Freedom of the Press: Is It Going to End during Trump’s Rule?

Another alarming news emerged based on US President Donald Trump’s tweet about some media companies. He recently tagged some top media outlets, specifically CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC News and The New York Times, as “fake news media.” Then, he made things worse when he labeled them as “the enemy of the American People.”

Does this mean that freedom of the press would soon collapse?

The White House Defense

Naturally, Trump’s camp defended the statement. The White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus clarified the whole thing during the NBC program “Meet the Press,” according to The Guardian. He claimed that Trump still follows the First Amendment. That means, the US president still believes in free press.


A Dictator’s Move

Some people haven’t noticed it yet, but Trump considering the media as the nation’s enemy is quite similar to the notorious dictator Josef Stalin’s move in the past. Stalin was a violent and cruel Soviet dictator who killed millions of innocent people.

One of the public officials who expressed disappointment out of Trump’s tweet is former president Barack Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Tom Malinowski. The American diplomat considered Trump as a “petty tyrant.”

Senator John McCain also commented against Trump. He believed that Trump’s move is the first step to dictatorship. He explained that a classic dictator act based on history was shutting down the media or press.


Protection of the Press

Freedom of the press is a big deal for the Supreme Court in the United States. The court even challenged public officials that libel can only be proved by the strongest facts and evidences. If the news is true, it is definitely not libel. Justice Hugo Black stated that protection of the press is essential because people need to be informed all the time.


The Danger

Sadly, some studies claimed that half of the US population already believed that the media already celebrates “too much freedom.” According to the Gallup poll’s recent report, majority of the Americans don’t trust the press anymore. The Fourth Estate was designed for public information – but the public is starting to reject it.

One trigger for the hate the media is getting nowadays is the rise of many outlets that freely voice out their opinions regarding certain issues. Many Americans find something that disagrees with their principles and views, and they immediately label it as biased or false. That’s why Trump can definitely convince a lot of people if ever he would decide to finally put a stop on free press.


The Solution

The press must do everything in their power to change what most Americans think about them nowadays. Maybe if most media outlets would report both the good and bad in the government, trust from the public would be gained once again. But for me, there is really nothing wrong about spilling the truth no matter how risky and disruptive it is to the administration. If all else is bad already, we can’t get something good out of it. There’s nothing left to do but inform the people because that’s what free press is all about.

Congress Ends Obama’s Rule in Prohibiting Guns to the Mentally Impaired

Just recently, the U.S. Congress submitted a legislation to President Donald Trump to block a rule created during Barack Obama’s presidency. That rule aimed to ban gun ownership among people who are mentally disabled. Is this a good thing?

The Senate supported the resolution with a winning vote of 57 against 43, according to Yahoo! News. The Republicans in the Congress seemed keen to abolish all implementations by the former United States president.

The Purpose of Obama’s Gun Control

Obama’s gun ownership rule led to more or less 75,000 people who couldn’t purchase a firearm because of their mental instabilities. The former US president’s implementation was created after the massacre of six staff and 20 students back in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut. Its main goal was to strengthen the system of official background check before owning a gun.

The unforgettable tragedy at Sandy Hook was all because of a young man who suffered from different psychological problems such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and Asperger’s syndrome. Adam Lanza did not only kill people at school – he also murdered his own mother before going to Sandy Hook. The big twist was killing himself in the end when he was already surrounded by authorities. Another catch was Lanza just using his mother’s gun.

After the massacre, Obama ordered the Social Security Administration to surrender names of their beneficiaries who are mentally impaired. Despite the good cause Obama was trying to make, lawmakers, advocacy groups supporting the disabled, and the National Rifle Association opposed the implementation.

Thoughts behind the Congress’s Repeal

Sen. Charles Grassley, a certified Republican from Iowa, was leading the repeal. He disliked the fact that the Obama administration stigmatized the mentally impaired. He reminded that the Constitution states the right of the disabled to own guns. The senator thought the regulation was weak because other mental problems were included such as sleep and eating disorders. He wanted the regulation to follow the federal mentally defective standard.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surely agreed with Sen. Grassley. It was included in the list of organizations that were strongly opposing Obama’s gun control. The members believed that the former president’s rule was discrimination to the mentally disabled because it was based on stereotype.

However, Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, was frustrated that he couldn’t convince his constituents that the Congress is just looking for trouble. He believed that with the resolution, severe mentally impaired people would have an easier time purchasing a gun. He said that since the mentally impaired couldn’t even manage their finances, this group of people might not be able to manage being responsible gun owners as well.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence president Dan Gross was also one of the people who contradicted the Congress’s resolution. He believed it was “heartless” because vulnerable people would be in danger. He stated that the votes were leading to expanding the market of gun sellers. The Prevent Gun Violence advocate implied that the mentally impaired could hurt themselves and other people with guns.

Final Thoughts

I think Obama’s gun ownership rule was totally for a good cause. The tragedy at Sandy Hook was not the only case of a mentally impaired person using guns to hurt people. Because of many gun violence tragedies in the past, rules must be implemented regarding gun control and ownership. Maybe if Obama’s administration just improved the regulation by providing exemptions, people would be more inclined to support the former president’s rule.

Why Latino Americans Pity President Donald Trump

Ever since his political campaigns when he was still a presidentiable, Donald Trump already stirred resentment among most immigrants, especially the Latino Americans. Now that he is the President of the United States, what more do Latino Americans have to say about the billionaire?

Donald Trump vs. Latino Americans

Héctor Tobar from The New York Times wrote a captivating article about what most Latino Americans feel about Trump’s win. Looking back on the day of the elections, millions of immigrants left their day jobs and daily routines just to vote for Hillary Clinton. Hope for Trump’s loss was strong.

Trump is now believed to be the kind of person who never backs down. He would keep fighting until his enemies are defeated. He would never give up on his goals. Maybe that’s why he became a billionaire and a president.

Even as the US president, Trump still talks about his promise of a huge wall border and programs against immigrants. Tobar believed that Trump would never change his mind as long as he is in the White House. “Make America great again” became a slogan for bullying young and old immigrants.

How Ridiculous Trump’s ‘Wall’ Is

Funny as it may seem, Trump’s “build a wall” campaign is actually redundant or unnecessary. People believing that are probably far from the American Southwest or just simply unaware. As early as 1996, strong detectors, barriers and fences were already built near San Diego. Surely, more obstacles were added as years went by. Even recent data about illegal immigrants showed that only a minimal percentage managed to enter American soil.

The Beauty and Struggle of Immigrants

Many places in the United States turned out to be even more beautiful, authentic and unique because of immigrants. Culture is represented in these places. Smart and hard-working immigrants became so successful in their own businesses. Many of them were even achievers in universities. Immigrants can speak and understand at least two languages. They understand suffering, so they work hard to have better lives.

Sadly, some Americans find that degrading to how they perceive their country. They associated it with the country’s decline. Some of their campaigns are so strong that in 2008, fake news spread about Latino Americans making California an unsafe place. Tobar found out that the every “fact” from that news was exaggerated and based on inaccurate data.

As soon as Trump became president, he started banning visitors from chosen major Muslim countries. Reports about kids yelling “Build a wall!” to immigrant children emerged. In Los Angeles, immigrant laborers were harassed by racist vigilantes.

Why Latino Americans Pity Trump and Anti-Immigrants

Hate towards another group of people is stemmed from inferiority complex and ignorance, according to Tobar’s conversation with his mother. That’s why anti-immigrants like Trump are pitied by Latino Americans. On the other hand, immigrants are people to be celebrated because of their inborn confidence. Their strengths are humility and persistence.

Final Thoughts

The challenges America has been facing since President Trump’s reign have just begun. There are still so many issues to be faced. Hopefully, everything would be fine in the end.

How President Donald Trump Can Possibly Destroy Free Market

Federal ethic rules dictate that having an official position in the government must not be used for personal gain. The rules weigh even more heavily on whoever becomes the president of the United States. With Donald Trump as the new US president, every move he makes is scrutinized. So, his recent tweet bashing a private company obviously drew attention from the public.

President Donald Trump vs. Nordstrom

The issue starts with Nordstrom cutting business ties with President Trump’s daughter Ivanka. In the company’s defense, sales of Ivanka’s clothing line was deteriorating which affected Nordstrom’s profit. A normal president would not comment or attack the company. But, Trump is different:

On the other hand, Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer defended the President’s tweet. He explained that Trump was just reacting as a father. He believed that Trump’s reaction was just normal because he was only standing up for a family member.

Many people started to call for a boycott of Trump-related businesses. Nordstrom is also one of the many big businesses who use their influence to campaign against Trump’s policies. The company issued a statement to its employees that they value immigrants, just after the President’s declaration of a new executive order.

The Imminent Danger

The previous chief ethics lawyer of the White House, Richard W. Painter, shared his predictions on what’s looming ahead because of Trump’s tweet. According to his article on The New York Times, Trump clearly intimidated Nordstrom. It didn’t help that the President even used his White House account to address his woes towards the issue.

Now, here’s the disadvantage of Nordstrom: executive branches under Trump administration would most likely don’t want anything to do now with the company. As a business establishment, Nordstrom interacts with agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Labor. This disadvantage doesn’t necessarily have to happen. But, it is certainly possible.

After the spectacle Trump made on social media, Nordstrom and other similar companies are now possibly cautious to continue their businesses under the new president’s administration. What if another company needs to drop Ivanka’s clothing line? The fear businesses acquire just because of the President is not normal nowadays. Business decisions that have to include whether the President would like it or not are weak ones. That could lead to the company’s downfall.

The Sacrifices Made for Free Market in the US

Based on American history, the forefathers started a revolution to completely eliminate Britain’s mercantilism. In the past, the King and the Parliament members prioritized a few selected businesses. Those businesses were obviously yielding to the powerful people’s personal interests. The revolutionaries deemed the whole process corrupt and abusive to small or independent businesses. For many years, the Republicans fought for an economy with markets free from any government-based decision.

Final Thoughts

A President using his power to promote his family’s businesses is one irresponsible and unethical move. But, a President who also sabotages the family’s rival businesses? Now, that’s another huge issue. Who would’ve thought that aside from immigrants, freedom of the press and other societal concerns, free market is also in danger now? The list may go on in the near future.

Why Millennials Are Not Interested to Become Politicians

Millennials have been receiving criticisms from older generations. From matters regarding technology obsession to reckless usage of money, the millennial generation just cannot escape from continuous scrutiny. Now, another interesting issue emerged that can affect the future government. Most millennials do not want to run for political office.

How the Study Proved It

A political scientist first presented this new millennial issue. Shauna Shames is Rutgers University-Camden’s assistant professor of political science. According to Futurity, her study is explained in her own book titled “Out of the Running: Why Millennials Reject Political Careers and Why It Matters.” Millennials are considered to be born between the 1980s to the late ‘90s.

Based on Shames’s 52 interviews with university students, millennials do not want to spend so much money in political campaigns. Shames supposedly had a different political science study before this. However, after gathering data from almost 800 students, she realized that information about political views is insufficient.

The massive number of graduate students in the survey comes from prestigious universities: Harvard Law, Boston’s Suffolk University Law School and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. These are known in history as schools where political candidates usually come from.

Shames considered these factors about the students in her interviews: backgrounds, ambitions, political experiences, principles, political opinions and view of the government. Her analysis involved the students’ expected costs and rewards in pursuing politics.

The Reasons

As stated before, the main reason why millennials do not want to run for office is expensive campaigning. But, there are other specific reasons:


  • Asking for Money: Millennials think that asking for campaign supporters to raise funds is an “unsavory” task. They are the generation of cliques and believers of the so-called “personal space.” Looking for supporters means compromising their personal space. A political candidate needs to mingle with different kinds of people.
  • Change of Principles: Millennials do not want to compromise their principles just to gain supporters.
  • Hate for Corruption: Millennials are very aware and cautious when it comes to corruption in the government. Asking for campaign money from supporters seems a corrupt move for them.
  • Fear of Media: Millennials prioritize privacy. They fear that media would scrutinize every detail of their personal lives, including their loved ones’. They believe it would lead to danger.
  • Dirty Politics: Due to nonstop negative news about the government, millennials know that politics is a dangerous world.

Final Thoughts

The good thing about this new pattern from millennials is the generation’s less greedy perception about politics. As seen from some controversial politicians, running for office can mean chasing the idea of power. Millennials do not want anything to do with that. They long for a better world. But, they believe that entering politics is not the solution. On the other hand, the danger with this pattern is a weak government in the future. The mistake of millennials is thinking too much about the negative gains of being a politician.  If future researches can change that, then millennials would be able to tolerate the cost.