"We Hold These Truths to Be Self-evident..." (#2)

According to the epitaph he ordered, Thomas Jefferson wanted to be remembered for three things: founding the University of Virginia, drafting that state's act of religious toleration, and writing the Declaration of Independence. A well-bred child of the Enlightenment, Jefferson dedicated his entire life to the pursuit of Reason, believing rationality and freedom to be the greatest riches of all. Jefferson's legacy was three basic parts. The first part reflected his Tidewater planter background, he voiced the idea of a New World agrarian (equal division of land) paradise that has inspired the national imagination ever since.  Since he was suspicious of cities and industry, same with autocracy, he put farmers as the backbone of the nation, saying that "those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God." When historians speak of Jeffersonian democracy, they mean his vision of the sturdy yeoman (a farmer who cultivates his own land) as nature's nobleman. Jefferson's view brought him consistently into conflict with Alexander Hamilton, whose ideal America was a heavily industrialized merchant's paradise, where the central government actively supported business interests.

Jefferson's second contribution was states' rights, even though it was not a concept he had invented,  but one to which he gave the stamp of great authority. When the Federalist government in 1798 passed the Alien and Sedition Acts-a "gag" order prohibiting criticism of its policies-Jefferson responded by writing the Kentucky Resolutions, which proposed the supremacy of state over federal decisions. Again he clashed with Hamilton, as the treasury chief was the nation's strongest spokesman for the central government's "implied" (expandable) powers.  Division among the Founders on this score led to Jefferson's victory in the 1800 presidential election as the head of a new party, the Democratic Republicans.  

Jefferson's final gift was a document that defined the nation's guiding principles When Richard Henry Lee told the Continental Congress in June, 1776 that the colonies "are, and of right ought to be, free and independent,'" the delegates appointed a committee to put this down on parchment.  As the main author, Jefferson strove not for originality, but for "the common sense of the subject."  In this assessment of his duties, he was reflecting the Enlightenment's faith in human reason. The bulk of the famous document, when finally approved a month later, was a list of grievances against the British Crown ranging from the dissolution (undoing or breaking) of colonial assemblies to the quartering of troops in private homes, from the imposition of tax to the abolition of trial by jury.  The more general ideas of the document come at the end, where the colonies declare their independence, and at the beginning, where Jefferson defines popular government.  He starts with the famous "when in the course of human events" preamble. Then comes the most frequently, quoted passage--Jefferson's "self-evident truths":

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator' certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations upon such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Basically stating that if your government isn't serving your needs, you can get rid of it and set up something else.

That idea might have been "self-evident" to Thomas Jefferson, but it was hardly a common idea to his fellow citizens. The historical importance of the American Revolution was that it tested these radical notions in the heat of battle. True, it took a Civil War to get blacks into the "all men" rubric, and another fifty years to break down the masculine bias, but Jefferson deserves credit for setting the model

 I learned from this article that we, the people, have much more power than we may think. I also learned that we don't exercise that power enough, and that we are letting the government control us too much, and that we are letting them make too many decisions for us that they think are the "best" for us, when in reality they're usually focusing mainly on themselves. I really think that we need to start stepping up and start representing ourselves again, more than just voting, and stop letting our government decide everything for us, and then whining about it after the fact.

Article 1: http://narnaraptor.blogspot.com/2011/03/bill-of-rights.html
Article 3: http://thoughtsonushistory.blogspot.com/2011/02/early-us-history-nutshells-old-hickory.html

Tunisia's Islamists eye place in politics

This article talks about how some Islamic citizens of Tunisia are attempting to find some places in government, even though for decades the Islamics have been jailed, banned and other things. The Islamics talk promise that democracy will replace dictatorship, but many people fear that radicalism will rise up.
If you would like to read more, here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41180929/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

I say it's good for the Islamic community to see that they have some power finally, after decades of being beaten down, they finally have some power. As for the people who fear that radicalism will happen, I say oh well, isn't it possible for that to happen anywhere? I say we stop categorizing by religion, and start looking at what matters, and that would be what that person can do if they are in charge. If one candidate promises to get rid of dictatorship and make the nation a democracy, but is is Muslim, and the other candidate is your religion but will crush any sign of democracy and continue to rule with an iron fist, who are you going to vote for? I really hope you came up with the same answer as me.

Reform the tax code? Yeah, good luck with that

It seems like a fair amount of politicians want to reform the tax code to make it simpler and more fair. With over 13.8 million words, and over 4,428 changes in the last decade, the code has become a mess. It's up to Obama to decide on whether he wants to try and pull the code through the mainly republican house and divided senate.
If you would like to read more, here is the article link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41181142/ns/business-tax_tactics/

13.8 million words? 4,428 changes in the last decade? 10 times the size of the Bible? Wow. I'd say that's impressive if it weren't such a mess. I happen to agree with whomever thinks we should try and make the tax code simpler. With countless numbers of rules and deductions, it's no wonder the government wants to keep taking more money because we are finding all these loopholes to keep our money, which isn't bad for us as individuals, but when you look at the big picture, we as Americans are notorious for saving money. So, if we are keeping more of our money, are we putting it back into the economy, like we should be? Or are we just preventing money from circulating through, and instead we are actually pulling ourselves further and further into debt and other things like that?

More than a million immigrants land U.S. jobs

This aritcle deals with immigrants, about a million, landing jobs, many illegally. The immigrants are taking the jobs that Americans could have, simply because it's a lot cheaper to employ the illegals. The immigrants are working for really low wages and they don't have insurance provided by the company.
If you would like to read more about this article, here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41182482/ns/business-us_business/

Is it just me, or does it seem like immigration has gotten out of hand? First they come to our country, then they take our jobs. What's going on here? I don't want to sound like a jerk, or racist, but, seriously, why don't they go back home? It's not like Americans are jumping the border to Mexico and taking those jobs. I realize that most immigrants just want freedom, and more opportunities, but I'm sorry, America can't really afford to give them what they want right now. Why are we so focused about foreign affairs when we are clearly struggling here? There are a million jobs that Americans should have, but they don't because business owners are to cheap to actually hire someone.

20 years after, Bush defends Gulf War as 'moral'

This article talks about how Bush says that the Gulf War was moral, and how it was the right thing to do. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were warned by the U.S. that if they didn't pull out of Kuwait by a certain day, that they would be forced out by a U.S. coalition. Iraq didn't listen so the U.S. attacked and drove Iraq out of Kuwait.
If you would like to read more, here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41180168/ns/politics-more_politics/

First off, I don't think any form of war can be considered moral. Maybe the war was the right thing to do, but it certainly isn't moral because war equals killing, and killing is immoral, which may seem like a childish arguement, but that's the simple truth. However, I do have to agree with the U.S.'s decision to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, especially with Kuwait being rich with oil, and us needing it.

Thousands mourn at funeral for 9-year-old Christina Green

This article was all about a 9 year old girl named Christina Green, who was shot and killed on January 8, 2011, by Jared Laughner, who shot several others. The article describes the funeral, and some of what was said, and played.
If you would like to read more, here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41060873/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

First off I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Christina Green, and anyone else effected by the shooting rampage. I have no idea what could possess someone to do something so horrific, and hurtful. I read another article that stated that Jared Laughner's "friends" say that Jared had been acting weird, and had been for some time. The parents also said that their relationship with Jared was "strained," and yet they have no idea why he did it. Here's my advice to his parents. Step one: get a clue. Step two: pay attention to your son, it doesn't matter if he's 3 or 30, he's still your son. Step three: take some action, maybe if you had done something, he wouldn't have gone and shot up a bunch of people. The way I see it is that Christina didn't have to die. The victims didn't have to be hurt. Jared didn't have to do what he did. But the lack of parenting lead him to it. Yes, Jared is guilty, but his parents are too, not exactly of murder, but they ignored the signs of whatever lead to the death of a girl, who had a lot to live for.

GOP agenda: Major impact may be on 2012 election

This article was about how the Republicans plan on making some very large changes in our government, assuming that they hold majority/have the power in 2012. Among those changes would be to repeal Obama's health care plan, cut spending, and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The article also says how the Republicans plan on winning people over and how they plan on getting things done.
If you would like to read more, here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40877334/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

All I have to say is wow. Do they really think they can solve it all? What kind of bologna is this? I really don't like the idea of a complete overhaul, do you? What if you just happen to be one of millions of Americans that aren't happy with the turnout? What then? Do you just sit on your hands and do nothing? What CAN you do? See, if there's a complete overhaul, by any party, the crap's gonna hit the fan, big time. At least Obama has compromised on the Bush tax cuts, and is trying to compromise even more, trying to give each party a little of what they want. Doesn't that seem like a good idea? If we were smart, we would elect the same number of representatives of each party from each state, maintaining the balance, besides the president of course. It seems to me that both parties are just trying to one up the other party, and aren't really focusing on what really matters, the people. The Republicans plan on changing this and this and this and this, and all of things have been set in place by a Democrat, or opposing party. How about we first take a look at what we CAN change and NEED to change versus what we WANT to change and what we HOPE to change? Because for our country, our time is now, not two years from now.