What is a Congressman to do?

Members of Congress often face various pressures as they look to guide policy that will drive the nation's future. These pressures often push the members in contradictory directions and can make their political lives difficult. You will now look at these pressures and evaluate how members weight these competing interests and make decisions. To properly accomplish this assignment, please complete the following tasks...

1) Analyze the competing representative models that can be followed by members of Congress.

2) Evaluate the forces that exert pressure on the members.

3) Evaluate the feelings and arguments of Edmund Burke on this issue.

4) Finally, explain what representative model is proper in your personal opinion.

Remember that all these tasks should be completed in a holistic answer and not composed as individual answers to isolated questions.

House Debates Health Care Repeal

House Debates Health Care Repeal



Post a comment to this story. Extra consideration will be given to comments that use information from the story and outside information.

The Afghan Policy

During the 2010 midterm elections there was little discussion of the current military operations in Afghanistan. As the nation's longest military struggle continues some are beginning to question the feasibility and necessity of this military exercise.

Below you will find several articles relevant to the Afghan debate. After reading these articles construct a response in which you analyze the articles and evaluate the current state of the war in Afghanistan.

Obama's isolation grows on the Afghanistan war

Hoping to Avoid Bombs and Win Afghan Minds

Troops Shouldn't Be Nation Building

Election Scenario No. 3

The republicans are making their way to sweep over the government. You could say a “GOP Tsunami Crashes over Congress.” Scenario three will be the way the election turns out. The supporters of the Republican Party came out strong on Election Day while the democrats fell short. The other two options are not an option at this point. Voters get into “honeymoon” stages, they want more. Some expected a lot from President Obama, and he let even more of them down. The citizens of America are disappointed, so we’re making a change. Voters will stand strong for the GOP and finally change our government.

Less than a quarter of electorates say our government is headed in the right direction. This is shocking and disappointing. In states where economy is weak the blame is laid on Obama, so voting republican is some people’s only out. These are the results I feel will be true as of tonight. However, stranger things have happened in past elections, and polls are not always correct.

NOV 2nd Election
Democrats just might take a nose dive after this midterm election with all of the frustrated voters. Polls show that Americans are unhappy with the present government and want some change. There are a few outcomes that might come out of the election. Republicans will gain there victory in the house and will still be the minority in the senate. Or the Republicans will gain enough support with the frustrated voters and just take complete control being the majority in the government.
It is predicted that the Republicans will win 39 house seats and only possibly lose 9 seats will give them majority. The senate on the other hand as really close races so it is hard to see how much each party will gain even though the republicans are looking to gain seats but wont gain quit enough to win the senate. For the most part this will be a great victory for the republicans.
But will all of this change be good for the United States? Democratic President + Republican house = nothing accomplished. The too groups will not get along and the house will shut down most of the democratic ideas that will come from the senate so we are still in the same crap hole. It doesn't matter who control the house or senate what matters is how many people are in the government that are willing to cooperate and in our history this will not happen after this election.

Big Money: Outside Groups Spending for Republicans

A year ago, two of the top Republican Strategists calculated how to exploit the voter anger that had erupted at Democratic town hall meetings that summer. There is an estimated $3.5 billion expected to be spent on this years campaigning. This amount is a record for a midterm election. The deep- pocketed groups have reversed past preeminence by Democratic outside groups and have become the prototype for future elections. This effort has played a huge part in the $246 million in outside group spending so far in this election. Rove, Ed Gillespie and Steven law fear that the Republicans alone won't be able to match the fund-raising that Obama has exhibited in the previous election.

If voters seemed angry, so was corporate America. Obama led Congress into passing health care and financial regulation overhauls and pushed for climate legislation, all of which has angered business people. The advantage held by the GOP helped cancel out the edge the Democratic party had over them. Together both groups have spent $1billion on political advertisements. Many Democratic- leaning groups have tried to help match the amount of money raised by the GOP and have been almost even with the Republican groups for the past six days.

In order to fulfill the plan Rove, Gillespie and Law designed requires that the Republican constituencies unite behind the economic messages. The biggest donors would have to match or exceed the amounts they had given during the 2008 election. This 2010 midterm election has emphasized the use of non-profit and tax exempt organizations in politics.

Big Money: Outside Groups Spending for Republicans

Midterm Elections

 The midterm elections are right around the corner and this one could change the way our government is ran for quite some time. In past elections the Republican party has taken big hit in numbers of seats filled in Congress. In just this election they can make up over five years of huge losses in the polls. There is a chance that the Democrats could lose the House but not the Senate but that is very unlikely. It is either one or the other.

 An option of the midterm elections is that the Republicans can take it all and make up for big losses in number of seats in Congress. The Democrats would lose all of their majority and their chance for legislation to be passed in their favor. The other option is that the Democrats to lose very little seats and maintain a slim majority but a majority none the less. Overall this a very important election and will change the face of our government.

Midterm Elections: All Doom and Gloom?

Obviously the midterm elections will have a major impact on the political system. All that matters is whether the Republicans can beat out the Democrats. If the Republicans can drive out the Democrats then we may see our crippled yet healing economy take a staggering nose dive, and if the Democrats can cling to their positions then we may see an economic increase. The Democrats have three fates 1): They can hold all of their positions in office, 2): They can lose the House of Representatives and cling to the Senate, or 3): Congress can fall entirely to the Republicans.

If the Democrats can hold their own, that will be because of a late base turnout according to CQ politics. If the Democrats lose the House and cling to the Senate (which would be a first since World War Two) then that would be because voters are not ready to “embrace the GOP but rather reject the direction of the Government,” states CQ politics. Should the Democrats lose bout chambers of congress, well that shows that the Democrats were merely a “Flavor of the Mouth” for the voters suffering from the stagnant economy. The Washington Post believes that does not state as to whom will win out in the up coming Midterm, however they do make certain that the race will be a close one. Politico takes a more cynical view to the election. The writer Joe Scarborough says that the future of the American republic does not depend on Tuesdays’ election. He says “Instead, the election will decide whether America will be $16.4 trillion or $16.5 trillion in debt.”

Health Care Vote Puts Democrats on Defensive

Health Care Vote Puts Democrats on Defensive

This article covers the debate and dispute on Health Care between Democrats and Republicans. It mentions a few Democrats and Republicans views of Health Care, but the article frequently mentions one democrat and one republican in particular. Tom Perriello is the representative for the democrats in this article, when the republican is Robert Hurt. In the beginning it talks about Hurt ripping into Perriello for voting for a “government-run Health Care.” And Hurt agrees with the complete opposite, he agrees with letting the Health law be preserved and taken care with private insurance companies and industries. Health Care has been a continuing debate between the House and Senate; it has also played a role in contests for governors and attorney generals. Independent groups have spent 108 million dollars since March to advertise against the law. When a poll was taken on the law it showed that the electorate remained split, with independents leaning against it. In many districts, democratic candidates have started to defend the law’s most popular provisions, most likely due to Republican attacks have left them no choice but to do so, this has helped though. Which did help them; it took an effect on September 23 when some new insurance regulations happened such as insurers had to start to cover children. Health Care will prominently remain a continuing debate for the House of Representative and the Senate.

The importance of the Health Care is that it keeps Americans healthy. It is also important to know Democratic and Republican point of views because it can help citizens get a better idea of what they want in the Health Care law, who they can agree with, and who citizens should vote for.

My reaction to this article was it was informing and can give people a better perspective and good idea of who they agree with, based on views of the Health Care law. This article made me realize that I agree with the Republicans and their views on the Health Care. I believe that the Health Care should be in the hands of private industries instead of the government because the quality would be better and there would be more of a variety and options. I enjoyed reading this article, it was very interesting.

Health Care Vote Puts Democrats on Defensive

Mentioning of Wars Lacks in Midterm Campaigns

Mentioning of Wars Lacks in Midterm Campaign

With the midterm elections up for decision, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't among the most discussed topics whatsoever. This most definitely shows the importance of the elections. The reasons for the differentiation from wars comes from a plethora of reasons such as the economy or simply because other topics are considered more important at the time being. I am shocked and appalled by this. The wars, I would have thought, would be an utmost priority. We have been in the two wars for a while, and as it progresses, many people want to either leave the war effort or support it. For that reason, I had expected that candidates would pay more attention to it but I see that now, other subjects are being used to gain support.

-

As for the reasons for the drawn-away attention from the current wars, the economy certainly has its reasons for drawing observation. Political parties have made it a primary focus of their election and it was easy for this to overshadow the wars. Since the economic crisis' appearance, it has been and attention-worthy cause, thus playing a role in how seats may be chosen this November. It is important for us to focus on this, abandoning some notice for the war, in part because the economic crisis engulfs us. When a seat is chosen, part of the decision making is given to them. I must react in a supportive way to this thought. We must be able to make a well-informed decision for the issue at hand. I believe that once the economic crisis is over, we can then direct our attention to the war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

-

Competing views push the war out of focus as well. While varying numbers of people support and do not support the war, political parties would be safer with a more stable topic that all voters feel is important. While some people want to send troops overseas and some want to withdraw them from foreign territory, everybody agrees that a weak economy is a terrible thing. This is of importance because issues can get to the point. While at other times, foreign policy would be at the front of the policy agenda, this would enable for the economy to be at the front. Since the economy is here in the U.S. and not overseas, it would be beneficial for Americans. I must react in a way that I am fully informed of what the political parties are doing. It fully makes sense to bring the economy up front. Not only does it help their compaigns, it assists the wellbeing of all American citizens.

-

All in all, the war is going to be in the agenda. Though the economy is in terrible shape and of utmost concern, there will always be room for lesser objectives. The economy is the ideal thing to solve first, I feel. Once we are able to conquer its consequences and overcome them, the war shall be simple. You must eliminate the big problem to eliminate the smaller ones.

Obama Launches Initiative to Fight Domestic Violence

In 1994, current Vice-President headed the Violence against women act. On Wednesday, President Obama "an administration-wide effort to combat domestic violence. He plans to do this by providing greater protection, housing, and financial and health assistance to victims. This announcement is the result of First Lady Obama appealing to the women voters.
This strategy will gather Democratic support from the women voters, as well as those who have been affected by domestic violence. This strategical move will help strenghten the Democrats in the Mid-Term elections and impede the predicted power shift.

Obama Launches Initiative to Fight Domestic Violence

"We will not compromise"

We Will Not Compromise

Those are the words of John Boehner (a republican) when speaking about the President's agenda. According to the article, the Republican desire for the past two years (and in the future) is to "Block Obama at all costs." The Republican Party is anticipating taking the majority of seats in both the House and Senate with the election next Tuesday. With that, the Republicans will be try to”
to kill it, stop it, slow it down". It seems they will do whatever they can to take things in a new direction, even going so far as saying make Obama a one term president. As for the President, this is his response:

"So I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to change their minds going forward, because putting the American people back to work, boosting our small businesses, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class, these are big national challenges. And we’ve all got a stake in solving them. And it’s not going to be enough just to play politics. You can’t just focus on the next election. You’ve got to focus on the next generation"

A prediction in the article says as Obama begins to moderate his goals, Republicans will cool their tones. Republicans seem to want more than just that. There will be no compromise until something drastic happens in favor of their goals, like the repeal of Obamacare. A recent poll says that voters would like to see Obama and democrats work with Republicans and not the other way around.

The importance of this article is evident. If Republicans take the house, then we will see drastic changes of the policy agenda. If this does not happen, things will stay the same. The future of the Obama administration is relying how the votes go in next Tuesday's election. It seems almost ironic about Republicans saying they will not compromise, but if they get what they want, yeah they'll compromise. It's sort of confusing.

I could care less if Obama serves one or two terms. I don't even care what direction the agenda even goes, but if I could simplify part of the President's quote up there it's focus on what's happening NOW, not in the next elections. I don't care how it happens, just get the job done.

The Bear Election

More than likely every midterm election is going to have something that drowns out local concerns. For example, in 2002, after September 11th, everyone was very alert and was more likely to participate. Reason being, the terrorist attacks and our safety was on the headlines for days, this tragedy opened many American's eyes for quite awhile. It is ridiculous that something as this has to happen to get the Americans more involved with their own government and aware of what is going on. Then in 2006, the majority of the people were angry at George W. Bush. There were many arguments complaining about the mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina and the policies in Iraq. Not everyone is perfect, as well as, not every one is going to be happy with the same procedurals as one another.

Today we sit here and think about the satisfaction of the citizens at the moment. One minute half the world is happy, and then the next, everyone wants a new President as a whole. Statistics show that the public is dissatisfied with the place of change, and are anxious about its economic future. However, we go back to 2006 and the citizens were not pleased with the Republicans. Therefore, Democrats were voted in to supposedly create change. Which has obviously not lived up to the citizens expectations. It's 2010 and once again we find ourselves wanting to change up the political status. Statistics also show many people are not pleased of the job Congress is doing. Due to this fact, as well as the number of seats open in the House compared to in the Senate, statistics are predicting that Republicans may take over the majority in the House soon.

Neither political party is at fault, it all leads back to where and when did this country go into debt and stop doing anything about it. That is all our worries today, the economy is one of the highest priorities at the moment. It's all about who will be in term in the right time and place. Whichever political party happens to fix our problems, will be re-elected many years to come. The Americans may have political party preferences, however, it always comes down to who saves the day. Once the Republicans take over, we will be right back into "maybe the Democrats can do better." It is and always will be a continuous process, it's just the way the process works.

This is significant for the government in many ways if you think about it though. If there was only one party then who would we look to for hope? As a whole we would give up, there would be no competition and the conflicting ideas would not exist as much. We would not have the opportunity of trying new ideas intending to help us get ourselves out of the problems we created. This is the main reason on having separation of powers and checks and balances, every process in use keeps us civil as a country and keeps us going. In conclusion, we need to do something about these continuous problems or were just going to keep creating them. Telling the Americans you can create change and direct us towards a new economic future is great, if your going to conquer that idea. If you don't do what the Americans elected you to do that's just creating more and more anger throughout the country and making more chaos.

The Bear Election

Job Losses Outweigh Obama’s Successes

Last December when the annual unemployment list was given to the white house for an early sneak peak, Federal officials were shocked to say the least. The job losses in the country have been declining for the past two years, but this report showed that in November that job losses had nearly stopped.

Today however this brief period of hope, seems to have been one of the worst things that could have happened to the country. Because the job losses nearly stopped the Obama administration slowed down the speed at which they were going to help since recovery seemed to have been coming.

This doesn't however mean that Obama and Congress have done nothing for the past two years. Possibly the best thing that Obama has done while in office is put the country back on track to a universal health insurance coverage.

The stimulus that was enacted in February 2009 was successful in some parts but not so in others. It did slowly start to put the economy back on the road to recovery, but there were some major flaws in the $787 million bill.

Unfortunately, the recovery of the economy is taking much longer than anyone had thought.

Unemployment and job losses are unfortunately one of the biggest problems in trying to get the economy back on track. It is important that the people and even more so the Federal officials in the White House know this so they can help all they can to fix this problem. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have jobs seem to look the other way; they think, "oh that will never be me," but then the harsh reality hits them if they get laid off. If the people are informed of what is happening in the economy, they can be more prepared if the inevitable happens to them.

The creation of the census jobs definitely helped pull the country up slightly. This is not enough to fix the problems in our economy, but it also makes me think, "what is a perfect economy, and is a perfect economy even possible?" Obama is doing the best he can in the situation he has been handed. He knew what he was getting himself into when he took the oath of office and is now expected to live up to the expectations of that.

Economy downfalls

A constitutional amendment for every occasion? Congress seems to think so

Over the many years that the Constitution has been our supreme law of the land, only 27 amendments have actually made it all the way into our Constitution. That is, only 27 out of more than 10,000 proposed amendments have made it. Of those 10,000 only six others were approved by Congress but did not make it past the states. That number (10,000) seems really high, but if you look at how long our country has been intact, that may not be too many at all. It seems crazy that our constitution has only been changed 27 times, while the way we look at life changes almost every day. We shouldn’t really have the same amendments controlling us that were created in a time when TV’s were not invented yet and the Xbox 360 could not even be imagined in the most brilliant minds. Yet, only 0.27% of proposed amendments ever make it past Congress. That doesn’t seem proportional if you ask me.

The fact that only 27 amendments have been passed by Congress and the states truly shows how serious the amending process is. Yes, it is difficult to get an amendment passed because it requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and three-quarters of the state legislatures, but there is more to it. Once an amendment is ratified, it will be in our constitution forever. Even if another one is passed to cancel the original out, the writing will not go away. In my opinion, that is enough reason to scare many Congressmen to not pass many amendments.

There are currently about 40 amendments that are being considered by Congress. A notable proposed amendment deals with ensuring that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants don’t automatically become U.S. citizens. It is still in Congress, but could one day make it to our constitution, if it beats the odds. This would be a great amendment to have, as long as it has some limitations. Too many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. just to have a baby to ensure its citizenship at birth. This shouldn’t be allowed. Some other amendments deal with same sex marriage and flag burning. Both of those things should be allowed. It is a person’s personal choice to get married to whoever they want to and they should be given the right to do that. If someone wants to burn an American flag, let them, it causes no harm to others and follows their personal beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment.

This whole idea of this article is beyond important. It involves the future of our country and how it will be run. If an amendment was passed stating that Congress must tax people proportionately relative to their incomes, our country would be different. Or if an amendment was passed prohibiting our president from “entering into a treaty in which he would recognize as legal tender currency issued by someone other than the United States,” things would change. Whether the various proposed amendments are changes for the better or worse are up to Congress and the states. Congress and the states hold the true power in our country. They truly determine our future.

Constitutional Amendments

Tougher Laws for US to Guard Military Secrets

Wikileaks leader Julian Assange has released more than 400,000 pages of US documents about Iraq. Daniel Ellsberg commented saying that the Wikileaks release will more than likely encourage the US to pass new legislation to better protect US secrets. The article then went on saying that if Assange had leaked documents about British military operations, then he and his sources could be jailed under Britain's Official Secrets Act. President Obama is using the Espionage Act "as if it were a kind of Official Secrets Act." So, some leakers have been charged for leaking certain documents. The article then went on to say that Bradley Manning had been charged under the Espionage Act for leaking thousands of pages of secret Afghan war documents.
Most of the time the media receives First Amendment protections that leakers do not, which would make it possible for the leakers to be charged, but not the media source, which would still uphold the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Although the Pentagon Papers case would argue that WikiLeaks is protected under the First Amendment. Also, a problem might arise if legislation was proposed that would make publishing secret documents that have been leaked by others punishable because Congress would oppose the movement. Also the article talked about how if restictions were placed on leakers that they must have some sort of defense avalible because if they leak documents that are seen as "dangerous" or "misconceived", they will not think twice about it, for the fear of prosecution. The importance of this article is to show how some things are protected under the First Amendment, and others are not, and how the freedoms granted can be interpreted in different ways. Also how the government can limit the freedoms granted in the First amendment.
I think that if the documents that Wikileaks drops threaten national security, then charges should be filed. But if the documents that are leaked expose lies that the government has told, or releases important information to the public then the leakers should not be charged because they are not threatening national security, and the public has a right to know some things.

Will WikiLeaks nudge US toward tougher laws to guard secrets?

Shouting Fire

The movie Shouting Fire explores the First Amendment and shows what America thinks about freedom of speech. Everyone have a different interpretation and way of expressing freedom of speech. America is selfish. People don’t want their ideas limited but when it comes to other people its fine. There has been a percent increase in the amount of people who believe the First Amendment goes too far. Before 9/11 there were 20% of people who believed it went too far and after 9/11 there were 50%.

Its also interesting how individuals or groups can express their opinion and then a little later they can be jobless, suspended or arrested. One example is Ward Churchill. Churchill was a professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder. After 9/11 he suggested that the attack on the World Trade Center was not a senseless act and the United States brought it on them. This caused major controversy. Some people said he is committing treason for saying this. Churchill was then fired from being a professor. I do not understand this. We have groups protesting about dead soldiers from the war and people can’t express their opinion.

When the nation is at war or in a period of crisis, there is a difference on our civil liberties. The Patriot Act in which the Bush administration passed on the wake of 9/11 had restrictions on our civil liberties. It increased the government power to survey citizens. Today restrictions on free speech come from private sector. This is where organizations will react or overreact to speech and crackdown. In the past it is a different story. During the Vietnam War, World War II, World War I and the McCarthy era in the Cold War there were government hearings instead of what is done today. Marching against the war in the Vietnam War was said to be unpatriotic and the Pentagon Papers were a test of the First Amendment. Also a Nazi leader once said “Freedom exists to those who will fight for it.”

Debbie Almontaser, an Arab-American educator, was a principal in New York City at the Khalil Gilbran International Academy. This offered a dual language program where students can learn Arabic or English. The New York post twisted remarks she had made about the meaning of intifada or an uprising of pro violence. There was no libel and since it was protected Debbie was forced to resign as principal. This just shows that we do have freedom of speech in this country but in times of our country being threatened we don’t. Chase Harper, a conservative, white, Christian teen attends high school in California. He was suspended for wearing a shirt with a Bible verse and the words, “Homosexuality is shameful” to school. There was no proof that Chase was a distraction to the students that day and there had been no complaints but Chase was still suspended.

There were about 800 people arrested at the Republican Convention Center. They had planned to march from the World Trade Center to the convention center but that didn’t happen. After about five minutes they were stopped and arrested. This just comes to show how much the freedom of speech is restricted. You cannot incite violence, chaos, or disruption. You have to ask yourself where the line is drawn with restrictions on free speech. Garbus also talks about how the United States is going to be stuck with a court that’s unlikely to offer much in the way of protection for freedom of expression.

Out-of-staters fuel fight over Arizona immigration law

Wyoming resident Timothy Mellon has a lot of support for Arizona’s attempt to battle illegal immigration through a new law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed in April. This law is now tied up in the court. Although money keeps pouring in from every state, Mellon has recently sent the largest donation of $3.6 million. People living outside Arizona are helping to frame policy in a state largely viewed as a laboratory for immigration reform. The Obama administration filed a lawsuit in July which mandates state and local police officers to determine the legal status of people stopped for other things. This lawsuit has boosted intervention from those living outside the state’s borders.

The “tea party” faithfuls are most interested in protecting states’ rights and making sure the federal government lives within bounds set by the Constitution. There is said to be more than 11 million people estimated to be living in the United States illegally. Arizona has become a laboratory where extremist immigrant measures will be tested. To prepare for the current debate, organizers from all over the country came into Arizona to teach people how to mobilize, teaching people their rights. This law has brought attention to the fact that there is a major immigration crisis in the United States that needs to be dealt with. If the US government begins to move forward on immigration reform, it would make the states look good.

This article deals with federalism and immigration. Federalism shows the separation of power between the national and state government. It shows that the national government has different powers than the state government and they should each be doing their job. The citizens of Arizona stepped in and tried to do something about the immigration problem when the federal government would not. Arizona is trying to protect its states rights and make sure the national government stays within its own powers. Federalism helps to keep powers separated so one power is not absolute over the other.

Immigration affects the country in many ways. Immigration needs to be addressed and dealt with soon. It is ridiculous that over 11 million are said to be living in the United States illegally. The national and state government needs to figure out a way to both help out and reduce the amount of illegal immigrants in the country.

Small Efforts Add Up in Colorado Senate Race

The Senate race in Colorado is between Democrat Michael Bennett and Republican Ken Buck. Mr. Bennett has his own secret weapon, his wife Ms. Daggett. Ms. Daggett is winning votes for her husband by reaching out to the community and visiting local facilities such as the Underground Bar, a local gay bar. Although Michael Bennett is the incumbent in this race he is positioned as the outsider from the White House since the primary elections but has managed to overcome Mr. Buck's economic message with focusing on local issues. Local issues being gay men and women not turning out to vote. He and his wife are partnering in targeting small groups to win the election. Ms. Daggett is focusing on female voters, they understand and can relate to her. Some even want her to run for office.

It is great that Mr. Bennett is getting the support and help from his wife. She can represent her husband to women and to be honest they will more than likely take to a woman better than an a man because Ms. Daggett can relate with them. Targeting small groups may be beneficial but it is going to take a lot of small groups to win an election. The husband and wife team targeted a large chunk of the Democratic party which was smart to do.

We live in a very diverse country, made up of various interest groups. We Americans all have the privilege of voting who we want into office, therefore Ms. Daggett targeting the group of women and homosexuals is very beneficial to their campaign. The article shows that America is made up of many different types of people and it is important that they all are represented.

Small Efforts Add Up in Colorado Senate Race

Shouting Fire, a great movie to show how America considers freedom of speech. Every one in this country believes in this freedom and expresses it but once an opposing group stands out all hell breaks loose. Through this movie I’ve noticed that if one group has different ideas we want to limit there freedom of speech but yet keep our own. For example Ward Churchill commenting on the 9/11 attacks by pretty much saying karma just hit us for all the deeds we have done in this world. People said he is committing treason by saying we had this attack coming to us, and Ward Churchill was fired from his job. So speaking of karma is treason but yet you have a protest group saying “thank god for dead soldiers”, talking about American troops, but yet there just practicing freedom of speech.
We do notice that freedom of speech does get limited during time of war, for instance Debbie Almontaser from New York city had to step down from her position as principle of a Islamic school (did not teach religion) because at a convention of hers some one sold shirts saying Intifada (uprising) NYC. Intifada is commonly used in the Middle East to start up uprisings and after 9/11 I can see where the concerns come from. This won’t be the first time things like this happened, during WWII we took Japanese Americans and put them in camps because we don’t want to get the enemy confused with normal people. But a reporter did use words out of text from an interview with Debbie when she talked about the shirts so I honestly don’t understand how that did not go down as libel. Yes we have freedom of speech but sometimes it gets thrown under the bus when our country becomes threatened.
A teenager decided to put an anti homosexual statement on tap and tapped it onto his shirt and he was suspended from school. But yet there was no proof of him being a distraction in school or any complaints about the shirt, so why did he get suspended? Why should he get suspended when in Tinker v. Des Moines the trail let a group of students where black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War? Those arm bands did a lot more distraction then this shirt. Why can we let a student protest a war but not homosexuality?
Finally the Patriot Act and the freedom of privacy. Honestly during time of war and terrorism I strongly believe the government should extend powers to help catch these people who want to threat America. The government is not tapping every ones phone line just suspected people, so what is so wrong about that. I feel that privacy should be limited if it helps prevent another tragedy. You still have your right to privacy it’s just the American government wants to protect America.
Pretty much the thing I got from this movie is, people only want to hear there ideas and want to silence others, and that some people are just idiots.