The ultimate rights given to the American people by our Founding Fathers has been under attack due to the preponderance of propaganda emitted by various sources. It seems extremely simple and straightforward to me. Every word chosen very carefully to ensure that there is no ambiguity, yet everyday as I watch the news or read the paper, I hear complete disregard for it.

• “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

For the past month or so there has been so much debate about the “ground zero mosque”. Any debate to me is moot due to the first sentence of the First Amendment explicitly saying that government does not have a say. Personally, I do not care if the owners of the land want to place a mosque there. I do not find it at all offensive and I cannot comprehend why anyone with any sort of intellect would. Unless of course, you are ignorant enough to be indoctrinate to hate all Muslims because of what 19 terrorist did 9 years ago. According to that line of thinking, Catholic churches shouldn’t be able to have schools on their property because HUNDREDS of priests molested little boys. Or Baptists wouldn’t allowed to be around cemetery because the Westboro Baptist Church likes to praise God for the death of abortion doctors, soldiers and homosexuals. Let’s be real, that would never happen. The anti-Islam propaganda and racism towards Middle Easterners is out of control and until it ends, the terrorists, not Muslims,  will continue their hatred of us. A one person fight probably isn’t fun.

Our Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than most of the people that like to evoke them actually are. I actually cringe every time I hear someone referencing the Founding Fathers as wanting this “great Christian society”; I am a Christian but I am also a student of history that realizes that we were founded by mostly Agnostics and Deists, not Christians. We were founded as a country that would be tolerant of every one’s beliefs, so long they do not violate other statutes written within the bounds of the Constitution.

The Constitution, and the first 15 amendments to it, are the epitome of law and order and human rights. I just wish that the majority of the American people had the pragmatism and non partisanship to truly understand how amazing that document really is.

I had a wonderful time this weekend enjoying as many games as I could before the work week began and as it did, I started reading and hearing complaints on every news source about the sound of vuvuzelas being played throughout the games. I wouldn’t say I watch an exoberint amount of international soccer, however, I watch enough to have heard the horns at just about every game. I didn’t even notice it while watching the US-England matchup until someone that does not watch soccer on a regular basis pointed it out to me. The message boards, radio shows and cable news stations are saying they should be banned because the are extremely annoying. How are they annoying to people that admittedly do not watch soccer and are sitting in America watching a game on the television? Maybe if they were in Soccer City they could open their mouths but that is not the case.

It just baffles me when people spend any moment of their lives complaining about something they A) say they don’t care about, B) know nothing about and C) isn’t affecting their lives. The vuvuzelas are a soccer tradition in South Africa and around the globe. If you can not appreciate it, don’t watch it and don’t waste everyone elses time spewing your ignorance and noise all over the airwaves.

Could she have been more tactful in what she said? Yes. Should she be forced in to retirement for her viewpoints? No. As much as some people in the media try to twist her words, she was not Anti-Semitic in her response. She merely expressed the fact that she did not agree with the Israeli occupation of Palestine. I have constantly questioned America’s obsession of being “world policeman”. but our fawning over Israel may be a bigger flaw in our defenses.

I support Helen Thomas and her right to free speech, especially since in all honesty, she did nothing more than disagree with a foreign governments actions. If she can get taken down by what she said, many more citizens will be more hesitant in there expression in the First Amendmen.

Arizona is only enforcing federal laws that the federal government has refused to enforce for over 40 years. I think each state should do what Arizona is going to in order to keep our nation soveriegn.

If Americans break the law, they are punished. If someone breaks the law and comes to America illegally, they too should be punished. Where are we getting lost in translation? Come here through proper channels and enjoy our society. Come here by tearing through a fence in Arizona and enjoy prison and deportation.

That’s all I’m saying.

However, a new question has been unfolding lately: Where is the federal government? The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 gives them the ability to step in and take over the day to day operations of cleaning up this disaster, but could the government really do anything? The federal government spends it money on social security, medicare and the military for the most part. I am not aware of government programs for offshore drilling, but if they exist let me know. BP made this mess and they need to clean it up, and frankly they are really the only ones that have the equipment to do it. The Obama administration admits it does not have the technology and equipment BP has to stop the oil spill. The Coast Guard, Army Corp of Engineers and government scientist should be working with BP, as they are, but there is little that an entity that is in a different industry can do to fix this problem.

Who could possibly expecting the federal government to mess with private sector affairs? Radical socialist, marxist communists? No, it would be the neoconservative nutjob Sarah Palin and Republican governor of Lousiana Bobby Jindal.  If I remember correctly, two years ago Sarah Palin was chanting her motto “Drill, baby, drill”. Now it is the fault of the current administration that we were drilling in the Gulf:

“If this was President Bush or if this were a Republican in office who hadn’t received as much support even as President Obama has from BP and other oil companies, you know the mainstream media would be all over his case in terms of asking questions why the administration didn’t get in there, didn’t get in there and make sure that the regulatory agencies were doing what they were doing with the oversight to make sure that things like this don’t happen,” said Palin.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs all but said that Sarah Palin is crazy. He didn’t have to go that far because we all knew that already. Which one is it, government stays away from free market capitalism or it steps in a runs the show? The Bush Administration deregulated the stock market: what happened? And it deregulated the oil industry: what happened? Pick and choose, you either want free markets with no goverment interference which includes cleaning up your own messes or you want government regulating industry to help prevent this stuff from happening in the first place.

The Family Research Council is a religious conservative group with a mission statement seeking to promote “the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.” That is great. They should promote what they believe in as I am doing here on this blog, but next time they should have someone that can make an argument for the passage of SB 2400. I understand that they believe in the sanctity of life starting from conception. I understand they think the decision of Roe v Wade is an abomination. However, it is the law of the land in the United States and they are within their rights to fight it. Senate Bill 2400 is simply throws precedent to the back burner and violates the rights of women that are granted them based on Roe v Wade.

Here is the link for Cathy Ruse’s essay about SB 2400 (I read it in the St. Pete Times but couldn’t find a link for it so I am posting it from the Tampa Bay Times): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2520293/posts

This is my rebuttal which I submitted an hour ago to the St. Pete Times. Hopefully they will publish it in the next couple days:

Response to “Before abortion, facts”

This essay might be the most unintelligible and contradictory group of words ever printed by the St. Pete Times. The author tries to argue a case for the passage of the “abortion ultrasound” bill sitting on Charlie Crist’s desk. I cannot find one strong argument for the passage of a bill that would require women to pay for and view an ultrasound while the doctor describes the fetus, yet many that seem to contradict the intended message she is trying to make.

First, author Cathy Ruse, likens her experience getting a chest x-ray to diagnose pneumonia as no different as a women getting an ultrasound. I agree the test produce fairly similar results without invasion. However, she elected to get an x-ray as a means for the doctor to make a diagnoses and she agreed to look at the x-ray. She wanted the doctor to describe anything he saw. It was not forced upon her by law. Second, Ruse uses evidence from a study published in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care as support. According to the study in which 350 women participated, 72.6% of women chose to look at an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. How does this show us that we need legislation requiring women to do anything when 72% choose to do it on their own free will? Where is the evidence that doctors refuse to show women ultrasounds when they request one? To me, that would be the only reason to change any law. The author says abortion clinics are “for-profit ventures”. Aren’t most businesses for profit? If clinic professionals refused to show ultrasounds for fear that they will lose money to women who change their mind, regulate the business…not the woman.

If anyone has any solid arguments for the abortion bill, I would love to hear them. The quarter of a page in Monday’s Opinion section lacked anything resembling a solid stance. I do find it interesting though that the same people that are suing to fight universal healthcare saying “it belongs in the private sector” are the same ones that want the government to dictate healthcare choices for pregnant women.

There are many other things I could have used against her weak arguments. I really would love to hear one logical argument as to why the state government should have the power to force someone to have an ultrasound if it isn’t medically necessary. I would love to know why there is a provision in the bill that says that insurance companies that get federal or state tax rebates is forbidden from paying for an abortion. Republicans don’t want mandated universal healthcare, but the want to mandate what private companies offer to their customers? Please explain.

The Supreme Court has been nearly flawless in my opinion in recent years when it comes to landmark cases. It is a breath of fresh air to know that at least one branch of our federal government works as the founding fathers intended it. The high court has another month and a half before it ends session and loses Justice John Paul Stevens, a moderate conservative with progressive ideals that served under 7 presidents.