THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

A pilot's theory on what might have happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Praying for the Passengers and Crew of MH 370 (Photo credit: people.com)

 

Since its mysterious disappearance (after taking off from Kuala Lumpur en route to Beijing) Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has been reported on ceaselessly by the media, inviting all kinds of speculations and theories as to what really happened on March 8, 2014. 

 

Because of what happened in 9/11, it is understandable why theories of terrorism would become a default assumption. Suspicion points to two Iranian passengers  with stolen passports and even the pilots and crew are being looked into as possible perpetrators. 

 

Was the plane hijacked? Was it hit by a meteor? Was its taken by aliens? Did it crash somewhere?

Unfortunately, no concrete evidence has been found to prove anything, except for a clearer timeline on the plane’s last communication messages (which used high-tech devices) before it disappeared.

 

If there was no hijacking or terrorism involved, then how else could the plane vanish? Others say

mechanical and/or electrical failure of the plane could be the cause. 

 

One theory I would like to share with you is made by Chris Goodfellow, described by wired.com as a Canadian Class-1 instrumented-rated pilot for multi-engine planes with more than 20 years of experience.

 

As Business Insider’s Henry Blodget reported, this is “the most plausible explanation for the plane’s disappearance we’ve heard yet”, based on the facts already presented.

 

Here is Goodfellow’s theory from a pilot’s perspective, as first published on Google+:

 

"Loaded 777 departs midnight from Kuala to Beijing. Hot night. Heavy aircraft.  About an hour out across the gulf towards Vietnam the plane goes dark meaning the transponder goes off and secondary radar tracking goes off. 

 

Two days later, we hear of reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar meaning the plane is being tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the straits of Malacca.

 

When I heard this, I immediately brought up Google Earth and I searched for airports in proximity to the track towards southwest.

 

The left turn is the key here. This was a very experienced senior Captain with 18,000 hours. Maybe some of the younger pilots interviewed on CNN didn't pick up on this left turn. We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always. Because if something happens you don't want to be thinking what are you going to do - you already know what you are going to do. Instinctively, when I saw that left turn with a direct heading I knew he was heading for an airport. Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala  Lumpur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance.

 

Take a look on Google Earth at this airport. This pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make that immediate turn back to the closest safe airport.

 

For me the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense if a fire. There was most likely a fire or electrical fire. In the case of fire, the first response is to pull all the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one.

 

If they pulled the busses the plane indeed would go silent. It was probably a serious event and they simply were occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, Navigate and lastly communicate. 

 

There are two types of fires. Electrical might not be as fast and furious and there might or might not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility given the timeline that perhaps there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires and it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes this happens with under inflated tires. Remember heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long run takeoff. There was a well-known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. A tire fire once going would produce horrific incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no-no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter but this will only last for a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one of my own in a flight bag and I still carry one in my briefcase today when I fly).

 

What I think happened is that they were overcome by smoke and the plane just continued on the heading probably on George (autopilot) until either fuel exhaustion or fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. I said four days ago you will find it along that route - looking elsewhere was pointless.  

 

This pilot, as I say, was a hero struggling with an impossible situation trying to get that plane to Langkawi. No doubt in my mind. That's the reason for the turn and direct route. A hijack would not have made that deliberate left turn with a direct heading for Langkawi. It would probably have weaved around a bit until the hijackers decided on where they were taking it.

 

Surprisingly none of the reporters , officials, other pilots interviewed have looked at this from the pilot's viewpoint. If something went wrong where would he go? Thanks to Google Earth I spotted Langkawi in about 30 seconds, zoomed in and saw how long the runway was and I just instinctively knew this pilot knew this airport. He had probably flown there many times. I guess we will eventually find out when you help me spread this theory on the net and some reporters finally take a look on Google Earth and put 2 and 2 together. Also a look at the age and number of cycles on those nose tires might give us a good clue, too.   

 

Fire in an aircraft demands one thing - you get the machine on the ground as soon as possible. There are two well-remembered experiences in my memory. The AirCanada DC9 which landed I believe in Columbus Ohio in the eighties. That pilot delayed descent and bypassed several airports.  He didn't instinctively know the closest airports. He got it on the ground eventually but lost 30 odd souls.  

 

In the 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia was another example of heroic pilots. They were 15 minutes out of Halifax but the fire simply  overcame them and they had to ditch in the ocean. Just ran out of time. That fire incidentally started when the aircraft was about an hour out of Kennedy. Guess what? The transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.

 

Goodfellow urges people who follow this mysterious story to “get on Google Earth and type in Palau Langkawi  and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. 2+2=4." He said it is the  simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction.

 

“Smart pilot. Just didn't have the time,” Goodfellow concluded.

 

 

TPS Status Update: May Pag-asa Pa!

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Many kababayans continue to send me messages and emails, inquiring about updates on the requested Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the Philippines. Four months after the Philippines was ravaged by Haiyan (Yolanda), there are those who have begun to wonder if TPS for the Philippines would be granted at all.

If approved by the US government, TPS will provide visa relief for qualified Filipinos with expired or expiring visas, allowing them to temporarily live in America without threat of deportation. They will receive work and travel authorization as well.

The TPS was requested by various Filipino-American groups, in order to enable undocumented Filipinos in America to help in the rebuilding and rehabilitation of typhoon-ravaged areas, caused by Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda in November of last year.

Let me share with you the latest information shared with me by TPS’ primary proponent, The Migrant Heritage Commission (MHC). MHC is a Fil-Am organization based in Washington DC. Here is an excerpt of the email sent to me by Atty. Arnedo Valera, one of MHC’s executive directors:

David P. Arulantham , Philippine Desk Officer , Department of State called me today and gave me this update.   According to him: “TPS process is moving along, and they are getting closer and closer in regards to the recommendation for TPS for the Philippines. The facts have been laid out and it is now in the desk of Secretary Kerry for review and final decision, after which it will be sent to the DHS Secretary.”

My teleconference call meeting with David [was] very positive. And there is no doubt in my mind that Sec. Kerry will make a favorable decision, recommending TPS for the Philippines. My optimism [was] shared by Ambassador Cuisia, during my informal meeting with him two weeks ago at the Philippine Humanitarian Coalition assembly at the Phil. Embassy.

All organizations and individuals supporting MHC’s initial call for TPS should stay and remain positive that President Obama [and] the US Dept. of Homeland Security will do the right thing. MHC is calling all organizations to refrain from engaging in “rhetorical remarks “ and negative comments linking TPS approval  to President Obama’s visit in the Philippines. There are other important and significant matters involved in President Obama’s state visit in the Philippines that is mutually beneficial to the national interests of both countries.  

Let the established protocol and  process take its course. MHC strongly believes that [the] Philippines will be designated under [the] TPS program in due time. The Department of Homeland Security is authorized, under Section 244 (b) of the INA, to designate a country under TPS .

 In the history of TPS designation, all the countries now under the TPS program, the recommendations made by the Department of State have been followed by the Department of Homeland Security. MHC has always believed that [the] TPS designation of the Philippines should be an integral part of the humanitarian assistance by the US government to the Philippines.

TPS was initiated and pioneered  by the Legal Resources Program of the Migrant Heritage Commission (on November 11, 2013, 3 days after Haiyan /Yolanda) on separate letters to President Obama, Secretary Kerry of the Dept. of State and then Acting Secretary of DHS,  Sec. Beers.

  On November 10, two days after Haiyan/Yolanda , I presented the plan to my co-executive directors, Jesse Gatchalian  and Grace Valera-Jaramillo to call for TPS designation for the Philippines. MHC likewise convinced President Aquino to make [the] same request for TPS.  Since then, MHC’s  voice in the wilderness has evolved into a national clarion call for TPS by several organizations and individuals.

Our call for TPS is a collective effort of various organizations and individuals who believe that TPS designation of the Philippines should be an integral part of the humanitarian assistance extended by the US government to the Philippines.  Let us all stay positive and be united for  [this] TPS call!! Mabuhay and God bless our community.  

 Arnedo S. Valera, Esq.

Grace Valera-Jaramillo  

Jesse Gatchalian  Executive Directors,

 Migrant Heritage Commission

 

MHC 'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:

 

 

 

Electronic gadgets should be banned for kids 12 and below, experts say

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

(Photo credit: www.androidios.com)

 

MANY of us probably felt guilty, after reading this warning.

After all, we think that we are helping stimulate our kids’ mental faculty when we allow them to watch TV or videos and play games via electronic gadgets. We believe we are helping them learn their ABCs and 123s ,new languages, even their analytical thinking and eye-motor coordination.

It is true, though, that there are times when these electronic gadgets help a lot in keeping our kids preoccupied, especially when we need to attend to other things like household chores, work, or simply a need for a quiet “me” or “couple” time.

However, it can't be denied that there are others who let these electronic babysitters take an almost “full-time job” in raising their kids. Now we know doing such could bring dangerous consequences.

As concerned parents, these new findings by experts on child psychology and psychiatry are worth reading and discussing. Maybe they can answer some questions we’ve always had: why many kids now suffer from ADHD, obesity, emotional and behavioral problems, aggression, and many other challenges which seem more persistent with the new generation.

Let me share with you this piece by Pediatric Occupational Therapist Chris Rowan, published by the Huffington Post.

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics state  infants aged 0-2 years should not have any exposure to technology, 3-5 years be restricted to one hour per day, and 6-18 years restricted to 2 hours per day (AAP 2001/13, CPS 2010). Children and youth use4-5 times the recommended amount of technology, with serious and often life threatening consequences (Kaiser Foundation 2010, Active Healthy Kids Canada 2012). Handheld devices (cell phones, tablets, electronic games) have dramatically increased the accessibility and usage of technology, especially by very young children (Common Sense Media, 2013). 

As a pediatric occupational therapist, I’m calling on parents, teachers and governments to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years. Following are 10 research-based reasons for this ban. Please visit zonein.ca to view the Zone’in Fact Sheet for referenced research.

1. Rapid brain growth

Between 0 and 2 years, infant’s brains triple in size (Preview) , and continue in a state of rapid development to 21 years of age (Christakis 2011). Early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof. Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), has been shown to be associated with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity and decreased ability to self-regulate, e.g. tantrums (Small 2008, Pagini 2010).

2. Delayed development

Technology use restricts movement, which can result in delayed development. One in three children now enter school developmentally delayed, negatively impacting literacy and academic achievement (HELP EDI Maps 2013). Movement enhances attention and learning ability (Preview) (Ratey 2008). Use of technology under the age of 12 years is detrimental to child development and learning (Rowan 2010).

3. Epidemic obesity

TV and video game use correlates with increased obesity (Tremblay 2005). Children who are allowed a device in their bedrooms have 30% increased incidence of obesity (Feng 2011). One in four Canadian, and one in three US children are obese (Tremblay 2011). 30% of children with obesity will develop diabetes, and obese individuals are at higher risk for early stroke and heart attack, gravely shortening life expectancy (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2010). Largely due to obesity, 21st century children may be the first generation many of whom will not outlive their parents (Professor Andrew Prentice, BBC News 2002).

4. Sleep deprivation

60 percent of parents do not supervise their child’s technology usage, and 75% of children are allowed technology in their bedrooms (Kaiser Foundation 2010). 75 percent of children, aged 9 and 10 years, are sleep-deprived to the extent that their grades are detrimentally impacted (Boston College 2012).

5. Mental illness 

Technology overuse is implicated as a causal factor in rising rates of child depression, anxiety, attachment disorder, attention deficit, autism, bipolar disorder, psychosis and problematic child behavior (Bristol University 2010, Mentzoni 2011, Shin 2011, Liberatore 2011, Robinson 2008). One in six Canadian children have a diagnosed mental illness, many of whom are on dangerous psychotropic medication (Waddell 2007).

6. Aggression 

Violent media content can cause child aggression (Anderson, 2007). Young children are increasingly exposed to rising incidence of physical and sexual violence in today’s media. “Grand Theft Auto V” portrays explicit sex, murder, rape, torture and mutilation, as do many movies and TV shows. The US has categorized media violence as a Public Health Risk due to causal impact on child aggression (Huesmann 2007). Media reports increased use of restraints and seclusion rooms with children who exhibit uncontrolled aggression.

7. Digital dementia

High speed media content can contribute to attention deficit, as well as decreased concentration and memory, due to the brain pruning neuronal tracks to the frontal cortex (Christakis 2004, Small 2008). Children who can’t pay attention can’t learn.

8. Addictions

As parents attach more and more to technology, they are detaching from their children. In the absence of parental attachment, detached children can attach to devices, which can result in addiction (Rowan 2010). One in 11 children aged 8-18 years are addicted to technology (Gentile 2009).

9. Radiation emission

In May of 2011, the World Health Organization classified cell phones (and other wireless devices) as a category 2B risk (possible carcinogen) due to radiation emission (WHO 2011). James McNamee with Health Canada in October of 2011 issued a cautionary warning stating “Children are more sensitive to a variety of agents than adults as their brains and immune systems are still developing, so you can’t say the risk would be equal for a small adult as for a child.” (Globe and Mail 2011). In December, 2013 Dr. Anthony Miller from the University of Toronto’s School of Public Health recommend that based on new research, radio frequency exposure should be reclassified as a 2A (probable carcinogen), not a 2B (possible carcinogen). American Academy of Pediatrics requested review of EMF radiation emissions from technology devices, citing three reasons regarding impact on children (AAP 2013).

10. Unsustainable

The ways in which children are raised and educated with technology are no longer sustainable (Rowan 2010). Children are our future, but there is no future for children who overuse technology. A team-based approach is necessary and urgent in order to reduce the use of technology by children.”

Technology Use Guidelines for Children and Youth

 

"NO" to US involvement in conflict between Russia and Ukraine

By Gel Santos Relos

 

U.S. President Barack Obama's leadership in the global arena faces new challenges with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Russia vs Ukraine crisis. (Photo credit: Foxnews)

WHEN news broke that Russia deployed troops to Ukraine, most Americans, including kababayans, cried “ENOUGH” to wars. They would not want the U.S. to act as “Big Brother” or “Global Police” anymore to help Ukraine.

“Americans are more likely than not to say that the United States has no responsibility to get involved in Ukraine, even under extreme circumstances,” said a new poll by Huffington Post/YouGov, which was conducted from March 1-2.

Forty-six percent of the respondents said the U.S. should NOT be held responsible for protecting Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion; only 18 percent of Americans said America should be responsible. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed were unsure of their position.

Kababayans expressed a more definitive vote: 73 percent of Balitang America's viewers opposed the U.S.' involvement in the Russia vs Ukraine crisis.

In terms of political leaning, based on the survey: Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike agree that it is not America's responsibility to protect Ukraine.

This sentiment is understandable, given that Americans are still hurting because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the nation’s debt and budget deficit problems, many say that scarce resources should be appropriated toward helping the economy grow, as well as financing social services and infrastructure development.

But as CNN reported, the standoff between Russia and Ukraine has a significant effect in global markets. It has raised oil prices since Russia is a key exporter of oil and natural gas.

Meantime, Republicans blame President Barack Obama’s failed foreign policy, for this escalating conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

In an interview with CNN, Sen. John McCain said the U.S. has lost its credibility as a Superpower, when it did not attack Syria but crossed the “red line,” following the Assad regime’s massacre of its own people. Obama chose tot be diplomatic instead and averted war.

Sen. McCain also criticized the Obama administration for scaling down the military force. The senator argued that it was a move that further weakened America’s standing as a Superpower in the world, and further embolden leaders (like Russian President Vladimir Putin) because ““nobody believes in America’s strength anymore.”

McCain further said that military action should not be ruled out in dealing with this crisis.

The U.S. and many European countries demand that Moscow scale back its deployment of troops in Ukraine's southern region of Crimea, or face sanctions and isolation as a consequence.  Putin warned that any sanctions the West places on Russia will backfire.

In a press conference in Moscow, Putin blamed the West for anarchy in Ukraine, accusing it of encouraging an unconstitutional coup in the country. 

These were Putin's first remarks, when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kyiv last month and landed in Russia. Ukraine's new government wants to put Pres. Yanukovych on trial, for the deaths of over 80 people during protests in Kyiv.

Russia says its soldiers are protecting the human rights of worried, vulnerable Russian speakers from the interim government in Ukraine.

 From America's and the European Union's  perspective, Russia is violating international law.

The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) reported on Tuesday that Pres. Putin have pulled his forces back from the Ukrainian border on Tuesday, but Moscow said reserves the right to use all means to protect Russians there.

BBC reports that tensions remained high Tuesday in the strategic Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, with troops loyal to Moscow firing warning shots to ward off protesting Ukrainian soldiers.

For a deeper understanding of the issue, let me share with you this primer by CNN:

 

What does Russia want to achieve?

CNN commentators suggested that Putin has overplayed his hand by sending troops into Crimea, creating a situation that will hurt both Ukraine and Russia. Others say it's a calculated move, based on the assessment that the West will fail to come up with a strong, unified response.

"Putin's broader plan is to recreate some kind of 'Soviet Union lite,' a ring of countries under Moscow's control, with the goal of boosting Russia's geopolitical standing," wrote Ulrich Speck, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Europe think tank in Brussels.

If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, Speck says it augurs badly for other neighboring countries with Russian populations. He points to Moscow's "de facto-annexation" of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, after the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008.

"Beyond Ukraine, this conflict is also a defining moment for future Russian foreign policy." Speck says.

"If Moscow succeeds in Ukraine, it will come to the conclusion that it can act like an empire," he added.

What is Ukraine saying?

Ukraine's Interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk (who has accused Moscow of declaring war) vowed that his government will not give up Crimea.

"Nobody will give Crimea away," he said. "There are no grounds for the use of force against civilians and Ukrainians, and for the entry of the Russian military contingent."

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said that if diplomacy fails to persuade Moscow to withdraw its forces from the Ukrainian region of Crimea, the world should apply the "strongest means" on Russia.

Asked by CNN’s Christaine Amanpour if she was calling for the West to use military force against Russia, Tymoshenko avoided giving a direct answer, saying she "cannot solve this issue."

Russia says that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whom Moscow still recognizes as the country's legitimate leader, requested that Russia send in military forces.

What is the atmosphere like in Crimea?

Reporters on the ground say the standoff is a strange one. Russian soldiers, who are not wearing any military insignia, have taken up positions around the region. They have blockaded Ukrainian troops in their bases. But for the time being, the situation remains surprisingly calm.

It has been "a very low-key kind of invasion," CNN correspondent Diana Magnay reported Monday from Simferopol, the Crimean capital.

But Russian forces "have complete operational control of the Crimean peninsula," a senior US administration official told CNN.

It appears that there is a "war of information" in the region "between those who watch Russian state TV and those who are getting their news from the West, none of them listening to the calls from Kiev for unity in this country," Magnay reported.

BEWARE: You can be sentenced to 20+ years in jail for misbehaving in flight!

By Gel Santos Relos

on Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Unruly Pinoy Passenger Aboard PAL (Photot credit: Balitang America)

 

MANY Filipinos in America prefer to fly Philippine Airlines (PAL) when visiting the Motherland, not only because of the shorter travel time, but also because they feel at home flying the flag carrier of the Philippines.

One kababayan felt so at home, he might just spend the next 20 years of his life in jail.

As Balitang America’s LA Correspondent Steve Angeles reported, a Pinoy passenger was arrested by authorities for an alleged drunken rampage on board a US-bound PAL flight.

The 53-year-old, California-based security guard Edgar Nonga admitted to federal authorities that he already had four alcoholic drinks at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) lounge before boarding PAL flight  PR 112 bound for Los Angeles.

Upon boarding, Nonga (who visited relatives in the Philippines with his parents) helped himself to a bottle of whiskey, which he saw in the plane’s galley. The PAL crew decided to cut him off, which caused an altercation between them and Nonga.

According to a witness testimony in a federal affidavit, Nonga began cursing at flight attendants in Tagalog. He even threatened to have one killed if they did not give him another drink.

Some witnesses claim Nonga then attempted to kiss the female flight attendant, who tried to make him stop drinking. A male flight attendant (identified as RL) came to the rescue and stopped Nonga from harassing his co-worker.

This enraged Nonga even more. He began punching the male flight attendant in the torso and head.One testimony claims Nonga was even holding a key as if it were a knife, during the alleged punching spree.

Crew members were finally able to restrain Nonga and have him return to his seat. Nonga’s mother, who was very frustrated with her intoxicated and misbehaving son, then spoke to the attendants and told them to “do what they have to do” because Nonga wasn’t listening to his parents either.

Nonga then came back for more action, eventually punching RL again. With the help of passengers and other crew members, Nonga was restrained again, until the plane reached its destination.

Nonga was arrested upon touchdown of flight PR 112 in Los Angeles on Sunday morning.

He now faces federal charges for disrupting a flight crew. If proven guilty, Nonga may spend the next 20 years of his life in prison  — the maximum sentence for this kind of offense.

During the investigation and according to the federal affidavit, Nonga admitted to being drunk on the plane and to helping himself to whiskey when he saw a bottle in the galley. However, he told investigators that he does not remember punching RL (the male flight attendant) nor does he remember trying to kiss a female flight attendant.

Nonga said that he recalls being pinned down, waking up handcuffed and sitting next to a big man for the final six hours of the flight.

Nonga is a former US navy man, who claims that he has no history of being diagnosed with any mental illness and that he was honorably discharged from the Navy. Officials, however, say Nongo was arrested for drunk driving in 2010.

His federal public defender declined to comment on the case.

Nonga has been set free on a $10,000 bail. He is scheduled to appear in federal court on April 1, during which time he is expected to plead guilty or not guilty.

WHAT Nonga did wrong  (and this would have to be proven in court during the trial) was to interfere with the duties of a crew member, when he behaved badly inflight. This in violation of federal law.

Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that: “No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated.”

The Federal Aviation Authority website even stipulates :

“The repercussions for passengers who engage in unruly behavior can be substantial. They can be fined by FAA or prosecuted on criminal charges.

As part of the FAA’s Reauthorization Bill (April 16, 2000) FAA can propose up to $25,000 per violation for unruly passenger cases. Previously, the maximum civil penalty per violation was $1,100. One incident can result in multiple violations.

So the next time you fly, be sure to behave well. If you cannot handle your alcohol well, don’t even drink. Let Nonga’s inflight misadventure be a lesson learned.

- See more at: http://asianjournal.com/editorial/you-can-be-sentenced-to-20-years-in-jail-for-misbehaving-in-flight/#sthash.JU9QdUM6.dpuf

Does online libel curtail freedom of expression? Compare US. vs PH Libel Laws

By Gel Santos Relos 

 

Aquino defends online libel law (Photo credit: cablenewsasia.com)

 

February 25 marked the 28th anniversary of the People Power Revolution -- a proud moment in the history of the Filipino people when we commemorate how we toppled the Marcos dictatorship and reclaimed our fundamental rights in a democracy.

 But a few days leading up to this commemoration, the Supreme Court (SC)  made a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of most parts of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which included the controversial provision that punishes online libel. 

 “Ironic that SC upheld constitutionality of cyber libel near anniversary of EDSA. The son now running scared like the despot! Sad!”,  lamented activist, lawyer and UP Professor Harry Roque on twitter. 

 The irony alluded to was the fact that it was President Benigno Aquino III, son of the Philippines’ icon of democracy  Ninoy and Cory Aquino, who signed this contentious bill into law. 

 Critics of the president and of the online libel law contend that this will curtail freedom of expression, one of the very important rights Filipinos fought so hard for in the People Power Revolution.

 Protests and criticisms of human rights and press freedom advocates followed, prompting the SC to issue a temporary restraining order,  pending review and ruling of the appeal questioning the constitutionality of the law. But with the February 18 decision of the highest court, the provision on internet libel could now be fully enforced.

 The provision considers online libel as a criminal offense.  A person or entity who posts something (in words or pictures) that is false -a post that is intended to harm the reputation of another by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others -- may be arrested, detained, and imprisoned because of libel.

 PNoy justified the SC ruling, saying: “Will it curtail freedom of expression? I don’t think that’s the objective.”

 “You, as responsible journalists, you have rights. Those rights have their limits, right? We were taught in school that your rights end where they impinge on the rights of others,” Aquino said.

 

Libel Laws: United States vs Philippines 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES, there is no existence of criminal defamation, libel or insult laws on the federal level.  Libel in America is considered a civil offense, where a person or entity suing for libel may only collect monetary damages from the person who published or posted libelous materials. This is meant to remind people or entity not to abuse press freedom and freedom of expression.

Private individuals can sue for libel for statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Again, only damages and no jail time. 

 What about libel cases filed by public officials and public figures? 

 In the United States,-- a plaintiff (complainant) who is considered a public figure or official,  has a higher standard of proof in a libel case than a private plaintiff, based on Supreme Court decisions. 

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the SC ruled that public figure or official must prove that the publisher or broadcaster acted with “actual malice” in reporting derogatory information.

 “Actual malice,” in libel does not mean ill will or intent to harm. Instead, it means “the defendant knew that the challenged statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.”

If an individual is classified as a public official, defamatory statements relating to any aspects of their lives must meet the actual malice standard of fault for there to be liability. Moreover, even after passage of time or leaving office, public officials must still meet the actual malice standard because the public has a continued interest in the misdeeds of its leaders. (via Digital Media Law website)

The TRUTH, therefore, becomes the DEFENSE of the defendant in libel cases filed by public officials and public figures. 

Another defense is the RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO EXPRESS OPINIONS AND FAIR COMMENT on public figures, no matter how scathing or critical. This defense covers expressions of opinion, everything from movie reviews to columns on the op-ed page. 

 

IN THE PHILIPPINES, I was told “malice” is presumed, “ill will” is presumed, despite accuracy and truth in story/ statements posted, even for comments/statements about public officials. 

 The burden of proof (to defend one's self and to prove that there is no malice in the pos) lies with the defendant, instead of according presumption of innocence to the defendant.

 “Truth is NOT a defense in PH libel. If public official claims you have malice aforethought, patay kang bata ka, ” tweeted newspaper reporter, writer and blogger Raissa Robles.

 Malice aforethought in libel is defined as a conscious, intentional wrongdoing to damage reputation of another when we post or publish something.

Now that libel laws cover new media, (like the internet), human rights advocates believe it will be the government's way to intimidate independent bloggers and ordinary citizens and to prevent them from criticizing the government. 

 Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who is a constitutional law expert and former trial court judge as well, said that the SC's decision to uphold the constitutionality of online libel is “erroneous”. She vowed to lead fight against online libel and to repeal the law.

 Santiago argued against the continued criminalization of libel in the Philippines. She said that the ruling poses "a very significant constraint" on the fundamental rights to free speech and free expression, which are protected in the Constitution. 

Santiago also pointed out that the ruling is “vague”, and may create more problems when implemented. 

 “Of course, the Supreme Court said it is only the sender who is liable, not the person who is commenting or who is receiving. But what do these words mean? Who is the sender? The service provider? The individual netizen? Or if they’re a group, how do we identify them? Or even worse, if they are not using their true identities, how are you going to go beyond what they profess to be their identities on the Internet? That is the main problem today,”she said.

Meantime, Raissa Robles wrote on her blog how the online libel law is a "mockery of EDSA People Power":

"The Internet gives more rights to the ordinary person. Not just to the journalist but to anybody who can access the Internet.

 Today, political leaders can get firsthand information on how ordinary voters really feel about their governance by going to Facebook and Twitter. Of course, they would have to be discerning but they will get a good idea.

This is the world that Internet libel wishes to control and reduce.

 So when PNoy said, 'your rights end where they impinge on the rights of others,' this really has to be placed in context of Philippine reality: The rich and the powerful have more rights. True, ordinary people on the Internet impinge on the rights of the rich and the powerful, but it is because they want to equalize the rights.

And isn’t that in our social contract – the 1987 Constitution?

Article XIII, Section 1 of the Constitution states that 'The Congress shall give the highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.' " 

Michael Martinez Highlights Need for More Philippine Government Support in Sports

By Gel Santos Relos 

Op-Ed article on the Asian Journal

 

Michael Martinez: Proud to be Filipino in Sochi Winter Olympics

Seventeen-year-old Michael Christian Martinez has put the Philippines in the spotlight during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia — ranking 19th in the figure skating competition during his Olympic debut. Michael was also the only figure skater who made it to the Top 5 most talked about Olympic athletes on Facebook during the first week of Winter Olympics, and figure skating was the sport that attracted the most interest.

Before Sochi, Michael has won 19 medals in other international competitions. He made history,  being the first-ever figure skater from Southeast Asia to compete in the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics and in the 2014 Sochi Winter Games.

He may not have won a medal for the Philippines in Sochi, but Michael has already made his country and kababayans proud. He has defied the odds, given the very little support serious athletes get from the Philippine government — from early training to actual competition in the global arena.

 

Michael's Challenges On His Road to Sochi Winter Olympics

Photo Credit: PhilNews

Michael started skating in 2005 at the young age of 8, reportedly training in the ice skating rink of SM Megamall. Since he started competing internationally in 2009, his family has been covering the costs for his training and competitions.

Our homegrown star athlete wouldn’t have made it to Sochi without the help of people from the private sector, who believe in Michael. “We are truly thankful to Shoemart (SM), to the Philippine Skating Union, and to the Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) for their help,” said his mom, Maria Teresa Martinez, in a report by ABS-CBN News.

I just found out myself that the POC is a private agency, and not a branch of government.  It was through the assistance of POC that Michael was able to obtain a scholarship from the International Olympic Committee’s Solidarity Scholarship Fund. This scholarship would award $1,500 a month for eight months, until February 2014 , and would include the $500 fee for the Michael’s coach.The POC has reportedly already delivered the stipend from July to October, while the balance has yet to be given.

Mrs. Martinez also expressed gratitude for the financial support extended by SM Investment Corp. Since May 2013, Michael received P150,000 from SM for 10 months. Michael’s mom said that while this might seem like a big amount, it is still not enough to cover all the expenses in the very expensive sport of figure skating.

“From SM we are getting about $111 a day. That is already a big help but it is still not enough since, when we train in the US, we spend at least $400 a day just to cover the coaches’ fees ($100-$150/hour) and $40 for ice rink time ($10-16/ hour). That amount is just not enough to prepare an athlete for the Olympics. And it takes many years of training to be in the Olympics, not just 10 months,” she clarified with ABS-CBN News.

Mrs. Martinez disclosed that there are also additional expenses for international competitions. In 2013 alone, Michael participated in nine competitions in Europe and the US. After Sochi, Michael will proceed to Moscow where he will be preparing for the 2014 ISU Junior World Championships. Mrs. Martinez said the expenses for his preparation period at the Novogorsk Training Center in Moscow exceed $420 a day just for coaching fees, excluding accommodation expenses.

Michael’s mother said that they had finally received the pledged $50 daily allowance or $1,200 for 24 days for Michael’s sojourn in Sochi from the Philippine Sports Commission, which was delivered by POC executive secretary Gina Calaguas on February 13.

As ABS-CBN News reported, Mrs. Martinez confirmed that Calaguas had also given $7,200, but this was directly to Michael’s Russian coach Viktor Kudryavtsev on that same date, as payment for his coaching duties while in Sochi (covering the period Jan. 30 to the end of February). Mrs. Martinez said Kudryavtsev has been training the Michael since the end of December,  and will continue to do so until the last days of March.

Imagine how much more our athletes could achieve internationally, if they get full support from the government, as in the case of richer countries like US, Canada, Japan, and even Russia. This is why news about government officials pocketing tax payers’ money infuriates many kababayans. These funds could have been put to better use, if they were instead appropriated to finance better sports programs in the Philippines.

Kababayans around the world have now been expressing all out support for Michael Martinez and other Pinoy athletes, shelling out their own hard earned money to help them become more competitive in international competitions.

Lawmakers like Tito Sotto and Manny Pacquiao have filed resolutions to honor Michael Martinez for the honor he has given the country in Sochi.  

While this is a good move from the government, what will be better is a clear government policy and program that supports sports for Filipinos from childhood, up until they compete in the global arena.

 

The Benefits and Importance of Sport in Society

The benefits and importance of sports in society go beyond fame and bragging rights.  As the United Nations states in its website: “Sport has a unique power to attract, mobilize and inspire. By its very nature, sport is about participation. It is about inclusion and citizenship. It stands for human values such as respect for the opponent, acceptance of binding rules, teamwork and fairness.”

Moreover, “Sport plays a significant role as a promoter of social integration and economic development in different geographical, cultural and political contexts. Sport is a powerful tool to strengthen social ties and networks, and to promote ideals of peace, fraternity, solidarity, non-violence, tolerance and justice.”

The UN website further states that according to the Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group, sport is seen to have the most benefits in: -Individual development -Health promotion and disease prevention -Promotion of gender equality -Social integration and the development of social capital -Peace building and conflict prevention/resolution -Post-disaster/trauma relief and normalization of life -Economic development -Communication and social mobilization.

But the UN warns that sport is not a cure-all for development problems. “As a cultural phenomenon, it is a mirror of society and is just as complex and contradictory. As such, sport can also have negative side effects such as violence, corruption, discrimination, hooliganism, nationalism [parochial], doping and fraud. To enable sport to unleash its full positive potential, emphasis must be placed on effective monitoring and guiding of sports activities.” 

Op-Ed article on the Asian Journal

No more immigration petitions for married children and siblings of US citizens?

MyAsian Journal Column:

No more immigration petitions for married children and siblings of US citizens?.

ONE of the more compelling reasons why many kababayans are pushing for the passing of a comprehensive immigration reform is to facilitate the speeding up of family reunification.

This is especially true for those who have been waiting for many years for their ates or kuyas (with their spouses and kids) to finally re-join the family, after being left behind in the Philippines because they were already married or have aged out when the petition of their parents became current.

It also holds true for nanays and tatays, who have been hoping for decades to have their brothers and sisters join them here in America, in order to fulfill Lolo and Lola’s wish for the whole family to be together again.

There are also many undocumented kababayans, who have not been able to go back home for years or decades, due to fear of being barred in America.

They have missed so many birthdays, Christmases, graduations, weddings -- even funerals.

They are hoping that with the passing of the immigration reform bill, they may finally be able to travel freely and visit the Philippines once again, without worrying about being barred from the US and being able to reunite with their loved ones, once their immigration petitions have been approved.

But with the new proposals being discussed in the Senate, many fear that immigration reform may worsen the situation -- instead, it may do the exact opposite, and these hopeful kababayans may not be reunited with their families, nor fulfill their American dream.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is part of a bipartisan Senate group negotiating the bill, said their aim is to reform the immigration system so it has a “much clearer economic focus.”

As explained by Balitang America’s Pinoy panawagan Legal Counsel Atty. Lou Tancinco, the bi-partisan group of eight US senators is therefore considering decreasing the number of family visas and eliminating two family-based categories.

Although there is no final proposal yet, Atty. Tancinco said that it is likely that the third and fourth family preference categories will be eliminated.

The petitions that will be affected are those by US citizens on behalf of adult, married children and the petitioners’ brothers and sisters.

This plan will reduce family visas by some 90,000 and will limit the ability of US citizens to petition relatives.

Explaining the rationale of this proposal, Sen. Graham said: “Green cards should be reserved for the nuclear family. Green cards are economic engines for the country. This is not a family court we’re dealing with here. We’re dealing about an economic need.”

As the Associated Press reported, unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States awards a much larger proportion of green cards to family members of US citizens and permanent residents than to foreigners with job prospects here.

Green cards are permanent resident visas and allow holders to eventually become citizens in three to five years.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, about two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the United States is family-based, compared to about 15 percent that is employment-based. The remainder is largely humanitarian.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, there is an annual cap of 226,000 in the family-based category and about 154,000 in the employment-based preferences.

Atty. Tancinco said that the senators are more inclined to increase the allocation of visas for the employment-based category, by reducing the numbers available for family-based petitions -- thus maintaining the total worldwide visa quota.

She commented that the senators’ proposal is based on the assumption that the total number of visas available should not exceed what is provided for by existing law.

Atty. Tancinco lamented that instead of issuing more, visas are simply going to be reallocated.

“The real solution to backlog in both family and employment categories is for visa numbers to be increased across the board, instead of reallocating from one category to the other.”

“The family is undeniably the source of immigrant strength and vitality. When there is a strong family unit and support, immigrants thrive better resulting in significant social and economic benefits,” Atty. Tancinco argued.

“Family members also bring skills and resources. They build businesses and become successful entrepreneurs,” she added.

True enough, we see this scenario in a lot of Filipino families living in the United States.

Atty. Lou pointed out that when family members are petitioned and join their relatives, they can provide much needed care to the elders and to minor children. She said the latter is true, especially in Filipino families with strong networks that care for elderly parents and support minor children.

“If the goal is to attract the best and brightest, making it difficult for relatives to immigrate may produce the opposite effect. Highly skilled and talented individuals may be reluctant to apply for visas to go to the US if other family members will not be able to join them,” she said.

Atty. Tancinco reiterated the point she raised in an earlier interview that I shared through this column. She said there could only be true immigration reform if the immigration system is amended to increase the total numerical worldwide cap, and to increase the per country limit. Atty. Tancinco contended that this is the way to resolve the backlog and to foster family unity.

She argued that favoring employment-based over family-based petitions will not really achieve the set goal.

“When talented and highly-skilled individuals are allowed to petition their families, the employment-based system is actually also strengthened,” Atty. Tancinco explained.

“The immigration system for allocating visas should harmonize family and employment objectives. Only then can we say that there will be a sincere, fair and humane immigration reform.”

What do you think? Should petitions for skilled workers be prioritized over family members, so that the US immigration system will have a “much clearer economic focus?”

A new dawn in the Catholic Church: Long live Pope Francis!

My Asian Journal Column:

A new dawn in the Catholic Church: Long live Pope Francis!

I HAVE been following and writing about the conclave and the election of Pope Benedict XVI’s successor. But I was pleasantly surprised by my own emotions, when I saw white smoke coming out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel.

I was glued to the TV screen just before I drove to the TFC studio for Balitang America. I knew I had to leave soon, but I just had to hear the church bells ring to confirm that the next pope has been chosen.

From the time the white smoke came out of the chimney, it took a little more than an hour before the name of the new Pope was made public. The Balitang America staff watched history unfold together before we delivered the news to our TFC (The Filipino Channel) viewers.

“Habemus Papam” or “We have a Pope!”

Some kababayans were disappointed that it was not Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle that the 115 cardinals elected in the conclave to be the 266th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. But it did not take long for most of them, this writer included, to love the new pope.

The chosen one is Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a 76-year-old Jesuit priest from Argentina.

He was the one who came out of the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

His name was not among those rumored to be top contenders for the papacy, so I initially had no idea about his background. I could only look at him as he waved to more than 100,000 Catholics and tourists, who were drenched in rain at St. Peter’s Square.

There was something serene about his aura. Even before he spoke -- his eyes, radiant smile, and gentle demeanor already reflected a humble, caring soul. 

As he spoke to the people in the Square and to Catholics from all over the world; as he requested for the people to pray for him and bless him; as he bestowed his blessing to the crowd; as he lead “The Lord’s Prayer,” “Hail Mary” and “Glory Be,” -- his gentle, reassuring voice calmed my spirit and warmed my heart. I prayed with him.

At that point, I felt a trusting connection with the new pontiff, who chose to be called Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi.

The prayer of St. Francis of Assisi has been my prayer, whenever I need to be grounded on my faith.

“Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

where there is injury,pardon;

where there is doubt, faith;

where there is despair, hope;

where there is darkness, light;

and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek

to be consoled as to console;

to be understood as to understand;

to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;

it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen”

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose the name “Francis” as his papal name to honor the 12th century saint known for his simple lifestyle, austerity and dedication to the works of mercy.

My respect for the new pope grew even deeper, when I found out that  he has always lived the prayer of St. Francis in his life.

As you have probably heard by now, Pope Francis as archbishop of Buenos Aires (then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio), moved out of the mansion owned by his diocese and instead chose to live in a small apartment. He took the bus to work, washed his own clothes and lived the life of an ordinary person.

He is a man reported to have deep concern and love for the poor.

Even after being chosen as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis still lives humbly.

He reportedly did not sit on the traditional throne to accept the oaths of allegiance from the cardinals after his election last Wednesday.

He also refused to ride in a private car back to the Santa Marta Residence that night, choosing instead to ride the bus with the cardinals who elected him, personally paid his own hotel bills.

I have always prayed the next Pope would be a Jesuit -- that prayer was answered in Pope Francis. Jesuits are known to be free thinkers, progressive and open minded--think Father Joaquin Bernas and the Ateneo de Manila University brand of education. 

The Jesuits’ motto is to help souls by being a “man for others.” Pope Francis is a living testament to that.

Pope Francis’ lifelong mission is to bring the Catholic Church closer to people. His behavior as a Cardinal then, and as the Pope now, will help knock down the perceived walls of aristocracy that alienates the Vatican from many Catholics.

Through his example, he shows that in order to be a follower of God, one must serve rather than be served.

We have always prayed that our next pope would be somebody who reminds us of Jesus -- not just through what he preaches, but through the life he lives.

As LA Times reported, Pope Francis himself said last year: “Jesus teaches us another way: Go out. Go out and share your testimony, go out and interact with your brothers, go out and share, go out and ask...BECOME THE WORD in body as well as spirit.”

The world now looks up to him with such high expectations, on how he will addresses the challenges, turmoil, corruption and sex scandals in the Catholic Church.

Long live, Pope Francis! You give me hope.

 

(My Asian Journal Column : 

Will Universal Background Checks Help Solve Gun Violence?

 

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

How do we make sure our children are safe from gun-toting criminals? 

 

How do we prevent another massacre (like the tragedy in Newtown Connecticut, where 20 young children and six adults were killed, or the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado) from happening again in America? 

 

Unfortunately, we cannot. 

 

But in his speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Monday, President Obama said: “We may not be able to prevent every massacre or random shooting. No law or set of laws can keep our children completely safe. But if there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”

 

The President chose to speak in Minneapolis, a city which suffered from a spike in violent crime among young people a few years back -- to prove how such a philosophy could save lives.  

 

“You launched a series of youth initiatives that have reduced the number of young people injured by guns by 40 percent — 40 percent. So when it comes to protecting our children from gun violence, you’ve shown that progress is possible. We’ve still got to deal with the 60 percent that remains, but that 40 percent means lives saved — parents whose hearts aren’t broken, communities that aren’t terrorized and afraid."

 

As the grieving nation grapples with all possible solutions to prevent gun violence in America, one of the measures being pushed by Pres. Obama is for Congress to legislate the need for criminal background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun. 

 

While US law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers, federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," which usually happen in gun shows. 

 

Moreover, many states have their own rulings requiring such checks for private sales.

 

Supporters of stricter gun control laws contend that “universal background checks” may be able to close loopholes in federal gun sales laws.  They say this can help prevent criminals and those with serious mental problems from having access to firearms.

 

How do background checks work?

 

As reported by CNN: “Anytime someone buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer, the dealer is required to run a check on the buyer by submitting the name to the federal database. That database consists of criminal records and mental health records as provided by federal and state courts and agencies.”

 

Lindsay Nichols, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said: “Felons, people convicted of violent domestic crimes, and those determined by the courts to be dangerously mentally ill are prohibited by federal law from buying firearms.”

 

“Also, states have added their own categories of who is prohibited from buying a gun...For example, California prohibits gun ownership for people convicted of any kind of violent crime, drug offenses, alcohol abuse and juvenile offenses while underage,” Nichols added.

 

But with the loopholes of the federal gun sales law, Nichols said “Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren't purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer.” 

 

These gun transactions are completed “at gun shows, on street corners, over the Internet or from friends or neighbors” -- all without the required background checks. 

 

Are background checks effective?

 

CNN further reports a statement from the Department of Justice: “From the time when the gun control measures of the Brady Act were enacted on March 1, 1994, through the end of 2008, the federal government processed more than 97 million applications for gun transfers or permits...Almost 1.8 million applications were denied.”

 

"Background checks have a huge deterrent effect. People who are ineligible to buy a gun are unlikely to try if they know they are going to be subjected to a background check," argued Nichols.

 

'Check on law-abiding people'

 

Strong opposition to the push for universal background checks come from the powerful pro-gun lobby group National Rifle Association (NRA).

 

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said on FOX News last Sunday that the universal gun background check system should be called “the check on law-abiding people,” because it’s going to affect law-abiding citizens.

 

The NRA and other pro-gun advocates argue that the universal background check is a “failed system” and is just a waste of scarce resources of law enforcement agencies.

 

LaPierre pointed out that the NRA originally proposed an instant background check system as an amendment to the Brady bill.

 

He said, however, that having been in this fight for twenty years, he doubts that mental health records would ever be computerized. LaPierre said this is the way by which gun dealers can check applicants’ records to see if they have a mental health issue, which will bar them from owning a gun.

 

The NRA also challenged the 40 percent figure for gun sales without background checks -- particularly at gun shows. The group disputes that characterization about the "gun show loophole" because federally licensed firearms dealers participate at gatherings and, of course, conduct background checks.

 

"Most of the guns that are purchased at a gun show are purchased from federal firearms-licensed holders," National Rifle Association President David Keene said on CNN.

 

The NRA and other gun rights advocates allege that all these talks and proposals do not really help in keeping our children safe, and that these have much to do “with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."

 

'Now is the time for action'

 

President Obama, however, stood firm in his position on gun control measures, citing support of a majority of Americans. 

 

The President said in Minneapolis: “That’s why I need everybody who’s listening to keep the pressure on your member of Congress to do the right thing. Ask them if they support common-sense reforms like requiring universal background checks, or restoring the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Tell them there’s no legislation to eliminate all guns; there’s no legislation being proposed to subvert the Second Amendment...”

 

“And tell them now is the time for action. That we’re not going to wait until the next Newtown or the next Aurora. We’re not going to wait until after we lose more innocent Americans on street corners all across the country. We’re not going to wait until somebody else’s father or son are murdered.”

 

GALLUP POLL DATA: January 2013: