Captain America for President

*** Warning! Contains Spoilers!***


You've been warned.

Ok, so yesterday I posted my review for Captain America: The Winter Solider.  Well worth reading.  Today, I'm going more for the message of Captain America.

Cap learns in the beginning of the movie that Nick Fury, Director of S.H.I.E.L.D., commissioned three new helicarriers.  Only these three were linked to satellites.  These satellites took up information on everyone on the planet, things like spending records and who they talked to.  They tracked google searches, text messages, and GPS locations.  In doing so, they were able to compile information on everyone, like who they voted for, or whether or not they would lead people.

Kinda sound familiar, doesn't it?  Not so fictitious, is it?

Then you have this conversation.
Fury- "We're going to start a lot of threats before they even happen."
Cap- "I thought the punishment usually came after the crime."

Cap ends up having to go on the run, hunted be the government, because he wouldn't help them propagate this kind of behavior.  They declare him an enemy, and everyone is hunting him with the intent to kill.

I bet the IRS audited him for being a patriot too.

As it turns out, many of the leaders where secret working for Hydra, who was seeking to bring order to the world.  People, they decided, couldn't be trusted with freedom.  So they decided to push the world to chaos so that they could create order.  They did things like ruined the economy, instituted socialist Health Care, and allowed terrorists to roam free, calling it things like "workplace violence" instead of terrorism.

Apparently Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are members of Hydra.

Remember those helicarriers?  They were sent after people, not terrorists, but those view as true enemies of Hyrda, proponents of liberty.  So they were going to do drone strikes on anyone that might become a leader of people that had values other than their own.

Remember when Obama said that conservatives, not terrorists where the greatest threat to America?  Hail Hydra.

In the end, Captain America was willing to risk and even end his life in defense of freedom.  And he called on others to do the same.  "The cost of liberty is high, but it's a price I'm willing to pay."

Captain America is a conservative (this is something from the comics, especially seen in the Marvel Civil War).  He believes in conservative values like freedom and choice.  As opposed to so-called liberals, who believe in the government and have a war on liberty. 

How long until Hydra comes knocking at your door?  Will you fall in lock step, or pay the price?

Hail Hydra, or fight with Captain America.  I know what I'd rather do.

ObamaCare: A personal testimony

So the CBO report has been highly debated.  Are people losing jobs, or are they walking away from extra jobs because they don't need them?

Well, my mother was nearly canned for insurance purposes.  They ended up negotiating to drop full time employees to ensuring the employee only, not their family.  Since my mom is both a widow and an empty-nester, this allowed her to stay.  Her friend Brenda was not so fortunate.  This 60 year old woman is now working the graveyard shift at Amazon.com's shipping center, doing hard manual labor in 10-12 hour shifts just for insurance coverage.  Where's her promised "freedom"?

What the Democrats call "job lock" we once called "having a steady job."

I've recently become employed once more.  But I took a pay cut of 1/4th, and have to provide my own insurance.  My good friend John Thompson is sending me a monthly check to cover that for the next year.  That's a big relief.

That said, my insurance cost before Obamacare was $65 per month.  Now it is $237.16.  And since they regulate the market, I was not able to find private insurance any cheaper, because Obama tells the companies what they will pay and what they will cover, as well as who your doctor will be.  It's a government HMO.  Thanks for that.

Another thing that changed in the law is that now, I have to have maternity coverage.  You know, in case I give birth.  Now, if I knocked a girl up, she has to have her own coverage.  This won't roll over to her.  Nope.  This is in case I give birth.  I also have to have pediatric dental coverage.  You know, to cover the dental care for kids that I don't have.  And I am required by Federal Law to purchase this. 

Now here's the fun part.  When I went to get private health insurance, I was required to buy this separately.  But when I tried to do this, I was asked for my child's name and Social Security number, which I can't provide because I don't have a kid.  So it is ILLEGAL for my to buy what I am LEGALLY REQUIRED to buy.

All that was done so that I was federally required to buy directly from HealthCare.gov. 

So much for my freedom.  Thanks President Obama.

Equality?

Our nation took another step away from freedom in the name of tolerance.  The Supreme Court said that states had no ability to define marriage.  Gay marriage is now ok.

Here's the problem.  The Federal Government doesn't issue marriage liscences.  Marriage is 100% a state issue.  I know.  I've performed weddings in four states. 

This is just one more case of the liberals in Washington stripping away our rights, especially the first amendment.  This isn't equality.  In truth, in everything that is right, the government should recognize "civil unions" for hetero or homo.  Marriage should be left where it started, in the church, ordained by God.

Political Points

Allow me to make a few bullet points about current issues.

Why does it matter?
Hillary Clinton said during a recent congressional hearing "Four people are dead... What does it matter [who did it and why]?  We need to figure out what happened to keep it from happening again."

She answered her own question.  She took some unfair flack from the "What does it matter?" comment.  In context, it wasn't as bad as some tried to make it seem.  She wasn't saying that the four dead didn't matter, only that the false information linking it to a youtube video didn't matter.  The fact that they refused requests to provide more security didn't matter.  The fact that there was a CIA report and a separate military report saying that they were ordered to stand down didn't matter.

That said, she did answer her own question.  Why those things matter is because if it could have been stopped but wasn't because it was politically inconvenient matters.  The fact that it was deemed too dangerous to send in the FBI to investigate while the New York Times walked through the facility matters.  If there was neglegence on behalf of whoever and it lead to four dead it is the same as pulling the trigger.  It is murder.  And even ignoring that, you can't fix a problem you don't know about.  So covering up the problem doesn't help.

Debate?
President Obama said recently that we could have a reasonable debate if people would stop disagreeing with him.  I hate to tell you, but a debate it where people present two opposing viewpoints and defend them to each other.  In other words, you can't have a debate without people arguing with you! 

Higher taxes do not mean higher revenue.
Seems simple, right.  Raise the tax rate and you raise more money.  Fair share, and all that.  California has the highest rate of personal income and corporate taxes.  To alieve their financial problem, they're raising taxes again.  This means more revenue right?  Wrong.  Higher taxes means more people are moving their businesses to where taxes are less.  In Texas, more people paying in means much more revenue than higher taxes would bring.  It's exponential growth.  It's even simple multiplication.  Go back to high school and do some math.

Semi-automatics aren't what you think.
There is a push to ban semi-automatics.  This is because people don't know what they are.  Semi-automatic means that if you pull the trigger once, it sends one bullet (as opposed to revolvers, where you have to click the hammer back before you pull the trigger).  People are confusing semi-automatic with sub-machine gun.  A sub-machine gun is where you hold the trigger and it empties the clip.

Assault weapons aren't what you think.
Assault weapons aren't sub-machine guns.  The fact is, assault weapons don't include automatic weapons.  They include specialty weapons.  For example, a sub-machine gun is legal, but a sub-machine gun with a scope isn't.  A shotgun is legal, but a shotgun with a pistol grip isn't.  This is the same thing as the illegality of switch-blade knives.  Switch-blades aren't more dangerous than any other knife.  They aren't easier to conceal.  They just look scary.  So assault weapons are scary looking guns.

Assault weapons bans don't stop Newtown. 
No assault weapons were used at Sandyhook.  The guy used two pistols.  The proposed weapons ban doesn't stop that massacre.

The reason for the Second Amendment.
For right or wrong, whether you agree or not, our founding fathers put in the second amendment to defend the rest.  Freedom and security are opposites.  The point of the Bill or Rights, and that one in particular, is that government can easily take away the rights of the people.  Guns allow the people to defend themselves.  This is exactly what the Arab Spring was about.  People were throwing rocks while being shot at.  Dictators, whether solo or parlamentary, can easily arrise.  The founding fathers didn't want that, so they guarenteed us the right to defend ourselves from all threats, whether personal (like a break in) or national (like a rogue government or invading enemy).

Weapons bans don't work.
I know.  You've already got your mind made up about this one, but hear me out.  One of the fathers of the Sandyhook victims put it well today.  He said that by doing what he did, the madman was already breaking the law.  Adding a new law for them to break doesn't matter nearly as much as enforcement of current laws. 

By the way, I can't believe I have to explain this but I do.  The City of Chicago, the President's home base, has the strictest gun laws.  They also have the highest gun crime.  And their violent gun crime went up 18% last year, the only major city in the US to see an increase.  And Mayor Immanuel needs to butt out.  As soon as the massacre happened, he came out and said he was against putting armed police officers in each school.  In the mean time, he sends his kids to a private school with armed guards.  If he believed what he was selling, he'd send his kids to public school with yours.  He should smell what he's shovelling and leave the rest of us alone.  Because basically what he's saying is that he doesn't care about protecting your kids, because you are poor.

Dear Mr. Costas

Dear Mr. Costas,

Where were you this week Bob?  Where was your halftime rant?  Another week, another NFL player dead.  Why weren't you on TV proclaiming the evils of the car culture?  Last week, you talked about Dirty Harry.  Where were you criticizing Pixar's Cars? 

Oh, that's right.  This week didn't fit your political agenda.  You hypocrite!  Last week, a player got drunk, cheated on his girlfriend, came home, shot her, then shot him.  This week, another player got drunk, got behind a wheel, caused a wreck, and killed his friend and teammate.  But that narrative doesn't fit your politics.  It does fit the truth.

Here's an idea.  Next time instead of running your mouth, look at actually facts.  Why don't you go after Budweiser instead of Smith and Wesson?

But then again, I'm sorry.  I guess it's asking too much for someone on TV to give a crap about truth.

NFL 12 week 13 response

Well, if you're a regular follower of this blog, you'll notice a suspicious lack of a week 13 synopsis.  There is a good reason for that.  I didn't get to watch one single football game this week.  At all.

Yet, football has been the word in the news.  No, not because the Colts barely kept down the Lions.  Not because RGIII managed up upset Eli. 

No, because of Bob Costas. 

There is a saying that the news person should never be the story.  Like a debate moderator interjecting incorrect information in order to help their candidate, for example.

In this case, there was a tragedy as the linebacker for the KC Cheifs murdered his girlfriend, then shot himself.  This is a terrible tragedy.  That is enough said. 

But never let the truth get in the way of a political agenda.  No, Costas goes on air and declares that the problem is guns.  That's right.  It's all the gun's fault.

Really?  What about the nanny that stabbed the three kids she was watching, then herself?  We should outlaw kitchen knives.  And nannies.  And kids.  And while we're at it, kitchens!  What about the guy that was beaten to death as a part of a gang initiation.  We should outlaw kicking?  Shoes?

Do you see why this logic falls apart?  Cities that have stringent Gun Control laws have MORE violence.  Look at Chicago!  Their crime rate increases annually.  Because gun laws only take them away from citizens who now can't defend themselves.  Here's another stat, in 90% of cases where a gun is used to prevent a crime, the gun is not fired. 

And this linebacker?  He was wealthy and had no record.  So no gun laws would have prevented him from getting one.

Let me tell you straight up that I do not own a firearm.  But unlike most people who react emotionally to this issue, I studied FACTS (something Costas should try sometime).  The bottom line is simple math.  More gun=less gun crime.  Why?  Because criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.  In one city (as I recall, Atlanta GA, but I was unable to find the study again) they banned guns, and armed robbery skyrocketted.  So much so that they repealed the law.  When the did, restaurant owners posted signs saying "15% off if you carry a gun."  Crime hit new lows.  Why?  You're not going to stick up a place if you think everyone in there has a gun. 

Now you're thinking Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, right?  "I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd..."

Anyway, I did some independant research and made an informed decision as to where I stand.  Maybe Bob Costas should do the same...

DNC opening

The DNC opened with a historic occassion.  The national debt rolled over $16,000,000,000,000.  That's a lot of zeros.  This is from a man who once promised to cut the deficit in half, or said that we shouldn't re-elect him.  This is from a man who said adding half the amount that he has added in three years, over an eight year period, was irresponsible and unpatriotic.

I do have to pause for a moment and defend an unfair attack on the President, however.  When asked to grade himself, he said "incomplete."  Conservatives jumped on this, as an incomplete grade in school is terrible.  But what should he say?  "A.  I've done everything that I know how to do, so elect the other guy."  Or should he say "F.  I'm a complete failure, so elect the other guy."  Incomplete is the best answer to a bad question.  It says, "I have more that I want to do, so give me another shot."  It's the best answer.  It's the question that's bad.

Now with that out of the way, let me continue.  The first theme of the DNC is "We belong to the government."  I think that this is supposed to be a loose JFK reference, but instead of doing "for your country" this is doing "for the government."  I'm sorry, but we are supposed to be "by the people for the people," not "by the government for the government."  We don't belong to the government.  Unique among all the peoples of the earth, WE THE PEOPLE govern.  Government is a necessary evil, not a good.  In Deuteronomy, government is a curse, a sign of disobedience from God.  I'm not saying anarchy is better.  I'm saying that if people had true integrity, government would be obsolete. 

I should also point out that the Democratic platform unveiled at the DNC shows Obama's true view of Israel, by withdrawing support of them.  Obama has isolated us from Israel, believing that a middle-of-the-raod position might help with negotiations with Iran in others, perhaps removing bias?  I don't know.  What I do know is Rosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  But they believe that speaking softly requires reducing the size of the stick.  (Though according to Biden, Obama has a "big stick."  Think of that as you try to go to sleep tonight.) 

Something that I've learned, though it sounds cliche, is true.  Obama believes that the greatness of America is something that we should apologize for (because he believes that Robin Hood is the ultimate sign of goodness, specifically the taking from the haves).  What I, and many others like me believe is that the greatness of America is something that we should STRIVE for.  This is us, as a nation, having, so that instead of others taking, we can give, to ensure that what we give is used wisely. 

Obama and Biden want to say that they care?  They care about taking from you to give to those that they supposedly care about.  But neither gives significantly to charity.  I give a little over twelve percent of my income to charity, giving my support to where is does good, not where is will get me votes.  If they truly believed what they preach, they would show it with their checkbooks. 

On the Subject of Gun Control

Hours after the Colorado "Movie Massacre," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on the radio that he believe that every police officer in the country should go on strike, and refuse to come back to work until there were stricter gun control laws. 

It was not for days AFTER that until investigators discovered that the shooter had purchased the guns legally by spreading purchases across several stores.  He had no prior arrest record, so even with gun control laws, they would not have caught him.

Since this, gun control laws have been debated.  That said, I wanted to explain in a calm, rational matter, what this actually is.

First, let's look at what the Second Amendment actually states.  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  What this means is that our founding fathers gave us a unique right, unique to all the world.  They understood that it was only through the ability to defend oneself, it was necessary to have firearms.  In particular, they believed that we the people needed guns to keep the government in check.  So all those who believe that the National Guard remove the need for the second amendment do not understand history.  (Point of fact, in WWII, the Japanese said that they did not invade the American mainland because all they knew about America was from Westerns and Gangster movies.  They would not attack, believing there would be "a gun behind every bush and tree.")

Second, let's look at what happens when this is taken away.  In Atlanta, GA, they passed a law making guns illegal within city limits.  Gun-related crimes, like armed robbery quadrupled.  Why?  Criminals, by definition, ignore the law.  So if they saw no cops in a dinner, they could rob it safely.  When this law was repealed due to these affects, restaurant and store owners put signs in their windows saying things like "10% off if you are carrying a gun."  Crime reached new lows.  When Katrina hit, they declared martial law and went into wealthy neighborhoods and rounded up all the guns from the homeowners.  Looters came unchecked and destroyed these homes because officials were too busy with search and rescue to defend these neighborhoods.  These are true stories.  Look them up.

Fear and emotion tend to overrule logic and fact in our time.  The fact is, places with stricter gun control laws have more gun crimes.  I know it seems counter intuitive, but it's true.  I'll give you another.  Automatic weapons are not more deadly that other firearms (in fact, they're less so.  In Vietnam, those with automatic weapons averaged firing almost 50 shots per kill.  Snipers, using bolt-action rifles averaged 1.3 bullets per kill).  They're just scarier.  In the same way, switch-blades are not deadlier than other knives.  They're just scarier, so they're illegal.

The fact is, what if someone else in that theater had a gun?  They could have put a bullet in the shooter's eye after he started firing.  What if you had no wounded and just the maniac dead?  The person that killed him would be called a hero.  Period.  I read someone saying "He had on body armor, so a regular person shooting him wouldn't have mattered unless they had armor-piercing rounds."  Have you never watched a cop show?  A bullet in a vest is survivable, but mean broken ribs, maybe even a punctured lung.  That takes the fight out of him real fast.  That means an apprehended, live, bad guy.  Even better.

Now I'm not say everyone should have a gun.  I don't have one.  But what I am saying is that we should have ordinary people who are trained to use them.  I learned gun safety in school.  Rule #1: Always treat a gun like it's loaded, even when it's not.  Because it might have a chambered round and you not realize it.  Rule #2: NEVER point a gun at ANYTHING you don't intend to destroy.  Period.  (Again, even if it's not loaded.)  I learned to respect the power of weapons of all types.  So there's no mystery.  There's no curiosity leading to stupidity.  There is only knowledge leading to wisdom.

So what if any of those four military personnel who were wounded had been carrying a gun?  They might have saved a lot of lives.

Maybe what we need is less fearful reaction and more education.

Loss of Freedom

So from time to time, I write explaining that we are losing freedom in this country.  Constantly.  Steadily.  I got another one.

A pastor was holding a small group Bible study in his home.  No biggy.  This happens everyday.  In fact, I coordinate these meetings for my own church, and host one at my apartment.

However, this particular Bible Study took a twist, when more than a DOZEN police officers came and arrested the man for having a Bible Study in his home.

Where did this take place?  China?  Nope.  Pakistan?  Nah.  Iran?  Keep guessing.

Phoenix, Arizona.

This man was arrested for having a Bible Study right here in the USA. 

Whatever happened to freedom of religion?  Freedom of speech?  Right to assembly?  They're dead, that's what happened.

The local government claims it's a zoning violation, because he had friends over, which might have been too many in case of a fire.  Really?  Did they arrest everyone who had a Fourth of July barbecue too?  Nope.

And another thing, is a Bible study so big an offense to take more than a dozen officers to arrest ONE MAN?  One man whose leader was arrested similarly, and like the pastor, offered no resistance?  Why did it take more than a dozen officers for a zoning violation?

This man received two months in jail for having friends over to talk about the Bible.  This is INSANE.  If you can be arrested for holding a small Bible Study in your own home, and get arrested?  He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, 3 years probation, and more than $12,000 in fines. 

Your freedoms are going bye-bye. 

And just to show that I'm not making this up, you can read the article for yourself.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/11/arizona-pastor-arrested-jailed-for-holding-bible-study-in-home-his-wife-says-it-defies-logic/

Now you have the choice.  Shake your head, or do something about it.

Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

The Supreme Court just ruled that the government has the right to tell us that we have to buy something.  So what will the government tell us that we have to buy next? 

6-28-12.  Remember this day.  Your grandkids will ask you about this day.  This is the day when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government matters; individual liberty does not. 

So ends the dream that was America.  This may seem like an overreaction, but the bottom line is freedom and safety are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Both are good, but both are mutually exclusive.  The Patriot Act.  Obamacare.  Next will come some "Hate Speech Act" that makes it illegal to preach from the Bible, because the Bible calls sin what it is, and says that there are consquences. 

Understand this, I don't blame Obama.  He's doing what he believes to be right.  And this isn't a Republican-Democrat things (after all, the Patriot Act was Bush).  This is a government vs. liberty issue. 

Today, government won.

Loss of freedom

Yesterday we lost another freedom. President Obama signed a law making it illegal to protest within a certain radius of any member of the Secret Service. The same secret service that protects the politicians.

Want to know what makes it even scarier? I've said for years that both parties are the same. My proof? This law had bipartisan support through both Houses of Congress. Too be fair, it was also opposed by people in both parties, but not by enough to stop it.

We just lost the First Amendment. We are no longer allowed to air our complaints before those who are SUPPOSED to represent us. "We the People" just became "We the Government." Imagine in George Washington, Ben Franklin, and John Hancock, and so many others had never sent that piece of mail to King George. Our government just made the American Revolution illegal. We are no longer allowed to protest the government. This may seem like paranoid ranting to you, but in truth we just lost the number one freedom that makes this country great.

Say WHAT?!!!

I can't believe he said it. I just can't believe it. In an interview, President Obama said that the reason he hasn't done more, is because the Founding Fathers made a mistake by writing the Constitution. If they wouldn't have put in those checks and balances that causes Congress to be able to block things he wanted to do.

I'm sorry, did you just say that you want to be a dictator?

Yes, yes you did.

Wow. I can't believe he said it. I know that so called "Progressives" hate the Constitution. They don't want people to be free. Well, that's not exactly right. They think they want people to be free. But they also believe that people are stupid, so they need to do things whether the people want them or not, like a parent caring for children. "Daddy's home. Have some welfare. Here's a health care bill. While we're at it, you don't really need freedom of religion, so I'm going to take that back."

President Obama hates a representative government, because we don't know what we need. And the people we elect listen (in theory) to us, so their getting in the way of his "better" world. By the way, WE ELECTED YOU, MORON!

This is the same president who tried to get Fox News thrown out of the press core, until the other news organizations (who HATE Fox) revolted to protect freedom of the press. This is the same president who tried to force churches to hire ministers who don't believe what they practice (overturned by one of the few unanimous votes in the history of the Supreme Court), and now is trying to force Catholics to violate their own religious practices. (The press secretary tried to reassure people, saying that they would still have to comply, but they would have a year to change their religion before it was implemented.) This is the same president who bought private companies on behalf of the government, and made it illegal for private Mortgage and Student Loan businesses to operate.

You know me. I try to be politically neutral. But this president has crossed a line in my book. I just hope the damage is not permanent, but can be reversed. If not, our freedoms which have slowly been eroding are about to disappear entirely.

Here's what I propose: Vote. If you like the direction this president wants to go, vote for him, and vote for representatives that agree with him. If not, research the candidate of the other party, and vote for the one who aligns with you. That is how the primary is supposed to work.

Innocent?

For the last two days, people have been weighing in on the whole Casey Anthony trial thing. Mostly, it is people who remember back to the OJ Simpson trial. I am shocked at the number of people who want her dead. Let's go into a few points of fact.

First, she was the last person seen with Cailea Anthony. There are no eyewitness reports after that. Second, her family including her former fiancee thinks she did it. Third, her trunk smells funny.

That is the basis of the prosecution's case. They say the trunk smells like a decaying body. According to an interview with the DA this morning, the evidence is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt.

In giving a "not guilty" verdict, it does not mean that they believe Casey Anthony is innocent. It means that they did not believe that there was enough evidence to convict.

Why are people demanding the death of Casey Anthony? People online are threatening her. What happened to "Do not judge, for by the standard you use, so it will be measured to you" (-Jesus Christ, as recorded or Matthew 7:1)? We live in a nation of innocent until proven guilty. We live in a nation of trial by jury. The jury, twelve peers, listened to the whole of the trial, not just what some jerkwad news commentator said FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING RATINGS (after all, their job is to make controversial statments to get ratings). Based on the entirety of evidence and testimony, they made a decision. We have to trust the system. It is better for the guilty to go free than the innocent to be needlessly punished.

This is not the OJ trial. Her defense was not based on "He's African-American. And a football player. He must be innocent." (I feel the need to address the glove thing, when leather gets wet, it shrinks as it dries. Not fitting is no defense.) Their defense was the lack of evidence. Yes, she was a deadbeat mother. Yes, she went out and got drunk after her daughter disappeared. People cope in funny ways. Some people act the opposite of how they should in times of distress because they are trying to avoid feeling. I see it in my job a lot. It happens.

You may disagree with me. That's fine. It doesn't hurt me. This I know: we don't know what happened. We won't until we get to heaven and ask God, and by that point it won't matter. In the mean time, we need to keep faith in the system, even when we don't like it. Because if it were you on trial, you would want a fair shake with your constitutional rights. So stop demanding her death. The system, no matter how perfect, is the best system we have, and one that the rest of the world is jealous of.

Loss of freedom

So I write from time to time about how modern law destroys freedom enforces violations of the Constitution. Here's another for you. The Indiana Supreme Court heard a case. Police were called for a domestic abuse situation. The cops confronted the man, who told them they could not enter his house. One officer went in anyway, and when the man trying to prevent entry shoved the officer, he was tased and arrested.

Here's the problem. They had no warrant. They had no probable cause. Aparently the officers had scene too many cops shows, where the good guy cop breaks the law to get the job done.

What the court ruled, 3-2, was that you have no right to resist an officer who is illegally entering your home. They said this will prevent violence against police officers. They claim you should just appeal to the courts if they do something illegal. With that, a uniformed officer (or someone POSING as an officer) can enter your home, rob you, beat you, and arrest you, and until you get your day in court, you rot in jail. And you'll never get your stuff back. Because you can't prove it, and who is going to trust you over a cop.

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection from illegal search and siezure, these are some of the main reasons our founding father fought a revolution. Oh, how they would weep if they could see how our Constitution is used as toilet paper.

Many might think I'm nuts, or at least overreacting. But this is a pattern. Try getting a speedy trial (6th Amendment), which means if unfairly arrested, you're going to rot for a while. Going to plead the fifth? That's fine, unless a sopena is issued. Freedom of assembly? Get a permit first. Freedom of speech? Not if it ain't PC. And the government can listen in on all of it, without a warrant (thank Bush. Grrr... Stupid Patriot Act). Freedom of religion? They've talked about passing laws requiring ministers like me to have to perform gay marriages. How come I can refuse a wedding for straight people, but not homosexuals? Oh, and of course, evangelism and prayer are banned. Right to keep and bare arms? Get a permit, register the weapon, and keep it locked in a safe at home. Federal government has powers limited to what the Constitution gives them? Yeah, they do everything but.

Ever heard the old fable about putting the frog in boiling water? (Warning! This is a fable! Putting a frog in boiling water will kill it! Do not attempt!) They have turned up the heat, boiling away our rights. Safety is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is risk. In McCarthyism, they gave up all their freedom to get protected from "the communists." Now, we want protected from everyone. It is sad.

Disappearing Rights

You want more proof that both parties are the same? Both parties, even the Tea Party activists and many Libertarians are plotting to end the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In case you don't know, that's the one that gives us the freedom of religion, speech, and the press.

Here's the issue. They want to keep people from being able to worship as they choose. They want to eliminate freedom of religion in favor of getting out one political message or another. Now they want to eliminate freedom of religion for "popular opinion." They are playing on people's prejudices and anger to stop freedom.

They want to stop a mosque from being built near ground zero. Now whatever you think about if they mean this as an insult, a "poke in the eye," or if this is a statement of Muslim superiority, I would ask that each person think this through to the end.

If they stop this from being built, then they will start telling people where they can worship or pray. Soon they will start saying who you can pray to, or if you can. Or if you can own a Bible. Or if you can speak on certain passages (they are already trying on that). Soon we are living in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Our founders believed that the freedom of religion is THE right on which all other are based. All men are "created equal." Who created us that gave us this equality?

Any time we consider any action, we should ask "What precedent does this set?" This has the potential to set a dangerous one.

Playing catch up and immigration

I haven't posted in a while. The reason why is because I threw my back out. Uh. Back pain is terrible. It is easy to immobilize you. It seems like it should be bearable, but...

I ended up calling for help and staying a few days under medical supervision. It was rough to be immobilized and dependant on others. That's the way it goes.

Ok, onto topics that matter. Some people, Republicans, want to repeal the 14th Amendment, specifically section 1.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

They call this now the Anchor babies Amendment. In its original design, shortly after the Civil war, was to declare all slaves as citizens. Now, Mexicans jump the border to have babies in the US that are citizens.

Republicans, in an effort to win voters, are now anti-immigrant. They confuse the Arizona issue with anti-immigrant sentiment. This makes me sick. I hate it when people play politics, especially with people's lives.

My opinon? I'm all for anchor babies. Let the amendment stand. They are US citizens. Don't take that away. It would be wrong. Besides, in this country, we don't understand what it means to be desperately poor. You've never had to chose which of your children eats this week. You've never had to chose whether your family would die of dehydration, or diseases from the only available water.

If that is a serious problem, then still deport the parents, with baby in tow. When the baby then a legal adult, they as a United States citizen return free and clear. It seems simple. In the mean time, I don't want to reward illegal behavior, but I think there needs to be some understanding of desperation and not punish innocent children. Let's go after some of these dangerous illegals who are dealing drugs, starting gangs, and killing people.