vs. Efficiency

Conservation of energy and energy efficiency are very critical matters discussed by global leaders especially in terms of our dependence on the natural resources of the planet. Presently, there is a universal call for sources of energy. Forecasts by the International Energy Agency states that by 2030, the globe will be exhausting 50% more oil, which produces the majority of our energy. Hence, it is imperative to first comprehend the how energy conservation and energy efficiency are different from each other to better tackle and deal with the energy crisis and renewable energy alternatives and tactics.

What Is Energy Conservation?

Energy conservation is the action taken to save energy by way of diminishing or decreasing a service. This means that to conserve energy, one must have to reduce on energy usage. Simple instances would include switching off the lighting fixtures when not in use, opting for public transport or walking instead of using your own car, or by obtaining a thermostat that you can program so as to control the temperature of the room.

What Is Energy Efficiency?

Energy efficiency is described as saving energy however retaining the similar degree of service. For instance, conservation is observed when lights are switched off when not utilized, on the other hand, energy efficiency is applied if you substitute wasteful incandescent light bulbs with a fluorescent bulb that are compact and more efficient.

With that, the government and global leaders can appropriately act on the energy crisis as well as to urge the energy sector as well as the industry on technology and business to proactively involve themselves in resolving energy crisis which will ultimately deliver weighty benefits for the economy, ecosystem and communities.

Numbers of Bankruptcies in Agricultural Sector Soar After Trump Tariffs

Trade rifts with other countries borne by the Trump Tariffs signed by Donald Trump in January 2018, is now taking its toll on U.S. farmers. Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently reviewed federal data pertaining to the Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Protection extended by US courts to farmer or fisherman families. The results of WSJ’s review revealed that the rate by which US farmers have filed for Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Protection, has soared.

District Courts covering the states of Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas, among others are seeing sharp increases in petitions for bankruptcy protection. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals shows a swelling of numbers by 96%; the Seventh Circuit garnered twice the number of petitions received when compared to the 2008 figures, while the Tenth Circuit saw a 59% increase from what they had a decade ago.

The Bankruptcy Trend is Expected to Transpire in Other Business Sectors

Initially, the sets of tariff imposed on importation of solar panels and washing machines, and later on steel and aluminum, seemed far from creating adverse impact on the agricultural sector. However, as the exports of foreign trading partners suffered a blow from Trump’s importation tariffs, their nation retaliated by also imposing import tariffs on US products entering their respective territories. Retaliatory actions came not only from China, but from EU member countries, Canada, and Mexico.

Exportation of US homegrown agricultural products like soybeans, coffee, oranges and other produce such as pork, dairy and whiskey, just to name a few, has become less competitive. Retaliatory import tariffs had weakened the trading positions of US agricultural exporters.

The trade rift with China turned into a full-blown Trade War, when Trump announced in July 2018 that all Chinese products and goods purchased by U.S. businesses from China will be meted with 25% importation duties. The value estimated at $50 billion worth, all the more created an impasse. Trump’s move only increased the cost of materials and components used by US manufacturers in assembling or in producing their goods.

Although negotiations are currently underway, US farmers and other affected businesses are not seeing enough income that will allow them to recover from ballooning debts; or even in continuing their operations.

A Cursory Look into U.S. Laws Governing Possession, Transport, Transfer or Use of Airsoft Guns

In a recent public disturbance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the man carrying two airsoft rifles in plain sight, was merely questioned and later released by the responding police officers. Had the incident happened in another state or country, the carrying of a replica gun in public would have been treated as a criminal offense.

As it is, U.S. laws governing the use and handling of non-powder replica firearms like airsoft guns, vary from state to state; making it important for airsoft gun proponents to know what a state considers as legal or illegal before transferring, selling, transporting or buying a realistic-looking replica firearm.

U.S.Federal Laws Governing Non-Powder Airsoft and BB Guns

Airsoft and BB guns are generally used for recreational combat competitions, as props in movies and for simulated military or police training. An airsoft rifle or handgun with the most realistic-looking appearance and features, are therefore the most attractive. On a nationwide level, there are no specific federal laws that restrict the use, ownership, or sale of replica firearms.

Federal statutory limitations are mostly concerned with “substantial product hazard/s,” particularly their potential risks of causing injury to children. That being the case, the federal government explicitly prohibits the sale of replica weapons to minors.

The government agency tasked to regulate and oversee the manufacture and sale of mock weapons is the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Specifically, federal product regulations require the following:

  • Replica or “look-alike firearms” must have a blaze orange plug-insert, permanently affixed in the barrel of the mock weapon.
  • A similar marking must appear on the external surface of the barrel.
  • Construction of a non-powder firearm must make use of transparent or translucent materials.
  • Additionally, federal regulations require covering the lookalike weapon using specific bright colors.

The aforementioned regulations override any state law that is inconsistent with the stated requirements.

Autonomous Power of State Governments to Impose Laws on Non-Powder Firearms

In the U.S., every state government has the autonomous power to impose statutes regulating the sale, ownership and use of non-powder, pellet-powered replica firearms. However, under federal regulations, such laws must not include prohibitions on the sale of conventional mock weapons.

The States of Delaware, Connecticut and North Dakota appear to have the most rigid laws pertaining to non-powder replica firearms, because they define such articles as “dangerous weapons.” That being the case, it is illegal in those states to carry or transport mock firearms without a duly approved permit.

In most U.S. regions, state governments define non-powder replica guns as Firearms and therefore subjecting the use, sale, ownership, transfer, and possession of non-powder guns to the state’s Firearms Law. Majority of state laws, regardless of their definition of a replica non-powder gun, strictly impose age restrictions, as well as explicitly prohibit the carrying of mock firearms in school grounds.

In some jurisdictions, low caliber, low velocity airsoft guns are excluded from the firearms definition. Click here to gather more information about airsoft rifles and handguns with low or high caliber and rate of velocity.