When you mix an ex KGB agent with a President, chances are, things are going to get messy. Nowhere is this seen more than with the Russian administration, involving Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. Combine these two with a corrupt mayor from Russia’s largest city and we suddenly see the emergence of an era that some considered long gone.

In 1991, the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Despite the fact the Soviet Union crashed and the socialistic government disappeared did not mean that all the ideas of those days were lost for good.

Recently, there have been quite a few situations that I’ve noticed suggesting that there are ideas of creating a second power not unlike that of the Former Soviet Union, save of course, for the whole socialism part. But, all of that aside, all of these actions are interlinked, and we see one very specific thing appearing: Russia is expanding.

I look at the war in South Ossetia first. Russia recognized, in its own way, that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were their own states. Ironically enough, these two states were directly connected to Russia. Their land was to the direct south of the mainland of Russia and was once part of the Soviet Union. So, by Russia recognizing that they were their own independent states, we see a slight expansion of territory by the Russians.

Yes. We look at the way that Russia works and we can see that they’ve made it clear that these two states are free and that if they’re meddled with, Russia will attack again. Georgia can’t fight the might of Russia and America won’t get involved; therefore, Russia just expanded her empire. This leads me to my second point.

The Mayor of Moscow has agreed to send $100 million to build houses in South Ossetia for the separatists. What is the Mayor of Moscow doing sending money to South Ossetia? “Serve Russia and you get a house!” This is them giving money to people to try and gain influence. Gain influence and you’ve got people who are willing to join you. The same can be said about the Crimean peninsula in the Ukraine. There are a lot of Russians there and the Mayor also has sent money there.

Money is power. By giving money to these small territories, Russia is showing that they are looking to expand. In today’s day and age, expansion is not sending armies into other countries and conquering them. Influence is the new expansion and because of this, Russia is demonstrating expansion. Will the Ukraine give up that territory? Chances are they won’t. But, what happens if the citizens in the Crimean separate? Will Russia help there as well?

I don’t think they can…Yet. If the modernization of their military goes according to plan, they’ll have the capacity to say to small countries, “We’ve got the weapons, don’t mess with us, we’ll do what we like.” This spread of influence is the exact same way that the Soviet Union was able to spread. How can a small country, such as Latvia, defend against a strong, Russian military? It can’t. The might of the Russian military could sweep over many countries if they so chose and that brings about a final concern: who would stop them?

Looking at these series of events, one question comes to mind: Is Russia trying to create an empire again? An empire might be an ambitious goal; however, they do seem to be gearing themselves up to make that empire. Because of this, the country should take precaution and keep a careful eye on them. Are they trying to become like the Former Soviet Union? Not yet. But, if given enough time to develop their military, Russia could easily become a very formidable adversary to the United States dominated world.

On October 26, 2001, a little over a month after September 11, the Patriot Act was passed in Congress. This bill was one that was argued to be incredibly necessary to take the fight to the terrorists and get the necessary information. Anyone that was believed to have connections with terrorists could have their phones tapped and e-mails read. However, it was argued that only those that had some sort of a connection or believed connection to terrorists would be snooped on.

Apparently, that’s not true…

According to an article I came across thanks to our good old Trevor Jones, the U.S. listened in on intimate conversations between Americans overseas and their loved ones back home. These allegations came by two former military intercept operatives. As one former Arab linguist said that they would listen to “personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism.”

Since when does a soldier in Iraq saying “Goodnight and I love you” to his wife merit for snooping? Is this some secret terrorist conversation that really means “we are going to attack…?” The best part is that when these linguists would complain to their supervisors that they felt snooping on personal conversations was wrong, they were told to continue doing it.

Since when do our brave soldiers, of ALL people, deserve to be snooped on?

These are soldiers that are going overseas to fight a war that is becoming more and more unpopular. The response of our administration to American soldiers dying is to spy on the soldiers fighting it. These are men and women that are dying to fight a war and their thank you is to be spied on when they are having an intimate conversation with their loved one. How is asking how the kids are terrorism? How is telling someone you miss them terrorism?

This is ridiculous. I can sometimes understand the need for the USA Patriot Act. I can sometimes understand the need for our intelligence agencies to really know what exactly is going on - I really can. But, this is just too much. Spying on people that have absolutely no connection to terrorism is just another example of why the Patriot Act is so easily abused.

Because of this, Congress needs to determine a line that shouldn’t be crossed. In particular, one of the primary concerns I have is spying on our soldiers without any reason. If our soldiers are going to be spied on, there should be a reason for it. I understand the need to spy, without reason, on people that might be terrorists; however, our soldiers are not terrorists and because of that, there should be a reason for being spied on.

The United States has obviously abused their power here and those that were involved should be punished. The NSA supervisors who made it clear that the linguists should continue eavesdropping even though the conversations were personal should be fired. They should not have be let off the hook for this disappointing abuse of freedom.

The Patriot Act might be a necessary evil, but if it is going to be abused like this, some serious limits must be put on it. Saying “Goodnight or I love you” is not terrorist talk.  It does not merit being spied on,  not at all.

This one party is also the party of imperialism. McCain’s foreign policy ideas are generally the same as Bush’s and involve the backing of repressive regimes throughout the world and a continuance of neoconservative plans for U.S. world control. Obama has spoken against the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, two of a growing number of nations in the hemisphere that have thrown off the imperial bonds and are developing a peaceful and progressive alternative where human dignity comes above corporate greed. Both candidates are also strongly supportive of Israel and the brutal and racist oppression of the Palestinian people.

The remedy for this state of affairs is simple: there must be the formation of a Left party in the United States, strong enough to take on the party of big business. There are already numerous small and medium-sized leftist parties in the US, including the Green, Socialist, Socialist Worker, Labor, Socialist Labor, Communist, Revolutionary Communist, Socialism and Liberation, and others. All of these groups have their differences, some being social democratic while others are Trotskyite and Maoist. For the good of the country it is necessary that these distinctions be allowed to co-exist, but in a single structured party.

Fredrick Douglass, the former slave who became a great author and orator was one of the first to see the need for such a party. He understood that the Democrats and Republicans were both racist and in the interests of the powerful. Douglass ran for president (the first African-American to do so) on a ticket that called for equal rights for African-Americans and women.

It has always been the small leftist parties that have pushed for change in the United States. The Socialist Party of the early 20^th century pressed for the right to form unions and social security. The Communist Party of the 1930’s organized to oppose lynchings and to end Jim Crow segregation. A new Left party would fight for the rights of and in solidarity with all ethnic and other minority groups as well as gays, women, and the disabled. It would oppose imperialist war and the support of racist foreign governments. It would be in favor of unionization, an end to police brutality, the abolition of the death penalty, the right to abortion on demand, and decriminalization of drug use.

Many people who now support the Democrats, perhaps the vast majority of the ordinary supporters of the party, would flock to the new Left party. The party would challenge and provide an alternative to the capitalist mode of production and would prove that even here, in the heart of empire, true change is possible.

Written By Nathan Rosenblum of Newburgh, NY

That being said, I think now is a perfect opportunity to look at the myths surrounding this election; to separate half-truths and whole lies from the undeniable facts of the election and the circumstances our nation is in, and do our best to come away with an answer. The research for this article was performed by simple searches at http://www.FactCheck.org, “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”

Let’s start with Barack Obama, since the rumors about him are fairly widespread. First of all, he is not a Muslim, he is distantly related to Dick Cheney, is an American citizen, was sworn in with his family’s bible, puts his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and no, he has not been endorsed by Hamas - unless, of course, Colin Powell is part of it. Obama is not going to fine small business owners for not providing health insurance, and his healthcare plan is far from socialist - it actually simply allows an already existing government program to cover any of the 50 million uninsured Americans if they so choose to take it, and it will continue to coexist with private insurance providers. His tax plan is not going to raise taxes on anyone who is not making more than $200,000 that files individually, or $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Also, the claim about his record for voting “present” is not accurate; he voted present 129 times - a little more than 3% of his total voting record.

Of course, let’s keep another couple of facts in mind: Obama was not born in a manger, and has yet to be seen with a halo. He has made dubious claims about McCain’s advertising strategies, claiming that 100% of McCain’s ads were negative - and while many recent ones have been, it’s simply not true that ALL of them were negative. Likewise, Obama’s claim that his healthcare plan will save Americans $2,500 a year on insurance premiums is a bit far-fetched. That number is only realistic if the savings are added up over two presidential terms, if that. Oh, and those 68 million acres of “untouched” oil reserved are not particularly untouched, but according to 2006 statistics from the Bureau of Land Management, “a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished….”

As far as John McCain is concerned, there are simply not as many rumors about him as one would presume at this stage of the election. There are some unsubstantiated reports about his bad temper, some verbal abuse directed at his wife, etc., but there is very little by way of verifiable evidence to prove them. Here’s what we do know: He comes from a family with a long naval tradition, and served in the Navy during the Vietnam conflict. He was taken prisoner by the Viet Cong and was held for more than five years (in case you’ve missed any of McCain’s speeches where he touts those facts). He did graduate fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and he was born in Panama in 1936 (in U.S. territory, making him a natural-born citizen). He did court his current wife while divorcing his previous wife, Carol Shepp, but Shepp has said that she and McCain are “still friends.”

McCain, however, has made several false claims throughout the course of his campaign. During the second debate, McCain regretted that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal. He has said, in regard to our oil trade and the energy crisis, that the US should not be sending”$700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much,” while the numbers show that the $700 billion is actually significantly less (as his predictions were made at a price of $140 per barrel of oil - nearly double current prices) and a third of that money goes to Mexico, Canada, and the UK. McCain frequently calls Obama’s healthcare plan a “single-payer system” or “socialist,” and clearly (as mentioned before) it is far from it. McCain’s healthcare program would actually only provide a tax credit of $2,500 to individual taxpayers, and $5,000 to families and couples.

Please keep in mind that these are only a few of the various missteps, miscalculations and misinterpretations stated by the two major candidates running for President. As you go forward on making your decisions, keep in mind that the pure and simple truth in politics is rarely pure, and almost never simple. Do your homework and make an intelligent decision when heading to your local high school gymnasium/library/polling station, and your nation, and we at We The People Politics, will thank you for it.

I assumed, of course, that John Adams would have a good view of the importance of the V.P. - he being the first, and all - and this is what he said: “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”

Well, so much for that….

Palin, the Republican candidate, offered a view of the office that she shared with current V.P. Dick Cheney; a view that the office of the vice president is not in the executive branch of government, but neither is it in the legislative branch of government. (That may have been the first time Dick Cheney ever said the word “hybrid” with a smile.)

Palin spoke of the authority and duality of the office, saying “I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies….” She continued later, saying “our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president.” (All you Constitution junkies take care - we are coming back to that.)

Biden, of course, gave his retort: “the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.”

The debate eventually directed me to look up exactly what the Constitution says. Unfortunately for Palin, the Constitution only mentions that the vice president is to preside as president of the Senate, only voting to break a tie, and to assume the duties of the president when the president is otherwise unable to. Unfortunately for Biden and his counterpoint, the V.P. is mentioned in the Constitution in both Article I (concerning Congress) and Article II (concerning the Executive Branch). So, who is ultimately right? Who better understands the constitutional duty of the vice president? What would John Adams do?

John Adams, in fact, has commented on the subject: “The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” What could endanger the public liberty more than the disregard for the law that governs our system of government by the very people we elected to uphold those same laws?

By claiming that the office of the vice presidency is outside the confines, including the laws that govern both the legislative and the executive branches of government, our politicians attempt to maneuver through the letters of law in abject defiance of them, putting our freedom - the same freedom they claim to be sending our young men and women to fight and die for; the same freedom they claim to protect when they illegally tap your phones or read your emails, and the same freedom that lets me sit here by my computer in utter dissent, discussing my freedom to do so - that very same freedom is put in danger.

This November, remember that freedom when you step into that voting booth, and choose a candidate that will uphold both liberty and the law.

Speechless, it would seem, except for the ability to utter the word “Sell.” The Dow reacted violently to the bailout’s rejection, dropping 777 points - the largest single-day point sell-off in its history.

Regardless of whether one favors or opposes the idea of a “bailout,” the failure of Congress to pass this bill could prove to be one of the greatest failures of leadership in our generation.

Considering the events leading up to the vote, this hardly seems surprising. Last Thursday evening’s meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House would foreshadow the events to come. The meeting was supposed to be a symbol of American unity; President Bush sat at the same table as his potential successors Senator Obama and Senator McCain. McCain arguably had the most to gain - or lose - from this meeting. It was just days before that the Presidential hopeful put his campaign on hold to focus on fixing the potentially disastrous economic effect failing to pass a bailout would have. His message was clear: Bipartisan politics must not interfere with the passage of a short-term solution.

Here was a moment when Washington could have truly shined. Instead, however, reports of the meeting claim that the talks broke down as a result of “bipartisan bickering.” Senator Obama had previously criticized McCain’s attempts at putting his campaign on hold as being purely politically driven. While certainly there were political intentions behind McCain’s actions, were Obama’s words really appropriate given the necessity of a unified Washington?

At the core of the controversy over the bailout is the issue of a short term solution versus long term resolutions. President Bush, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama all believe that immediate attention needs to be given to stabilizing the markets before any of these long-term issues can be solved. McCain and Obama even issued a joint statement on the matter. I liken the situation to an ambulance arriving at the scene of a car accident; don’t reserve time on the operating table when the victim is still squirming on the pavement.

How frightening is it, then, that even when our leaders agree on a course of action, they are unable to follow it? President Bush is in such a weakened political state as to render his warnings immaterial. Senator McCain embarrassingly jumped the gun Monday, as he assumed the bailout would pass and took credit for its success. Senator Obama did little to ease the fears of investors during the debates on Friday, as he claimed “fundamental problems” in the economic system, which he will try to build “from the bottom up.”

Each of these men was presented with a unique opportunity that could not have been handled more poorly. Bush’s battered presidency could have gone out on a high note. Either Obama or McCain could have emerged a hero heading into the November elections. What did happen, however, was an Executive branch both confirming criticisms of the past while fanning fears of the future.

And what of Congress itself? With leaders from both parties touting the importance of the bailout’s passage, how could it have possibly failed? Again, bipartisanism is to blame. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made sure to use the opportunity to point out “The Bush administration’s failed economic policies: policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.” Right or wrong, yesterday was neither the time nor place for such comments. Many House Republicans have cited this as being the deciding factor in their votes for nay. (It should be noted that of all who voted against the bailout, 133 were Republicans while only 95 were Democrats).

The economy is driven by perception. Our government is supposed to shape this perception; not in a way that deceives, but in a way that builds confidence.

Speaking on behalf of a generation of young men and women who are hungry for investment, our leaders have not made me confident in the direction this economy will be going in the coming months. We are a generation, perhaps the first, which realizes that great wealth can come from solving some of the world’s most pressing issues. Solar, wind, and alternate forms of energy could be on the brink of a tremendous boom. Biomeds and nanotech hold limitless possibilities for both Wall Street and Main Street. But without a fertile economic climate in which to grow, these essential advancements may never become a reality.

The Senate will meet Wednesday night to try to pass a revised bailout. If Congress fails again, as one trader on the NYSE put it, “Look out below…it could get ugly.”

Written by Mike Casale on October 1, 2008.

Classifying this issue as “new” is not technically correct. We all watched on CNN in 1999 when Columbine High School became victimized. This was not the first issue, and would not become the last. Numerous campuses across America have been victimized in the past five decades. We read the stories, watched the coverage, and eventually dismissed them from our memory without lasting thought or concern. The numbers, although significant, were not gruesome enough to bring about change.

I, along with the rest of the majority of American citizens, began their week on Monday, April 16, 2007 like it was any other. I woke up, ate breakfast, took a shower, and went to my 9:05 am class. Eight hours southwest of me, in Blacksburg Virginia, 32 other individuals did the same exact thing. As I watched that horrifying CNN news coverage, it hit me that every college and institution in America should be hit personally by this. Who is really safe? Who is to say that this will not happen again? On a random morning, at a random hour, on a beloved American university, the unthinkable occurred. The fact is, this can happen anywhere, anytime.

Since the tragedy at Virginia Tech, there have been a total of thirty two school-related acts of gun violence since that April 2007 day, according to statistics by protesteasyguns.com. This is an obvious outcry for a solution. As the pieces of April 16th began to be put together one by one, the problem stemmed to the access Cho had to buying weapons, and the fact he clearly was not in a state of mind to be buying such firearms. If proper background checks were in place, this massacre could have been prevented. What is done is done; we cannot turn back time. The next step is to acknowledge the violent events of Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, and several other high school and college campuses that have taken place throughout America, and use it as the fuel to start the fire.

A group promoting students to be permitted to carry guns on campuses, namely “Students For Concealed Carry On Campus,” is arguing that the best defense against this is a stronger offense. By strong offense, they believe if students are armed they would be able to protect themselves against a student on rampage. What they do not realize is that allowing students to carry weapons would be counter-active toward solving the problem. As an RA on my college campus, I have been involved countless times with violent students that lose control of themselves after a night of drinking. Now, throw a gun in the equation. That same student who has had too much to drink could very easily pull out his or her weapon, leading to unimaginable consequences.

Accidents will also be a major problem. A student could easily accidentally pull the trigger while showing off his or her weapon to his buddies. Granted, they have voiced the need for background checks in this situation. Although that could potentially weed out “unfit” possessors, it is irrelevant to the big picture. A student could very easily pass a background check and have limited or no history that would prevent him from obtaining such a weapon. The fact is, with high school and college serving as places that breeds emotional growth and developmental change, they are not the appropriate place to allow the possession of firearms.

The leaders of “Students For Concealed Carry On Campus” have even taken their campaign beyond presumed moral boundaries, inviting the very man who sold the Virginia Tech shooter his weapons to speak at a presentation (benefitting their organization) in Blacksburg. If that was not bad enough, this took place in the days following the first anniversary of the attacks, where many of the families of those affected were already re-burdened by the pain of what is now simply being referred to as 4/16.

In reaction, the family and friends of Virginia Tech victim Reema Samaha, along with Lily Habtu (wounded Virginia Tech shooting victim who was struck by bullets in the face) have formed a group known as Students for Gun Free Schools, or SGFS. This group is dedicated to keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of students. It works closely with the organization ProtestEasyGuns.com, also known as PEG. PEG is a social movement founded by activist Abby Spangler (also involved with the mobilization of SGFS) of Virginia who has been promoting sensible gun laws in response to Virginia Tech through ways of lie-in protests across America.

The SGFS/PEG arguments focus heavily on closing mental health and gun-show loopholes, and are against dangerous individuals and criminals having easy access to guns. PEG protests lax U.S. gun laws to secure a safer America for our children, our police and all Americans. Simply, their philosophies are mainly based on federal and state legislatures and how easy it is for unfit citizens to purchase firearms (a majority of these purchases take place at gun shows where almost half of dealers are unlicensed and therefore are not required to background check customers). Good, law abiding, upstanding citizens should be allowed to purchase carry guns for their own recreational use, but keeping them out of the hands of dangerous individuals is the main priority. Along with private, more personal ways to tribute Reema’s life, her family and friends involved with SGFS have decided the best way to keep her memory alive is to mobilize change.

The organization runs on five simple principles which govern its position:

• Concealed handguns would detract from a healthy learning environment.
• More guns on campus would create additional risk for students.
• Shooters will not be deterred by concealed carry permit holders.
• Concealed carry permit holders are not always “law-abiding” citizens.
• Concealed carry permit holders are not required to have any law enforcement training.

The fact is, students should not have to worry about their classmates being armed. This would create an unnecessary sense of alarm and anxiety in schools. As the dust from Virginia Tech continues to clear, the response to the violence should not reflect the very reason that caused it. Tightening mental health laws, stricter gun control, and focusing on keeping weapons out of the hands of unfit persons will help combat the problem. There is no way to ensure a future act will not happen, but giving students permission to carry handguns is not going to make America’s school safer. Reema’s sister, Randa Samaha stated during a ProtestEasyGuns protest at the University of Virginia where she attends:

“We are asking for stricter gun laws. Not for me or my family, or those affected or their families, but for you…so you will never have to walk in our shoes. So you will never have to experience the pain we feel right now. I wish before April 16th, that my family and I knew how to prevent such a tragedy, but now we do, we all do, and we need to act now.”

Reema’s family has also been in the public light since the tragedy, advocating the various organizations benefitting the cause, including those listed. As citizens, we owe it to all victims of these deadly tragedies to make changes in legislation, changes that will benefit the safety of students and citizens. If more sensible gun laws are passed that will aid the closure of these deadly “loopholes,” we can minimize campus threats in the future.

Written by Patrick Dorfer, Mount Saint Mary College, Class of 2009

She graduated from my high school, a couple of years before me.  We had a couple of things in common - we were both on student government, both ran cross country, both signed the wall of our Student Council room.  We both had something in common with Christopher J. Blackwell, a member of New York’s Bravest, serving the FDNY’s Rescue Company 3, South Bronx - we all went to the same high school in Danbury, CT.

Serving with him was Thomas Foley, also of Rescue 3. He posed as one of People Magazines 100 Most Eligible Bachelors - in apparently a very popular photo. He even got a spot on The Sopranos - but wouldn’t give up firefighting for the world. He simply loved his job: saving lives.

Foley was from Nyack, NY, just like Welles Remy Crowther, 24. Welles was an equities trader for Sandler O’Neill and Partners, on the 104^th floor of the World Trade Center’s south tower. Welles loved to play hockey, and was known for his unique kindness.

Jason Matthew Coffey, of Newburgh, NY, was meeting up with his dad, Daniel, to talk about getting his father’s wedding ring enlarged after 30 years of marriage. Jason himself was preparing for his wedding, planned for December 2002. He and his father both worked in One World Trade - Jason on the 98^th floor, and Daniel on the 94^th. Jason loved a party - a regular at Pineapple Larry’s, a bar in Newburgh, well known by some of my Newburgh friends.

There are 2,998 stories I could tell. Some will make you smile, some will make you cry. Each story is as moving as the next, and but more importantly, they all have something in common - they are all missed by families, friends, and a grieving nation.

Around the country today there will be candlelight vigils and readings of the names of victims. People will gather in small chapels and large cathedrals, in classrooms, or around their workplaces, and in their homes, and remember the victims of our country’s worst attack in our history. Seven years, and our nation still grieves.

However, on a warm Tuesday morning in September, 2001, and for the past seven years, the lives of thousands of Americans have been instantly linked by 2,998 common bonds. For a single day in America, it no longer mattered if you were a CEO in a Versace suit or if you worked the graveyard shift at the local mini-mart. For one day in America, your checkbook balance, your age or gender, the color of your skin - it all, however briefly, was pushed aside and replaced by one word: countrymen.

I have never been so humbled, or privileged, as I am now, sitting by my computer, attempting the momentous task of doing this day and our 2,998 fellow countrymen the justice they so deserve. Abraham Lincoln had the honor of doing the same in his Gettysburg Address - a speech given in response to the death of 7,863 of his countrymen. In only the following 86 words, he eloquently encapsulated the very same issues we face on this day, and provided this sound advice:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Today we, as Lincoln prescribed, resolve that our loved ones, our countrymen, shall be remembered not only for their individual strength of character, but by the common bond between them and between us all.

Today is a day that we dedicate ourselves to the beauty of our common virtue: We are America. We have our differences - different religions and political ideals; we come from different races and places, and still we live, work, pray and play together. We thrive on the liberty coursing through our veins, binding us together and shouting to be heard across the country and around the world: “We are America! We are one!”

Today we remember that we, as one people, can and will join in the common destiny of our beloved nation, manifest our common dream, and prosper.

On behalf of the We The People Politics staff, I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the attacks, and thank all of our readers for supporting us.