Caitlynne Simonton, First Period

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/us/mount-mckinley-will-be-renamed-denali.html?ref=us

The tallest mountain in North America is located in Alaska and it holds a deep, cultural meaning to some of the tribes living there. Around one-hundred years ago the mountain was renamed to honor president McKinley which deeply upset the people who find deep roots in it. As of yesterday, President Obama has followed through with his promise that he made at the beginning of his campaign. His promise was to help build a stronger relationship between the federal government and the Native tribes of Alaska and he has definitely come through by renaming Mt. McKinley to its original name, Denali, meaning “the high or great one”. President Obama made the wonderful statement “There’s no denying that for some Americans, the deck’s been stacked against them, sometimes for generations, and that’s been true of many Native Americans, but if we’re working together, we can make things better.”

I love the fact that and find it a little funny that our president is no longer under the threat of an imposing election so he is just going all out, fighting for all of his controversial causes without having to worry about voters. His acknowledgement of those who are minorities or get swept underneath the rug genuinely advocating for them shows that even though you may not agree with all of his decisions, he definitely has a heart for the hurting. I am glad that the Alaskan people have regained the true recognition for their mountain that they deserve.

 

A Note from Mrs. Countryman

Thank you every one for posting on time!  ;)  For your first current events blog posts, these look really good!  I can tell many of you are eager to share your opinion of present day issues!

Reminder:  This is an AP US History class, so remember to synthesize by connecting today's current events to something in our past.  This is a big part of your analysis.  That being said, you should choose an article that can easily relate.  We will go over this again in class.

Great work, historians!

Alexis Williams -4th period

The Future of the Confederate Flag

On July 7th 2015, a white man walked into a church bible study n Charleston, South Carolina and killed nine people in hopes of starting a race war. He posted many pictures with the confederate flag which started a debate amongst people about the role of the confederate flag in the U.lS and specifically right now in South Carolina. Is this flag symbolizing racisim or showing a back ground of the South's history? maybe both.

This connects in a way during Civil War times. During this time there were slaves and racism was high. All African Americans were property unless they found a way to make it up North to Canada. Slavery was one of the many causes of the civil war, and in a way this man was trying to start a second civil war if you would. During the civil war time the confederate flag was used quite a bit in the south. Most saw it as a symbol of racism and others, a symbol of Southern pride. Is that why so many people were in an uproar once they heard this flag could be taken down permanently?

Slavery started pretty long time ago. Even in Jamestown (1607) indentured servants (who were basically a step below a slave) had come into the New World as well. But as the demand for cash crop like tobacco ans cotton grew larger the need for slaves grew as well. Hence the slave trade and everything else that came with it. Fast forwards a century or 2 and the U.S. is split. in half The North and The SOuth or Confederacy (hence the confederate flag). Many people participated in the Civil War and got slavery banished during that time. But the Confederate flag was still used during the late 1900s and eventually it was rare for someone to have it. And as racism became less common it was not seen as much

That's why it was such a big deal to South Carolina citizens to have it removed. So much so that a girl even claimed the flag in attempt to take it down herself, bu was arrested. History can repeat itself in centain things we do centuries later. That's one of the reasons history is important ecause it helps us remer past mistakes and reminds us not to do them again.

source: https://listencurrent.com/current_events/478-future-of-the-confederate-flag

Katherine Flores: What really happened between Jorge Ramos and Donald Trump?

Summary:
After a showdown in Iowa between best known Spanish-language news anchor in the United States, Jorge Ramos and presidential candidate, Donald Trump, both sides were quick to make statements as to what happened during the heated press conference. Trump says that Jorge wasn't called on and so that is why he repeatedly told him to sit down and added "Go back to Univision". While, Jorge believes that the one good thing that did come out of this tense press conference was the unmasking of who Donald Trump really is. Jorge was just asking questions about his controversial immigration proposals  when Trump had security escort him out. Of course, Donald Trump added that security had acted on their own, but in the video that will be linked below, you can clearly see Trump signal them to take him away. Jorge states this was because he didn't want to answer certain questions so he'd rather avoid them than be honest about what he plans to do. He believes this is evidence that points to the way a dictator would behave which is dangerous to freedom of press. However, Trump makes sure to add in that Ramos was "acting like a madman" which is an exaggeration, but not completely false because he does tend to act like an advocate, especially towards men who threaten to build a wall surrounding the border and send 11 million undocumented immigrants home.

Analysis:
As much as Donald Trump may try to hide how rude and racist he truly is, insulting the most famous and beloved Spanish-language news anchor didn't help anyone. It showed more than ever before how much and how smoothly he tip-toes around questions because even after Ramos was allowed in and asked the question, he didn't really answer it. I just don't see first off, why he has supporters of any kind and secondly, how he doesn't realize that by acting this way, no one will take him seriously. He is a ridiculous, wealthy man who thinks he can buy himself that election and as much as money helps, you can't fool everyone. At this point, if he even makes it close to the Oval Office, I'm moving to another country because we wouldn't even get a new president, we would get a dictator.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/30/media/donald-trump-jorge-ramos-interview/

Paige-Moore-Mitchell 9th period

Potential Repeat of 9/11 with much deadlier weapons

    Former Vice President Cheney claims that Obama is responsible for the rise of Isis. However, Obama believes that George Bush and Cheney were the ones to leave the U.S unstable. Cheney is worried that Isis is becoming too powerful and could use chemicals,biological agents, or nuclear weapons towards the U.S. Plus, Isis is also recruiting citizens of the United States to go fight in Syria and Iraq. The return of these recruits to the U.S concerns him. Isis weapons are becoming more and more advanced ,and they're constantly growing in size which can result in putting our country in danger.

Analysis

      In my opinion, this is very scary because we don't know when the attack could happen or how powerful their weapons could be. It's also sad how people of our own country are sided with Isis ,who's goal is to bring the country that they are apart of down. I also disagree with the idea that Cheney believes it is all Obamas fault. 

      Actually, in 2003, George Bush invaded Iraq and nineteen days later threw out Saddam's government. Soon after this, Bush or someone in his administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. At least, 250,000 Iraqi men were furious, armed, and unemployed. When the American Commanders talked to the Iraqi leaders, they had come to them for instructions and a willingness to cooperate. American commanders argued that Iraqi military should be kept intact and disbanding them would turn too many men against the U.S. Bush went ahead anyways. This caused many Iraqi Forces to take arms against the United States.

        They blame Obama for this because they believe he could've tried harder with this issue. Maliki, the Iraqi leader, didn't want any Americans in Iraq and Obama agreed. If Obama had pushed Maliki further, there could have been a small force of Americans in Iraq. George Bush is right about the Obama administration being able to have a small force in Iraq if they really tried. If American troops had stayed in Iraq, it could have kept them from sliding in to chaos and possibly keep make a big difference. 

         After the American invasion, Iraq's was not in a politically stable enough to act without an honest broker to negotiate its many factions. This is the role Americans played. After 2011,  with no Americans on ground, Maliki was free to do what he pleased. He rapidly and ruthlessly repressed Iraq's Sunni minority. This imprisoned many young men on no charges radicalizing the Sunnis who weren't in prison. When Isis came rolling in June 2014, anything was better to Maliki to most Sunnis.  

          Who knows could have all been prevented? We won't know for sure although Obama is sending Americans back to Iraq. Hopefully by doing this, we will form some type of peace with them and prevent Isis from growing stronger and making any moves on the United States.

Sources: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/dick-cheney-terrorism-threat-isis/index.html

Immigration Issue In Brief--Madeleine Norton

Link to article: http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2015-obama-plan-protect-immigrants-backed-democratic-mayors-17930

The following article discusses the issue over immigration, and the tension between the opinions of the democratic and republican parties. 30+ democratic governors support Obama's decision to protect immigrants from deportation by anticipating the creation of an amicus brief, but republican governors from over 25 states argue against the policies Obama had placed. To speak in his defense, New York governor Bill de Blasio argues that “delaying implementation of the president’s executive action will further hurt our families, negatively impact our economies, and create unnecessary insecurity in our communities”, which goes against the views of the opposing side who state, "'unilateral suspension of the nation's immigration laws is unlawful' and that only the court's 'immediate intervention can protect the [states] from dramatic and irreparable injuries,'" says Cristina Silva of the above article.
If Obama manages to win over the Supreme Court and the House, however, he would be further extending the rights to those illegal citizens who have children born in the United States (or other requirements suited) working visas.

The argumentation over dealing with the president's power is definitely not something new, and can be noted throughout history as a reoccurring issue. Even from some of the earliest years of our nation's government, checks and balances have always been strictly taut. So not only could one find this article important because of the urgency of the issue and the impact it will have on the U.S. in years to come, but how it relates to other moments in history when our president was at blows with the judicial and legislative branches (for example: president Andrew Jackson vetoed over 20 bills after the Civil War, the recent government shutdown, and how Congress, in 1918, refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, a peace treaty ending World War I).

White Supremacist and his Nazi salute, Convicted of Three Murders at Jewish sites- Natalia Hernandez, 9th Period

Miller, also known as Frazier Glenn Cross Jr. is a man of 72 years of age from Aurora, Missouri, who admitted to killing three people at a shooting in two suburban Kansas city Jewish sites. He pleaded not guilty against all evidence, claiming that it was his duty to stop genocide against white race, and that "wasn't killing people," he "was killing Jews."

None of the victims were Jews.

It was one of the many objections he sporadically spouted during the proceedings, in which at one point he said, "I object to everything on the grounds of George Washington, our founding father." urging the judges to be brave and find him not guilty, as they then would have the power to inspire the world. To my great relief he was convicted of various charges for the shooting he was responsible for, including murder. After he was convicted, he gave the jurors a Nazi salute, and said he would "die a martyr."

History repeats itself, and the only way to prevent that is to learn from our past mistakes. This case clearly exemplifies the lessons that we've learned- that this person's ideas are inherently wrong, both morally and otherwise logically. The victims weren't even Jewish, for god's sake! And if they had been, all the more reason to condemn hateful atrocities like these.

He also founded the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in his native North Carolina and later the White Patriot Party. He also ran for the U.S. House in 2006 and the U.S. Senate in 2010 in Missouri, each time espousing a white-power platform.

A mindset where people find their fellows inferior and exhibit violence as a form of intolerance is truly saddening, revolting and appalling.

I pray for the families of the victims, that they might find peace and I offer my greatest condolences.

http://news.yahoo.com/supremacist-convicted-killing-3-kansas-jewish-sites-212651070.html