12 die, 31 wounded in Fort Hood shooting

Oh my Holy Lord...this breaking news is, to say the least, shocking. It's hard to believe that a soldier would open fire on his fellow soldiers and kill 12. My heart goes out to the families of the 12 dead and 31 wounded soldiers. If they had died in Iraq or Afghanistan, their deaths would, at least, make sense but HERE?!?!? At Fort Hood, Texas?!?!?!? I read the article in shock and horror, I kept asking myself WHY would this happen, HOW did this happen; the answer I was so desperately seeking was right under my nose in the article.

The shooter that was killed by security forces was an Army Major named, and get this, everybody, and think about it...his name was Malik Nadal Hasan. It gets better, folks; this guy was a MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL! So now we have an Army Major, who is an Army psychiatrist who either was born Malik Nadal Hasan or took the name after converting to Islam. Seriously, I do not give one whit on whether he was born into Islam or converted to Islam; for me, the writing is on the wall, clear as day.

This "person" was a MUSLIM who ATTACKED AMERICANS. Gee, what a shock...a Muslim killing Americans...wow I never thought THAT could happen. Just so you know, I am rolling my eyes to emphasize the sarcasm. The even more curious part for me is where in the hell are the MUSLIMS on the Council for American Islam Relations (CAIR)? Where are they? Why are they not condemning this act of terrorism? Do you want to know why they aren't saying anything? It's because THEY WANT AMERICANS TO DIE!!! HELLO!!!! IS ANYBODY HOME!?!?!?!?!?

CAIR sues because some clerics/imams, whatever, were arrested and taken off a flight after they made several disturbing remarks. CAIR jumps on us because we are "discriminating" against Muslims, but when a Muslim attacks for no apparent reason they don't say a word. Kinda like another situation in this country with two certain "Civil Rights" activists who pounce whenever a white officer arrests a black guy for a crime and turns out he was innocent (even though they learn it was ANOTHER black guy who committed the crime) yet NEVER say anything that may show responsibility on their part for their situation.

Yes, Virginia, racism is still alive and well in the USA...but it's against white Americans...not the other way around anymore. Call me a bigot, a racist, a bastard, whatever you want to call me, I don't care. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Muslims cannot be trusted and should not be trusted under any circumstances. I recall a saying I heard from a friend a long time ago, and it is still relevant today, "Not all Muslims are suicide bombers...but all suicide bombers are Muslims" We as a country have GOT to STOP tip-toeing around these jerks!!! Until these "peaceful" Muslims come out in numbers and CONDEMN terrorism and help to stop the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the PLO, Al Shabab, and a host of other MUSLIM terrorist groups, I will continue to rant right here that I believe Muslims are untrustworthy animals. Call me a hate-monger, I don't give a crap what you think.

I am tired of putting up with it; you should be too.

Breasts on TV? Oh the HORROR!

Now I've seen everything. I read a story about a Washington DC television station airing a two-part series concerning breast exams. WJLA is the station and they are planning on airing the series during the "fall ratings sweeps" in order to maximize awareness of breast cancer and to instruct on how to correctly perform a self-breast exam. In order to show how a breast self-exam is done properly, they intend to show the bare breasts of two volunteers...that's right kids, bare, uncensored, non-blurred women's breasts.

If we were in Europe this would be no big deal. From my travels across Europe I saw just how laid back Europeans are when it comes to the naked breast. Here in the good ole USA though, one group, The Parents Television Council, is raising their concerns over this. Their concern...and I quote, ""We hope that WJLA-TV is not using a crucial public health issue as a ratings stunt, and that the station has fully considered what is appropriate to tell this important story to the public in the most suitable manner possible," the group said in a statement."

And to that all I can say is, "ARE YOU PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR RIGHT WING BIBLE THUMPING MINDS?" For CHRIST'S SAKE, this is NOT some sleazy soft-core pornography being aired; NO, this is a PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT promoting breast cancer awareness and instructing on how to do an effective self-exam! Leave it to some "family group" to try and attach a "sexually deviant" note to a show that could very well help some women in this country to detect breast cancer and survive it!

What is so wrong about a woman's breasts!? Don't you idiots have anything better to do than worry about this? This is TYPICAL of Bible Thumping Right Wingers...your kids can watch violence and bloodshed..can be advertised to non-stop, but to SHOW a woman's breast?? HORRORS!!! Our kids will turn into sexual deviants because they saw a bare breast on TV!!! Oh the horror...the agony!!! We can't have a bare breast on TV!!!

Oh we can't have that! Just like we can't have comprehensive sex education or abortion. No, no, no, sex is evil and wrong and dirty...we just want to keep our heads buried in the sand and pretend we are still in the bucolic Fifties...while our kids die from STD's and breast cancer. WAKE UP MORONS!!! YOUR BUS IS LEAVING!!!

Who Dat? Not Miami!

Well, shut my mouth. My beloved New Orleans Saints are now 6-0...yes, that's right, campers, SIX AND ZERO!!! The Saints are off to their best start since 1991! Another milestone was accomplished by the Saints last week...they actually WON after a bye week! Every Saints fan is unhappily acquainted with the team's penchant for losing after a bye week.

It sure didn't look like it was gonna be that way earlier today. When my wife and I returned from grocery shopping, I turned on the tv to see the Saints down 24-3 and I thought, 'oh hell, here we go'. I turned the game off with that all-too-familiar sinking feeling in my chest that I and every other Saints fan has felt every season since the Saints became part of the NFL in 1967. I knew this was going to be the "same ole Saints", great start until they meet a team that beats them and then...like always...they crumble.

One must be a masochist to be a Saints fan; humiliating loss after loss, promising starts only to go down in flames. Now it seems we may actually have a good head coach and a really good team. I'm sure everybody remembers Hank Stram, Dick Nolan, Dick Stanfel, Bum Phillips and later his just as incompetent son, Jim Mora, Rick Venturi, Mike Ditka and Jim Haslett...at least those are the coaches I remember for as long as I have followed the Saints...(I was born one year after they entered the NFL). Losing season after losing season we fans watched in pain and suffering...and I thought today was the day they were going to turn into the Saints of old when I saw that score.

Then something in my head told me to turn the game back on, so I did. What a shocker!!! It's the second half of the game and the really good team that is the 2009-2010 New Orleans Saints was back! They didn't crumble after being down so far. Nope, Sean Payton didn't panic and neither did the team...they just hunkered down and beat the only team that beat them in the pre-season this year. They overcame that 21 point gap and fought back and WON!! Now the Saints are 6-0 and the much touted Miami that was predicted to have an 11 win season is 2-4.

The Saints are really good this year...better than they have ever been, more balanced than they have ever been and better coached than they have ever been. Maybe, just maybe, this may be the year of the Saints...I almost don't want to say that out loud...I don't want to jinx them...but I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed. Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints? Not the Lions, Eagles, Bills, Jets, Giants or Dolphins, at least. Geaux Saints Geaux!!!!

Reality TV...UGH!!!

I don't watch a lot of "primetime" tv on ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX; particularly the "reality" shows. Call me old fashioned but I prefer a scripted show with a plot...you know, like 'CSI' or 'The Mentalist' but the "reality" shows just annoy the hell out of me. I guess the reason they annoy me so much is because I just really don't care if someone can sing, dance, survive or any of the other banal topics on reality shows on these networks. Now, let me say this to you, I like a lot of the shows on Discover, History and Food Network; mainly, I think, because I find them to be topical, educational and interesting.

Last night, however, one certain network that airs one certain "dancing" reality show's synopsis read, "Dancers perform with three songs by Michael Jackson, each song from different stages in his career as a tribute.", or some crap like that. When I read it, I wanted to throw the remote at the tv. If you can't seem to figure out why I became so upset at yet another tribute to a child molester, let me say it here LOUD and CLEAR...this episode was yet another tribute to a CHILD MOLESTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not perform a tribute dance to the soldiers that died the same day Jackson died? How about a tribute to Ed McMahon or Farrah Fawcett who also died in that timeframe? We have real-life heroes fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan but the only thing these Hollyweird morons can do is pay tribute to a sick, twisted individual who, despite having incredible talent, became even more sick and twisted by "allegedly" molesting young boys!!! I mean, COME ON!!! At BEST, Michael Jackson was an ENTERTAINER!!! He was not a diplomat or head-of-state, hell, he barely registered as human if you ask me!

STOP THE INSANITY!!!!!!! Focus on what is IMPORTANT, like health care reform, the crumbling economy, the falling value of the dollar, and ohhhh, gee, yeah, there are those two pesky little things called IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!!!! STOP CELEBRATING THE IDIOT MORON AND FOCUS ON BEING PRODUCTIVE!!!! ...and the beat goes on. America is getting dumber and dumber and I weep for the future, but hey, we can always trot out MJ and pay homage to him to boost our ratings!! We can stage a massive public funeral and not even have to pay for it...let the city of L.A. pay for it.

I wish I could say, "Okay, rant over" but it's not over. Maybe we could make our own reality tv show titled, "Too Stupid To Live", we can provide cheap entertainment to the slack-jawed mouth breathing reality tv suckers and chlorinate the gene pool at the same time...good idea, don't ya think?

Happy Birthday!

Do you know what today is? Go on; take a guess what today is. I’ll give you a hint, today is a birthday. Still don’t know? Okay then, I’ll just have to tell you. Today is the 234th birthday of the US Navy! Yep, that’s right all you history buffs, on this day in 1775 the Continental Navy was established by the Continental Congress; the legislation authorized the Congress to build, fit out, man, and dispatch two armed vessels to interdict British merchant ships carrying munitions to the British forces in America. Over the course of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Navy grew to about 50 ships, with 20 or so active at the Navy’s maximum strength.

Now, I am going to take you on a journey through time where we will mark significant, but oft overlooked, facts on the history of what became the United States Navy. There has been a lot of grumbling recently about the “liberals” trying to destroy our armed forces and, therefore, rendering our nation impotent in its defense. This is not a new revelation, people! I would be willing to bet that most people don’t know that after the Revolutionary War, the Congress either sold off or dismantled what ships were left; it being deemed that a Navy was not needed now, in a time of peace. Smarter heads prevailed, however, and when the Constitution was ratified in 1789, there was legislation calling for the Congress to stand up and provide a navy. So, in 1794, the War Department ordered the building of six frigates. The War Department was in charge of the Navy until the Department of the Navy was established in 1798.

Despite arguments to the contrary by the Marine Corps, the Navy was, in fact, established before the Marines. We know this is true because we know the Congress first enacted legislation to outfit two warships on October 13, 1775. We also know that almost a month later, on November 10, 1775, the legislation was extended to stand up two Marine battalions. Just as the Congress dismantled the Navy after the Revolutionary War, they disbanded the Marines. In fact, ever since the Revolutionary War, we have evidence that proves the Congress, at the end of each major conflict, has tried to shrink the armed forces. It’s not hard to see it, everybody knows how the military was gutted in the 1970s after Vietnam…it’s almost as if our Congress refuses to learn its lessons!

The rest of the world would like nothing better than for the US to fall in stature, however, which is precisely why we must continually lobby and harangue Congress to not cut funding for defense. There is simply too much riding on the line to allow sharp cutbacks in funding. We must be ever-ready to defend our nation regardless of the cost. (There will be another post soon discussing the oxymoron that is the US Congress and its parties) So, to wrap this up for today, we say Happy Birthday to the US Navy and wish for many more! Until next time, farewell and following seas!

The Final Four!!!

Well I’m back, did you miss me? I’m sure you are all wondering where I’ve been so I will tell you. My wife and I spent the last week in Chicago and Wisconsin on a much-needed vacation. I’ll fill you in on the details of that later but right now it is time for me to wrap up my Bill of Rights series. The last four amendments (7 thru 10) are relatively short so I will summarize them for you; remember now, do not take my word for it, you can research them yourself for a more in-depth look. Here we go!

First, let’s list the last four amendments below; they are:

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Seventh Amendment’s basic intent was to make a line of distinction between what a judge does in civil court and what a jury does in civil court. Judges can instruct juries and determine what can be heard legally in court. Juries can hear the evidence, weigh the relevance of each piece of evidence and decide if a lawsuit is viable, and can determine the amounts awarded in most suits (i.e. - damages, emotional suffering, etc.) in civil court.

The Eighth Amendment is probably one of the most abused amendments in the courts today. Death penalty opponents routinely invoke this amendment because they believe the death penalty falls under cruel and unusual punishment. The excessive bail portion is also sometimes abused by defendants who want to run away rather than face prosecution. Again, these are just my opinions; you will have to look them up for yourself to get the entire meaning of each amendment.

The Ninth Amendment is, to me, the most vague and hard to interpret of all the amendments. This amendment was brought about in response to fears that other rights of the people could be restricted since they were not explicitly outlined in the Bill of Rights. Actually it goes much deeper than that but at the time, certain rights such as the right to travel or the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty were the concerns of the day so this amendment was added to the Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment is arguably the most abused of all. This amendment granted the individual states the right to self-govern, meaning the Federal government should not be able to force the states to do its bidding. One does not need to look very hard to see the abuse this amendment has taken over the years. Despite history revisionists’ attempts to teach the Civil War was all about slavery, the facts were and are clear. The Southern states asserted the Fed was overriding their Tenth Amendment rights and each voted to secede from the Union in protest. Thus the Civil War began and later, the brutality and cruelty the Union used to force the South back into the Union became the foundation for the Fed’s ongoing weakening of the authority of the Tenth Amendment.

Now, before anybody decides to excoriate me on my opinions it should be reinforced here that this solely MY opinion. If you are not sure my opinion is accurate, please research the Bill of Rights and come back here to straighten me out. If your opinion is different from mine feel free to voice your opposition. Remember though, if you wish to tell me I am wrong or misguided in my interpretation, you must be able to refute my opinion with FACT. Shouldn’t be too hard, huh? Later we will discuss other differences in opinion of the Bill of Rights such as the differing definition of “the people” in the First and Second Amendments. Should be fun!

What Have I Done???

Alright, alright, I know; I said I would be "speedy" with my next post on the Bill of Rights...I am not pleased that I am so late in writing about the Sixth Amendment, especially given what it covers. I am going to give you a little quiz right now; what does the Sixth Amendment entail? If you guessed it entails the right of an accused to a speedy trial, you would be correct. In fact here is what the Sixth Amendment says verbatim: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Broken down, what we see is the Sixth Amendment "guarantees" a speedy, public trial by a jury of one's peers, ensuring the accused knows what crime the are accused of committing, the right to have an attorney to defend the accused in court and the right to have favorable witnesses testify on the accused's behalf. Pretty straightforward don't you think? Well it's not quite that simple, folks.

First off, there is no set time limit to define a "speedy" trial. In fact, the idea of a speedy trial is outlined like this: A delay of a year or more from the date of arrest or indictment, whichever happened first, is termed "presumptively prejudicial". The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations. If a defendant agrees to a delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that his Sixth Amendment right was violated.

Ok, so what about a "public" trial? Well, in 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. What that means is, if excessive publicity could possibly affect the outcome of a trial, that trial can be closed to the public. Simply put, if the government thinks publicity could harm their case against the accused, they can ask for a closed hearing. Also, if the accused feels that publicity could affect his right to a fair trial, he can request the trial be closed as well...but the burden is on the accused to show proof that publicity would affect the trial.

Ok, so now we know that a speedy and public trial has several different meanings, but what about a trial by jury? Surely any accused person has the right to be tried by a jury, right? Wrong. If you have ever been to traffic court, you know what I am talking about here. Jury trials are dependent on the nature of the crime that was committed. If one is accused of stealing and the maximum punishment allowed is six months or less, a jury trial is not required. Likewise, the requirement to have 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict is not absolute. In the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity...in other words, a defendant can be tried by six people and a majority vote is all that is needed to either convict or exonerate.

A defendant also has the right to know what charges are being brought, the courts cannot just have someone arrested and tried without them knowing what they are accused of...I'm pretty sure if you are accused of a crime, you are going to know what crime you are being accused of. Other defendant's rights include the right to confront his accuser and witnesses, the right to have an attorney represent him, and the right to represent himself.

Now there have been arguments in the past that this Amendment has been abused by career criminals in order to intimidate witnesses, rig juries, and essentially get off scot-free. In some cases this may be true but you are more likely to see this on Law & Order than in real life. Now I know I will probably be publicly flogged for saying that but, to me, it is true. Our justice system is the finest in the world and, despite a few flaws here and there, is the most fair to everyone. If you don't believe me, check out some of the outrageous stories you read in your email about idiots suing companies for their own idiocy (Winnebago being sued by the guy who crashed his motor home because he set it on cruise control and went to the back to make coffee is a good one), check out the hoax-buster site www.snopes.com. Most of the stories you and I have heard over the years are urban legends.

So, let's wrap this up, shall we? By virtue of the Sixth Amendment, one is not subjected to a kangaroo court, one will not languish for years in jail waiting for a trial, and one will always have the opportunity to defend one's self. So why are the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay not afforded these rights? Well, in my opinion, it is because they are NOT citizens of the United States and therefore are not allowed the rights and freedoms provided for citizens in the Bill of Rights.

Whether or not you agree with me on that point is moot. Yes, the Amendment does not specifically mention "citizens" per se but it does say, "...accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed..." Those prisoners committed their crimes not on US soil but in the Middle East and the last time I checked there were no US states over there. Kinda proves my point, doesn't it?