Person 4 Blog

However, I don’t think that we should deny them the right to legal counsel.
In general, I think that some of the restrictions on our civil liberties make sense. They are set in place to prevent terrorism in America. If they were not there, then it would be possible for another attack on America. Even now that we have taken over Iraq for the Iraqis’, there are still militia groups that are trying to take back the nation and get us out of the country.”(-Cat )”They may be small, but they have the power to make a huge effect in our day to day life’s—just look at what they did with 9/11”(-TJ). “When America is attacked we go into military law not civil law”, a point made by Cat, is a good observation. She does not understand why they are different, but I think I may have a reason for it. During war, our country is at risk: any day could have a deadly attack. With the country being more at risk, there are extenuating circumstances. For this, there needs to be some different rules—or powers—the government can use in order to protect us without such a delay. I always feel that my group has a lot of good ideas to added to the different topics each week and that we feed off each other more to express the points we are trying to get across. The point bring up by TJ about just because a country is smaller than you cannot mean that they can’t have the upper hand in power which is so true , never un-estimate someone because of their size because you look like the ass in the long run. Prime example the attack on the twin towers killed a lot of innocent people. I love how Cat said that restrictions prevent terrible things from happening which is true and then person 3 goes on to explain military law because for a lot of people it seems stupid or confusing and they explain it very well.

Since this is our last blog and I got the honors to present last I would like to say that it was great working with you all as a team, our thoughts as a good were always very appetizing to the discussing of blogging. Feel free to give yourself a pat on the back for your amazing work. GOOD JOB!

Week 5- Person Three

Looking at the videos for this week blog post, I noticed some points that were made. “When America is attacked we go into military law not civil law”, a point made by Cat, is a good observation. She does not understand why they are different, but I think I may have a reason for it. During war, our country is at risk: any day could have a deadly attack. With the country being more at risk, there are extenuating circumstances. For this, there needs to be some different rules—or powers—the government can use in order to protect us without such a delay. If we did not have military law, and for some reason we were in war and we had P.O.W.s we would have to let them go without proper interrogation. I just think that military law is an emergency law setup.

The point Cat made about not having attacks on us since 9/11 is because we have good security. I wanted to add that even though it may be a pain to have to go through so much security, it has definitely helped protect us. I feel that sometimes we feel because we look a certain way or have money means we are entitled to more, but we’re not. Sometimes we forget to step in the other person’s shoes and realize that we both have to do something we do not want to, and sometimes that is just the way it is.

One of the points brought up by TJ was good. We need to protect our citizens of hazardous situations like food poisoning. Whether it seems ridiculous or not, it needs to be done. It reminds me of when I was in elementary school, and my mom would make me wear this hat with a pom-pom on it that I did not like. I thought it was stupid to have to wear such a hat, but it was to protect me from the cold. It is a weird connection, but I still make the point of having to do some things we may not want to do, but in order to maintain our health, we need to do it.

Week 5 - Person 1

After watching the four clips for the week five blog, I discovered that some of the other main points in those clips were the powers of Habeas Corpus, and how war is not between states anymore it is more or less between individuals with the powers of mass destruction. When it comes to the topic of Habeas Corpus, people that get taken into custody of the United States have the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus (which means that a prisoner can be asked to be released from an unlawful detention.) In some cases, there have been people that were detained mainly because of their race, religion, color, and creed. Even if we are in a state of war/terror, people still have civil liberties such as the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus.
The second main point that I found was that we really don’t fight other states aka countries. The last time we were at war with a country was really Iraq in desert storm (the last war with Iraq was mainly to help stop terrorism.) We face groups such as Al-Qaeda, which are small militia groups with radical views on our current society that do not run a country. Even now that we have taken over Iraq for the Iraqis’, there are still militia groups that are trying to take back the nation and get us out of the country. They may be small, but they have the power to make a huge effect in our day to day life’s—just look at what they did with 9/11.
The restrictions that are discussed in this program are very relevant to the issue at hand in the fictitious scenario. When it comes down to a chemical warfare kind of act, we need to have stricter sanctions so that we can better protect the welfare of our own people. People will view some of the restrictions as ridiculous, but in the end it all helps protect them from what could possibly happen (also when they detained some “suspicious” people, the food poisoning didn’t happen.)

Person 5-The balancing Act

When watching the video posted for this week’s blog, I agreed with three main points said by the speakers. The first point I agreed with was that when America is attacked we go into military law not civil law. We are used to civil law, as citizens and a lot of the time, don’t understand why they are different. Another point that was said that I agreed with was that the Constitution was made so that we could check the executive branch, meaning that branch wouldn’t have all the power. And the final point that I agreed with in the movie was that we should keep those who are a potential threat isolated so that no one can get to them before we as a nation question them. However, I don’t think that we should deny them the right to legal counsel.
In general, I think that some of the restrictions on our civil liberties make sense. They are set in place to prevent terrorism in America. If they were not there, then it would be possible for another attack on America. One reason we haven’t had a serious attack on America is because we have stepped up our security to prevent such attacks. I think that some of the restrictions set on our civil liberties are there for the greater good, and that without them, many people would be in dire situations. I think that people don’t think about that side of the argument often, and think that there is a right to a lot of what they have now, when in reality it is a privilege.

Week Four-Person 3

Equality: the quality or state of being equal. It is a fairly simple definition, but seems to have not been a fairly simple task.

Our group agreed that everyone should be equal. However, each individual group member had different feelings about this article. Jade feels that no one should be superior or inferior to another person, and that money conquers the mind. I may be wrong when I say this, but I think she was saying that people view others with or without money differently. When women used to not have jobs or money, they were inferior just because of their money stature. Jade also feels that family roles can create double standards, too. A stay-at-home dad may be frowned upon while for a mom it is completely okay.

Kat and Kayla have similar views on this article, and they think that the law and religion should be separate. There was mentioning of the “creator” a lot and what would the “creator” want? It is not about what the creator would want, but what is right. TJ started by saying men are encouraged to have women speak, which at first I took this a little demeaning. Maybe it was, but I don’t think so because when I read what TJ said about when men listen, they may have an insight to something they are not normally comfortable with, seemed enlightening and that we all need each other to see what the other does not. TJ quoted “That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” With that quote, it all brings us back to our group thinking that we should all be treated equal. Kat brought up a great question that I think we all—or at least the women in this room--should think about: If these woman before us didn’t stand up for their rights, then where would we be now?

Week Four Person 2

This article stood out to me because it was the official Women's Rights. When this was created, the only thing they had in mind were women. It gave us the same rights as men, and people finally started realizing that women weren't just maids for the house, and that they could actually do something productive. This article also pointed out everything that women legally were not able to do, and shows that they changed it for women. While I agree with the point of the article, I thought that law and religion were supposed to be separate? This article focused a lot on the fact that the "Creator" would want this. It makes it sound as if they're only giving women rights because of a higher power. I enjoyed reading this article because it showed me what my life would personally be like if they hadn't fixed all of those laws, and if they hadn't given women rights.

Person 1

After reading this article some of the main points that I found and would like to bring to the table is that men are encourage to have women speak. In the article it stated that, “it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak, and teach.” Men should be helping out women because it is always nice to have a women’s opinion of certain things because men can be brutes to something that needs finesse. And my second point from this article is that at the very end its final resolution was, “That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” This was extremely huge for the rights of women because it would essentially give them the chance to help make a living for them and create a women’s workforce. It would help make it so that women wouldn’t be stuck in the household anymore, raising children and cooking/cleaning for the husband.

Person 5

While reading the posting for this week, I realized that it had many good points. Something that caught my attention while reading the article was when it said women were created equal to men through the creator. Whatever happened to leaving church and state separate? Another thing that stuck out to me was that the entire posting was about women’s rights and how they should stand up to the law. They need to stand up for their rights. This reminds me of how Martin Luther King wanted equal rights for those who didn’t have equal rights: African Americans. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that laws that prohibit women from the pursuit of happiness are against the law, as they should be. Women are the same as men, and should have the same opportunities as men, just like the law says. The resolutions say that it is against nature to deny the rights of women. I agree with this. I believe this has played a part for the way women now-a-days are. If these women before us didn’t fight for their rights, then where would we be? I don’t think that it would have been possible for us to be where we are now. These women who fought for women’s rights played a huge role to where women are today. I personally do not think most women would be where they are now if it weren’t for the women who fought for so diligently for women’s rights. Many women are CEO’s now; would that have been possible if these women hadn’t fought for their rights and the rights of the women after them. If they didn’t fight, where would I be now?

Person 4 Blog

The three most important things that stood out to me were the fact that everyone should be equal and should have the right to happiness this is very important to me because I feel that equality is a major right nobody should be superior or inferior many people lose sight of what really important especially when it comes to money it conquers the mind. What I also found important when it talked about roles in the family because this is what created double standards in america today like stay at home dads how they are looked down upon. Its werid to me how they was trying to create a change but in the end I feel like it was a catch 22. The best thing I found about this article is that woman are equal to men because in all reality women can do anything a man can do most of the time a lot better because they are the ones who go through the most pain example being able to push a baby out. This article had a lot of important facts and ideas but these are what I found important in my eyes.

Week Three Blog-Person 2

After reading the four previous posts and the article, I have decided that everyone had really great points and the article was interesting as well. The article focused on LBJ wanting everyone, including African Americans to be able to vote. It also showed the struggle that they had to overcome in order to achieve that goal. I strongly agree with Jade when she said that she would rather people not like her for her morals and her character rather than the color of her skin. I feel that it is not only rude and cruel to judge someone based on the color of their skin, but its ethically wrong as well. I feel that LBJ wanted the opposite of that to happen: people to notice others because of his or her character instead of the color or their skin. Cat also had an amazing point; when she talks about the one like that essentially defines our country : "we shall overcome". We, as a United country have encountered so many issues, and have gotten through each one together. When Kaitlyn quoted from the speech " There is no negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only American problem", it defined her post. She focused on the fact that this was an issue and that LBJ wanted to fix it. He wanted to unite the United States. I'm glad that I didn't have to live through the era where whites were thought to be superior to blacks, because I would have been hated by other whites, and would have hated everything they were doing to the African Americans. And to think, all of this happened because of the color of someone's skin.

Week 3 Blog - Person 1

After reading the three blogs of my classmates, the most important points of the article are about the right to vote (everything from here and there about the voting issue) and the basic, simple need for human rights. During the time of LBJ, there was lots of turmoil among our own people—mainly because of the civil rights movement during his term. Kaitlin mentioned that people are always going to have to fight for their civil rights, and like Cat and everyone else, I believe this is true. Even though it looks like our country is equal and all people have civil rights, it is just a face that is put on for the rest of the world. There are many groups in America that feel like the African Americans did back on the 1960’s such as Latinos and Arab/Muslims. They are feeling the pains that others have felt before them and they will fight for their rights.

The other important point is the need for human rights. Everyone on this planet we call home deserves certain rights—not all of these rights are written on paper. They are mainly unspoken laws that everyone tried to live and abide by. Cat posted a great link that brings you to the United Nations where they try to bring awareness to the world’s issues with human rights. Even though there is a committee that is trying to solve these issues, they will never be able to solve them and save those that need it the most.

Overcome-Person 5

Reading the first two posts, the previous bloggers for this week had very good points. That this speech is about the right to vote, the civil rights vote and how color isn’t the problem. Everyone is different in their own way. As Jade said, we are a united Country. But what I liked most about the speech was the part where he says, “There is no issue of state's rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights. I have not the slightest doubt what will be your answer.” I really liked this, because it is true, and a very good point. Everyone should be concerned mostly about human rights. Another point that is very important is a saying that is repeated throughout the entire speech. We shall overcome. This one line speaks volumes about our country. We are united together, no matter what. We are the greatest country when we work together, and through what Lyndon B. Johnson’s message we were able to overcome one of the worst times in our countries history.
I also wanted to mention what Kaitlin mentioned previously again, because it is such an important point. The fight for civil rights is still not over, nor will it ever be, because with civil rights comes human rights. We still haven’t succeeded in freeing those in need from the depression of having their human rights violated. But as a nation, we are heading in that direction. As Lyndon B. Johnson said, “We Shall Overcome.”

Person 4 Blog

The 36th President didnt like the fact that the united states were trying to be divided he didnt want them to look at each other as being south & north, he want them to see that are one a united country. Person 3 Talks about how the president thinks that discrimation of color is a problem, I agree with this so much because I would rather people not like me for my morals and character than to dislike me because the color of my skin. Its crazy that in order for a born citizen to get their constitutional right back in this time period everything had to be writing in stone.
These Movements did help to gain more rights for citizens especially people of color but it didnt eraser the pain and all the deaths that came with it. Being an African American Young Woman reading different articles that talks about all the struggle that my people had to go through in order for me to achieve my goals, makes me happy but sad at the very same time because it shows how if something means that much to you , you would fight for it no matter what if the cost of it might be your life , I am proud so say that I am black.
This article made me think of the Black National Anthem http://http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-black-national-anthem-lyrics-james-weldon-johnson.html it was song writing to express how happy blacks were even though they went through so much in life.

Week Three Blog-Person 3

Lyndon B. Johnson—the 36^th president of the United States from 1963 until 1969—gave a speech Monday, March 15, 1965 after a horrific racial violence act in Selma, Alabama. The violence was directed towards blacks who were protesting for their right to vote, and it was the police who did the attacking. This speech that Johnson made was mainly directed towards everyone’s right to vote. Throughout his speech, he states that he will send in a bill that will not restrict any denial of a black man’s right to vote; this bill is known as the civil rights bill.

The way Johnson approached this really stuck to me; he said that this discrimination of color is a problem, and that it is every citizen of the United States’ problem. “There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.” I feel that even though we were—and still are—the strongest country, the arguing and the violence is a wall that prevents us from becoming stronger. At the very end of the article, after this speech, there were still hate crimes that brought over $40 million in damages. Out of the many life lessons I have learned, one is applicable here: if we all work together, changes can happen. As cheesy as that is, it is true. Sometimes we just need to put aside our differences and accept we all want to succeed and we need each other. To quote Johnson again, “And we are met here tonight as Americans--not as Democrats or Republicans; we're met here as Americans to solve that problem. This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose.”

I would like to mention that finding civil rights is still not over. Today, we are not faced with discriminating minorities of race, but rather of sexual orientation. Although one conflicts differently, the struggle continues. We may sit here today and think that it was crazy not to let the black man vote; but we sit here today and think that it is right to deny two people to get married. I believe that we need to accept that everyone is different. People felt that blacks should not vote, but we changed. Maybe it will all change.

Week 2 Blog Summary - Person 1

After reading all of what my fellow group members have written about, I have come up with the consensus that everyone thinks that guns are not what cause problems, it is the person or people behind the gun. All agreed that the person behind the gun—Loughner—had evil intentions when he opened fire at the Safeway Supermarket. Loughner may have had some mental issues going on inside of him, but there is nothing saying that he could have made the judgment call to not do what he did. I also thought that what Jade said in her blog is very true: “I believe that it is a privilege, yes you were born with these rights, but that doesn’t mean that you are superior to them.” Most Americans tend to take most, if not all of their rights for granted and when it come time that their rights are impeded, they become remorseful. The fact that Columbine was brought up in the blogs was a good example of gun violence. Even though it is not the same exact circumstances, it still deals with harm to the innocent.

With the matter of Governor LePage, everyone seemed to be in acceptance with the fact that he was unprofessional. The phrase that Governor LePage decided to go with was perhaps not the best to use for his superior position, but as Jade and Cat have said he is still just a human being. I will have to say that LePage did not say this with any anger toward the NAACP; he was merely stating that if he was to go to the prison on MLK day, he would meet with all the inmates. So unlike one of my fellow group mates, I don’t believe Governor LePage has and temper or anger issues. On the other hand my fellow bloggers think that this is a poor representation of Maine. LePage is the ultimate face of our State.

Event's of Citizenship - Person 5

While overlooking the responses made by the previous bloggers, I noticed a similarity. On January 8th, a young man decided that he was going to jeopardize his rights as a citizen and do the unthinkable, take the lives of innocent people. Kayla had some really great points within her blog, one was that she would love to blame gun laws for what happened, but the problem really wasn’t the gun laws at all, but the person behind the trigger. He had evil intents and was under the impression that nothing was going to stop him. She also mentioned that he took his rights as a citizen for granted; this thought was echoed throughout the entire blog by both Kaitlin and Jade. Another thought that was resonated within the blog was that we are given rights when we are born or are naturalized within this nation, but they are merely privileges, you broke those rules set forth in laws then your rights are revoked (to a certain point). Things will become more confined for the person who did indeed break the law. This leads to a point that Kaitlin made, that people must earn things; it was something that her parents taught her when she was very little; it was something that my parents taught me as well. So where was this young man’s moral judgment when he pulled the trigger? Do people blame his parent’s for not pushing the issue of moral judgment? Another point that I would like to point out about the shooting is that it reminded Jade of the historical shooting at Columbine. I can see where she would make the connection; she also added a good link to a website that explains what happened at that time. It was a tragic occurrence just like the one on January 8th of this year. She made a point of saying that the shooters were victims themselves, lashing out at the bullying and teasing they received at school, making a statement that they were a force to be reckoned with. I wonder if the investigation into the Tucson shooting will reveal a tortured childhood as well.

As for the Governor’s statements on January 14th there were mixed reviews from my fellow bloggers. Kayla made a point to claim that it was unprofessional on LePage’s part, I agree. If you are going to be in the world of politics then there is a certain respect for people that you must have. Sometimes you need to censor what you say, and say it in a politically correct way. I say this because like Kayla, Kaitlin, and Jade, I believe that what he said reflects poorly on Mainers. We elected him as a State to represent us. So do it. But yes, the Governor is still human, like Jade said, so there is no reason to be making a huge fuss out of this one event. It was said, and there is nothing we can do about it. Kaitlin posted a great link to YOUTUBE that lets one listen to exactly what was said. Just in case someone didn’t catch it the first time. For my two cents in the matter, I think that LePage was actually doing the right thing. He may have responded poorly, but that is a minor detail. The major thing is that he was actually respecting what Martin Luther King Jr. wanted and worked so hard to achieve. It is not right to deny whites the privilege of seeing the Governor because it is Martin Luther King Day and they are not African American. Equality for all is the message we associate with Martin Luther King, so why deny that to people on the day that we celebrate it?

Events of "Citizenship" -Person 4

Kayla and Kaitlin made very good points, especially when Kayla said that it’s not that law of having a gun that killed these six people but the Man who pulled the trigger. I absolutely agree what Jared Lee Loughner did was wrong but I sit here and wonder what made him scoop so low to want to start shooting in a parking lot. What really touches my heart with this tragedy is the fact that the 9 year old girl got shot: when you hurt an innocent child I have no remorse for you what so ever. When it comes to rights that a citizen has, I believe that it is a privilege yes you were born with these rights but that doesn’t mean that you are superior to them. When I say this I mean that you must distribute what it means to be a loyal and honorable citizen to keep the right to be able to have rights within the United States. There is a reason that law enforcement was create to punish the people who break the laws and the highest and most harmful crime is murder the ability that you think you have to take another person’s life away. We were built under the faith of God and one of the 10 commandments is “Thou shall not Kill”. I hope that the court gives justice to these families and gives Jared sentences for each person he killed.In the stand point in citizenship he was morally wrong. This shooting made me think of the shooting that happen in Columbine High School.http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/a/columbine.htm Two students came in their high school and shot up the buliding and even one feel so bad for the victims but people fail to realize that these two students were victims themselves they were tease for a long period of time until one day they just snapped.

Like Kayla I feel that it was unprofessional for the governor to say " Tell them to kiss my butt" but unlikely Kaitlin I was not upset because even though he is the governor he is still human he will sometimes say exactly what is on his mind even if there is a big out bust about it later. He is a citizen just like the rest of us and he has the right to say how he feels even if that means some people will dislike him for it. In the case of the governor with the stand point of citizenship in the legal I believe he was wrong but in the sense of his moral meaning he was right because thats how he feel towards the Martin Luther King breakfast and thats how he feel. Even Though Martin Luther King was all about bring people together you can win in everyone's eyes.

Blog 2-Person 3

I like where Kayla went with the first question: it’s not the gun laws that are to blame for these tragic occurrences, but the people in control who are the ones we need to hold responsible. In addition, I think from a moral standpoint, it is obvious what this man did was wrong. As a child, I was taught to never lie, hate, or especially hurt others. If a person had what I wanted—no matter if it was material or say fame—I was to not take from them, but to earn it myself. I feel that this man deliberately hurt others for his own personal gain, which, according to my parents, is morally wrong. I have to agree with my parents on this one. I know that as citizens, we are given rights, and when we abuse the rights by breaking the laws, we lose them, and I feel that that is justice.

I am upset with Governor Paul LePage. It is not entirely because he was not attentive when he was asked, because I feel that family is important. It was not entirely because of what he said, because I feel that he should not be harassed. It was a mix of the two. Since he was not present, and because he spoke as I feel as inappropriate, he represented the state of Maine poorly. I do think, however, that up until the point of him saying “tell them to kiss my butt” I feel he explained himself rather nicely. Nevertheless, I think both parties—the media and Governor Paul LePage—were wrong. I will not mention who I voted for in this past election, but I will say that our state did not elect Paul LePage for his wretched temper. If he cannot control his anger towards other because of what they say, we have a big problem. To me, he is acting like a child, a bully, and I don’t quite care to listen to him again.

Week Two Blog

The shooting-On January 8, 2011, a trip to the market turned deadly when Jared Lee Loughner , a 22 year old college drop out, gunned down a crowd of people in the market parking lot. Loughner killed 6 and wounded 13. Among the 6 killed was a nine year old, and among the injured was Representatve Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot point blank above the eyebrow. Laughter was arrested on the scene and is now facing five federal counts. I would like to blame gun laws for allowing this crazy man to have a gun, but can't. It's not the gun laws that made him do this, he did it on his own. The gun may have actually killed the 6 people, but the gun needed its' trigger pulled. This guy is an American citizen who took his rights for granted, and now, because he broke the laws, he is getting his rights revoked. This guy deserves whatever the law throws at him.

The governors comments-LePage was not planning on attending some of the events scheduled for Martin Luther King Day, causing some "media attention". When responding to all of this attention, LePage simply said "Tell them to kiss my butt". I felt that this was very unprofessional of him. It would have been different if he was talking with one of his friends, but this was publicly announced, and makes him look bad.

Summary - Person 5

After reading the posts made by my fellow blog mates, it is easy to see that everyone is in agreement. Martin Luther King was a great man and did exactly as he preached. One of the first points made that really stood out was that every citizen of the United States of America has certain rights protected under the U.S Constitution, this was one of the main reasons Martin Luther King conducted his protests. Our person two took that idea a bit farther, exclaiming that even though African Americans had those rights on paper, the rights were not enforced by either the law enforcement agencies or those people in power with in society at that time. Yet again, person three elaborated on how Martin Luther King wanted to follow the laws of the United States, even though some of the laws of the United States didn’t treat African Americans fairly, or as full citizens. Martin Luther King refused to stoop to that level, and made sure that all his protests were peaceful, in accordance with American law. As a result of this, it lead person three to think of another prominent figure during that time, Malcolm X. Person three brought this American figure up because it showed how two people could want the same thing, go about it different ways and get different results. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King had separate approaches, who was respected more? Martin Luther King wasn’t about sides, but justice. He wanted each “side” to get along – we are all citizens of the United States. Everyone should get along. Person four expressed how everything within our blog so far corresponds to what the class is about – the rights and roles of citizens.

Above all of the main points expressed, I thought that there was one point made that was exactly what Martin Luther King wanted and was working towards. The person expressed how the real message made by the article was that we as a nation have become united together. We have strength as a nation to overcome anything and everything if we work together.

Martin Luther King -Person 4

As I began to read the ideas of my follow classmates on what the thought of the Marin Luther King speech. I feel that TJ & Kayla had very good points when they talked about how MLK fought for rights under the law of the constitution but I feel that person 3 really point out the major idea that MLK wasnt trying to prove what side was more power but he was trying to prove that everyone should get along. Person 3 point out that MLK said "we are not afraid of what we are doing , because we are doing it within the law" not only did the person point out that Martin Luther King always made sure he follow the law even though he was trying to stand up for him and his people. This person also point out the main purpose of this class which is the rights and roles of citizens , and how the citizens have the born right no matter what color they are to get what is rightfully theirs because the law. When person 3 also compare Martin Luther King to Malcolm X it also shows how people can believe in the same thing but the way they go about it can be totally different.

Martin Luther King Jr.--Person 3

I definitely feel that TJ found the two major points to this speech, but I liked what Kayla contributed as well. It was hard for me to decide what to add, because I felt it was already said, and how many major points can there really be?

Once I got to thinking, I felt that Martin Luther King Jr. was trying to say that not only do they have the conatituional right to protest, but that they will protest, and they plan to protest peacefully. I also felt he was trying to point out the importance of the legal protesting and finding friendship between races.

The entire time reading the speech, I thought about how much Martin Luther King was trying to do all of this protesting peacefully. As TJ quoted, "There will be no crosses burned at any bus stops in Montgomery. There will be no white persons pulled out of their homes and taken out on some distant road and lynched for not cooperating. There will be nobody among us who will stand up and defy the constitution of this nation.” Reading that reminded me of another civil rights activist who was not so peaceful: Malcolm X. Malcolm X thought that violence was the answer, and that the only way to get what you want was to scare out the enemy. Martin Luther King felt that it was not about sides. What he wanted was for everyone to get along. That is what I felt was the hidden message: for everyone to get along. It was not about which side was going to be in power like how Malcolm X thought of it.

I would also like to quote Martin Luther King when he said, “We are not afraid of what we are doing, because we are doing it within the law.” I just feel that how he plans on doing it lawfully—especially how they are not being treated fairly under the law—is another point to this speech: no matter how unfair all of this is, he plans to lead them respectfully and fairly. That truly is commendable.

MLK

I feel like TJ covered the top two main points of this article, however I did find another one. I think part of the speech was to prove that African Americans did not have nearly as many rights as White people and they dealt with it very well. I think indirectly this article was assigned to show us, the class, how much the United States has become UNITED in the last 100 or so years. incident. The speech was intended to show strength and to prove that the African Americans were no longer going to take the physical and verbal abuse from the whites any longer. They wanted to gain acceptance into society and the only way to do that was to make themselves be noticed. I think the reason all of this was in a speech about Rosa Parks is because she inspired MLK to stand up for himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott

MLK Speech Blog

The speech that we had to read for class came from a very important main in the civil rights movement: Martin Luther King, Jr. This was a speech that took place in Montgomery, Alabama after the famous Rosa Parks bus incident. The main points of his speech to the people, I thought, were that of the Rose Parks bus incident and how they have a right to protest under the U.S. Constitution.

Rosa Parks was the woman who was arrested and brought to jail because she sat in the front of the bus, when black Americans were supposed to sit in the back of the bus in the city of Montgomery. as MLK said in his speech, "Now the press would have us believe that she refused to leave the reserved section for Negroes, but I want you to know that there is no reserved section." Mrs. Parks was a good Christian women like many others in the city of Montgomery, Alabama. She didn't put up a fight; she was just standing up for her own rights as a citizen of the United States.

The second main point of this speech would have to be how they have the right to protest because of their constitutional rights. They are people, citizens, of this country and they have just as much of a right to the Constitution as everyone else. That is what MLK is trying to say and advocate. It does say in the constitution that we have the right to assemble (protest) peacefully. All MLK wanted to do was that exactly. He said, "There will be no crosses burned at any bus stops in Montgomery. There will be no white persons pulled out of their homes and taken out on some distant road and lynched for not cooperating. There will be nobody among us who will stand up and defy the constitution of this nation." All he wanted was peaceful protests. MLK accomplished this by quietly marching through streets and holding rallies such as the one at the Lincoln Memorial, where he delivered the "I have a dream speech."

In the end of everything, MLK just wanted a peaceful end to this horrible age of ignorance.

What comes to mind when you hear the word "citizenship"?

• Privilege: When a person is a bad citizen their citizenship is limit.
• Test: When you was not born in that country you must test to show that you will be a good citizen.
• Rights: As a citizen you have legal rights such as voting.