A new kind of PatriotismWritten by Jim Wilson
No matter who you voted for in last election, or even who your parents voted for in past elections, we are all still American citizens today and will be tomorrow.
We are all American citizens.
That statement means something different to each and every one of us who call these great United States of America our home. We are all different in some ways while we are so similar in our love of our country and its’ emblems like our anthems and flags. It is imperative that we reunite under our common flag, sing our anthems and get back to being best and most respected country in world.
Take a look around world. Even in countries that would do us harm, there are individuals who want what we have. They sense our freedoms and our liberties. These people envy what we take for granted. Are we willing to throw away what we have because we are divided along political lines?
What we need to do now is concentrate on a new kind of patriotism.
“A new kind of patriotism” What does that mean? Perhaps it is time that citizens of our great country agree to put our differences aside for good of country. We need to forge a common view of where American is heading. It is up to us to work for an American that we can all feel proud of.
What will be our legacy? History has seen us as a kind and generous nation. Strength and prosperity are required for us to afford luxury of kindness and generosity. To maintain this strength and prosperity, we will have to unite and become one nation again. The backbone of this unification will be our patriotism.
Our patriotism has always been strong. It has fortified us in many battles both military and spiritual. Our founding fathers knew what patriotism was. It has always been a great insult to question publicly another mans patriotism. We must look deep inside of ourselves to raise a new kind of patriotic feeling that all Americans can feel as one. A patriotism that Americans will once again hold high and question only in darkest of times and situation.
Who knows where patriotism grows?
A Workable Alternative to Term LimitsWritten by Terry Mitchell
The end of another election once again brings into focus problem of Washington politicians raising money and running for re-election as soon as they get into office. Many citizens and various government-accountability advocacy groups have done little more than complain from time to time. However, some of them, along with many members of media, have been pushing for term limits as a solution. But is that really solution we need? Even with term limits, we would still be left with same old problems, only in smaller doses, i.e., politicians would still be playing same old campaigning and fund raising games for whatever amount of subsequent terms they are allowed. Also, we would still be stuck with situation in which sitting Senators and Representatives (even those with no remaining terms for office they hold) spend their time running for higher office. I say forget about term limits in Washington as I have a better solution. I call it “term interruptions.” Here's how it would work: No President/Vice President, Senator, or Representative could serve two consecutive terms in same office and would have to sit out at least two years before being eligible for a different federal office although he/she could be elected to an unlimited number of terms in any number of federal offices. For example, a U.S. Representative could not succeed himself/herself in that office and would have to wait until he/she has been out of office for at least two years before being eligible for President/Vice President, a Senate seat, or any seat in House of Representatives. In other words, a sitting President/Vice President, Senator, or Representative could not run for re-election and he/she could not run for any elective seat in legislative or executive branches of federal government. That way, they could all focus on serving their constituents rather than getting re-elected. They could use two off-years for campaigning and raising money. However, this proposal could be problematic for U.S. House of Representatives, since its members currently serve only two-year terms. Under my plan, House would see a complete turnover (all 435 members) every two years. Therefore, I would propose four-year terms for U.S. Representatives. Of course, we would still get a complete turnover in House, only after every four years instead of every two years, so there would still be a problem.