The Constitution; Flawed or Just Outdated?


I have to say it is both. But for the sake of argument let’s just say it is just outdated; there is usually less offense taken from this perspective but there is offense taken none the less. I am constantly amazed and offended when so many people get so deeply offended at any criticism of this document. As if it were sacred scripture or something. That however does not floor me as bad as the offense people take at any hint of criticism of any of its writers.

Let’s just consider what should be undisputed facts and not my opinions, this document was written by politicians, it was written to or towards the English Crown; or at the very least with the King in mind. It was meant to define to the King what the new system of government these revolutionaries where setting up I would think as a show that they weren’t going off half cocked but that they had a plan. Regardless it was written by men who just won the freedom to govern themselves, men who were now free from English rule.

The Constitution was written for a government that would govern 13 independent colonies. Leaders of this revolution were awarded colonies to govern on their own,  independent of each other without a Federal government in the respect that we have today, this aspect is the source of one of it’s biggest flaws I will get to shortly. But their were only 13 colonies not 50 states. It was written in 1787 before there was a president, two years before and it was written by the Continental Congress. At that time the colonies had governors who were appointed by the King. Continental, important term here because it refers to a body of government in the North American Continent i.e. a separate one from the one on the European Continent. It was written by a Congress who wanted to be able to have authority of the colonies that were governed by the Crown. These men did not want those appointed governors to have any authority over them. Remember this was all done in succession from the Kings rule. These were all men with a common goal of independence.

Those fact are key here, especially the fact that these were men with a common goal. They were working together; this is not the mindset of today’s Congress, but then again they are still of the mindset of not being ruled by anyone; remember their was no President at the time and wanted the king to have no authority over them. They didn’t want a future President to either, they still had a nasty taste in their mouth from the monarchy.

To my main point. Those men were working together, they had a common goal; why would the allow for a Congress of different goals and ideals, and one that had 4 times the number of members in it when writing this document? It is obvious to me that they never considered the possibility that there would ever be 50 states, resulting in a larger body of government of men who were not trying to reach a goal of independence? This document was a war-time set of rules, not a document defining a set of rules for a completely independant  nation. (Here is a good place to point out that at the time only white Christian men who owned land had the right to vote, in other words all votes were cast by men of the same mindset, values and ideas). I sincerely doubt these men ever considered a nation of such diverse religious and political beliefs. These men allowed for men of different variations of the Christian faith, men with a belief in god. Yes they allowed for differences in the worship of god but they assumed everyone believed in god in the first place. They left no room for non believers. This fact is abundantly clear by the Declaration of Independence which yes does not mention religion or even suggest religiosity, it does specifically mention god and it does directly refer to god.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

These first words were specifically directed at the king; a king who believed he was appointed by god. The founding fathers were disputing the fact that the king was any better than they were.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

These words were also directed at the king; a king who believed he was given the authority to speak for god to them. They were telling this king that only god had that authority, that god never gave any man that authority. They were not just taking authority away from the king they were giving authority back to god.

But back to the political body of Congress itself. The Constitution was written with a common goal in mind. these men considered that there would someday be differences in political agendas, which is why the allowed for it in the Bill of Rights. they considered that men would worship god in their own way, and they may have even considered there would be men who wouldn’t worship at all but they did not allow for this in these documents; not believing in god was a crime punishable by death in this new America, these rights they were assuring were for god fearing (white) men only. In other words they never considered that citizens that weren’t white, god fearing and male would ever have the right to vote or would ever be voted for; that women or non white, non believing men or women would ever be part of this body of government. These differences in beliefs result in differences in politics. I am pretty sure they didn’t consider that Congress would be voting on abortion rights; gun control (remember they wanted citizens armed in a country that was occupied by the king’s army). They weren’t considering that someday Americans would seek to arm themselves against them, they were men who shared the desire to not be ruled by a foreign monarch, men who wanted to make sure that no one would ever have authority over them; remember there was no president at the time, they I believe assumed that the future president they were allowing for was, like them, a man with the same goals of being free from foreign rule, while not leaving room for error if this elected president was in fact an agent of the crown who could then take back the authority they had taken away; remember the governors of the colonies were all appointed by the king; they were forming this new government from the top down, not the bottom up. They fulling intended these governors would be replaced with elected ones with the same end goal of separation from the crown.

 

So let’s look at the holes these fact created in this sacred document.

  • any member of Congress can filibuster. A filibuster is nothing more than a member of Congress running out the clock. It isn’t as painless as a quarterback running out the clock to prevent the opposing team from getting another chance to score; for starters the House play clock is several hours in comparison to the NFL’s 15 min quarters. Congress’ strategy to prevent the opposing side from scoring is to talk until the clock runs out and there is no time for a vote. Ted Cruz once read Green Eggs and Ham and talked about his kids for over 14 hours to run out the clock.
  • Congress can also decide to vote against a bill without even reading it. This is equivalent to a judge passing sentence without a trial because he knows that a jury won’t convict. In other words the whole democratic majority rule thing doesn’t apply in Congress, defeating the whole reason the people elect politicians to represent them in the first place.
  • A bill for background checks for someone buying a firearm for example can also have in it a section that states abortion would become illegal if the bill passes. Let’s walk past the fact that one law has absolutely nothing to do with the other; a Senator who was elected because of their policy on gun control would most like vote no on this bill because they also have a right to choose policy. These deliberate conflicts in policies are intended to do exactly what they end up doing; prevent the passing of legislation put up for a vote by the opposing party. And these conflicting parts of a bill can be tacked on to a bill that has already been submitted by the opposing party leaving no room for them to choose not to submit it. In other words legislation is voted on so no one can argue that a bill was not considered.
  • The Presidential duty to appoint judges, emphasis on the word DUTY. By rules of this very Congress the President has an obligation to make sure our judicial system has enough judges to assure Americans their 5th Amendment right to due process, and the right to a fair trial. The idea of this system is that everyone is entitled to an unbiased judgement from the courts. A judge isn’t supposed to have personal views influence decisions; they are supposed to pass judgement based on the letter of the law. In the case of the Supreme Court of the United States however this is the  highest authority of what the letter of the law is. The President has a duty to appoint these judges but according to democratic policy Congress is supposed to approve this appointment to assure that once again the majority will rule, to assure that one individual does not have absolute authority. Today’s Congress has simply decided they again won’t do what is the thing under  job description for Senators and vote for the people who voted for them, are flat-out refusing to do their job. The majority doesn’t rule then does it? Any other employee in any position in any other establishment would and should be fired for refusing to do their job. Hell my 3-year-old twins grandson’s get sent to the wall when they refuse to do what they are supposed to. Imagine if a teacher refused to teach, a teacher that just sat at their desk in a classroom of students saying nothing. Imagine a fireman who refused to turn on the hose he was holding standing in front of a burning building full of people who were locked inside. Imagine a pilot of a commercial airline refusing to fly the plane full of passengers who had no way of getting off the plane. Imagine a mother refusing to parent a child, a parent who just sat there watching tv while their baby was lying in a crib unable to feed itself. Imagine a President who refused to get out of bed; who decided they didn’t want do anything all day while an enemy troops were landing on our shores. Imagine a bank manager who refused to unlock the doors; who decided they just wanted to sit in their office all day playing solitaire on their computer. All these people would lose their jobs. But; no one can fire a member of Congress. Even Presidents can be impeached for minor violations like lying about an affair, but a member of Congress? Nope, they can spend 14 hours reading a children’s book to the most powerful assembly of elected officials in the worlds most powerful nation.

I would be willing to bet that our founding fathers; while writing our founding documents; while founding our system of government considered that their successors would be such immature, irresponsible, apathetic and deceitful manipulators of their hard work; of their dreams and of their ideals.

 

No Representation Without Taxation


The Revolutionary war began when Americans refused to pay taxes without being represented. They coined the phrase ‘No Taxation Without Representation’.

Well I think it is high time and equally valid to state that there should be No Representation Without Taxation.

 

To argue that religious institutions aren’t represented is absolutely not true. To use as an argument for this that we have a separation of church and state due to the First Amendment is equally false. There is no separation. And the First Amendment was written to protect religion from government not to protect government from religion.

Let me give you a good example;

Congress has a Congressional Prayer Caucus, a Chaplain of Congress (with an office in the Capitol) elected by Congress and paid with tax payers money. Military Chaplains are also paid with federal tax dollars. How again is this the separation of Church and State? How is this not a violation of the First Amendment? It isn’t.

Congress has had a Chaplain since 1774, no that is not a typo, the office of House and Senate Chaplain came to be before the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration Independence was written.

Here are the requirements for Tax Exempt Status per the IRS

Tax-Exempt Status

Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

  •  the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
  •  net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
  •  no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
  •  the organization may not intervene in political campaigns;
  • and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

IRC Section 501(c)(3)

All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:  

  • their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;
  •  they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;
  •  they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;
  •  they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;
  • and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

 

Congress even wrote special legislation regarding the IRS’ right to audit churches and religious institutions;

Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church

Tax Inquiries and Examinations of Churches

Congress has imposed special limitations, found in section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. The IRS may begin a church tax inquiry only if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes, on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing, that an organization claiming to be a church or convention or association of churches may not qualify for exemption, may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business (within the meaning of IRC § 513), may otherwise be engaged in taxable activities or may have entered into an IRC § 4958 excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person.

Now let’s look at how much this elected office pays;

Total Salary Expenditures

 

I fail to see how being an elected member of Congress does not influence legislation.

From an article by Paul Singer, USA Today;

“We do what we can to make sure that legislation emerges with what we believe to be American, Christian values,” said caucus member John Fleming, R-La. “We believe that a democracy is only functional if there is a certain level of virtuousness among the nation. Freedom also requires a certain responsibility and that requires a certain moral code. The moral code that we as Americans have lived by for over 200 years is based on what? The Ten Commandments.” 

Rep Randy Forbes VA  and a dozen other Prayer Caucus members traveled to North Carolina in March to launch an initiative called PrayUSA, asking government officials and other to sign a resolution calling for prayer. The initiative is part of “a tactical strategy to effectively challenge the growing anti-faith movement in our Country,” the foundation says.

And the foundation blog advocates strongly for the defense of conservative Christians like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was briefly jailed for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.

“Criminalizing Christianity is not the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers,” reads a blog post on the foundation website about the Kim Davis saga. “Sadly, the balance of power in our country is being undermined within the legislative branch and increasingly supplanted by both executive fiat and judicial tyranny. The government was never designed to replace God and therefore, does not have the authority or right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God…..  We are fighting for our freedoms—silence and inactivity will leave us vulnerable and open to further attack. Christian…it is time for us to wake up and be engaged!”

How is this not influencing legislation?

 

 

While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the a House and Senate Office of the Chaplain stating that it is a tradition and should be respected it is important to remember that slavery was considered a ‘tradition’ as well.

MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.(1)

 A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789.

Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.

It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment** for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret that Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government.

This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged. We conclude that legislative prayer presents no more potential for establishment than the provision of school transportation, beneficial grants for higher education, or tax exemptions for religious organizations.

A paragraph from writings by James Madison point out that Madison was concerned about respecting the religious rights of all religious sects;

JAMES MADISON: The tenets of the chaplains elected by the majority shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

Though Madison did see the payment of the Chaplain by the National Treasury as unconstitutional, what he deemed a violation of the First Amendment was the appointment of a Protestant, not the appointment of a Chaplain.

 

Is The Supreme Court Ruling On Hobby Lobby Right Or Wrong?


I know that my readers and those that know me will assume they know which side of this issue I am on. But they will be wrong.  I have never been shy about my contempt for religion and though this Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s objection to the company insurance covering 4 kinds of  ‘contraception’ on grounds of protecting their religious freedom I don’t necessarily see this as a religious issue; and the Supreme Court doesn’t see it as only a religious issue, it is a moral one.

It is important to understand that the objection is not against all contraception, it is against Plan B (the morning after pill), Ella (which works up to 5 days after sex) and 2 different IUD’s (Intra Uterine Devices). The argument is that these are aborticides and not contraception. Though I can see their view on Plan B and Ella I do not agree that IUD’s are aborticides, none the less this is the argument.

Here is the section of the ruling that I find to be the most important;
(3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs.The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Let’s pull out this sentence and look at it on it’s own; The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. From that sentence let’s pull out the words moral philosophy. 

I will say that my own personal views on abortion are very conflictive. I think that morally abortion is wrong except in cases of incest and rape. However I do agree with a woman’s right to choose, to a point. This all boils down to ‘when life begins’ dilemma. I am of the opinion that an embryo is not ‘alive’ but a fetus is, this means that after 8 weeks I think abortion is murder. I also feel that by 8 weeks there is no reason why a woman would not have made the decision to have a baby or not. That being said the difficulty lies in what is moral and what is immoral. I find it rather hypocritical of Christians to preach morality given the immoral acts of God throughout the Bible. However we happen to agree on the immorality of abortion, but disagree on when life begins. I admittedly commend the owners of Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

BUT; when I pull out this sentence It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. I have to say hold on. It is this stance of the Court that enables acts like female genital mutilation to not be illegal. Morality must be judged when it is inflicted on another human being. I a woman wants to cut off her own clitoris that is her business, but when she cuts of the clitoris of another female this is immorality at it’s peak. The same applies to circumstances involving keeping someone alive by artificial means and a loved one wants to pull the plug but another loved one cries it is against their religion to do so. If the person being kept alive would not want to be kept alive that way then pull the plug, in turn if the person being kept alive had the religious belief that it would be wrong then don’t do it. This goes for acts of rape and incest as well as any oppression of any other human being or acts of violence against them. One cannot commit an immoral act upon ones self.

 

 

Supreme Court Rules Town Council Prayer Constitutional


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the Town Council in Greece N.Y. to continue their practice of prayer before their monthly Town Council meetings, ruling it was not unconstitutional. It was the opinion of the justices that because the council welcomed all faiths who wanted to invoke prayer at the meetings they weren’t violating the First Amendment. It was their opinion that it wasn’t the fault of the council that the town was predominantly Christian and that they should not be expected to extend the invitation to clergy outside the county. The council was more than willing to welcome and in fact encouraged  Buddhists, Hindu’s, Jews, Muslims and even Atheists who wished to invoke prayer before council meetings to do so, I guess the fact that Atheists don’t pray escaped them.

It was also the opinion of the courts that they would uphold the long-standing tradition of seeking guidance from our creator when making political decisions that was started by our founding fathers over 200 years ago. They actually applauded those who were wise enough to seek this divine wisdom that would help them to uphold our countries morals and values that have shaped our political system from the beginning.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that deny a womans access to birth control and to legal and safe abortions. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools while prohibiting the teaching of evolution. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that weren’t passed concerning the violence against women. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that keep effective pain relieving drug marijuana away from those with cancer and other chronic pain patients.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect the religious practice of female genital mutilation. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect the religious practice of polygamy involving underage girls that are denied education past the eighth grade. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect priests found guilty of raping children. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect commanding officers who don’t prosecute  rapists in the military.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that don’t provide freedom from religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Manhattan Declaration


Manhattan_Declaration_full_text

First a note, I refuse to capitalize the words catholic, christian, christianity, bible or god. That being said….

I recently became aware of this document when researching the current Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case. This document written by

Drafting Committee
Robert George Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
Timothy George Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

This is a committee of the catholic church and evangelical christians.

is a vital document used in cases like the Hobby Lobby suit and the recently vetoed bill that made to Gov.  Brewer’s desk here in Arizona that looked to allow christian businesses to refuse services to gay customers.

Instead of stating all the obvious civil rights issues I am going to dissect this document using their bible to do it.

This documents preamble begins with citing that theirs is a 2000 year old tradition of resisting tyranny. I stand firm that the worst tyrannical leader in history is god. They try to add to their self-righteousness by acknowledging, very vaguely, any past ‘indiscretions’ by some christian institutions, and claim a christian heritage from those that rescued discarded babies from the trash heaps of Roman cities, those who risked their own lives by helping those struck with the plague and those that rather than deny their faith died in the coliseum. They continue on to say that it was christians that saved not only their literature but that and the art of western culture after barbarians invaded Europe. They don’t however say when.  Here I must begin to interject. History very clearly tells us that the church burned unapproved art that got by their all-seeing eyes to be created in the first place. And the church is solely responsible for the book burnings of non christian literature all throughout history. They also claim sole responsibility for ending the slave trade in Europe. Next is the boast of the hundreds of societies that help the poor, imprisoned and child laborer. I stand alongside the late great Christopher Hitchens that christians have made a career out of the exploitation of the poor.They even go so far as to claim that it was the christians that challenged the royalty of Europe that made modern democracy possible. Really? Wow. But there’s more. They say they have a devotion to human dignity by working to end human trafficking and sexual slave trades. Next is one of my favorite claims. The work they do in Africa to help end Aids. Help? Sure with conditions. The church has conditions that if aids victims practice abstinence and monogamy they will receive their help. They actually claim scientific studies show that the use of condoms has not stopped the spread of aids AT ALL. They have the nerve not to distribute condoms because it promotes promiscuity and does nothing to prevent the spread of aids. They have that audacity to enforce their contraception beliefs on victims of aids.

Now for their declaration, they declare to fight for the rights of the unborn, the sick and the elderly. In other words against abortion, contraception, DNR’s  and assisted suicide. Then there’s the protection of the sacred institution of marriage where they don’t stop at same-sex marriages but continue marching on against divorce, against premarital sex, against cohabitation and against polygamy.

First they tear into stem cell research claiming that there will be mass production of embryos produced to be destroyed. This boils down to the when life begins debate and the actual ‘production’ of embryos. This is not conception from procreation.  And one could argue that the embryos are not destroyed they are transformed into new life as new cells. This is a practice that saves lives. It can prevent people from suffering cure a number of horrific diseases. They are being hypocrites. Their issue with this is really about science creating life instead of god. The argument that global warming can’t be true because only god can destroy the earth man cannot is behind this view, theirs is the view that mankind cannot create life only god can. Well obviously since the splitting of the atom and the industrial revolution mankind can destroy the earth, and obviously science has proved through stem cell research that we can also create life.

Medically speaking life does not begin until the embryo becomes a fetus. That’s my argument there.  Here though I must throw in my question as to who exactly is going to support all these unwanted children? Who is going to raise them? If women get abortions because they can’t care for them stopping the abortion isn’t going to change the fact that these children won’t be cared for. They will either be condemned to a life of abuse, neglect and poverty. But then again a life time of suffering is essential in christian dogma. And what about the pregnancies that are a result of rape and incest. I refuse to adhere to statistics that are supposed to reflect the number of these pregnancies because it is a fact that only a small percentage of rapes are reported let alone make it to court. That however is another issue but a directly related one. Now, if the christians could fix that problem…they can however fix the other problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place by not fighting the use of contraception. Without contraception, even in the perfect christian delusional world where only married people have sex denying women the ability to control how many children they will have and when is condemning us to a life of legalized prostitution. This is the ultimate oppression of women, it results in a womans inability to obtain an education and to embark on a career or even have a minimum wage job in an economy where it is next to impossible to live above the poverty line without two incomes. And lets not leave out the fact that this ensures countless numbers of children that will be born into and live in poverty lapse of proper nutrition and education. Oh but wait, without the poor who would the christians exploit. Seems to be a little to convenient for their cause.

Now to assisted suicide. This is one of the most blatant forms of abuse there is. These servants of god who claim to spend their life putting an end to suffering are doing anything but yet again. Forcing a person to live in pain is well, fucked up. Speaking as a person who has chronic pain due to spinal stenosis and who has a family history of early onset Alzheimer’s they have no right to condemn me. If I inherit the Alzheimer’s gene, which it is a sure bet either me or one of my two sisters will, I have asked my family to either help me end it when I lose all moments of clarity or to look the other way when I decide it is time. How dare they say that they would be saving me by forcing me to live in a state of dementia and undeniable pain. How dare they impose that on me. And what right have they got to tell anyone that their lives would be of quality if they were only breathing because of artificial means. Aren’t they playing god here themselves? If god has ceased my breathing let me die, not that I believe god has that ability or uses it, who are they to play god?

Now let’s look at their views on marriage and divorce.  I have always defended the Westboro church, you know the god hates fags people, in that they are right. Not right in their actions but in that god does hate fags. The bible very clearly states that he who lies with another man as he lie with a woman shall be put to death. I don’t think there is any way to misinterpret that. This bullshit they spew about not hating the sinner just the sin, well that doesn’t and can’t apply here. God offers no forgiveness of options of repent and be forgiven on this one. This sin is to god so bad that when Lot offered up his virgin daughters to the men that wanted to rape the male guests in his house god destroyed the city of Gomorrah for that attempt of the sin of sodomy but spared Lot before doing so for offering his daughters rather than commit the sin of not protecting a guest in one’s house. That says to me pretty plainly which god sees as the greater sin. For that matter offering up daughters against their will is something god did from the beginning. He himself in a sense raped Mary, or at least his spirit did when it impregnated her without her consent. And I will use scripture against them as they are using scripture for their defense.

Throughout the book of Genesis alone there are numerous condoned, encouraged and even ordered occasions where barren wives gave maidservants to their husbands so that they could have children.  Sarah did it for Abraham,  even after he let the Pharaoh of Egypt take her after lying and saying that she was his sister so that the Pharaoh wouldn’t kill him so that he could have his wife. Sarah gave Abram a woman named Hagar. After Sarah regretted this decision Abram told Sarah she could deal with Hagar as she pleased and Hagar ended up fleeing from them. Well god directly intervenes by sending an angel to convince Hagar to return telling her that she will give birth to a son and promises her many more if she obeys. She does. Ismael is born. Then god decides that he will give Sarah who is not of the age that she has ceased to bleed, god gives back her bleeding so that she too can conceive and give Abraham another son. I must add here the fact that Sarah is also Abraham’s half-sister, they have the same father but different mothers. This decadence is what the christians claim will happen if they don’t put an end to same-sex marriages and sex out of wed lock. Abraham’s story is not over yet. He sent a servant to the house of his kindred to fetch a wife for his son Isaac. It is important to note that Abraham insists that his son marry a daughter from his father’s house. Abraham’s servant took an oath to take his master’s brother’s daughter to be Isaacs wife. In other words Isaac was to marry his first cousin. Out of this marriage comes a son, Jacob. Jacob wants to marry a girl named Rachel but to do so he must be her fathers servant for seven years, which he does. He ends up getting tricked into marrying the older sister Leah but asks to live seven more years as a servant to ‘pay’ for Rachel which he does. Well Leah bears Jacob children but Rachel is barren so Rachel gives him her handmaid Bilhah and she bears Jacob sons. Then when Leah could no longer bear sons she gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob to wife and conceive more sons. Their decadence goes even deeper but don’t relate here. Jacob is rewarded with wealth and lands for his fruitful multiplying. And we’re still in Genesis. This is the sanctity of marriage that christians are fighting to preserve?

 

Whatever.

Why Arizona HB 2467 is Wrong


Let me start by saying that don’t have a problem with anyone who would or has taken any oath of allegiance to God or Country, including our President. I do however have a problem with not having the choice. And before I get a comment that my daughter has a choice, being given an ultimatum is not freedom of choice.

First and foremost, ‘So help me God”. Yes that does mean something and yes it matters. No matter what context that statement is used. It does have stronger implications when it applies to an oath of allegiance that could take away life or liberty. Which brings me to the other issue. To swear this oath of allegiance to defend the Constitution when women after 200 years, for that matter since the very founding of this country to not have equality and protection from that very same Constitution is unfathomable. To break that oath would be treason, a crime in some states that is punishable by death or at the very least punishable by incarceration.

And before there are any eyes rolling and thoughts of dramatics on my part remember this. Men, yes I mean MEN, and religion  throughout history, are responsible for every war ever fought anywhere in the world that has cost over  millions lives all totaled, for the Crusades where thousands of people were slaughtered; tortured; burned; hung and disemboweled; beheaded and tortured for not believing in this very same God, for the Holocaust where not just 6,000,000 Jews were systematically exterminated; tortured; starved and experimented on but millions of ‘not normal’ people with disabilities as slight as a crooked nose; the mentally handicapped and those of non-Aryan or German blood, for the Inquisitions; Spanish and Catholic where hundreds of thousands of people were tortured; burned and brutally slaughtered across Europe where towns burned to the ground and whole communities of Jews were walled up in the Ghetto’s some less than a hundred yards from the Vatican gate and right below the Popes window, for the trial and convictions resulting in burning at the stake or hanging of countless women accused of being witches, for the enslavement of tens of thousands of black people, for countless lynchings of black people, for the ongoing suppression; violence; rape and human trafficking of countless women and children, for Female Genital Mutilation, for unspeakable treatment of animals, for the use of Atomic bombs that instantly and slowly; painfully and unnecessarily killed over a hundred of Japanese civilians, for over 1500 Hydrogen bomb tests that kills a countless number of marine life; and indigenous Peoples that rely on the oceans for their food and the slow and painful deaths; deformities and health problems beyond belief of our military personnel who were defending that very same Constitution.

And I’m dramatic? I put nothing inhumane past human beings.

Until that Constitution is rewritten, yes rewritten not ratified; not amended; not added to or altered but rewritten to include every American regardless of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation I will not swear an oath to it.

As far as God is concerned nothing will ever make that happen. Nothing.

Arizona’s Graduation Requirement; Swear an Oath of Allegiance to the United States


This is the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;so help me God.”

This is the Graduation Requirement; Constitutional Oath.

Beginning in the 2013‑2014 school year, In addition to fulfilling the course of study and assessment requirements prescribed in this chapter, before a pupil is allowed to graduate from a public high school in this state, the principal or head teacher of the school shall verify in writing that the pupil has recited the following oath:

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

AZ HB2467

2013-01-23 House Referred to House FFR Committee
2013-01-23 House read second time
2013-01-22 House Assigned to House RULES Committee
2013-01-22 House Assigned to House ED Committee
2013-01-22 House Assigned to House FFR Committee
2013-01-22 House Introduced in House and read first time

Primary Sponsors of this Bill;

Rep Sonny Borrelli

Rep Carl Seel

Rep T.J. Shope

Rep Steve Smith

Rep Thorpe

Cosponsors;

Chester Crandell

Jeff Deel

David Livingston

All Republicans. The House consists of 36 Republicans and 23 Democrats. The Senate consists of 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Governor Jan Brewer is……guess what, a Republican.

I have a daughter who is a Junior this year, class of 2014. She attends a College Preparatory School, University High in Tolleson Arizona. It is a school for gifted kids that students must test into, but is receives state money, ergo it is a public school.

This is VERY personal. I will move my daughter to another state before she will be forced to take an oath with the words so help me God in it before she will be allowed to graduate.

 

My daughter will be 18 when she graduates, however a large percentage of students will be under the age of 18. They don’t even have any Constitutional rights. They can’t vote, they can’t defend the United States of America against any enemies.

My daughter has busted her Ass for the past 3 years and plans on doing the same for one more. She tested in the 97th percentile in the nation and is holding a 3.85 GPA taking advanced classes in a school for gifted kids that requires 3 more credits to graduate than all the other public schools in Arizona.

And they are going to tell her that if she doesn’t swear this oath of allegiance she won’t graduate?

Then there is this;

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;

Remember the bill begins with this;

 In addition to fulfilling the course of study and assessment requirements prescribed in this chapter, before a pupil is allowed to graduate from a public high school in this state, the principal or head teacher of the school shall verify in writing that the pupil has recited the following oath:

that is not taking the oath freely and without mental reservation. She will be forced to swear an oath to a God she doesn’t believe in.  That is not who she is, that matters. And before any one labels either one of us unpatriotic don’t. She knows more about our government, our history, and our Constitution than most adults. She is the granddaughter of a decorated war veteran. Her mother, and both my sisters were  born at Kirtland Airforce Base. Her Aunt is a veteran. She believes in this country and she obeys its laws and defends it. She speaks out against the religious fanatics who stand on our flag and protest military funerals. When we are at the store or the post office when she shes someone in uniform, whether it is a military uniform, a police uniform or a firefighter uniform she takes the time to approach them and say thank you. She can tell you what almost every proposition means at state election time, she watches the presidential debates, the State of the Union Addresses and any most any other political speech that is made. She knows what the candidates policies are, she understands how Congress, the Senate and the House operate and what there jobs are. She has her own opinions on immigration, on abortion and on medical marijuana. She knows who Gloria Steinem, Billy Jean King, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger and Susan B. Anthony are and what they fought for. She knew what Seneca Falls was when President Obama referenced it in his inaugural speech that we watched together. She stopped and read the Magna Carta, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Constitution when we were at the National Archives in Washington DC. She shed a tear with me when we stood where Martin Luther King gave his I have a dream speech. She knows who the freedom riders were and who Frederick Douglas was. She shed tears of pride when we stood in front of my Uncle’s name on the Vietnam Wall. She shed tears of empathy when we went through the Holocaust Museum. She in not indifferent and speaks out against those who are. She has read a lot of the Bible and has come to her own conclusions. She knows a majority of the Quran, and she understands theosophy. She knows who Constantine was and how he merged the sword with the cross. She knows when politics and religion are being used by our government to manipulate and control.

This is one high school kid who will not fall for this violation of her rights, because she is an American and she knows what that means.

Freedom of Speech


“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

“Admittedly, these oft-repeated First Amendment principles, like other principles, are subject to limitations. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), we held that a state could lawfully punish an individual for the use of insulting ” fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

But the sort of expression involved in this case does not seem to us to be governed by the exception to the general First Amendment principles stated above.

The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury’s finding to be that the ad parody “was not reasonably believable,” and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by “outrageous” conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed.

Supreme Court Justice C.J. Rehnquist

485 U.S. 46

Supreme Court of the United States

February 24, 1988 Decide

Hustler Magazine and Larry C Flynt, Petitioners V. Larry Falwell

NO 86-1276

The Spastic Tubes Theory


Recently Rep Todd Akin brought the abortion laws to the forefront of the Republican Party platform when he referenced the “Spastic tubes” theory when argued his case for changing the abortion laws for rape and incest victims. This theory is that of Dr. John Wilke which he explains in his book Abortion and Slavery. To emphasize my fear of this man and the Pr0-lifer’s that support him I am first going to give this man’s ‘credentials’. Dr. John C. Wilke is a medical practitioner who was a senior attending staff member at Providence and Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati Ohio where he worked for 40 years. Currently he is president of the Nationwide Educational Life Issues Institute, on the board of Reference Academy of Medical Ethics (AAME). For 10 years he was president of the United States National Right To Life Committee and The United States National Right To Life Federation which he founded in 1984.

He has his own radio show 5 Mins that is broadcast on 400 stations world-wide and his 1 min comment “Life Jewels” airs on over 1000 English and Spanish stations around the world.

Dr. Wilke and his wife Barbara are the authors of Abortion and Slavery, History Repeats and Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Past and Present. In 1971 they published The Handbook on Abortion, Abortion Questions and Answers which has sold over 1,000,000 copies world-wide and translated into 21 languages. This was the first in a series spanning 25 years. In 1985 they published the 3rd book in this series Abortion: Questions and Answers, Why Can’t We Love Them Both? Dr. and Mrs. Wilke have also published 7 books on Sexual Health.

I have selected some excerpts from the Q and A in ‘Why Can’t We Love Them Both?” which contain the Doctor’s theory on why victims of rape and incest don’t get pregnant in the first place. The doctor argues that women can’t get pregnant when raped because their bodies will not allow the sperm to fertilize the egg if a woman was ‘legitimately raped, therefore there is no need legalize abortion for victims of rape and incest. He states his views as ‘scientific fact’ and mathematically concludes that women cannot get pregnant when raped or molested.

I have entered in my thoughts on each answer given in italics after each one. The questions and answers are copied word for word out of the book.

Dr. Wilke, “First and foremost this issue concerns forcible or assault rape, not consensual or marital rape”.

What exactly is consensual rape?

That is an oxymoron. And the law recognizes marital rape; only a male chauvinist would say that there isn’t rape in a marriage, only someone who believes that a woman is obligated to have sex with her husband.

Are assault rape pregnancies common?

No they are very rare.

-I don’t know where he gets this.

Are there accurate numbers?

The Justice Dept. from 1973 to 1987 surveyed 49,000 households annually, asking questions on violence and criminal acts. The results of those reported were: 1973-completed-rapes 95,934, 1987-completed rapes-82,505. The study stated that only 53% were reported to police. Accordingly the total numbers were: 1973-completed rapes-181,016. 1987-completed rapes-155,667. A more recent Justice Dept report using a study designed differently with more direct questions, returned a result of: 170,000 completed rapes and 140,000 attempted rapes.

-For starters let’s look at the years he uses for his statistics. Enough said.

And how many pregnancies result?

About 1 or 2 for each 1,000. Using the 170,000 figure, this translates into an overall total of 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies a year in the entire United States.

One or two out of 1,000? Please explain.

There are about 100 million women in the United States old enough to be at risk for assault rape. Let’s use a figure of 200,000 forcible rapes every year. The studies available agree that there are no more than two pregnancies per 1,000 assault rapes. So much for the numbers. Let’s look at it from another angle and see if that figure makes sense. Of these 200,000 women who were raped, one-third are either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk of pregnancy. A woman is capable of being fertilized only three days out of her 30-day month. So divide 133,000 by 19 and 13,300 women remain. One-fourth of all women in the United States of child-bearing age have been sterilized. That drops the figure to 10,000. Only half of the assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm. Cut it in half again. We are down to 5,ooo. Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600. Another 15% are on the p;ill or/are already pregnant. Now the figure is 3,070. Now factor in something that all adults know. It takes from five to ten months for an average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Using the smaller figure, to be conservative, divide the 3,000 figure by 5, and the number drops to about 600. In a healthy, peaceful marriage, the miscarriage rate ranges up to about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate is higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If she loses 20% of 600, there are 450 left.

Finally, we must factor in one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant and stay pregnant, a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reductions in pregnancy will this cause? No one really knows, but this factor certainly cuts the last figure by at least 50%, and probably more, leaving a final figure of 225 women pregnant each year, a number that closely matches the 200 found in clinical studies.

-I don’t even know how to respond to that. Here are some statistics I came up with

Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women.

Holmes MM, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL.

Source: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425-2233, USA.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape.

STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.

RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

PMID: 8765248 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Why not allow abortion for rape pregnancies?

We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act-that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, she has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. The utilitarian question from the mother’s stand-point is whether or not it would now be better to kill the developing baby within her. But will abortion now be best for her, or will it bring her more harm yet? What has happened and it’s damage has already occurred.

She’s old enough to know and have an opinion as to whether she carries a ‘baby’ or a ‘blob of protoplasm’. Will she be able to live comfortable with the memory that she ‘killed her developing baby?’ Or would she ultimately be more mature and pregnant unwillingly, she nevertheless solved her problem by being unselfish, by giving of herself and of her love to an innocent baby, who had not asked to be created, to deliver, perhaps to place for adoption, if she decides that is what is best for her baby. Compare this memory with the woman who can only look back and say, “I killed my baby”.

Considering the previous answers and his previous statements that a woman who is legitimately raped won’t get pregnant because her body won’t allow it how compassionate do you think he and his followers really are?

But carry the rapist’s child?

True, it is half his. But remember, half of the baby is also hers, and there are other outstretched arms that will adopt and love that baby.

I don’t see how she could!

Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim’s chief complaint is not that she is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is treated in accordance, as are their families. We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the abortion, because it is what they did. In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim’s problems stem more from the trauma of rape than the pregnancy itself. As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy, the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were most frequently cited; in other words, how her loved ones treated her.

-This is just bull. What an ass! If there is any truth to this at all it would be a result of how people like him treat rape victims.

But many laws would allow for this exception.

That is because many only think of the mother. But we should also think of the baby. Should we kill an innocent unborn baby for the crime of his father? Or let’s look at it this way. Do we punish other criminals by killing their children’? Besides, such laws pose major problems in reporting, and also women have been known to report falsely.

You accuse women of lying?

We don’t have to. Radical feminist guru Gloria Steinem, in a 1985 interview with USA Today said that “to make abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest would force women to lie.” The story of Jane Roe, of the Roe V. Wade decision, is well-known. Norma McCorvey (her real name) fabricated a story, that she had been gang raped at a circus, in the mistaken impression that this would permit her to obtain a legal abortion in Texas. Not until 1987 did she reveal that the baby was actually conceived “through what I thought was love.” Up until 1988, Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program funded abortions, for women who claimed they had been raped, without any requirement for reporting the purported assault to a law enforcement agency. Under this law, abortion clinic personnel issued thinly veiled public invitations for women to simply state that they’d been raped, and the state ended up funding an average of 36 abortions a month based on such unsubstantiated claims. In 1988 the legislature added a requirement for reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency, and the average dropped to less than 3 abortions per month.

-This man and his followers are obviously bias against ‘feminists’. He uses a quote from Gloria Steinem out of context. You have to look at the big picture, which I will paint after the following answer.

You said reporting was a problem?

The problem is requiring proof. If the woman goes directly to the hospital, her word is accepted. But, sadly, through fright or ignorance, she may not report it and quietly nurse her fears. She misses her period and hopes against hope that it isn’t what she thinks it is. Sometimes months ago by before finally, in tears, she reports to her mother, her physician, or some other counselor or confidante. To prove rape then is impossible. The only proof of rape then is to have a reliable witness corroborate the story, and such a witness almost never exists.

-It is unbelievable that this man assumes that every woman would do what he suggests. In tears she finally tells her mother. How could anyone accept any of this as factual information? Again, I don’t know where he gets this stuff, her word is accepted? Really? Hospital personnel cannot and do not make assessments on whether a woman is raped or not. They do a rape kit. That’s all. They can provide information on where to go for help and can offer them a way to call law enforcement. That’s it.

What proof would be needed early on?

Reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency is needed. Any hospital emergency room will handle this. If done within a day or two, she can be examined, given medicine for sexually transmitted diseases and counseled. Her word will rarely be questioned. But if it is many days later after a missed period, her word may not be enough.

-Let’s look at why rapes aren’t reported. It is not due to the reasons Dr. Wilke claims. First, her word is never enough. Rape has to be proven in court. As a rape victim I can personally attest to the treatment of rape victims by law enforcement and in court. Today it is not as bad, there has been significant improvement by the police in the attitude about rape but it is still not good. I, like most women, are subjected to their personal life being put on trial. Whether or not they are virgins, whether or not they are have had several sexual partners, even how they dress and the places the frequent. I don’t care if you are a prostitute in the middle of having sex, if at any point you say no or stop and the man does not it is rape. REGARDLESS.

What percentages of rape pregnancies are aborted?

Less than half. The balances carry the baby to term. In one study of 37 rape pregnancies, 28 carried to term.

What is her chief complaint?

Perhaps, surprisingly, it is not the fact that she is pregnant. Her chief complaint is “how other people treat her.” This should be very sobering to everyone. How is she treated? Do others understand the trauma she has experienced, and love and support her? Or, do they avoid her and act as if it was partly her fault, or worse? Just think, if all such victims were given generous love and support, many more than at present would carry their babies to term.

-I would like to know how many women feel that way, seriously. And again, he offers so much love and support.

What is she could not cope with raising the child?

We must let these women know that it is all right to feel that way. We truly understand. That does not mean, however, that the baby is unwanted. There are innumerable arms outstretched, asking for a child to love. Any number of couples will want the child. She should be supported and encouraged if she chooses to place the child in a loving adoptive home.

-Let me point out the practical here. Who is going to pay for the prenatal care?

What of incest?

Incest is intercourse by a father with his daughter, uncle with niece, etc. It usually involves a sick man, often a sick mother who frequently knows it’s happening (even if not consciously admitting it), and an exploited child. Fortunately, pregnancy is not very common. When incest does occur, however, it is seldom reported and, when reported, is hard to prove. Most pregnancies from incest have a very different dynamic than from rape and must be counseled in a very different manner.

Even strongly pro-abortion people, if they approach an incest case professionally, must be absolutely convinced before advising abortion, for abortion is not only an assault on the young mother, who may well, be pregnant with a “love object”, but it may completely fail to solve the original problem. It is also unusual for wisdom to dictate anything but adoptive placement of the baby.

Love object?

When pregnancy does occur, it is often an attempt to end the relationship. In a twisted sort of way, however, the father is a love object. In one study, only 3 of 13 child-mothers had any negative feelings toward him.

In incest is pregnancy common?

No. “Considering the prevalence of teenage pregnancies in general, incest treatment programs marvel at the low incidence of pregnancy from incest. “Several reports agree at 1% or less.

How does the incest victim feel about being pregnant?

For her, it is a way to stop the incest; a way to unite mother and daughter, a way to get out of the house. Most incestuous pregnancies, if not pressured, will not get abortions. “As socially inappropriate as incest and incestuous pregnancies are, their harmful effects depend largely upon reaction of others.

-This is hard to even give a response to. There is usually a sick man involved? Really? And the presumption that there is usually a sick woman, ie the mother, who doesn’t do anything is just more evidence of his attitude towards women in general. To suggest that the victim gets pregnant as a way of stopping the incest or to reunite her with her sick mother…wow. To say that 3 out of 13 victims had negative feelings toward him? Again where does he get this stuff? Victims of incest, especially daughters raped by their fathers are confused by the entire issue. I blame Christianity and those in society who have for hundreds of years said that one should honor they father, obey thy father etc. And these victims not understanding what is happening to them because the father usually convinces them that is how fathers love their daughters, or they say it is because they are bad or they threaten harm to someone the victim loves if she tells.

-And incest can be between brother and sister and cousins, and ‘socially inappropriate’? How about unacceptable and illegal.

-This man and his large following are dangerous. When I don’t understand where they get their ideas from, and how anyone could possibly believe any of this, all I have to do is remember that they are Christians, that believe Adam and Eve and Cain populated the earth.

Thank You Barack Obama


I would like to personally thank you President Obama for suing my home state of Arizona over SB1070. Thanks to you we have now spent millions of dollars of legal defense. Thank goodness we had Arizona Kids Care, Reduced Lunch Programs, State Health Insurance, TANF, and Unemployment Benefits that we could ‘borrow’ money from to pay for it. And you assured those unlucky illegal immigrants not to worry about their welfare benefits or not having extra teachers to teach their children how to speak English. The Census the State requires all American citizens to fill out will be used to get all the money they need for all the students in every district. And if necessary they can simply get rid of those expensive school buses and those ridiculous PEP programs and Honor Society programs. In addition, the State Troopers and Border Patrol are so grateful they don’t have to do the Federal Governments job by taking illegals into custody and deporting them back across the border. All they have to do with all those Illegal drop houses and Cartel drug deals happening all over the state.

And last but not least the State of Arizona loves you crazy sense of humor….a moat, with alligators in it. That’s just silly.

Obama’s Dream Act VS. AZ’s Governor Jan Brewer round 1


Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer signed an executive order Wednesday directing state agencies to deny driver’s licenses and other public benefits to illegal immigrants who obtain work authorizations under a new federal program. A spokesman for Gov. Brewer told the Arizona Republic that Brewer’s order is intended to cut through the confusion created by the act. (Taken from a CBS News report).

“As the (Department of Homeland Security) has said repeatedly … these individuals do not have lawful status,” Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson told the Republic. “They are able to remain in the country and not be deported, and not be prosecuted, but they do not have lawful status.”

This order is necessary to prevent Arizona’s Department of Economic Security and Arizona employers from breaking Arizona state laws regarding required documentation when applying for public benefits (Arizona residency is a requirement for Food Stamps and ACCCHHS) and employment. (Student registration is also an issue here as residency is a requirement for K-12 public schools. Residency is also a factor when paying college tuition fees and for financial aid applicants).

Governor Brewer is not prohibiting immigrants from living the American dream, she is not refusing amnesty. She is doing her job by enforcing the laws written for US citizens and Arizona residents, these laws are new. These laws apply to EVERYBODY, to ALL ARIZONA RESIDENTS. Immigrants want equal opportunity, equal rights and to be treated without discrimination well here it is. Welcome to America.

To apply for an Arizona State Driver’s license:

1. Arizona state law requires that all applicants for an original driver license or identification card present two forms of identification – one must have your photo (or three forms of identification if no photo identification is available). See Identification Requirements. All must be originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. All must be in English.

Identification requirements:

You need two types of documents listed – one must have a clear photo of you.

Or, three documents listed with no photo.

One must be listed under “Primary” (see below).

All must be originals or copies certified by the issuing agency.

All must be in English.

PRIMARY (must include Date of Birth)

Driver License or Instruction Permit issued in another state, territory or possession of the U.S. except (per Arizona law) for the following states that do not verify lawful presence in the U.S.: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.

Birth Certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the U.S. Hospital record/certificate and California Certified Abstract of Birth are not acceptable.

2. You are required by ARS 28-3158(D)(5) and 42 USC 405(c)(2)(C) to provide your Social Security Number. It will be used to verify your identity and to comply with federal and state child support enforcement laws. It will not be used as your driver license number.

3. State law requires that you obtain an Arizona driver license and registration immediately if any one of the following applies. If you:

Work in Arizona (other than for seasonal agricultural work).

Are registered to vote in this state.

Place children in school without paying the tuition rate of a nonresident.

Have a business with an office in Arizona, that’s based in and operates vehicles in this state.

Obtain a state license or pay school tuition fees at the same rate as an Arizona resident.

Have a business that operates vehicles to transport goods or passengers within Arizona.

Remain in Arizona for a total of seven months or more during any calendar year, regardless of your permanent residence.

Out-of-state students enrolled with seven or more semester hours, are not considered Arizona residents, regardless of employment.

Active duty military personnel based in Arizona who qualify for exemption under the Service Members Civil Relief Act of 2003 are not considered Arizona residents.

Source is the Arizona MVD http://www.azdot.gov/mvd

To Apply for Nutrition Assistance (Food Stamps), ACHHHS (Insurance), or Cash Assistance:

Information Required To Complete Your Case;

Identification (I.D.) for applicant for Cash Assistance (CA) and Nutrition Assistance (NA).

Proof of citizenship and identity for everyone who is applying for AHCCCS Health Insurance (Medical Assistance or MA), Cash Assistance (CA), and Nutrition Assitance (NA).

Alien Registration Cards, if there are non-U.S. citizens in your household.

Social Security numbers for everyone, or proof that a Social Security number has been applied for.

Birth certificates for everyone.

Name, address & daytime phone number of landlord or neighbor.

A statement verifying your address and the names of everyone living with you. The statement must be made by a non-relative who doesn’t live with you. It must be signed, dated and include that person’s address and telephone number.

Proof of ALL money your household received from any source last month and this month.

Proof that your employment ended, and last date paid.

Bank or credit union (savings or checking) complete statement for the most recent month.

Proof of savings bonds, securities, retirement plans and life insurance.

Proof of pregnancy, including the estimated date of delivery.

Proof of rent/mortgage and utility bills (electric, water, gas, etc.) for the most recent month.

Proof of child care expenses for the most recent month.

Proof of all medical expenses for those who are age 60 or older or receive disability benefits if they are applying for Nutrition Assistance.

Proof of any medical insurance other than AHCCCS.

Source:Arizona Department of Economic Security, Family Assistance Administration

AZ Public School Registration Laws:

To register your child for school in Arizona parents must provide two documents:

Proof of residency (this must be provided every year).

These are documents that parent may use to prove Arizona residency.

Valid Arizona driver’s license or identification card

Valid Arizona motor-vehicle registration

Valid U.S. passport

Mortgage documents

Property-tax bill

Rental agreement or lease (including Section 8 agreement)

Utility bills (water, electric, gas, cable and phone)

Bank or credit-card statement

W-2 wage statement

Payroll stub

Certificate of tribal enrollment or other identification issued by a recognized Indian tribe.

Other documentation from a state, tribal or federal agency including: Social Security Administration, Veterans Affairs, or Arizona Department of Economic Security.

2. A signed form with the parents’ names, the student’s name, the school district or charter school, and the school site where the student is enrolled along with a document that has a student’s full name and residential address, or a physical description of the property where the student lives.

However, families who don’t rent but live in someone else’s home must provide more paperwork. They must give districts a notarized affidavit from an Arizona resident, who attests that the parent and the child live with the resident. The person who is housing the family must also show proof that he or she lives in the state.

Arizona law gives students who live in the state free public education and provides school districts and charter schools with funding based on how many students they enroll. Schools can’t receive state aid for students who aren’t residents.

Source: Arizona Department of Education, Arizona Residency Guidelines

Illegal Immigrants


Let me start by stating that I am not prejudice. My father was Mexican, therefor so am I. I am not prejudice regardless of that fact. Next let me say that I understand, empathize and don’t have issues with Mexicans who want to come to America. I also know that it is not easy to get visas and that the process needs to be fixed. Now let me say that I have major issues with illegal immigrants. I live in Phoenix. I also live in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood and school district. I am a strong supporter of SB1070.

I am personally affected by this in many ways. At the heart of this is my daughter. Public schools get funding for teachers, programs, after school activities, lunches etc for each district from the state. The state gets its funding from the federal government. The amount per district depends on how many students the district has. How the government knows how many students a district has is not by registration but by Census. Illegal immigrants don’t fill out the Census. In my district last year my daughters school had to let 3 teachers go, cut the Honors program, the National Junior Honor Society (both of which my daughter was in) and cut theater because of lack of funds. The school actually ran out of lunches frequently, first come first serve. Why? Because they got funds for a fewer students than they actually have. Why? Because the census showed fewer residents. Why? Because illegals don’t fill out the Census. I won’t even go into my anger over the hiring of 2 new teachers for English as a second language classes.

Now let’s talk about violation of civil rights complaints from illegals. First, The Constitution protects American Citizens. Second what violation of what civil rights, assuming they have any. These complaints about having to carry papers proving citizenship, even Obama said it wasn’t fair for Mexicans to have to carry around all those papers….guess what I do. I have to have in my car my license, my registration, and my proof of insurance. I must have a photo ID issued by the government that I must carry on me and show as proof of age to buy cigarettes, lottery tickets and alcohol. I have to provide a birth certificate, a lease, utility bills, thumb print, social security card and photo ID to get state assistance, unemployment, bank account and a driver’s license and a job. I must provide all that plus immunization records for my kids to register for school.

Now let’s talk about how much money the schools and the government spend on printing the backside any and all paper in Spanish. How much does it cost for all the recordings telling you to press one for English? How much does it cost to have interpreters for non-English speaking parents for all school functions, conferences, PTA meetings and in the front office?

Now for SB1070. Before we were sued by President Obama and before we won in court, the Supreme Court, our border patrol and state police here in Arizona did not have the authority to arrest anyone they caught coming across the border illegally. Illegally being the key word. All they could do is try to catch them, turn them over to immigration and hope they would get deported. How much did the state pay for these officers to do nothing? And guess what, if I did anything illegal and got caught I go to jail, as I should. Bottom line is these immigrants are BREAKING THE LAW. If I got caught in Mexico without a passport would they just send me home? No. I would go to jail. I would get arrested for even trying to get across the border without a passport.

Fix the immigration process. Fix the immigration laws. But enforce the laws. Why should and do these illegals get special treatment? Politically correct. And it’s wrong

Freedom of Speech


“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

“Admittedly, these oft-repeated First Amendment principles, like other principles, are subject to limitations. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), we held that a state could lawfully punish an individual for the use of insulting ” fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

But the sort of expression involved in this case does not seem to us to be governed by the exception to the general First Amendment principles stated above.

The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury’s finding to be that the ad parody “was not reasonably believable,” and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by “outrageous” conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed.

Supreme Court Justice C.J. Rehnquist

485 U.S. 46

Supreme Court of the United States

February 24, 1988 Decide

Hustler Magazine and Larry C Flynt, Petitioners V. Larry Falwell

NO 86-1276

The Long Arm Of Christianity


Christianity has become so intertwined within our daily lives most people have become desensitized to its involvement in our everyday life. We are so used to being force fed this religion that we no longer notice all the places resides slipping right under our noses. And over hundreds of years it has been festering. The stench has become strong enough choke us all.

Christianity is the blueprint for our government, our laws, our judicial process and punishments, our education, our finances, or work ethics, our politics, our political correctness, our civility and our concept of a society.

Christianity monopolizes our literature, our art, our music, and our architecture. It influences the way we dress, the way we speak, and the way we decorate our homes.

Christianity tells how we should treat our animals, our children, our spouses and different ethnic peoples.

Christianity defines our ideals of sexual equality, ethnic equality, and tolerance of alternative religions and life styles.

Christianity tells us what to eat and how to prepare our meals and when to eat them. It influences medicine and health care.

It dictates what is taught in our schools as myth and what history is.

Christianity decides for us what is right and what is wrong. It Christianity decides the rewards and the punishments for each. Christianity judges the way we live and the way we die.

Christianity reaches to the far reaches of our universe within our interpretation of it, it enters our minds through our intellect within the way we understand logic, it weighs on our hearts within how we perceive the causes of our despair and it invades our personal space and our intimate relationships.

Christianity taught us how to love and controls our sexuality.

Christianity has appointed itself as the judge of our existence and God’s executioner

U.S. Was Founded By Christians For Christians


Every time I hear someone say that the United States was founded on the principle of religious freedom I get frustrated. The belief that the first settlers came here to practice their religion freely is grossly misunderstood. The freedom our founding fathers were in search of was the freedom to not be persecuted for their religious beliefs by the Catholic Church. By religious beliefs I mean Christianity, or better yet Protestantism. The idea that this country was not founded by Christians, and that our founding fathers were not Christians is ignorance. The writers of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and all or our laws  were Christian men. White Christian men. The idea that women were considered is ignorance. This is apparent throughout the Constitution. There was no idea of any other non Christian religion, no religion, pagan or Jewish religion to any documents written when the forming of our government was happening.

Let me give you some examples in the form of quotes by our founding fathers.

John Adams:

“I must not write a  word to you about politics because you are a woman.”

“Our Constitution was made only for the moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

George Washington:

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that natural morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

“We are persuaded that good Christians will always be good citizens, and that where righteousness prevails among individuals the nation will be great and happy. Thus while just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.”

John Quincy Adams:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

James K Polk:

“The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests. Under the benign act providence of almighty God the representatives of the states and of the people are again brought together to deliberate for the public good.:

Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized enough to strongly or to often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Understanding Roe v Wade


Abortion is not  legal nor is it illegal.  The Supreme Court Ruling of Roe v Wade was officially considered a moot point because Roe having fled to another state to obtain an abortion before her pregnancy  was too far along was no longer pregnant when this case came before the court. She no longer had just cause against the state of Texas but the state of Texas had filed criminal charges against the doctor who was going to perform the abortion in the first place and that is the case Supreme Court ruled on and they ruled that with out a pregnancy there could be no abortion then leaving no attempt to commit a crime.

This dismissal of the states charges did however bring to light violations of Roe’s Fourteenth Amendment right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. That is to say that since another state ban on abortions after 8 weeks meant she couldn’t wait she was denied due process of the law that could allow her doctor to perform the abortion.  


A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  


The ruling that the state of Texas had violated Roe’s Fourteenth Amendment rights led to the review of whether or not the Supreme Court to enforce the state to legalize abortion on the premise that any future violation of Constitutional rights would be avoided. 


When reviewing cases for legalizing abortion the Supreme Court considered many factors concerning abortion from ancient Greece and Rome’s views, ancient religion’s views and religious doctrine to present beliefs. Going all the way back to the Hippocratic Oath which states “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked nor suggest any such council, and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion”.  This idea was of course born of protecting the fathers rights to the child.


The case for or against abortion is based on whether or not it is murder of a fellow human being. A definition of a human being is needed which in turn requires agreement on when life begins. 


Aristotle believed that only Gods and human beings were moral and legal persons both having rational minds. He believed that upon ‘quickening’ which is defined as movement in the womb a fetus becomes sensitive to it’s surrounding, it is now a sensitive soul. He believed at 6 months a fetus develops the rational mind and is now a person. 

This is the what the Supreme Courts used as a standard for viability when they made it a law in 1973.

This view was shared by the Catholic Church until 1917 when they made the belief that life began at conception into Canon Law.

In 1765 Sir Edward Blackstone took the previous views of Aristotle and the Catholic Church and his books were looked to by our founding fathers at the birth or our nation when writing the documents that define us. 

  Jewish tradition quotes Genesis 2:17 “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” to argue that until birth a fetus was not a person. 

For 600 years English law agreed. The 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke took this as his case for abortion not being murder because the fetus was in the womb and therefore not a person and only a person can be murdered. 


The Judges conclude that matters of the soul and of the mind were under the jurisdiction of religion and philosophy and therefore could not be argued in their court. Stating judicial rule protecting the rights of every citizen of every state granted to them in the Constitution was for the Supreme Court. 


Thus the decision based on ruling that the state of Texas had violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of a citizen of their state it was concluded that it was un-Constitutional for the state to ban abortion.


It was so ordered.


In other words they passed the buck. No law was written, no statute was put in place and abortion is still just sitting on the table until someone picks it up and does something with it.

What Mitt Romney Would Bring to the Presidency


Mitt Romney is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints. (The LDS). The LDS has a sophisticated form of government that includes a President, a senate of sorts and a constitution fashioned after the United States Constitution.

Within this Church government is a Council of Fifty, to which Mitt Romney belongs. This Council is viewed, within the church, as the seed of a new political order that would rule under Christ following prophesied cataclysmic events of the last days and the future theocratic kingdom of God. The LDS believes that existing governments will collapse before the return of Christ.

A theocratic government is a government ruled by the Church officials.

Mitt Romney is bound by a Masonry oath to serve the Church first, and if and when he becomes President to serve country second in the sense that the Church  will govern him not the country.

The LDS and its high-ranking members hold positions of power in the political, judicial and corporate world and they are worth billions. They have vowed to create a world that follows Mormon Laws and Mormon doctrine.

This will include educational curriculum, corporate financial spending, civil liberties and laws that will  follow church laws on marriage, birth control and abortion, medical care, women’s rights in society and within the home and business, baptism of everybody, gay rights, and even dress code.

If Mitt Romney wins this election we will be catapulted back to the dark ages when the Church reigned absolute and supreme.

Health Care Right Of Conscience Act


Illinois courts ruled that pharmacists are protected under this act against having to dispense morning after pills if it is against their religion. Pharmacists have no business being pharmacists if their religion is against certain medicines. What’s a next, pharmacist whose religion doesn’t allow prescriptions at all? There are some religions who don’t believe in doctors or medical care at all. This is all kinds of wrong. These religious fanatics are imposing their beliefs on others in places and ways that are unacceptable.   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — The First Amendment

Hobby Lobby sues President Obama


Hobby Lobby is just one of many businesses to sue the President over ‘preventative services’. Basically laws have been passed making it mandatory for employer’s health insurance coverage to include morning after pills and birth control pills. Hobby Lobby is suing on the grounds that it is unconstitutional to make a business go against its religious beliefs. I have one question here, does Hobby Lobby only hire Christians? If not then aren’t they violating employee’s right to not be Christian? I fail to see how this and any other religious groups are being asked to go against their beliefs. If one believes that birth control is a sin then don’t use it. If those whose beliefs are that it is wrong to use these pills were being forced to use them then okay, but this is not the case. I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where businesses are protected in their right to impose the owner’s religion on its employees. If Hobby Lobby doesn’t hire non-Christians then they are breaking the law, an employer isn’t even allowed to ask what religion an employee is. And then there is the issue of how does an employer know what prescriptions any employee has or gets covered by insurance or not? Isn’t that confidential? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — The First Amendment

When Is It Wrong To Protect Rights


I am not for censorship. I am not against the First Amendment. I understand how important it is. I also know that as American’s we have a responsibility not to abuse those rights. With different ideas of what is offensive or inappropriate the First Amendment boils down to a matter of opinion. Or does it.

Using the film The Innocence of Muslims as the obvious example I think the unbelievable over reaction is nothing short of extreme fanaticism. I don’t see the anti in the film, in fact the film is a pretty accurate script taken right out of the Quran. Let me state my point of views on religion here before I go any further. I have always been VERY outspoken about my feelings towards Christianity and organized religion. I feel the Catholic Church should be held accountable for Crimes against humanity, that Christianity as a whole is responsible for Crimes against Humanity. I entertain the idea that Jesus and Muhammed were no more than another David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson or any other Cult leader. I think that anyone  who actually believes the Bible is  borderline retarded. Religion is nothing more than another way for man to control women and government.

That being said, does the First Amendment give anyone the right to speak freely outside America? Isn’t it rather arrogant of us Americans to expect other cultures and countries to just take insult when they don’t have the same political views? What gives us the right to voice our opinion outside of America? Under the Constitution we have the right not to listen to anyone expressing their right to free speech. Under the Constitution we have the right to disagree with our government. Other countries don’t know or understand this idea.

Should our government have apologized like they did? Absolutely not. Should our government have taken the movie off or banned it here? Absolutely not. Should it have available on You Tube in the Middle East? Absolutely not.

We have the right as Americans to express our views, our ideals, our opinions, or insults, and our jokes in the form of speech, print or video. American newspapers, television stations, record companies and movie theaters have the right to air, record or publish these opinions. But we shouldn’t have the right to impose these rights in someone else’s country.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 846 other followers

Post Calendar

June 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
%d bloggers like this: