The Constitution does not Yield to Anyone

I disagreed with Sarah Palin today.  Generally I am right in tune with her politically speaking.

I am fiscally conservative.  So is she. 

I am ProLife.  So is she. 

I am opposed to gun control.  So is she.  

I am for protecting the first amendment and the right to free speech.  And this is where it ends.

Yesterday, the SCOTUS handed down an 8 to 1 decision that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to protest at funerals.

Can we dissect that statement for a minute?

Eight of the Nine Supreme Court Justices agreed on a court case that is controversial.

Four were appointed by Democratic Presidents, Four by Republican Presidents. These eight cover nearly every demographic spectrum that is possible and still have them all be lawyers and/or former judges.

103	Antonin Scalia	NJ	Reagan
104	Anthony Kennedy	CA	Reagan
106	Clarence Thomas	GA	Bush, G. H. W.
107	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	NY	Clinton
108	Stephen Breyer	MA	Clinton
109	John G. Roberts	MD	Bush, G. W.
110	Samuel Alito	NJ	Bush, G. W.
111	Sonia Sotomayor	NY	Obama
112	Elena Kagan	NY	Obama

I would argue that many of them, like many Americans believe the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church members is repugnant, disgusting and awful.  And yet, despite their Judeo-Christian beliefs they were able to rule that this disgusting, horrible, demeaning spectacle is constitutionally protected speech.  And I applaud them.

Eight of them ruled in no uncertain terms the right to say what you believe is more important than the impact of that speech in one the most sacred events a human can be a part of.  Eight of our Justices upheld the Constitution, despite how they feel about what is being said.  Eight Justices proved yesterday that the Constitution is more important than any one person, group or idealogy.

Like many Americans my heart breaks for the families and loved ones who have to endure this at a funeral.  Like many Americans, I am disgusted at the thought of these people wrapping themselves in the vestiges of my religion and arming themselves with MY God and perverting the teachings beyond what was ever intended.  

However what Governor Palin tweeted was not about the religion I know either.  Her tweet is "Common sense & decency absent as wacko 'church' allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square," the former Alaska governor tweeted. I agree with the sentiment, she is frustrated by the near persecution of the Christian faith these days.  So am I.

However, we do not improve that situation by limiting our freedoms elsewhere.  We do not protect our rights by persecuting others for using those same rights.  If we were to support that certain words are allowable at certain times and not others, we are by definition limiting the freedom of speech.  I agree our forefathers never intended the first amendment to protect THIS kind of speech.  But I’m pretty confident they never envisioned guns that could mow down 20 people in less than a minute either.

The point is that the Constitution doesn’t just protect those rights we agree with but all rights that are granted us by our Creator.

Okay now it's become downright funny.

These are the recommendations from the UN to the US for Human Rights:

Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included 

Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.”

Iran – currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S. “effectively to combat violence against women.” 

North Korea – which systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by law enforcement officials.”

Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.”

My question of course again is why are we even entertaining this?  In my mind it's like my next door neighbor telling me how to be a parent.

Are you $#@%&^* kidding me?

From Fox News:

U.N. Human Rights Council to Take Aim at New Target: United States

When the United Nations Human Rights Council, a conclave of 47 nations that includes such notorious human rights violators as China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia, meets in Geneva on Friday, its attentions will be focused on the human rights failings of a country called the United States.

Full Article here. emphasis added.
 I don't even feel like I need to say more than this. 

The United States, a country with so many people trying to get in that we are fighting over building a wall on the border because of the immigrants literally POURING in.

Did I miss the news stories about Americans dying trying to get to Cuba in non-seaworthy vessels?

If Americans were treated so unfairly wouldn't Canada have an illegal immigration problem?

And the countries on the Council.  Can we discuss the Human Rights problems in China?  Libya?  And Saudi Arabia, really?

By even giving them a seat at the table aren't we really saying the human Rights Council is a total joke?  China forces it's women to have abortions. Saudi Arabia forces it's women to wear burkas and comprises less than 10% of the workforce.  And Libya makes both of those countries look downright progressive.  And the main difference between these countries and the USA, is that any time you chose you can leave the US.  You can buy a plane ticket or even just get in your car and drive north to Canada.  Nobody will stop you. I'm pretty sure you can't just leave China, Cuba or Libya.

Which all leaves me thinking that famous quote, no matter the outcome of the UN Human Rights Council:

"Consider the Source"

*shakes her head and walks away in total disbelief.*

Change

The last few election cycles in this country have been about change.  Americans want to change their President, change their country, and we definitely change our minds -- quickly.

In November 2008, we were changing the President.  With that change came the (arguably) unintended change of power.  2/3 of the Federal Government was run by one party.  This ushered in massive change.  Most Americans did not understand the change they signed on for by giving Democrats the seat of unchecked power.  As a result of this change at least half of the country has felt unrepresented for the past two years.

Today people all over the country are heading to the polls.  They will vote once again for change.  Americans have learned that the Legislative and Executive Branches need a balance of power.  But the Legislative branch needs much more than a change today.  They need a complete change of mind set, they need to adopt new rules.

1- 12 year limit in the Legislative branch. (2 6-year Senate Terms, 6 2-year Congressional terms, or 3 2-year Congressional Terms and 1 6-year Senate Term) the end.  No discussion.  No ifs and or buts, 12 years and you're out.

2- No Pension.

3- Pay raise approved at election time by the voters, not the Legislators.

4- No Health Insurance.

5- Legislators must spend at least half their time in their district.  They alone are responsible for their travel back and forth.

6- War chest money not used in election campaigns will be donated at the end of each election cycle to draw down the deficit.  Each candidate has 30-days after election to show full accounting of all political activities for election cycle and write a check to the US treasury for their remaining balance closing out their political bank accounts.  If any information is found to be fraudulent, or money received after deadline (#7) candidate immediately forfeits race and next closest competitor is awarded seat.

7- Ads can only be run by candidates.  All money has to be donated to the candidate within 7 days after the primary winner is declared and can only be donated after Primary Candidacy is declared.  After that no money can be used ouside for any political activity.  See #6 for money left over after campaign is over.

It's time for Political Office to STOP being a lifetime Appointment.  Every American should have the same opportunity to run as every other American.  Number six and number seven are true campaign finance reform in simple plain no loopholes English.

Foreclosures or "Why Should I keep paying my Mortgage?"

I don't usually read the New york Times, and for good reason, it generally makes me angry.  Yesterday was absolutely no exception.

From a Maine House, a National Foreclosure Freeze

In this lovely story, The Times Reporter weaves a beautifully eloquent tale a modern David and Goliath story, er sorta.  In the original David and Goliath, David was truly a good guy.  He had done what he was supposed to do and as a result God blessed him.  David not only took responsibility for his own actions but for the rest of his family as well.  This is not really the case with Nicole Bradbury, the heroine of the Times article.  Mrs. Bradbury has not paid her mortgage in 2+ years, she lost a full time in 2006 and has worked part time since.  Her husband is ill and unable to work.

GMAC the "Goliath" of the story, who lent her the money in 2003 to buy property from her brother and to build a home, has tried to evict her multiple times now.  Their fruitless attempts have caused problems for the entire mortgage industry.  There's even discussion of a "foreclosure moratorium" to be imposed by the Feds.

I'm stuck on someone not paying their mortgage for two years, I'm sorry give me a moment to digest that.  I can't even think about what would happen to the housing market if the Feds stopped foreclosures.

So we are supposed to feel sorry for Nicole?  Am I supposed to what?  want to send her money?  Hate GMAC? Is there a goal here?

Then I read this article Lenders abandoning foreclosed properties so clearly I'm supposed to hate the Mortgage Industry.  But again, that's not what sticks out in my mind, this part is:

"I've paid taxes here for 6 1/2 years. It's ridiculous that I have to live next to that," Yancey said, motioning to the boarded-up house that has been home to squatters and scores of animals. "Nobody knows what goes into that building."
Like Lewis, Yancey said she has called City Hall to get the building torn down or to at least find out if Lass is still the owner.
"When you call, it's like there's no answer," she said. "Is it the mortgage company or is it a 'somebody' who owns it?"
The 39-year-old Lass bought the Lincoln Ave. house in June 2006 - about a year and a half after his release from prison, where he had spent about a dozen years for drug dealing. Lass financed the purchase with a $112,500 loan from subprime lending giant Argent Mortgage Co., of California. The mortgage carried an adjustable interest rate between 10.05% and 16.05%. (emphasis added)

I'm sorry, he was in jail for 12 years and 18 months after his release he qualified for a mortgage?  When I got my first mortgage even with 30% down I had to provide tax records for a decade, my grandmother's shoe size, proof of income, and my first born as collateral.  How does an ex-con get a loan 18 months after he was incarcerated?  The above referenced article also had this little gem:

Although a demolition order was issued last year, the building is still standing. It is one of about 80 houses waiting for funding so they could be razed.
Lewis has urged city officials to bulldoze the house and to tell him who owns it.
"They keep telling me some lady," Lewis said. "They say some lady owns it, and they can't get in touch with her."
County records show Latoya Wesley bought the house in 2006 with a subprime mortgage loan. It was one of five properties the Milwaukee woman bought around that time.
Wesley has been hit with repeated foreclosure suits and was on the way to losing title to the Clarke St. property when a foreclosure judgment was issued on Feb. 26, 2007. The property was never sold at a sheriff's sale, however. Just last month, the foreclosure judgment was dismissed.
Wesley said she isn't the owner. "It was foreclosed on," she said. "The bank owns it." (emphasis mine)

And we wonder why our property values are falling faster than the prices at Walmart?

Seriously? I think the "apology" is worse than the slur.

Is this really what an apology equals these days?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/report-recording-captures-brown-camp-calling-whitman-whore/


And the apology is:

"This was a jumbled and often inaudible recording of a private conversation. At times our language was salty. We apologize to Ms. Whitman and anyone who may have been offended,"

Really?  That's the best you got?  Let's take this "apology" apart piece by piece.  Lest we all be confused and believe that a Democrat could actually take personal responsibility for their actions/words.


Demspeak:
This was a jumbled and often inaudible recording


Regular English:
You couldn't have heard what you think you heard, because the recording was so poor.  Maybe the person was saying she's a poor.... yeah that's the ticket....... a poor. (to quote a bad 80's movie)


Demspeak :
of a private conversation.


Regular English:Nobody should be listening.  The person should have deleted this message on his machine immediately, Clearly Jerry Brown did not know he was being recorded (and it may be illegal we're looking into it) and cannot be expected to stay on message all the time.


Demspeak :At times our language was salty.
Regular English:
Most of the time our language is salty.  We are a highschool locker room.


Demspeak :
We apologize to Ms. Whitman and anyone who may have been offended.
Regular English:
We do not actually apologize, for we have done nothing wrong.  It is you, who thinks you deserve an apology, who is in the wrong.  Rich white people cannot for any reason get offended.


Just watch the news cycle, I can guarantee you the Republicans will come out with their faces flush to the ground over the use of the term "hicky" in the casting call for the West Virgina Political ad.  That will be an actual apology.

Does being a Conservative Woman in politics make you prey?

I've watched in horror over the past 2+ years as one Conservative Woman after another has been villified.  This Open Season was declared when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate and became fashionable with the midterm election primaries.  I am a Conservative Woman.  I have a daughter, I hope she will grow up to be a Conservative Woman.  I would like to get more involved, either as a talking head or an actual candidate.


And yet I look at what is happening to Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Meg Whitman, Sarah Palin and even Ann Coulter and I think twice.  I think about the things I've said and done in my life and I think I don't want that to be fodder for the mainstream media.  I can identify with Christine, Sharron and Sarah and wonder what I may have even forgotten that could be drudged up.  Is that really what we want to have happen?  People who feel they could do good, think they could make a contribution are scared because they may have made mistakes when they were young.


This type of life under the microscope isn't going to change.  Let's face it, Headlines yelling "Christine O'Donnell: I dabbled in witchcraft" not only sell papers, but also promote the other guy.  For the most part the reporters want to promote the other guy.  We now know that the journalists on journolist did in fact have a dog in the fight that was the 2008 Presidential Campaign.  Nobody actually believes these reporters suddenly became Conservatives, so why are we as Americans falling for more of their tricks?


Why are Sharron, Christine, Meg, Carly and all other Conservative Women not the runaway winners in their contests?  Because no matter how much money we donate to their campaigns we are constantly fighting the endless free negative advertising against them by the mainstream media. 


I am pretty sure this is not what was originally intended by "Freedom of the Press".