Week 5 Blog

Adam Z chose Joseph T. Barnes, civil power vs. military power. I agree with Adam when he says that, if you are not in the act of war and you are captured for doing something illegal, you should go to a state and tried under civil law not military power. I agree with this only if the something illegal has nothing to do with war or terrorism, because if you are not in an act of war but someone is doing something illegal that is threatening to our military, then I am not sure how I feel they should be tried.

Mark then talks about the food poisoning issue. He says that in order for food to be poisoned in grocery stores, someone would have to go in and inject it, I disagree; if someone could get ahold of a shipment that was going to a grocery store, they could inject poison before it gets shipped or even while it is getting shipped. Mark also says that they would have to hit more than one grocery store for it to be a big deal, I also disagree with this; if one grocery store served over 100 people and all of those people got poisoned, I think that would be a big deal. Also if the person poisoned a shipment that was going to many grocery stores not just one, they would be poisoning way more people than just the people who go to one grocery store.

Tiffany then points out how the terrorists wouldn’t go into the grocery store to poison food; they would do it before it gets to the grocery store; which is what I stated above. Tiffany also thinks that people being held and not being able to have a lawyer is wrong, I agree because the person is unable to defend themselves, and if the case goes to trial what would they do? Get a lawyer then?

Week 5 blog

I agree with Mark about what the speaker, Peggy, said about the attacks on food supplies to a point. It is indeed a very serious threat that can be dangerous, but it is not a case on how the terrorists would get into the grocery stores. The real problem is how to prevent them from getting to the food before it gets to the grocery stores. That is how they will strike and it needs to be taken seriously. I also agree with Adam when he talks about Joseph T. Barnes. He talks about a period in time of war, people getting taken off streets without seeing a lawyer and also put on a military base for trials, etc. When he asks if it is a war or crime, I have to agree, it is very wrong. People should not be tried under military power but under civil law.  I also agree with the former attorney general, Viet D. Dinh, when he speaks of a 6^th generation Lebanese American named Narrir. He was pulled out of line at an airport in the United States coming from Europe because of the high interests he had in Islamic movements. As Adam says it, . Authorities detained him out of suspicion “to diminish the risk of taking any catastrophic harm”. They can investigate and question but they cannot arrest him for anything. Under the U.S. law, he cannot get a lawyer while this is happening and Eric Holder and I think he should definitely be able to have one. The civil liberty in this situation is not how it is supposed to work.

The first speaker Peggy talked about the attacks on the food supplies on grocery shelves. She said it was a very real threat and it would mean very serious diseases. I think that yes this is a serious problem but let us look at it a moment. How would the terrorists get into the grocery stores to inject the food and to get it out? This is not something that would be or could be done without someone seeing or knowing what’s going on. With it also being a grocery store they would need to hit many for it to even make a huge deal. I just think it is less of a threat then she thinks. The next speaker is Bob, talks about using military law in a domestic scenario; at least this is what I think he was trying to say, I have a great problem with this for a few reasons. The US constitution has rule over all people on US soil… it does not say all citizens it says all people. If they are on US soil they should fall under civil law and they should have liberties and due respect. I do not under any conditions agree with the speaker. The speaker Eric talked about taking someone off the street for an indeterminate amount of time, this… this is against all that we agreed on in the constitution. The right to a speedy trial (if there needs to be one) It is not right to take someone off the street for however long you want just because it is “terrorist” related. Civil liberties are broken when we start doing this.

Week 5 Post

The first speaker I chose was Joseph T. Barnes, a brigadier general, under the civil power versus military power segment. Barnes talks about in a time of war, people being taken off streets without seeing their lawyers, and put onto a military base for trials and such. He is very uncomfortable to see civil power over military power slipping away. He asks “Is this war or a crime?” I agree with him and am wondering if this sort of thing is totally wrong and immoral. I believe that if you are not in the act of war (aka fighting in a war), if captured for doing something illegal, you should go to a state and tried under civil law and not military power. One major subject that is a negative aspect for the people being transported to a military base is that the military is much harsher than civil power.

Derek Smith, the ceo of a company called Choice Point, was the next person I focused on from the segment “Intelligence gathering and Civil Liberties”. In this piece, he talked about how starting knowledge has to include probable cause. Part of his job is to make lists of people on airplanes and extend to relationships of people and the background info. For example, during the 9-11 trade center bombings, he started with 2 people on his list of terrorists and with his background info and looking into relationships; his list grew to all 19 people who participated. I love his job and what he does. This is so very important and I am glad someone is doing it. The restrictions on civil liberties for this man and what he is doing is only good and helpful. Yes, he is looking into people flying on planes and into your relationships with people, but can this really be hurtful?

Viet D. Dinh, a former attorney general talks about a 6^th generation Lebanese American named Narrir who was pulled out of line at an airport once back in the United States coming from Europe because he has a high interest in Islamic movements. Authorities detained him out of suspicion “to diminish the risk of taking any catastrophic harm”. They can investigate and question but they cannot arrest him for anything. Under the U.S. law, he cannot get a lawyer while this is happening and Eric Holder and I think he should definitely be able to have one. This is definitely a civil liberty that has the wrong affect in this situation. Maybe some civil liberties go too far restricting?

Week 4 Summary

Adam T starts the week’s blog with some main points. He points out that in the beginning of the article there is a major emphasis on the “law of nature” and that the law of nature is mandated by god. He put in the quote; “that woman is man’s equal- was intended to be so by the Creator” This points out the emphasis of god and how god wanted men and women to be equal therefore they should be. Adam then points out that woman should get an education, and they should be able to teach and preach religion just like men. He completes his post by saying that the constitution is a set of fair rules but it is going to take determination from both men and women to keep a fair society.

Adam Z starts his post by pointing out the importance of the word “resolved” in the article. He said that the word “resolved” sticks out to him because it means a call of action and that something has to get done. Adam then puts in the quote; “We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the state and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf.” He said this quote is important because it means they are going to spread the news by repeating themselves that way people won’t forget it. Adam Z then agreed with what Adam T had to say about education, he also said he liked the quotes Adam T put in his posting.

Mark adds to the blog by putting in a quote that he disagrees with; “He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.” He thinks this quote means that men thought of women as property, and women weren’t anything until they had a husband who they then had to obey. Mark thinks this quote is degrading to woman and he thinks it contests Adam’s post saying that men and women were created equal. Mark then ends his posting by saying; “ I think this goes to show back in the day when this was written the men were sexist and all for white male supremacy.”

Tiffany then sums up the weeks postings. Tiffany agreed with all the points made by Adam T and Adam Z. She then puts in the quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. In Adam Z’s post he said he likes this quote because of the power that the quote holds for people and the world. Tiffany said this quote was important because of the impact it had on changing the meaning of equality for men and women.

week 4

I agree with Adam T with his point about the resolutions making it clear that women have a right to pursue happiness just as men do, and that is the law of Nature: no conflicting law has any validity. I also agree with the quote from the article: “That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.” I agree with the education part of the article too, where it quotes as: “That the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they -live, that they may no longer publish their degradation, by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.” Education is very important to both men and women for both to be successful in society. Many women had no idea what they could accomplish because their husbands refused to let them learn besides any household tasks. I also agree with the statement that women should be involved in everything that is available to them.

I agree with Adam Z’s point about the main object that sticks out in the article is the word “resolved”. It means that something has been done. This quote was really important to the document: “In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to affect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.” I agree that repetition is a way to spread news in a way that people will not forget it. The point they are trying to get across is that women should feel like they have power and feel equal to men

 “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. This quote is important because of the significant impact it had to change the meaning of equality between men and women.

Week 4 post

After reading the article I found one small paragraph to almost be… degrading to women: “He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.” This is full on saying that women are property and that they basically mean nothing without a husband. The husband being able to control apparently all aspects of life if this document gives him the permission to be the “master” which now full on contradicts the previous statements and puts contest to Adams post where all men and women are created equal. This one powerful and I think morally wrong paragraph in plane words states that men are created more equal and women amount to nothing more than property to be owned by their husband and to be used in the way he see fit. I think there were equally powerful messages and quotes to be found but this stuck out to me the most and I felt I needed to bring it up to debate the supposed all men created equal with rights liberty and the pursuit to happiness. I think this goes to show back in the day when this was written the men were sexist and all for white male supremacy.

Week 4 Post

The main object that sticks out in this article is the word “resolved”. I think this word is important because it means, a call of action; something has to get done.

One quote that really means a lot for this declaration is “In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to affect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.” One way to spread the news about something that is important to you is to repeat it so people do not forget it. In this case, this is what they are saying. They want to do all of these things and also have a series of conventions where women can feel like they have power and try to make everything equal between men and women.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. Whenever I hear this, it makes me smile because of the great power this quote has on people and the world.

Adam T was so right when he said that a fundamental theme of this piece was education. There are many quotes, some of which he pointed out that really describe and make this declaration.

Week 3 summary group 5

This week, group 5 had many opinions. Person 3 thought that the main point of the speech was to give black people the right to vote. Getting the right to vote may have seemed like a small step, but it was actually a really crucial step. Person 3 also made the point that Lyndon B. Johnson made saying that they are fighting for their dignity. This ties into getting the right to vote. Person 4 made the same point as Person 3. They also added how Johnson talks about how America is a country of great ideals and we need to live up to them. This means that everyone is created equal, and everyone should be treated the same. Person 4 also noted the title: “We Shall Overcome,” saying “we” is the keyword. Person 5 thought that the main purpose of the speech was to gather the African Americans together and get them excited about getting the right to vote. Another point they made was when Johnson said that there is only and American problem, not a Negro problem, not a Southern problem, and not a Northern problem.  He says that there is not one group to blame but everyone needs to share the responsibility of the issue.

I think that Whitney’s post was great; I think that the point about the constitution is supposed to be fair in giving all people the right to vote regardless of race or color which is tied into what she thought the main point of the speech being that people of color should have the right to vote. Adam made the point that the title, of the speech is we shall overcome. He made the point that the “we” in the title are the African Americans and he said that this speech is about unifying the country in a way that gives the civil liberties to African Americans. Adam Z much like Whitney touched on the freedoms given to us by the constitution and he said that the speech had a great impact on shaping the way America is today. All the points were great and all valid I did not think there was a single bad point. Though I think Whitney was touching on the major point about our given freedoms for all people and race to vote.

Week 3 Post

I think the main purpose of the speech was to gather the African Americans together and kind of rally them and get them excited about right. Maybe even put some confidence in them that they really do have a purpose.

I really liked part of the speech when he said “There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.” This really says a lot about what that Johnson wanted to portray. He isn’t pointing fingers or blaming a specific group of people, he is sharing the responsibilities of the blame to everyone and saying that if we just keep working together, things will get better and we can work through the problem.

Other important quotes from his speech were “Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument: every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color.” All of this talks about how before there were major restrictions on voting rights and who could and now he enjoys telling everyone that if this passes, each American citizen will have an equal right to vote; women and anyone from any race can vote.

All in all, this was a very important speech that changed America into what it is today.

Week 3 Blog

Lyndon B. Johnson- “We Shall Overcome”

I really like how Johnson begins his speech: “I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of Democracy. I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colors, from every section of this country, to join me in that cause.” I like how he doesn’t exclude anyone, he urges all people of all colors religions to join him. It shows that he truly is a man who wants a true Democracy.

“But there is cause for hope and for faith in our Democracy in what is happening here tonight.”—I also like how he does not put down the democracy as it is; he could have easily mentioned many things that he thought the democracy was doing but he didn’t he just said there was hope, and the whole point of their meeting that night is to show they have hope and try to make a difference to make the democracy change. Since he is the president, this shows that he wants to and will have some power to start changing the democracy.

“This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.” I really like this point because he is saying that they as a nation are fighting for their dignity. Blacks were just fighting to be like the whites, to have the simple rights that they should’ve had. Many whites already had their dignity and it was time for every person of the U.S to have their own dignity.

I think the main point of the speech is to give black people the right to vote. “The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color.” Though getting the right to vote seems like a small start it was a huge step at the time. It was the first step to making blacks truly equal to whites. Johnson’s speech was very convincing and I think it definitely served its purpose.

Week Two: responce post

Reading through the posts I got several things out of them, first was from person 2 of this week which was tiffany, she said that our second amendment rights can be now compromised with the shooting that happened in Arizona and I think to a point she has a very valid claim. For the most part the judges wait for a case such as this to impose even harsher gun laws on the already honest citizens causing us to be restricted even more in the second amendment. Tiffany also had to say lePaige is making it seem like they have no rights and that they aren’t even citizens saying it would have been better to just respectively decline. Whitney raises a concern that she thinks the prosecutor is pushing for the death penalty because it was a member of congress and that may be the only reason for that making the sentencing not very fair. For the lePgae comment it seems Whitney disagrees saying that what Lepage did was rude but necessary to defend himself or at least that is the Idea that I got from the post. Adam talks a bit about the new policy and thinks it won’t matter there will still be gun violence and it will be as bad as for the Lepage comment he said Lepage has a right to lose his cool because he was called a racist and he has a black person living with him making it very insulting. Adam Z was in agreement with the others in losing more of our freedoms to the second amendment the right to bare arms. He says we will gradually see our right dwindle down. As for the lepage comment he said it was wrong to say what lepage said no matter who you are especially in a position of power.

Week 2 Post

As my other group members already stated, the Tuscan shooting did violate our 2^nd amendment rights to bear arms. I believe if this starts a trend and shootings start happening more often, our rights as a citizen with owning or holding a firearm may start to gradually disappear. The big picture that I took from this event is that it has become more important because the shooting was against a member of congress. If it had been just some Joe from the street being shot at, the media might have made it a big story for a day and then went on to the next big news. Are congressmen really more important than regular U.S. citizens?

I get that Paul LePage denied an invite to attend a conference from the NAACP, that’s fine. For him to tell the NAACP to “tell them to kiss my butt” is just wrong, plain and simple. First of all, it is just disrespectful no matter who you are. LePage is also a man who is in a place of leadership and publicity. Whatever he says can and may be used by the media to be scrutinized. Had he just kept quiet after rejecting the invitation, people may have wondered why he rejected it, but he would not have been rude to any organization and possibly not disliked at this moment in time for mean remarks. I believe he is just making himself look bad. LePage does have the right to not join in on Martin Luther King Jr. day but just be respectful and polite about it.

Tucson Shotting

Referring to what Tiffany said: I can see how the shooting could effect our right to bear arms, but I have not read anything about our right to bear arms being taken away due to the shooting. I hope that the shooting doesn't effect our 2nd amendment but I don't personally think it will.

After reading a little bit more about the shooting on January eighth, I learned that the man responsible for the shooting, Jared Loughner, may be looking at the death penalty for the attempted assassination of a congress member. I understand that Loughner did a lot of damage, and many people were hurt. I understand that he committed a crime and broke the law therefore he should be punished. What doesn’t make sense to me is that he may be looking at the death penalty because the person he shot was a member of congress. It makes me wonder if the people he shot were not congress members if he would be getting in the same amount of trouble, if not then it makes me think that congress members are more important citizens which is not what America is supposed to be about. Each citizen is supposed to be equal therefore I don’t understand why Loughner is getting more punishment due to the fact that the people he shot were members of congress.

Paul LePage

Referring to Tiffany: I disagree. LePage did politely decline the invitation, he was not rude until the NAACP accused him of treating blacks different in the state of Maine.

I feel as though LePage was a bit rude but really he was just defending himself. The NAACP asked him to join in an event on Martin Luther King Jr. day and LePage politely declined. After LePage declined the NAACP accused him of being racist and confronted him. I think LePage was taken aback by the accusation and felt the need to defend himself. Though the comment “kiss my butt” didn’t need to be used, it did make the point clearer. If I was put in the same situation, I might have used that language too because the accusation was way off. LePage had the choice to join in on Martin Luther King Jr. day and he didn’t, if a different citizen declined as well it wouldn’t be as big of a deal. The NAACP are probably just looking for attention and it wasn’t right of them to accuse our governor of being racist.

Week 2 Blog

The shooting in Tuscon, Arizona threatens our 2^nd Amendment right as citizens to bear arms. There are already many restrictions about who can have a fire arm in their possession but as more shootings like this occur, I’m afraid that our right will be stripped from us. As a citizen, I feel that if more shootings like this happen, we will soon see that citizens will no longer be able to exercise this right.

The comment made by governor Paul LePage of Maine, implies that he does not care. If he cared the slightest bit, he would not have made such a rude comment. He is sending them a bad impression, making it seem like they have no place in Maine. Treating people like that makes them feel like they have no rights and are not true citizens. All he had to do was politely decline the invitations and not be rude.

Week 1 Post

Group 5 didn’t quite blog correctly but we gave our opinions for week 1. Rosa Parks was the first matter of interest in for group five. She stayed with what she believed in, until she got arrested for not moving, and that is what is so special about her. Parks started a band of followers that finally had the courage to stand up for what they believed in because of her. Martin Luther King Jr. was our second major topic. He was all about keeping the piece and doing nonviolent acts. One great point brought out from Adam Tudela that I thought was put perfectly was when he said “The difference between the blacks and the whites in expressing their opinions is that the blacks were non-violent and non-intrusive, the blacks acted much more like Christians than the KKK members burning crosses”. This in my mind relates perfectly to Martin Luther King Jr. All in all, King Jr. gets his point across by showing an example such as Rosa Parks and describing how he feels. If you want to read more about Martin Luther King Jr. you can click here.

Week 1 post

After reading all of the posts I thought there were many great points. I found the best point to be in the first post with Rosa parks. This is because she started the movements with getting things going by not moving. She refused to get to the back which leads to her arrest. The outrage caused others to want to band together and continue with the movements. I think that it was good of Amy to pick that out. The other posts were on a great track with their points as well. Whitney picked out that they were all citizens and they all realized it. They all wanted their rights which are garneted to all citizens, which again is why they are being so brave as to stand up and protest to try and get what they want. Tiffany pulled out a valid point about the religion; Martin Luther king was a reverend and was endowed in his faith. He said as tiffany pointed out that they wanted to keep God on the forefront. I think this meant more that they wanted to keep it civil and keep it non violent. They wanted to try and keep it so that they were well in the roles as a Christian… which meant that they were in good faith trying to stay good… So as I pointed out all were valid and great points made though I think the foundation is still with Rosa parks so I would have to say I think that was one of the better points made.

Week One

I think the most important point from the first entry is the idea that they as a group must rely on their religion. Religion is something that defines morals for people, and Dr. King being a pastor, realized this. Dr. King realized that religion is what will keep them civil. The difference between the blacks and the whites in expressing their opinions is that the blacks were non-violent and non-intrusive, the blacks acted much more like Christians than the KKK members burning crosses...which brings me to the next point.

In the second entry this week the part of the speech describing the KKK and White Citizens Council is quoted, and that is possibly one of the most powerful and meaningful parts of the speech. Even though these black citizens are "tired of being trampled over by the iron feet of oppression" they still don't resort to violence. They are the more noble people and use protest and follow the rules of "law".

Law and democracy is another important point touched upon from the first entry this week; they are simply using the tools this great country allows for. I think the third entry this week sums up that point pretty well highlighting from the text their most powerful weapon: "the weapon of protest".

Week 1 blogs

An important point that Dr. King mentions is this: "May I say to you, my friends, as I come to a close, and just giving some idea of why we are assembled here, that we must keep—and I want to stress this, in all of our doings, in all of our deliberations here this evening and all of the week and while—whatever we do, we must keep God in the forefront. (Well. All right) Let us be Christian in all of our actions. (All right) But I want to tell you this evening that it is not enough for us to talk about love. Love is one of the pivotal points of the Christian faith, but there is another side called justice. And justice is really love in calculation. (All right) Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love. (Well)" I think what he was trying to get across was that they cannot lose their sense of religion because it is a big part of who they are as a community. It is something that keeps them close and bound. It is also not enough to talk about it, they need to actually follow through. The beliefs of the people can be found here.

My first point is after this one, but i feel that this ties in to it: "I want to say that in all of our actions, we must stick together. (That’s right) [Applause] Unity is the great need of the hour, (Well. That’s right) and if we are united we can get many of the things that we not only desire but which we justly deserve. (Yeah) And don’t let anybody frighten you. (Yeah) We are not afraid of what we are doing, (Oh no) because we are doing it within the law. (All right) And there is never a time in our American democracy that we must ever think we are wrong when we protest. (All right) We reserve that right. When labor all over this nation came to see that it would be trampled over by capitalistic powers, it was nothing wrong with labor getting together and organizing and protesting for its rights. (That's right) We, the disinherited of this land, we who have been oppressed so long, are tired of going through the long night of captivity. And now we are reaching out for the daybreak of freedom and justice and equality. [Applause]" Here he points out that they need to keep a united front. They will not get frightened or back down. If they are threatened, they are all threatened. What they are doing is not against the law so there is no point to be frightened. The definition of unity can be found here.

In the very beginning of his speech, Martin Luther King Jr. says the reason they are gathered there is, “We are here in a general sense because first and foremost we are American citizens, (That’s right) and we are determined to apply our citizenship to the fullness of its meaning” he makes the point that they all are American citizens and they have the right to live out their citizen ship with “the fullness of its meaning”. I think this is important because in the first sentence he doesn’t tell the story about Rosa because he is not there for pity, he is there to take action and change things so that they can live their lives the way a white citizen was able to, by the definition of citizenship.

Martin Luther King Jr. also points out that they are very different than a lot of the white people, “My friends, don’t let anybody make us feel that we are to be compared in our actions with the Ku Klux Klan or with the White Citizens Council. [Applause] There will be no crosses burned at any bus stops in Montgomery. (Well. That’s right) There will be no white persons pulled out of their homes and taken out on some distant road and lynched for not cooperating. [Applause] There will be nobody among us who will stand up and defy the Constitution of this nation. [Applause] We only assemble here because of our desire to see right exist. [Applause]” this shows that they as a group are meeting to try to change things, but they will not act out against anybody to make their point. They are not going to be cruel like the Ku Klux Klan, they are simply there to get their point out and try to change things. Martin Luther Kind Jr.'s group is much different than the Ku Klux Klan, and I feel as though that is why he put it into his speech.

Week 1

One point of this speech is that Dr. King describes how Rosa Parks got arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white person. He talks about how thankful he is for this event to happen because the problem with the buses had existed for over years, and that they're determined to gain justice on the buses.

He also talks about sticking together in all their actions as one community. He describes to the audience that they can get many of the things that they desire, but also justly deserve. He tells the audience to be brave for fighting what they all believe in.

Another point that he leaves is he points out that they are not advocating violence, and never have. That they believe in the teachings of Jesus, and the only weapon that they have in their hands is the "weapon of protest."