Editorial

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." These are the words inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty on Ellis Island.

It is an open invitation to all oppressed people of the world that America welcomes them with open arms. We would ask nothing but that they contribute to the nation that was still in the throes of being born and maturing, of coming into its own among the world powers.

In times past, America was called The Great Melting Pot, where all cultures would blend together to create a greater society. As a nation, we could be considered as a giant stew pot. You start with many different ingredients, blend them all together, and the whole is greater than the sum of all the parts.

This is what made us great as a nation, all coming together towards a common goal, to make better lives for themselves, their families, and their communities. But somewhere, sometime, things started to change. There was a time when we proudly called ourselves Americans. Period. We were all Americans. On 9-11, we were all Americans.

Now, we are hyphenated Americans. This has led to a culture war of sorts, wherein each culture is trying to assert their dominance and superiority. We used to see what we could do to contribute to our society as a whole. Now, the attitude prevelant in our society is what our country can do for us.

We have turned from a nation of self-sufficient individuals dedicated to building a nation of greatness to a Balkanized group of factions only interested in what our government can give us. The only way the government can give anyone anything is if it takes from someone else, usually in the form of taxes. If a resource is finite and given to more and more individuals then there is less to go around and the quality goes down, be it food, fuel, healthcare.

The drive for excellence has been replaced with a push toward mediocrity and entitlement. The indoctrination begins in our schools where everyone is given an award for merely showing up and success is villified in the name of not hurting the feelings of others. It used to be that people that were successful in business were viewed as role models, now they are regarded with disdain and contempt.

We are being force-fed the idea that we are to be dependent upon the government for everything from healthcare to schooling to raising our kids, and not to rock the boat because the government is the ultimate authority.

When the individual is silenced, for whatever reason, and nothing is done about, then liberty truly begins to die.

"We the people..."

This story is merely a snapshot into the heart of the American people and indicates a much greater issue facing the American people. The problem we face is not that we have lost trust in the government, but the fact that we, as a people, have allowed ourselves to become detached from the government and view it as a separate entity that is supposed to run the country and solve our problems.

The first three words of the Constitution of the United States, our supreme law of the land, are these: “We the people.” We are the government. We forget that if our elected officials are doing an inadequate job, then we have the right and duty to replace them. A further indication is the way the numbers of the polls fall, in that individuals who identify them selves as Republicans trust the government even less than the average than do the Democrats, which falls to the core beliefs of both parties.

 

As I become more educated on these topics, I'm feeling like the true Republican mindset is to put more responsibility on the individual and less to the government, while with the Democrat side is more of the mentality that it is the responsibility of the state to resolve issues, whether they be international, local or even down to the household level.

                 

Our society has been distracted by career politicians who have one job from the time they are sworn, and that is to get re-elected by saying anything they can to get one more vote. According to our course textbook, the early chapters seem to portray the founding Fathers and the original members of Congress as businessmen who took their duty as almost a sacred calling to represent their constituents to our national government in a manner that would most benefit the people who sent them there. The Congress would meet, complete their business, and these men would go back to their home districts to face the people that sent them to Washington and they would have to answer for their actions and be replaced if necessary.

 

There was a time when the phrase “elected official” carried respect and a sense of honor. Now, it has been replaced with “career politician” which brings sneers of contempt at individuals who rarely even see their own districts except in election years.

           

If there is so little trust in government, then whom do we have to blame but ourselves? Are not the individuals in Washington merely a reflection of the American people?

National Income Inequality

The author does an excellent job of proving his point by citing numerous statistics on his given subject matter. Therein lies one of the problems I have with this article. The majority of the article is statistics with very little opinion involved.

 

He cites numbers and reasons and the end results but in only a very few sentences does he come out and say “This is wrong.”  He gives hints and intonations that it is wrong, but he really never comes out clearly and says that this is wrong or why it is wrong, except to say that the majority of people that use the products described often wind up in a worse position. It is not until he states halfway through the article “It is not only the middle class and the wealthy who exploit the poor” that he even intimates that this not an acceptable practice by using the word “exploit.” He proposes very few solutions, and these toward the end of the article, wherein he proposes even more government regulations. The problem with his solution is that it does nothing to address the root cause of the issue which is financial ignorance.

 

We have grown up in a society where debt is regarded as an asset and needs are confused with wants.

No one “needs” a 62” flat screen, but we have been programmed with the concept of “you need this, and you can get it for only $20.00/week with no money down.” So we wind up with a generation or two or possibly even three now that are in an endless cycle of robbing Peter to pay Paul for our temporary and immediate pleasures. The concept of delayed gratification has long been outdated in our society, wherein if you wanted a large ticket item you would save up for it, take the money and then it was yours to do what you wish. Today, you are indebted to the company for x number of years, and if you miss a payment on your shiny new toy, you lose it and the money you spent and have nothing but a stack of receipts. If our society were empowered with more financial knowledge, these predators would have a much less fertile field.

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

I had a conversation with my brother-in-law the other night that really hit home for me. He has been in the Army for 4 years now, and has a sweet little 3 year old baby girl. Even though he is my brother-in-law, he has been a trusted friend for many years. I met him in middle school, and we have pretty much grown into adults together. I saw him enter the Army during the War on Terrorism, and I fearfully waited for them to call him over seas. Despite his volunteers to go, they did not deploy him. Now, a couple months away from his discharge from the Army, he has made the choice to decline re-signing for another four years. He wants to raise his little girl and enjoy a family. Two days ago, though, when discussing this with an authority while filling out paperwork, they warned him of his two year IRR commitment. They said with the way things are headed, he would probably be getting a call to go to Syria. This breaks my heart. There are so many men like him with small children, teenagers, wives and families. Granted, they made the choice to sign on with America's military forces, but I can't help but take this one personally.

So I began thinking about my blog and researching articles on the subject. I found an article through Fox News' website called "Syria strike's dangerous calculus=Assad loses and Al Qaeda wins." The article I chose to analyze is quite obviously opposing infiltrating Syria with American military forces. It seems as though, however, there are many pros and cons to each argument. The article briefly outlines the reasons why we should attack Syria with equal force, but I found it interesting that the author uses very tricky language. The author states that Syria has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, however, according to www.newrepublic.com, in an article titled "The Best Way To Intervene In Syria Isn't To Help The Rebels," John B. Judis tells us that Syria signed the Geneva Protocol in 1968. This agreement was signed by the League of Nations and the United States 43 years earlier in 1925 banning the use of chemical or biological weapons. Although, signing and ratifying are two different things, the signing of a legal document is by definition "agreeing to the terms and conditions listed in that document." Ratifying just hammers in the idea that it is legally binding. Therefore, if this is looked at in terms of ratification, it could easily be argued that Syria isn't internationally bound. Unfortunately for them, though, they DID sign the document and by doing so agreed upon those terms.

So the question obviously remains a conflicting one. Many innocent lives were taken due to Assad's terrible act of chemical attack. Should we be the "international police" and go after Syria like Obama suggests? Or should we back off because this may or may not indirectly help our declared enemy, Al Qaeda? This is a question I cannot answer. Even after thorough research and analysis, I don't feel qualified to give an opinion. What I can say is that as much as I love and cherish my brother-in-law, Jason, and as much as I would hate to see him get on a flight destined to battle and warfare, I respect him for his decision to stand behind America and its leader. Innocent children were the victims of Assads little stunt, and that enfuriates me to an extreme extent, but when should we stop sacrificing our men (and their children) to this warfare? What is the line? I personally have no idea, but I can say a lot of people's lives are going to be changed really soon, so I think we should definitely form an educated opinion if we haven't already done so.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/09/syria-strike-dangerous-calculus-assad-loses-and-al-qaeda-wins/?intcmp=trending

My Political Background

Hi! My name is Crystal, and I am the mother of 2 sweet boys. I live for their schedules. I enjoy being on top of their "current events," such as new friends, homework, football, and loose teeth for my 5 year old. Learning to sit and talk, and the latest in new tastes, smells or toys for my 6 month old. However, when it comes to politics - I must admit - I have been quite the slacker. In fact, chapter one and two in my Government 2305 book at ACC is quite possibly the most I have ever actually ingested and understood in politics to date. 

My father is a gigantic political buff. He knows all the latest news, debates and elections. He votes every year, sits on boards both in his community and in his district, plays rolls in campaigns, and has many "friends in high places." As a little girl, he would take me to meetings and campaign parties - all of which were Republican to the max. Now, at the time, I had no idea what "republican" meant. All I knew is that I was one. Mainly because he was. 

This is the view I have carried throughout my life. That I am a Republican. I mean, I don't know anything about it. Politics seemed pretty simple. There are Republicans and Democrats. Clearly, my dad was Republican. So I must be too. Obviously, my dad took great care in looking into issues and carefully constructing opinions about them. Why second guess him?

As I grew up though, and formed a family of my own and a financial sphere that I myself was responsible for, I began asking the detailed questions. I was beginning to be asked the question by friends and family, "Who are you voting for?" The very first time I voted, I checked that little box that says Republican at the top. It occurred to me that I had no idea who all those people were! What did they really stand for? What did "being Republican" even mean? I told myself I would not vote again until I understood for certain who and what I was voting for. No matter what party they are from.

So here I am, two chapters into my Government book, and I am actually interested! I thought this course would be a drag, to be honest, but I'm really enjoy learning about the system that governs me and my family. I am finding out - for the record - that I am more Conservative than Liberal (probably thanks to my dad), but it's nice to know why and to be able to understand the Liberal points of view. Many of which my dad so solemnly stood against, I actually support. So as I progress on this blog, please bare with me. I won't always be politically correct. I won't always be able to give a solid opinion, but I will try my very best to apply what I'm learning in this book to how it will affect my family, and I promise I will have no problems letting everyone know how I feel about that. 

I am excited to learn more about the government on which this country stands and so many of my friends and family fight for. God bless America!