Explain this to me

Constitutional rights are supposed to be Sovereign. This means they should be supreme and indisputable. They were the basis on which our country was founded - to protect the citizens of our country. It was in place because our forefathers had lived through a time when they had little to no rights or say. They fought to ensure that we had those rights, and through generations of time many others have stood up and fought to maintain those rights.

It is true that some people violate the spirit of the rights we have. One such is the Westboro Baptist Church. The Supreme Court stated that this group of people who targeted murdered children, fallen soldiers, and have been given gross media attention for their chants of hatred in the name of God were entitled. Roberts wrote: Roberts wrote: "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

So, they used the first amendment to be able to have freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. Perhaps part of this also was because Westboro claimed religious freedom of thought and action as well. As this same amendment guarantees the respect to and establishment of religion. Let's face it, not everyone is going to agree with every religion. Some people may not agree with any. 

Westboro does spout seriously hateful and disturbing things. Things that mourners should not have to deal with in a time of sorrow. Yet the law does not guarantee a peaceful funeral. Roberts went on to state: "Given that Westboro's speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment" and "cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt."

I am certain that this type of behavior was not what our forefathers had in mind when writing this in the Bill of Rights. However, it was interpreted by our own Supreme Court to be allowable under the law.

Of course Justice Alito bravely disagreed with his colleague. He stated:  "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. . . In this case, respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack, which was almost certain to inflict injury, was central to respondents' well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention." It is true that their behavior does inflict mental and emotional harm on the loved ones left behind. Yet our government thinks so highly of this first amendment right that it holds the contemptible speech as more important than the harm it can inflict.

So explain this to me. 

This first amendment also ensures people of this country to respect the establishment of religion and not to impede the exercise of that religion. In other words, we should not be inhibited to belief however we want to believe and our government should not force us to do anything contrary to our personal religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is a basic human right, which is also recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

By law no person, job, or government can force someone to go against their personal belief. A religious belief, for example, that does not allow a man to cut his beard would mean that a business that refused to allow that same person to work because he has a beard would be breaking the law. A woman that has a religious belief that she should not take any medication cannot be force by her employer to have the flu shot. 

Yet today Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for insurance that provides the Day After Pill to employees because it goes against their religious principles. Hobby Lobby has made no attempts to hide, since they opened their doors in Oklahoma, that they were a Christian based company. They do not open on Sunday in respect to their belief that Sunday is a day of rest.

This same government that has given Westboro the right to spew hatred refuses to listen to the claim that the healthcare issue violates their religion. Instead they are currently fining them 1.3 million dollars per day since January 1 until they give up on their religious commitment and follow what many believe is an unconstitutional law. How does this happen?

First, I understand the use and importance of the morning after pill. I understand that accidents can happen, women can be raped, and unwanted pregnancies happen each day in our country. I also understand that our government pays via our tax dollars for women on welfare to have free access to this medication. I'm not an opponent of this pill. I will say, though, that if you are having unprotected sex you should pay for your own mistakes, don't expect your employer to bail you out. If a woman is raped we should have alternative and private means for her to seek assistance and reassurance that she has not been impregnated.

I am an opponent of double standards. On one side we have a government that is so zealous about upholding the Bill of Rights that they reward religious haters at the expense of mourners. On the other side we have a government that refuses to recognize a private family owned business that refuses to give into government and turn their back on their own religious standard. 

In my opinion: It just ain't right.

The Problem with Election Funds and Evil

I heard a lot of people say they voted for Obama because he was the "lesser of two evils." It's sad that people had to think that any of our political were evil. Growing up we were taught to have a deep respect for the President of the United States. Times were definitely different then. Certainly no one presidential candidate collected over a billion dollars. With so many people out of work you would think that the billion dollars raised could have been used in more productive ways than launching smear campaigns. The truth is that 1 billion dollars equals about the salary of 20,000 median income families (that is families that earn 50,000 per year.) Putting that in perspective - The campaign funds from Obama could have easily housed and fed the entire population of Adams County, Wisconsin.  Mitt Romney's campaign funds, by the same token, could have supported 18,000 families. He could have given 50,000 to every citizen in Jasper, IN and still had enough left over to run some ads. But neither candidate did that. Not one penny of either candidates campaign money was used to support a needy family, raise a community center, or feed the homeless.

In turn instead of having an unbiased and fair election we had the battle of the bucks. Big bucks run elections. That's why when you mention people like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Laurie Roth, or Virgil Goode most Americans have no earthly clue who you are talking about. Most media outlets won't even talk to them or take them seriously. They have nowhere near the monetary backing that major party candidates receive.

The question is this: How many of you would have voted for the candidate that took his campaign money and used it to help a failing business? What if they took some of that campaign money and actually used it to support a wounded soldier pay off his mortgage? Perhaps they took a bit of the money and opened a community center in a troubled neighborhood? What type of media coverage would this have given them?

Of course neither candidate did that. There is supposed to be laws regarding how the campaign funds can be used. Yet there was proof that those legal issues of obtaining funds weren't exactly followed and there wasn't even a "bad boy" or a hand slap given for the offense. It was met with a simple "oops" and an "oh well."

I'm not angry over the election results. Honestly, it wouldn't matter which candidate won, though I wasn't even the least bit surprised by the results. The media does an awesome job of making the majority of people see and think what they want them to see and think. They seemed to even promote fallacies and twist facts in order to confuse and manipulate.

 My hope was that we had enough votes for one third party candidate to open up new options in our political system. That didn't happen.

The truth is that the only real change in this country can come from people actually waking up to realize that politics isn't about what is best for the country - it is about what is best for the party. Money and power run this country.

George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Our founding father's didn't believe in big government, and today our Federal government is growing like a wildfire out of control through each of our towns and businesses. Some of us see the scorching and realize we need to push it back before we are consumed, while others bask in the heat believing that they will never be burned. They feed the flames.

We have serious issues at home. We have high unemployment with more businesses each day cutting jobs. We have higher prices on commodities and lowering of incomes. Which brings us to remember another great insight of our first president, "Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." We seem to have forgotten what our moral duty entails.

Susan Boyle is Lovely

Susan Boyle, despite the snickers she received upon her tryout on "Britain's Got Talent," is a lovely woman. Not just because when she opens her mouth to sing is sounds as if she was touched by an angel, but because she has held herself up remarkably well despite the negative press this woman unjustly receives.

This last week she was blasted in tabloids over using cuss words at them because she was tired of being provoked. It was nothing like the tirade of Christian Bale on a member of his movie crew, or even like many other meltdowns by stars that have been in the press. Susan, at this time, has become an overnight sensation. She has been hounded by press and fans. Her quiet life in Scotland will never be the same. To say she has stepped out of her comfort zone is and extreme understatement. It's more like she has moved from Kansas to the Emerald City being hounded by the Wicked Witch and her cronies.

What I find inspiring about Susan is that she perseveres all the negative attention. It has to hurt to have every hair scrutinized by the media and to listen to such unflattering accounts. I admire her spirit as she tramples through. She has been called everything from homely to courageous. Most people are simply fascinated by her.

In my opinion, I think that the attitude of the media and the tabloids are despicable. I understand that they want to make headlines and gather readers to support their careers, but how they do it is underhanded and truth has never been a strong point in their motivation. Susan has withstood more than an average Joe could have put up with. That she hasn't lost her mind shows what stamina this woman actually has.

I'm sure she was encouraged to try out for the show by family and friends. I'm very happy that she desired to share her gift with others and bring a few minutes of joy into home, but also to prove to herself that she really is talented. It's something that many of us sit back in the safety of our lives and wonder because no one likes failure.

If I could say anything at all to Susan I would tell her to hang in there. I think she is an amazing woman with a lot of spunk. She shouldn't conform to what everyone else thinks of as trendy or beautiful, just be herself. At some point a person has to realize that we shouldn't be led around by the media and their concept. We are not sheep and they the shepherd. Stand up for yourself, think for yourself, and be yourself.