Re: Mad Cow - Mad USDA

     While perusing the Perusing Government blog, I came across a blog post titled Mad Cow - Mad USDA and it piqued my interest.  Why would the blog writer claim the USDA to be mad when the USDA has been set up with our tax dollars to safeguard our agriculture?

      The blog writer in a concise and expert fashion, delineated what the Mad Cow disease is.  The post carries on stating that the cause of the Mad Cow disease is actually the cattle feed that is given to the cows to consume.  The cattle feed prior to 2004 included spinal cord and brains from younger cows, plate waste (restaurant scraps), poultry litter, and cow and pig blood.  As of 2004, spinal cords and brains from younger cows were banned as an ingredient for cattle feed.  However, cattle feed given to cows today can include plate waste (restaurant scraps), poultry litter, and cow and pig blood, which I don't know about you, sends a chill down my back. 

     The blog writer than concludes with the following:

Not only do I feel betrayed by the government departments created to protect me, I am completely and utterly disgusted to learn what all goes into the meat Americans consume on a daily basis.  Our safest course is to eat organic or 100% grass-fed cattle.  Better yet, shop at your local farms to market!  Hopefully, Americans will educate themselves and spend the extra money for good quality beef.  This would cause the meat industry to start making healthier choices on how they process the cattle.  Once that day comes; we would no longer have to worry about mad cow disease.

     Boy, am I glad I educated myself on this topic and I must admit I share the same feelings of betrayal and disgust.  I cannot believe that I was naive enough to believe that such a prominent organization like the USDA would allow such nauseating and disgusting ingredients in cattle feed. I am seriously looking into going organic or at least natural.  I feel highly indebted to the blog writer for opening my eyes and potentially saving me from insanity.

Secret Service Scandals and New Code of Conduct

     The Secret Service Agency was created in 1865 in response to growing concerns of the counterfeit currency industry.  As the agency grew, so did their responsibilities.  They investigated major cases of fraudulent activities against the government and the activities of the Klu Klux Klan.  In 1894, they offered bodyguard services to President Cleveland.  From 1901 to 1902, the S.S. is assigned full-time bodyguard services of the President following the assassination of President William McKinley.  In 1908, protection to the President-elect is afforded.  From 1913 onwards, the S.S. rapidly expanded to include protection of the President's immediate family, the vice president, and former presidents and their families.  A Police force was formed for the White House under the supervision of the S.S.  After the assassination of Kennedy, this was further expanded to include major presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees.  As decades pass, foreign leaders and dignitaries are afforded protection (http://www.secretservice.gov/history.shtml).

     According to its website, the vision statement of the S.S. is as follows:

The vision of the United States Secret Service is to uphold the tradition of excellence in its investigative and protective mission through a dedicated, highly-trained, diverse, partner-oriented workforce that employs progressive technology and promotes professionalism.

     This vision statement was grossly violated by a group of Secret Service members who tarnished the image of an otherwise outstanding agency with a proud history of excellence and professionalism.  To add insult to injury, the agents responsible for this violation are the ones responsible for safeguarding our President.  Moreover, this took place in a South American country during a trip wherein the President wanted to improve diplomatic and economic relations with South America.  Members of the S.S. have been allegedly consorting with prostitutes and indulging in heavy drinking in their hotels while awaiting the President's arrival.  The Secret Service scandal has all the elements of a Hollywood movie; national security, federal agents, politics, alcohol, sex, exotic tropical settings, everything for that perfect shoot.

     Though it is understood that we all make mistakes, however, when the mistakes involve national security and jeopardize the safekeeping of our President, the situation calls for tough actions.  Just today, news agencies report that a new code of conduct has been issued for the Secret Service including mandatory ethics training, a ban on attending "non-reputable establishments" like strip clubs, and a requirement that no foreign nationals enter a hotel room.  In terms of alcohol, it may only be consumed in moderate amounts while off duty on-assignment and a new 10-hour sobriety rule will be instated. Previously, employees were not able to drink 6 hours before a shift started.  In addition to that, all S.S. employees are to abide by the laws of the U.S. even in foreign countries in order to eliminate objections that prostitution is legal in certain host countries.

     After reading the 'new' code of conduct, one wonders why this was not already in place?  

Reply to "So you want health care like in Canada? They can't even pronounce their letter "O""

While browsing through my classmates’ blogs to look for an interesting blog to comment on, I came across a blog titled Getting Personal With My Government with an article titled So you want health care like in Canada? They can't even pronounce their letter "O".  First of all, what piqued my interest the most was: What would pronouncing the letter “O” have to do with healthcare?  As I read on, I thought that Canada being a developed country as it is, and many other developed countries in Europe that also have universal healthcare, must have some degree of legitimacy in their decision to offer universal healthcare.  After all, they all are democratic countries.  The majority of the citizens like it and prefer it, otherwise it wouldn’t be there.  So how can such a large number of people and countries choose something so absurd?   

So, I did some research on the comparison between Canada’s healthcare and the U.S.’, and boy was I in for a surprise.  Though both sides have valid arguments, the author of the above-mentioned blog overlooked some key issues in her argument in favor of privatized healthcare.  In an article titled Battle of Health Care Systems: Canada vs. United States written by Nicole Callsen, here is what I found:

1.       49 million Americans have no insurance.

2.       The U.S. is the only developed country where its citizens can become bankrupt due to healthcare costs.

3.       Some 700,000 American citizens go bankrupt every year due to their inability to pay medical bills.

4.       In 2006, some 19% of Americans under the age of 65 did not seek medical treatment due to the heavy costs of medical care.

5.       Canada’s population is overall healthier.

6.       The life expectancy rates of both males and females are higher in Canada: the men’s rate is 77.4 years, and the women’s life expectancy is 82.4 years. On the other hand, the United States’ rate for men is 74.8 years and for women it is 80.1 years (Healthcare Care System Grudge Match, October 2007).

7.       Fewer Canadians are obese and fewer have heart and other health related diseases.

8.       Canada spends less than 10% of its GDP on healthcare, while the U.S. spends 15%, and still 700,000 Americans suffer bankruptcy due to healthcare costs.

         Callsen states that though the U.S. is technologically more advanced than Canada in medicine and healthcare, only the wealthy are able to benefit from it.  One Ipsos poll concluded that Canada leads on affordability and access while the U.S. is ahead on availability.

My question to the author of this blog is: Do we just ignore the 49 million uninsured Americans?

Works Cited

O’Neill, June, O’Neill, Dave. “Health Care System Grudge Match: Canada vs. U.S.” Oct. 2007. Web. Healthcare—economist.com

Callse, Nicole. Battle of Health Care Systems: Canada vs. United States. Retrieved April 12, 2012 from http://www.interesting-health-facts.com/2010/01/battle-of-health-care-systems-canada-vs.html

U.S. vs. Canadian Healthcare: Poll Compares Citizens’ Experience as Patients. Retrieved April 12, 2012 from http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4467

Should the U.S. Fear the Shariah?

           If we were to rephrase this question in the following different ways:

Should we fear the Roman Catholics?

Should we fear the Jews?

Should we fear the first amendment?

I am sure the reply would be in the negative.  As a Shariah Scholar who studied the Shariah for 10 years, I present the following for my American readers to ponder and learn.  

Shariah is an Arabic word that refers to a path leading to water from which animals and humans can benefit.  Based on its linguistic origins, the same word has been chosen as a name for the law, which according to Muslims, God has chosen for Muslims to live by.  Notice that I said, “…for Muslims to live by,” because the Shariah does not apply to Non-Muslims.  The first thing to learn about the Shariah that Muslims in America follow is the Shariah itself states that it cannot be applied to Non-Muslims. 

Imagine an American from Texas with a concealed handgun (which is lawful in Texas) crosses the border into Canada and is detained by Canadian authorities for having a gun.  Now he can plead as much as he wants that in Texas, it is lawful to have a concealed handgun, the Canadian authorities will say, “Sorry sir, it is not allowed here.”  A Texan American can only follow those aspects of the American constitution and state laws that conform to Canadian laws.  In Canada, Canadian laws will overrule American federal and state laws when there is a contradiction.  In the same manner, the Shariah states that in a non-Muslim country, only those aspects of the Shariah are applicable that conform to local laws.  Most Muslims living in America who are religious acknowledge this.  So the second important thing we learn about the Shariah is that in a non-Muslim country, it is only applicable to the extent that state laws permit and that state laws can override it.

What causes fear in Americans, according to my opinion, is the type of so called Shariah that is implemented in some Muslim countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.  I have not yet met any Muslim who wants Taliban- or Iranian-style Shariah in the U.S.  Many Muslims in the U.S. fled from those laws and sought asylum here.  The 99% of Muslims want to live the American dream and be peaceful and law-abiding citizens.  Muslims come here mostly because of the tolerance of the American people and the vast opportunities this land offers.  The penal laws of Shariah are extremely vast and open to interpretation, and on top of that, the Shariah itself prohibits any implementation of penal laws by any individual in a Muslim country or non-Muslim country.  An Imam, a Muslim state appointed judge or a Muslim federal judge in the U.S. cannot implement any type of Shariah penal laws in the U.S. because not only does the American constitution prohibit that, the Shariah also prohibits it.  As the saying goes, “You cannot take the law into your own hands.”  The penal laws of the Shariah can only be implemented by a legal state-appointed authority in a Muslim state.  This is the third important point to know about the Shariah.

The U.S. constitution is protected by the supremacy clause that states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Christian Science Monitor very rightfully published an op-ed about this under the heading Those defending US Constitution from sharia must have failed high school civics. The article states,

Those like Newt Gingrich who try to exploit sharia hysteria to foster fear of Muslims in the US not only fail to understand sharia, they also fail to understand the ideals of religious freedom upon which America was built.

Therefore, attempts to outlaw Shariah are not only absurd, they can potentially alienate millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims currently living in America. After all, Shariah safeguards essential rights such as acts of worship, instructs Muslims regarding their dietary regulations, and encourages them to be pious, truthful, and tolerant individuals. Misguided efforts to outlaw Shariah would in fact impede Muslims from practicing the very basics of their religion, from praying and fasting to consuming food according to Islamic guidelines. Hence, these anti-Shariah bills are far from securing Americans from an impending threat and actually infringe upon the rights of the American Muslim community.

The Hype Over Shariah Infiltrating the U.S.

As the Republican candidates continue their fight to become the Republican nominee for the highest office of the country, one thing they all agree with is their opposition to Shariah; also known as the religion of Islam.  From the current leading nominee Mitt Romney to Michele Bauchman and Herman Cain, all have stated in their campaigns that the Shariah is a threat to America and it must be stopped.  The ABC News website has confirmed this in an article dated March 29, 2011 titled GOP Presidential Hopefuls Blast Sharia Law in Pre-Primary Rhetoric. For those of you who do not know want to know more about the Shariah, I recently gave a presentation on it at the University Christian Church of Austin, TX during a workshop titled Sharia Law – Rumors and Reality.

The famous blog Media Matters for America posted a critique titled Wash. Times Fearmongers That Shariah Law is Coming to a City Near You on an editorial published in the Washington Times titled "Shariah In America's Courts."  The editorial was about an amendment that was put forth for ratification that would outlaw the use of the Shariah or any other international law in Oklahoma courts.  The amendment was approved in November, 2010 but was never implemented until a panel of federal judges deemed it unconstitutional and the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its unconstitutional status.  Disappointed with the outcome, the Washington Times editorial stated,

A panel of federal judges has ruled that states cannot protect their courts from jurists who base their decisions on international or Koranic law. America needs better judges… It should be obvious that judges shouldn't look outside the laws and traditions of their jurisdictions when deciding cases, but in the liberal judicial-activist framework, anything goes.

What the editorial overlooked is that the Constitution already protects the American law from being overridden by another law through the Supremacy Clause.   Article VI, Clause 2 called the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It does not require a PhD to understand what the above clause means.  The Christian Science Monitor very rightfully published an op-ed about this under the heading Those defending US Constitution from sharia must have failed high school civics. The article states,

Those like Newt Gingrich who try to exploit sharia hysteria to foster fear of Muslims in the US not only fail to understand sharia, they also fail to understand the ideals of religious freedom upon which America was built.

To conclude, I would like to offer my two cents to the American people: Wake up and do not curtail the same freedoms you fought to defend and implement for yourselves.  There is a huge difference between accommodating for other cultures and religions and overriding the constitution with another law.  Muslims want accommodations just like other religions in the past were accommodated.  Jews have Kosher certification and we find supermarkets inundated with products with Kosher certification.  What is the big deal if Muslims want the same?

TARP - Keeping Them Honest About It

On October 3^rd, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law TARP i.e. the Troubled Asset Relief Program consisting of $700 billion to bailout fledgling banks and auto companies.  TARP continued with slight alterations under President Obama’s presidency. Propublica (www.propublica.org) claims to have kept track of every single dollar of the bailout since then.  At the time, it was heavily criticized as unnecessary government intervention; the costliest since World War 2.  However, two and a half years later, its success is becoming more and more apparent.

USA Today on February 23, 2012 posted an editorial on their website (www.usatoday.com) titled Editorial: Auto bailout worked, candidates should admit it.  The editorial speaks about how politicians find it difficult to admit mistakes.  The editorial mentions President Obama’s opposition to President Bush’s troop surges in Iraq, but admitted later it worked.  However, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama’s admission did not alter his opposition to the Iraq war altogether.  Obama had opposed the war right from its onset calling it a “dumb war.”

Back to the issue of bailouts, the editorial piece mentions that one of the key bailout recipients, GM sold more vehicles last year than any other automobile manufacturer in the world.  Moreover, it added 207,000 jobs last year.  GM has returned to profitability and it has repaid its loan to the U.S. and Canadian governments.  Chrysler, another key recipient also returned to profitability and has repaid its loans.  Most other recipients have also repaid their loans.  The editorial puts forth a very important and key argument in defense of the bailouts’ successes.  It states,

And the cost to taxpayers has been far less than it would have been had the companies collapsed and the government was forced to partially bail out their pension funds, as well as pay for unemployment benefits and other assistance to displaced workers.

I believe the above is the most effective and persuasive part of the argument in favor of the bailouts.

             The two leading candidates for the Republican nomination on the other hand vehemently continue to criticize the bailouts.  While admitting that a government bailout is not a good thing and should only be a last resort, the editorial states that their criticism and arguments against it reflects how poorly connected they are to reality.  Rick Santorum argues that all the fledgling companies would have survived without any bailouts.  Romney argues that the government should have insured loans provided by private companies instead the government directly lending to them.  The editorial argues it is highly unlikely that any of these options would have worked.

            On the other hand, however, the government did lose quite a bit.  The government lost 1.3 billion in its investment in Chrysler because it sold its 6% stock to FIAT at a 1.3 billion loss.  The government would suffer a 13 billion loss if it was to sell its stock today.  However, despite all this, it is about time the two leading Republican nominees admitted the effectiveness of the decision upheld by the Obama administration. 

USA Today has also published an editorial consisting of an opposing view titled Opposing view: Auto bailout leaves a dangerous legacy.  Only in Washingtoncan you call losing billions a success. This editorial claims that though some successes are apparent, these successes are overshadowed by the fact the government has set a very dangerous precedence of government intervention; a concept antithetical to democracy and capitalism.  The editorial maintains that if all companies went through the proper bankruptcy avenues provided by law, the outcome would have been much better, and additionally, the values of democracy and capitalism would not have been compromised.   The editorial concludes with the following admission:

No one knows precisely what would have happened had policymakers pursued a less interventionist road. But the road that was chosen — putting politicians in the driver's seat of a major American industry — was the more dangerous. "Successful" or not, it's no model for the future.  

A Critique of President Obama's State of the Union Address 2012 - Part 1

     I chose to write about President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address because of the fact that it is one of the most important speeches given by presidents annually.  The importance is magnified by the fact that 2012 is a presidential election year and the Republican primaries are under way.  The address outlines what the president has in mind for congress to deliberate on for that year.  This is based on Article II, Sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution that states, 

The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

     President Barack Obama delivered his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night January 25^th, 2012 in Washington D.C.  CNN.com has the full coverage of the speech in two parts; Part 1 and Part 2.  In this speech, the text of which can be found here, the President laid out many current issues and challenges facing the American people today and provided solutions while invoking Congress to pass them and calling on the American people to support him.

     The President began his speech by paying tribute to our heroes in uniform; the United States military, and their brave accomplishments and sacrifice.  He acknowledged credit for ending a war that stretched almost 10 years and took a heavy toll on the lives of those whose loved ones were killed in action.  He also spoke about the killing of Osama Bin Laden and top leaders of Al-Qaedah.  He proclaimed, "For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country."  Until here, he received a standing ovation from everyone in the audience and I join them in full agreement.  

     However, what he forgot to mention was the unnecessary killing of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.  I say unnecessary due to the fact that the war was justified on the grounds that Saddam Husain had weapons of mass destruction.  It is now known to the general public, thanks to our media reports, that there were no weapons of mass destruction.  Obama had initially opposed any attack on Iraq calling it a “dumb war” and in his landmark speech on June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt, he said, “Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world."  

     Then the President touched on some key economic issues like unemployment, taxes and Wall Street’s unbridled power.  He encouraged bringing jobs back to the U.S. and discouraged outsourcing of jobs.  He said that it was unfair that those who outsource jobs are able to circumvent taxes while those who hire inland are taxed.  He proposed that both should be taxed fairly.  He said, “It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.”  I totally agree with that because this is what is best for the American people. 

     He also mentioned that the wealthy have to pay their share of taxes.  He outlined that with an eye-opening example of Warren Buffet paying the same rate of taxes as his secretary.  This is known as the Buffet Rule. Any sane and sensible person would agree that it is far more difficult for a person earning $50k a year to pay 30% compared to a person earning $10 million.  He also supported tax breaks for small businesses so that they can prosper and hire more.

     He condemned unfair trade practices conducted by multinational companies in China and elsewhere, and promised to curb them.  He also promised to sign into law any legislation that would help put an end to pirated American goods and the proliferation of foreign products that lead to the loss of American jobs.  He proclaimed that he is willing to take any steps necessary to open up trade in any place on earth and that he will pass any law that will deter foreign companies gaining advantage over American companies.  He promised more inspection to prevent unsafe and counterfeit goods from entering the country.

To be continued…