Friday, September 30, 2005

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat



This week the dunce hat was basically laid in my lap, although the crown was a little harder to figure out.

Thus, this weeks winner are....

The Crown this week goes not to somebody in the news, but somebody who I feel is doing a wonderful job of spreading knowledge of civil liberties and is giving people a real way of finding out about their rights, activism, their leaders, etc. That group is about.com who host the page http://civilliberty.about.com/ This site is completely dedicated to furthering Americans knowledge of Civil Liberties and how to make a difference if they feel something is important. Please visit their site and learn about the rights that are our most important asset in this country.

The Duncehat was an easy pick this week and I am sure that many of you figured it out already, it is none other than radio talk show host and former Education secretary Bill "if you abort black babies you will get rid of crime" Bennet. On his show "Morning in America" Bennet had this to say:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

This is an absolutely absurd and down right racist comment. Even looking past the stupidity of in any way propagating the genocide of an entire race of people ( I look past this because he did go on to say that it was "morally apprehensible" to do this.) There is still the issue of the fact that he is insinuating that if you get rid of blacks you will get rid of crime. This is a blanket statement about African Americans which is in essence saying that they are all criminals. Not only is it not true, but it is a very hateful and ignorant thing to say. It is true that crime rates are higher among African Americans, both committed and victimized, but this has more to do with socioeconomic issues than race. Furthermore if you were to go by stats alone then all males 18-25 should be locked away, as they are the most dangerous people in the country. Thus our winner for the largest Duncehat yet is Bill Bennet.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Roberts Confirmed as Chief Justice


Well it is done. John Roberts is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States of America. While I am still worried that Roberts may not be the best person for the job, and I am still leary of the fact that he refused to answer many of the questions that were asked. I concede that he was nominated and confirmed in the correct manner for what seem to be the correct reasons and therefore I support his nomination. I will not support him personally as a justice until I see what he does with his new post.

I truly hope that he stands up for the Constitution and for the rights of the American people. If this is the case then I will praise him as I have many judges conservative and liberal. However if he does not I will be the first to condemn him. At this point we must just wait and see.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Update on Jose Padilla Case

I have yet to hear any further reporting on this on any major network, although I must commend Mike Wilson of WMAY 970 AM who discussed this issue at length on his show.

I have made multiple calls to Congressman and have yet to have any calls returned (every time I call on this issue they are out of the office.) So I will continue to try and get some answers and will keep you up to date on what is happening. If anyone else would like to contact their elected officials on this important civil liberties issue please visit www.congress.org and search for you congressman and senator.

Delay's Finally Getting His Come Uppens


Well it took long enough but Tom Delay (R, Texas), the House Majority Leader, has finally been charged with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, along with two associates. In response to the charges Delay has been forced to temporarily step down from his post has Majority Leader.

This is a good sign as it shows that law and order still have control over the country and that the whims the right cannot control government completely. For a while I was afraid that nobody in the Bush White House would ever be held accountable for anything. This is a good sign however tat people like Karl Rove will have to face the music for their involvement in illegal activities.

I will continue to follow up with this case as closely as possible.

Who Lying Davlin or Dewith-Anderson?

Once again here in Springfield the race issue has come up. And once again people on both sides are playing the he said she said game. So who is telling the truth? It is hard to tell in a situation like this who is being trustworthy and who is lying. But does it really matter? In the end does it matter if he said those few words?

Think about it, if the city administration is being run in such a way as to give a feeling of racism. If they continue to not hire African Americans. If they continue to allow race relation issues to go on unabated does it really matter if he said he would only meet with 3 African Americans or "I don't understand your people."

Now don't get me wrong, if in fact he did say these absurd things then he should pay the price and should not be in office. My point is not that these statements shouldn't be addressed but more that if the administration continues to show that they are in fact subtly racist then whether he said these things or not there is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

Now everything that this issue comes up a few people come out and say things like "oh there's no race issue here in Springfield, that's just them Blacks wanting something for nothing" or "I have never seen any race issues."

The first of these of course is very racist in itself, it assumes the the African Americans must not really have a case, they just want to freeload. The second is based in ignorance. I sincerely believe that many people in this town are content in closing their eyes to the obvious race issue. Well it is time for all of us to open our eyes and let the city know that we won't stand for it.

It is ridiculous that in the 21st century there are still people who would refuse a person a job because of the color of there damned skin. WHO CARES! I thought we got over this in the 60's and 70's I guess I was wrong and people aren't as smart as I gave them credit for.

Brown refuses to take any blame at all.


Okay okay, I know that everybody is tired of the "blame game" but this is absurd and has to be discussed. Ex Fema director Mike Brown said yesterday:

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional,"

"I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences and work together. I just couldn't pull that off."

WHAT?! That was his biggest mistake in his mind. What about not having a plan? Or not getting the supplies needed to the proper locations on time. Or the slow response. Or any of the other short comings.

Brown blamed the Mayor, Governor, White House, and anybody else he could other than himself. Everyone else who was involved has had the guts to stand up and admit that they made mistakes. They have publicly announced there apologies and admitted to their wrong doings. So why isn't Brown doing that?

I will say once again what I have said all along, I am not saying that it was all his fault, or all Bush's or anyone else's fault. But he definitely has some blame to take and he needs to step up and admit it.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Fair Justice For All

We are told from the time that we are very young that Equal Justice is available to all. It is in the Constitution, etched into the door frame of the courthouse, and is supposed to happen in the courthouse.

However in the real world it is obvious that justice goes to those that can afford it. True if you are in the bottom 10% you are appointed a lawyer by the courts, but for the rest of us we are stuck trying to figure out if we can afford a lawyer at $200.00+ an hour. Many times because of this we either a) get screwed or b) give up on the issue because it is just not worth it.

Yesterday I was approached by my insurance agent with something that I found quite interesting and in all reality a great idea. It is called Pre Paid Legal and it gives you access to a lawyer for $26.00 a month. I really don't know that much about it yet, I just signed up, but I thought that I would let you guys know about it because I believe that it makes our right to equal justice a reality.

If you want to hear more about it you can go to the PrePaid Legal Website were there is a wealth of information.

Friday, September 23, 2005

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat of the Week



This weeks crown goes to Judge Bells of IL. He stood up this week for the law and would not allow an emergency restraining order that would allow pharmacists to continue to deny women WITH PRESCRIPTIONS for the "plan B" (morning after pill) the ability to get their PRESCRIPTION filled. The pharmacists claim that having to fill these prescriptions goes against their morals because they feel that it is a form of abortion and therefore they should not have to fill them. One particular pharmacist works at a Walgreen and did not want to fill the prescription. Now lets look past the fact that it is their JOB to fill prescriptions regardless of their moral believes, and if they don't like it they can change jobs. (I am a vegetarian, I would not apply for a job at a meat factory and then say I could not perform the task because killing an animal is against my morals.)

Lets go beyond that fact though into the Constitutionality of this absurd request. If a women makes the decision, for her health, lifestyle, or any other reason, that she wants to take a morning after pill, and she is able to get a prescription for this what right is it of the pharmacist to say that she cannot do it.

Last time I looked Congress was the only group that could make laws, and the judicial system was the only group who could determine the correctness of those laws. While the rest of us can discuss them, disagree with them, even protest them, we do not have the right to make up our own rules, such as not letting a women get a legal prescription. Secondly you are taking away the women's right to choose, a Constitutional right. So Judge Bells gets the crown for sticking up for the law and forcing these pharmacists to wait until the correct avenues have been used to stop the rights of women.

The Civil Liberties Dunce Hat goes to Congressman Shimkus. Shimkus came out this week and said that he would cosponsor legislation called the Pledge Protection Act. In a previous article I discussed this in detail so I will leave it here to say that this is extremely Un-Constitutional and I am ashamed that a man I used to respect is cosponsor this absolutely ridiculous piece of legislation.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

When did we become a Theocracy

I thought that we lived in a Democracy. A country were no person has believes forced upon them, were no one group can control the country and were religion does not play a role in government. In short I thought we lived in a FREE country.

I guess I missed the moment that we became a theocracy.

You are probably wondering at this point what I am rambling on about. Congressman Shimkus said today that he will be supporting legislation that will "protect the Pledge". Now unlike some of those I have heard speaking on this issue I actually do support the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it is an elegant way to teach our children love of our country. However I do not agree with the 1954 addition of the words "under God" which have nothing to do with our country and in fact go against our countries views on freedom. For that reason I cannot believe that this bill is actually being considered by any of our elected officials.

There are multiple issue with this fact and I am going to stick to the Constitutionality of this absurd law. Here are the main problems that make this law completely Un-Constitutional.

1) First of all the very words "under God" are Un-Constitutional when used in reference to our country as a whole. For two reasons, first this is establishing a National religion, maybe not a specific belief system but at least the belief in a God. This diminishes the rights of atheists who do not agree with this statement and whose rights are protected under the Constitution.

2) Forcing a child to say the Pledge also forces them to say the words "under God" by doing this you are forcing them to except the existence of a God and therefore taking away their right to choose on their own. Furthermore you are putting the child who's religion will not allow them to say the words in an awkward position. This includes Jehovas Witnesses, I do not know the specific reason here so if someone can fill me in I would appreciate it; Muslims, who first of all say Allah, not God, and in that some would consider this a prayer would not be able to do so unless facing East towards Meca, Buddhist who do not believe in a higher being than the self, Hindus who believe in multiple Gods and depending on the one that they worship may be being blasphemes to say this, Wiccans who may very well believe in a Goddess, Pagans who likewise may believe in a Goddess. There are those who say that these people are in the minority and therefore can just skip the words or add in the name of their higher being. I disagree that they should have to do this. First of all the Constitution clearly protects the minority from being ruled by the majority. Secondly while having the words in the Pledge forces the minority to be put in an awkward spot not having them does not adversely effect, or effect at all, the majority.

3) Making a law that would keep the courts from being able to rule on certain cases that challenge the Pledge takes away the power of the courts and the voice of the people. You are not only going against the Checks and Balance system, but you are violating the First Amendment right of the people to challenge the Government and the Pledge. One of the most fundamental rights of Americans is the ability to challenge Government on any issue and to take a matter to court. It is then the Courts decision, not Congresses, to decide whether it is a viable complaint. This is why we have courts. To make sure that Congress stays in check. And the moment you begin to weaken that Powers the moment that you begin to weaken the Constitution and the rights of the people.

If this law passes I hope that the Supreme Court stands up and protects the rights of the people and does what is right and strikes down this law. If that doesn't happen all I can say is that it is time to be afraid, be very afraid because our rights are now and the mercy of the Administration and Congress.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Civil Liberties Crown/Duncehat

Well it's that time again. Time to give somebody the Civil Liberties Crown and someone else the ole' Civil Liberities Dunce Hat.

This week the Crown goes to the Massachusetts State Legislature for voting down a proposed ban on Gay marriage 157-39. The proposition would have forced a vote in the 2006 elections to decide whether Gay marriage should be outlawed in exchange for Civil Unions, you know take away homosexuals rights but give them a token right to keep them happy. Civil Unions are an atrocity and are a clear segregation of homosexuals. Basically you are telling them that they are good enough to get some of the benefits of marriage but they are not good enough to be married. The worst part is that all of the arguments that I have heard against Gay Marriage have nothing to do with the constitutionality or legality of it but with the "immorality according to God" of it. Since when was "God" supposed to be involved in any decision making on the Governmental level. The U.S. Constitution very clearly states that no law will be made regarding religion. Period. To say that it should be illegal because "God" says so is to say to all those who do not believe in God or who believe in a non Judeo/Christian/Muslim God that you voice does not matter and we will force you to believe in the way of our God. And I don't want to hear this crap about well the majority of this country is Christian and so we should follow that. Wrong. While the majority of this Country is in fact Christian the Constitution is clear is saying that the Majority does not rule the Minority. We all have EQUAL VOICE in government. I am very happy to see that Massachusetts is setting an example and standing up for the rights of homosexuals everywhere.

The Dunce Hat goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who this week vowed to veto a bill that would legalize Gay Marriage in California. He is basically saying here that he does not care what the officials elected by the people think or what the Constitution of the United States says about equality. He would rather stick to the RNC's agenda than stick up for the rights of the people of his state. Well if I know Ca. Then I think that when it goes back it will be voted through so hopefully someday soon I will be giving the Crown to them, but until then the Dunce of the week is good ole' Govinator.

Iran war on the way?

With Iran continuing, as they should be allowed, to move forward on nuclear power programs Bush continues to make the claim that they are hiding a "rogue nuclear weapons program" and that they are in fact not trying for nuclear power, but trying to build a bomb.

This of course is being said by Bush at the same time that he U.N. nuclear watchdog is saying that it is not the case. Russia, our ally, is helping them build the power plant and saying it isn't the case, and no other country is supporting us in our claims. To make matters even better we don't even have any proof for what we are saying other than a hard line Islamic leader is in power and we don't like it.

This all sounds eerily familiar. Mmmm, let me think what other war was started on the basis that the country had WMD's although the U.N., our allies, The leader of the Country, and every other major country in the world excluding Great Britain said that they did not have them and they were not a threat (sorry I refuse to consider Poland, Australia, or Afghanistan major countries in this case.)

that's right the Iraq war, and now we are paying a huge price for our mistake. Maybe this time instead of being all gung ho and not looking at the facts we should let diplomacy take it's path, let the U.N. do it's job and work with our allies instead of telling them what we want and if they don't like it naming any food that has their name associated with it changed to "freedom _______" (i.e. freedom fries, freedom toast, ect.)

When is Bush going to learn that he cannot push the world around and expect everyone to be all happy about it. Our military is far to stretched out for him to be making threats such as "we are not taking any options of the table" in regards to how we will handle the Iran situation.

When are we going to learn that we cannot be the watchdog for the world. That is the job of the U.N. , let them do it. Get our boys and girls home and lets keep them here.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Bush & Homeland Security Defeating the Purpose


A very scary thought just came to my mind. If the Bush administration continues to strip away the freedoms that we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq and around the world in The War on Terror, then the terrorist have already won and we can stop the bloodshed right now. There is no need for people like Padilla have no need to detonate bombs.

I can hear the outcry of the right wing base now "blame America again" or "how dare you speak against Bush".

I am not blaming America, and I am doing anything but say we should let the terrorist win. In reality we need to fight for our freedoms. But that fight has to start here, in the halls of government were they are being stripped away. It is not enough to simply say that we will fight to protect democracy. We must first keep democracy.

It is time for us as U.S. Citizens to stand up together and demand that no more rights be taken away and that those rights that have been be returned. The Patriot Act needs to be abolished and here it comes: Bush NEEDS, for the safety of our rights, to be IMPEACHED. That's right I said the big "I" word. I have never called for the removal of a President, including this one, before and I hope I never have to again, but this is beyond politics.

This should in no way be a partisan issue. The rights that we have been given through the blood of our ancestors are for all Americans, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, and everything in between. And when they are taken away they are taken from everybody. It is scary to think that at anytime anyone of us could be arrested by the government on charges of "suspicion of terrorism" with no proof to back it up (none I have seen anyway) and be held without being given the basic right to defend ourselves from the accusations. What happened to the country I love were you are guaranteed the right to a trial. What happened to the great nation that stood together and vowed that we would fight those who would try and destroy our freed society on 9/11. Have we become so lax or so brainwashed by the current administration that we don't see that the biggest threat is not from a foreign country or from terrorist but from the very people who have vowed to protect those freedoms?

I for one refuse to stand by as this happens and I make a vow right to that I will do everything in my power to see to it that Padilla, and all Americans, are given the rights that so much American blood has been shed to protect. Do not let the loss of our great soldiers, in the past, and today go to waste, join me in the fight to save our freedoms. If you are interested in helping the first thing to do is to contact your governmental officials and show your dismay for what is happening. If you would like to do more beyond that please contact me at americanpatriotlegion@hotmail.com for more information.

WHY NO MORE REPORTING ON THIS TOPIC?!

After not hearing anything locally over the last three days regarding the Jose Padilla case I decided to look online to see what the National News companies were saying about it. What did I find? Hard hitting questions about why he has not been given a trial? Commentary on the dangerous aspects of the President having this kind of Power? Anything? No not one damned report on this atrocity. I searched both Google and Yahoo and the newest reporting on the issue I could find was from 2002. What is this? Has the news turned a deaf hear to this outrage. I was wondering why their wasn't a larger public outcry, NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT! Because of this I will be starting a full scale campaign to get the word out and make sure that this man gets what the Constitution guarantees him. A TRIAL! I hope you will join me in this fight. Please contact your local, state, and national representatives and let them know that you are outraged by the stripping of this mans freedoms. He has not been proven to have done a damned thing wrong and he has spent the last 3 years in prison. If they can't get enough proof together in that amount of time to charge him then maybe it should be a sign that he should be freed. Otherwise charge him and give him a trial. Period. I will keep you updated on this as more information becomes available.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

New voting machines coming to Springfield, IL

Props to DownLeft for a great blog on this issue. They have done a wonderful job of covering the issue so I see no reason to duplicate it here, so please visit their site for discussion of this matter.

I will be keeping a close eye on this as it unravels to determine any Civil Liberty issues that may arise. The moment that they do you can be sure that I will be all over it.

UPDATE: DownLeft has continued to do a wonderful job of original reporting on this topic. Therefore I see no reason to do anything more than to send you his way.

Friday, September 09, 2005

Civil Liberties Alert


My joy from Judge Hall's decision was short lived. Soon after reading about it I came across the decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the U.S. could continue to hold Jose Padilla, an American Citizen, on ACCUSATIONS that he planned to detonate a 'dirty bomb' within the United States.

I am all for arresting terrorist and I am definitely for protecting our country, but if this guy truly is a threat and the U.S. Government truly believes he had intentions of terrorist attacks then CHARGE HIM AND GIVE HIM A TRIAL!

I am not saying that he should definitely be let go, but I am saying that as and American Citizen he has the right to a trial in front of his peers has guaranteed by the 6th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Let them then decide if he belongs in jail.

This decision goes far beyond the rights of Padilla however, it effects all of our rights. This will set a standard that says that the government, and particularly the President can accuse anyone of being a threat to National Security and have them arrested and held indefinitely without any shred of proof. It is stated best by Padilla's lawyer:

"It's a matter of how paranoid you are," Andrew Patel said. "What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail - without a hearing (or) a trial."

The right to a criminal trial is a fundamental right and under no circumstances should it be removed. It is the core difference between our legal system and that of tyrants. The ACLU is actually standing up on this one saying:

"So long as the civilian courts are open and functioning, American citizens arrested in the United States are entitled to due process protections provided by a traditional criminal trial," ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro said in a statement.

I truly hope that they continue to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, but it may not make a difference as one of the Judges on the panel of three is a possible choice for Supreme Court. How he could continue to be after clearly disregarding the Constitutional right to a trial is beyond me.

This almost makes me wish I had not already given the Civil Liberties Crown to Judge Hall, because I think that the panel of Judges here are more deserving of the Civil Liberities Dunce Hat.


UPDATE: It has been three days since this story broke and I have yet to see or hear any major discussion on this. It is an outrage.

Civil Liberties Crown/Dunce Hat


This is a new segment that I will be starting on the blog. Each Friday I will award someone as either doing the greatest good for civil liberties, or doing the most harm to civil liberties.

This week the Crown goes to Judge Hall who stood up for the rights of the American people against the Bush administration and stated that it was unconstitutional to keep a gag order in effect, see the below post.

Although she did not strike the law down completly she did go a long way towards getting the American people the freedoms that were taken away by the Patriot Legion back.

A VICTORY FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PATRIOT_ACT_RECORDS?SITE=ILSPR

I feel great right at the moment. With all the bad that is going on right know in the world a small victory has been won for civil liberties. Judge Janet Hall ruled today that the government must lift a gag order that was put in place which protected the identities of librarians who received request for names of people who checked out certain books. Judge Hall put it wonderfully saying:

"The government may intend the non-disclosure provision to serve some purpose other than the suppression of speech," Hall wrote. "Nevertheless, it has the practical effect of silencing individuals with a constitutionally protected interest in speech and whose voices are particularly important in an ongoing national debate about the intrusion of governmental authority into individual lives."

While this is a small victory and the real fight is keeping the extremely unconstitutional Patriot Act from being reinstated. I will keep the blog updated as news arrives on this subject as it is quite possibly the most important constitutional decision to be made in my lifetime (keep in mind I am only 21).

Congress to Investigate Abuse of 9/11 Loan Program

"This was a deliberate attempt to cover up White House budget gimmicks that left the SBA's largest loan program underfunded and on the brink of shutting down," Kerry said. "The administration asked SBA employees to bend the rules and steer regular loans through the program aimed at helping businesses impacted by 9/11."

This quote by John Kerry is in response to the apparent widespread misuse of the federal business loan program meant to help business effected by the terrorist attacks after 9/11.

Now before all you conservatives out there begin to scream in outrage about how Kerry lost and he needs to get over it and this is just a way to get at Bush keep in mind that Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican said:

"The apparent widespread abuse of loans provided through the Supplemental Terrorist Activity Relief Act is nothing short of an outrage."

It is to early for me to begin placing blame on any one person in particular but it seems that this goes pretty high up. The SBA is a very closely monitored organization and it would take the word of someone high in office to get them to "bend the rules".

This needs to be investigated to the fullest and I truly hope that whoever is responsible pays the price. This is a slap in the face to the thousands of Americans who put their trust in the Federal Government to properly allocate tax dollars to help the victims of the 9/11 attacks. To think that they were so poorly managed is a disgrace. Once again I put out my call for the Bush Admin, not just Bush his entire admin., to accept some of the blame and actually face the reality of the results of their actions instead of doing what they do best and passing the blame.

"Brownie" not doing such a "heck of a job" after all

Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced today that FEMA Director Michael Brown was being removed from the disaster area and will no longer be overseeing relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina, but instead will be preparing for any future needs.

Wait a second...Two major problems with this equation. First of all the Administration isn't going to fire him, they are only going to take him off of this disaster. This even after reports that he meagerly padded his resume, and he botched the relief efforts.

Second, the Administration is basically saying that they no longer trust him to oversee this relief effort so instead they will put him in charge of planning for the next. Hold on, wasn't he in charge of the planning for this one, and we see were that got us. It is time for ole' "Brownie" to start padding the old Resume again and look for a new job.

I am not sure however that the blame should stop there. What about the fact that every major White House official was on vacation at the SAME TIME. Okay I understand that people need to be able to take vacations, and although the President takes way to many that is another topic, but I have never worked somewhere were all of the top managers went on vacation at the same time, you spread them out so that you always have a strong leadership base at home base. This is just common sense. Someone seriously needs to do some answering here.

Also what about the fact that Bush was asked for support days before the hurricane hit yet it was not received until the Friday after Katrina hit because the White House said they were not asked. Clearly they are LIEING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. It is far past time that Bush be held accountable for his mistakes. I am not saying that Bush deserves all the blame and that the New Orleans Mayor or the Governor of LO, don't deserve any, of course they do, but they are taking theirs and moving on to try helping the people who need help whereas Bush just keeps passing the blame, but don't forget he's not "playing the blame game".

Monday, September 05, 2005

John Roberts nominated for Chief Justice.

Bush has decided that he believes that John Roberts is the best man for the job, of course he also thought that the director of FEMA, Homeland Security, and of course Condi where the best for the job and we see what has happened there.

Jokes aside, how will this affect the American people and our Civil Liberties? I see this turning out one of two ways.

1) Bush has realized that his botching of the relief efforts has hurt his credibility with the American People and so he is going to take the easier to nominate route and put a moderate conservative or maybe even a moderate liberal in office. They will support Roe vs. Wade and maybe even Gay Marriage, but will not say either way on Stem Cell Research.

If this occurs we may just be okay. Our rights will continue to be protected as they should be because the justices will look at what they should, The Constitution, not politics.

2) Bush will not realize that his rep is hurt and he will nominate a staunch conservative for the swing vote spot. There will be a heated battle in Congress and the Dems will try to filibuster but because of the overwhelming conservative base listening to the Christian Right the nominee will pass through. We can then expect...

Roe vs Wade will be overturned
Gay Marriage will be outlawed (and possibly other civil liberties taken from them)
Stem Cell Research will be outlawed
Medical marijuana will continue to be outlawed.
Nation wide caps on Insurance Damages will be allowed. (They have been deemed unconstitutional in the past.)
The Patriot Act will be deemed Constitutional and free speech, the 4 amendment, the 7th amendment, and all Americans will suffer.

All that we can do is hope that our elected officials do what is right and CONTACT YOUR LOCAL REP IF A NOMINEE YOU DISAGREE WITH IS NOMINATED.

We must let them know that we want someone who will protect our rights, not the wishes of one relatively small group of people.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Chief Renquest Passing May Spell Trouble For Americans




The passing of Chief Justice Renquest puts the court in a position that is very rare, it has two openings. Depending on how Bush handles it it could be a blessing or a curse for the American people, unfortunatly I have a feeling that it is going to be the latter.

The President has two choices at this point. He can either attempt to pick a justice who will be fair and balanced and will follow the Constitution as it was written, or he can be political and nominate a Justice that will bring personal and party politics to the table on issues such as Abortion, Gay Marraige, Stem Cell Research, and many other hot button issues.

Hopefully the members of Congress who are not under the Bush spell will grow a pair and filibuster any attempt to nominate a new conservative hell bent on eliminating our freedoms.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Cindy Sheehan is on the Roll


Mother of fallen soldier, Casey Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan is on the move. She and dozens of other relatives of the Iraqi War dead are now driving across the country, stopping in many cities along the way. They are calling it the Bring Them Home Now Tour: From Camp Crawford to Washington D.C.

I haven't heard it yet but I am waiting for the first conservative to scream out some idiocy about how she shouldn't be putting the spotlight on herself right now because we should all be focusing on Hurricane Katrina. Well while I agree that much effort is needed in the relief efforts we are STILL AT WAR and it would be a major mistake to take the heat of the Bush administration. The families of the fallen deserve answers, as do all Americans, as to why these brave men and women died. And until Bush decides to face the music we cannot allow him to blind the country once again to the devistation which is taking place in Iraq every day.

To follow the progress of Ms. Sheehan and the tour check her out at http://bringthemhomenowtour.org/

Friday, September 02, 2005

Why did it take so long?!




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops3sep03,0,7512924.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

The national guard soldiers that were sent to the convention center in New Orleans were prepared for the worst has they advanced on the center. What they found was definitely the worst, but in a much more heartbreaking manner.

People were without food or water for days, the sick were near death because of lack of medicine. Human waste was all over the floor.

This is something that you would expect to see in a movie, not on the nightly news. So you have to ask yourself, how in the most advanced country in the world did it get this bad.

Why didn't we have a better plan to get these poor people help, and why did the Bush administration take so long in responding.

Someone needs to do some serious answering, but of course everyone in D.C. is in cya mode so I don't expect much.