After a week of being completely unwired, I returned to discover we were still at war, but pulling out of Iraq while things heated up in Afghanistan; the northeastern United States was enduring yet another prolonged heat wave; and hundreds of thousands of unhappy citizens poured into Washington D.C. on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech to voice their discontent and listen to Fox TV's emotive pundit Glenn Beck. Hints about efforts of the super wealthy and corporations to direct and control the grass roots Tea Party movement hit a few more editorial pages and blogs. (They may have a tiger by the tail.)
The five-year anniversary of Katrina was marked by celebrations of New Orleans' remarkable recovery while coverage of the Horizon oil spill's massive contamination of Gulf Coast waters moved to the back burner.
The economy continued its drunken stagger. Market volatility persisted. Real estate remained an uncertain investment. The Federal Reserve maintained non-existent interest rates to the banks, who continued NOT to lend money. Fears of inflation vied with fears of deflation.
Pakistan flood victims struggle to survive. Haitian earthquake victims continue to suffer. Keeping track of the year's natural disasters is a challenge.
The hurricane season apparently favors a parade up the Atlantic along a very warm Gulf Stream. The resulting rip tides plague vacationers to the Jersey Shore.
The political season is well underway bringing the electorate the usual nasty, deceptive commercials, phony telephone surveys and disingenuous interviews.
Being unwired wasn't so bad. I may do it more often.
Here's what I think...
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Flying is a Be-atch
For months I anticipated my trip to the Caribbean. A trip that meant beautiful beaches, terrific food and, best of all, quality time with my daughter's family (i.e. the granddaughters).
In order to get there, I had to FLY. Mind you, my husband flies constantly in his work and thinks nothing of it (unless they lose his luggage). I, on the other hand, LOATHE the entire process.
First there is airport security. Over the years I have gotten pretty good at preparing. The process usually is trouble-free and relatively quick. But -- they make me take off my shoes, even when I am wearing sandals. They separate me from the handbag that contains my life (wallet, passport, credit cards, house and car keys). When the security line is backed up, this makes me feel VERY insecure. About one in five times they hand-search my carry-on.
Once through security, I breathe a deep sigh of relief, then realize it will be 6 or 7 hours before my next CIGARETTE! (You probably think this is a good thing. Most folks do. I know, I know, the nasty habit will make me die young -- oops that train already left the station.) I tried the gum years ago and it made me more psychotic than usual, so that is not an option.
The first flight is usually manageably short - anything under two hours is a GOOD thing. But this trip will go through Philadelphia. That entails quickly traipsing MILES through an airport with few automated walkways. My fibromyalgia makes this TOUGH. Hope I catch a ride this time.
The second flight is INTERMINABLE. Hours and hours in this tiny seat with minimal leg room - I am both vertically and horizontally challenged -- below average for the former, way more than I need of the latter. (I really feel sorry for the basketball players.) If we get a First Class upgrade, horizontal will improve. Vertical depends on the size of the plane. But we will get food and drink.
If I do not get an aisle seat, I will panic before I even take it (and probably cry). Frequent stretches are absolutely essential if I am to be ABLE TO MOVE at the end of the flight. Moving about the cabin is a trip. Knocking into all those folks leaning into the aisle in a vain attempt to secure some personal space, or stretching out their legs because there is NO ROOM for them in front of their seats.
I will eat anything the airline gives me, no matter how vile. I will imbibe alcohol if I am lucky enough to be in First Class. I will trek to the rest room at least four times more than I need to for the excuse to walk. And all the while, I will be DYING for a smoke. (Yeah, I get the pun.) After two and a half hours, my legs will start to hurt. An aspirin barely takes the edge off. By the fourth hour, I want to rock back and forth. At four and a half hours, I do.
Landing is a good thing, especially at a small airport where the taxi to the jet-way is short. Deplaning I am well behaved. I have done this drill before. Row by row, please. No pushing or shoving. If someone does try to push ahead, however; at this point there is no guarantee I will not RIP HER/HIS HEAD OFF!!!
Walking up the jet-way after a long flight is one of the greatest feelings in the world. Even when you know baggage claim and customs lie ahead. Finally, OUTSIDE the terminal, I locate an ashtray, light a cigarette, deeply inhale and the world slowly rights itself. An anorexic blond health Nazi complains about the smoke. Oh look, it is the b----h that tried (unsuccessfully) to push ahead of me while deplaning. I smile sweetly and gently waft an exhalation in her direction. Life isn't perfect. It's just a whole lot better than it was half an hour ago.
Note: We actually got the First Class upgrade on the flight home; however, it was delayed and we missed our Philadelphia connection home. US Airways put us up at the airport Hilton for the night and paid for dinner. Finally got home Sunday in the early afternoon. Vacations are wonderful things. Now it's all about laundry and sorting through mail and email.
In order to get there, I had to FLY. Mind you, my husband flies constantly in his work and thinks nothing of it (unless they lose his luggage). I, on the other hand, LOATHE the entire process.
First there is airport security. Over the years I have gotten pretty good at preparing. The process usually is trouble-free and relatively quick. But -- they make me take off my shoes, even when I am wearing sandals. They separate me from the handbag that contains my life (wallet, passport, credit cards, house and car keys). When the security line is backed up, this makes me feel VERY insecure. About one in five times they hand-search my carry-on.
Once through security, I breathe a deep sigh of relief, then realize it will be 6 or 7 hours before my next CIGARETTE! (You probably think this is a good thing. Most folks do. I know, I know, the nasty habit will make me die young -- oops that train already left the station.) I tried the gum years ago and it made me more psychotic than usual, so that is not an option.
The first flight is usually manageably short - anything under two hours is a GOOD thing. But this trip will go through Philadelphia. That entails quickly traipsing MILES through an airport with few automated walkways. My fibromyalgia makes this TOUGH. Hope I catch a ride this time.
The second flight is INTERMINABLE. Hours and hours in this tiny seat with minimal leg room - I am both vertically and horizontally challenged -- below average for the former, way more than I need of the latter. (I really feel sorry for the basketball players.) If we get a First Class upgrade, horizontal will improve. Vertical depends on the size of the plane. But we will get food and drink.
If I do not get an aisle seat, I will panic before I even take it (and probably cry). Frequent stretches are absolutely essential if I am to be ABLE TO MOVE at the end of the flight. Moving about the cabin is a trip. Knocking into all those folks leaning into the aisle in a vain attempt to secure some personal space, or stretching out their legs because there is NO ROOM for them in front of their seats.
I will eat anything the airline gives me, no matter how vile. I will imbibe alcohol if I am lucky enough to be in First Class. I will trek to the rest room at least four times more than I need to for the excuse to walk. And all the while, I will be DYING for a smoke. (Yeah, I get the pun.) After two and a half hours, my legs will start to hurt. An aspirin barely takes the edge off. By the fourth hour, I want to rock back and forth. At four and a half hours, I do.
Landing is a good thing, especially at a small airport where the taxi to the jet-way is short. Deplaning I am well behaved. I have done this drill before. Row by row, please. No pushing or shoving. If someone does try to push ahead, however; at this point there is no guarantee I will not RIP HER/HIS HEAD OFF!!!
Walking up the jet-way after a long flight is one of the greatest feelings in the world. Even when you know baggage claim and customs lie ahead. Finally, OUTSIDE the terminal, I locate an ashtray, light a cigarette, deeply inhale and the world slowly rights itself. An anorexic blond health Nazi complains about the smoke. Oh look, it is the b----h that tried (unsuccessfully) to push ahead of me while deplaning. I smile sweetly and gently waft an exhalation in her direction. Life isn't perfect. It's just a whole lot better than it was half an hour ago.
Note: We actually got the First Class upgrade on the flight home; however, it was delayed and we missed our Philadelphia connection home. US Airways put us up at the airport Hilton for the night and paid for dinner. Finally got home Sunday in the early afternoon. Vacations are wonderful things. Now it's all about laundry and sorting through mail and email.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Marriage - A civil or religious institution?
The controversy over gay marriage makes me ponder the nature of marriage from religious and civil viewpoints. It appears to me that the definition one applies to marriage impacts one's position in the controversy. Blending civil and religious rules in the marriage contract gives rise to confusion. I believe any resolution of the matter requires separating the civil components of marriage from the religious components. One is the responsibility of the state. The other is a matter of personal conscience and religious choice.
How does one define marriage in 2010 American society?
Is it the institution society designates for the care of children?
The state adjudicates custody and support arrangements for children during separation and divorce proceedings;
The state also adjudicates custody and support arrangements between unmarried parents;
No license is required to have or raise children;
Single persons, married persons, family members and friends can be among those designated as legal guardians by parents, or the state.
Is it a civil institution, founded upon a civil contract?
The state requires two adults seeking to marry to get a marriage license.
On the other hand, many states not only recognize, but mandate common law marriage between adults who have cohabited for a set period of time. Persons who have never formally married have found it necessary to get civil divorces in order to terminate their arrangements.
The state differentiates between taxes for married and unmarried adults.
The state regulates estate disposition for all its citizens and differentiates between married and unmarried adults.
The state differentiates between unmarried and married adults in defining the rights and responsibilities of persons for their partners.
Is it a religious institution?
Legal marriages can be performed by civil servants and have no religious basis or by clergy under the auspices and rules of a specific religion.
Some religions ban marriage between one of their congregants and someone from another religion. The state recognizes such mixed marriages.
Some religions permit polygamy. The state rules polygamy illegal.
Some religions prohibit divorce. The state permits persons to get multiple divorces.
It appears to me that the state's definition of marriage is secular and contractual. Religions tend to expand on that definition and adapt it to their own dogma. Thus, I fail to see what possible justification religions have for interfering with the state's definition of marriage unless and until the state interferes with that religion's right to define marriage for its congregants.
And the state has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS adopting the dogma of any religion as ITS definition of marriage and its benefits and responsibilities.
How does one define marriage in 2010 American society?
Is it the institution society designates for the care of children?
The state adjudicates custody and support arrangements for children during separation and divorce proceedings;
The state also adjudicates custody and support arrangements between unmarried parents;
No license is required to have or raise children;
Single persons, married persons, family members and friends can be among those designated as legal guardians by parents, or the state.
Is it a civil institution, founded upon a civil contract?
The state requires two adults seeking to marry to get a marriage license.
On the other hand, many states not only recognize, but mandate common law marriage between adults who have cohabited for a set period of time. Persons who have never formally married have found it necessary to get civil divorces in order to terminate their arrangements.
The state differentiates between taxes for married and unmarried adults.
The state regulates estate disposition for all its citizens and differentiates between married and unmarried adults.
The state differentiates between unmarried and married adults in defining the rights and responsibilities of persons for their partners.
Is it a religious institution?
Legal marriages can be performed by civil servants and have no religious basis or by clergy under the auspices and rules of a specific religion.
Some religions ban marriage between one of their congregants and someone from another religion. The state recognizes such mixed marriages.
Some religions permit polygamy. The state rules polygamy illegal.
Some religions prohibit divorce. The state permits persons to get multiple divorces.
It appears to me that the state's definition of marriage is secular and contractual. Religions tend to expand on that definition and adapt it to their own dogma. Thus, I fail to see what possible justification religions have for interfering with the state's definition of marriage unless and until the state interferes with that religion's right to define marriage for its congregants.
And the state has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS adopting the dogma of any religion as ITS definition of marriage and its benefits and responsibilities.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Two Friends Discuss Military Contractors
I wrote to my friend Bob:
I am thinking about a post on the U. S. mercenary army. Below are my thoughts to this point. I would really like to know your thoughts about this (since your military and political experience are far greater than mine).
Now that U. S. combat troops have left Iraq, I cannot help wondering if the U. S. Government's private army also has left. The New York Times stated in an article today that the State Department will increase its private security force in Iraq to 7,000, a number that does not seem TOO outrageous, if that is the total mercenary count. But is it? And I still want to know WHY oh WHY does the U. S. Government need a PRIVATE ARMY in addition to the highly trained and dedicated U. S. Military?
Troublesome answers suggest themselves to me:
1. A private army is not easy to oversee by our elected officials.
2. Paying for a private army can be couched in deceptive terminology like "military contractors" that hide its true purpose.
3. A private army is a useful tool for conducting unpopular, even unsanctioned missions.
Bob replied:
I would not argue with any part of your rationale. Most of the contractors have specific and limited assignments such as dignitary protection. The vast majority of these folks are prior military that make dramatically more money in their new roles. I would guess that the 7,000 referenced are only a small percentage of the number of contractors left in country, ostensibly for protection not aggression.
This concept is new, together with such things as contracting for food service. Being a member of "Cynics of America" I always suspected that was a methodology to understate the number of military folks in country. By example, if civilians are doing KP, then a private in the army need not be in theater. If one added all of the civilian contractors doing what has historically been done by the military, one could get an actual count of the number of Americans in the conflict. To not do so is to understate the numbers.
I wrote:
To recap: using private contractors enables understatement of the numbers actually deployed in country?
How do you think they impact the mission itself? The chain of command? Military morale?
Also, during Iraq and Afghanistan the State National Guards have been widely deployed and exploited. Does this weaken the Guards, which are in essence our militia (vis a vis the Second Amendment)? Could this be intentional downgrading of the "peoples' army?"
This really troubles me: Who commands the loyalty of the private contractors: the U. S. Government, the President, the State Department or the company that hires them?
At this point, would it even be possible to disband them and return to traditional support?
Maybe I should just forget it and trust that our government knows best?
Bob answered:
Well, trusting the government is challenging.
In my day, the services did mess duty, laundry and other tasks only tangential to the fighting. I personally, believe contracting is positive in that soldiers can concentrate on soldiering and not KP and can focus on their jobs.
My point is that if these tasks were to be performed by military personnel in theater, it follows that additional military personnel would be required. Having civilians perform the tasks allows for the stated number of forces in theater to be less than if "traditional" methods were employed. It is much more politically palatable to declare the lowest number of people in harm's way possible.
One shudders to think what number of military personnel might be required if contract service jobs were performed by the military. I believe it would require a draft.
As for our contract fighters, there is no question in my mind that they owe allegiance to the firm that hires them and then places them.
I don't worry about the ultimate client for protection, it's the giant firms that hire the contract warriors that give one pause.
The issue of chain of command is interesting. Instead of company and field grade officers being responsible for, let's say mess, the contractor is responsible to the general service, their relationship delineated by contract documents. A company commander is responsible for feeding his troops but he (she) is most likely restrained by a contract forged on a golf course rather than a battlefield.
The Guard has always been required to be prepared to take a combat role. Historically it has never happened on such a scale for such a time. Ironically, the result is the best trained reserve force anywhere in the world. This level of service is not, I can assure you, what Guard members signed up for.
I wrote back:
Do you ever think it odd how a conservative Republican like you and a liberal elitist Democrat like me so often end up on the same page?
My friend replied:
80% of us are somewhere in the middle with only 10% at the extreme left or right. The challenge is that 10% of 300 million people is a sizable number of "true believers" trying to move an agenda.
I am thinking about a post on the U. S. mercenary army. Below are my thoughts to this point. I would really like to know your thoughts about this (since your military and political experience are far greater than mine).
Now that U. S. combat troops have left Iraq, I cannot help wondering if the U. S. Government's private army also has left. The New York Times stated in an article today that the State Department will increase its private security force in Iraq to 7,000, a number that does not seem TOO outrageous, if that is the total mercenary count. But is it? And I still want to know WHY oh WHY does the U. S. Government need a PRIVATE ARMY in addition to the highly trained and dedicated U. S. Military?
Troublesome answers suggest themselves to me:
1. A private army is not easy to oversee by our elected officials.
2. Paying for a private army can be couched in deceptive terminology like "military contractors" that hide its true purpose.
3. A private army is a useful tool for conducting unpopular, even unsanctioned missions.
Bob replied:
I would not argue with any part of your rationale. Most of the contractors have specific and limited assignments such as dignitary protection. The vast majority of these folks are prior military that make dramatically more money in their new roles. I would guess that the 7,000 referenced are only a small percentage of the number of contractors left in country, ostensibly for protection not aggression.
This concept is new, together with such things as contracting for food service. Being a member of "Cynics of America" I always suspected that was a methodology to understate the number of military folks in country. By example, if civilians are doing KP, then a private in the army need not be in theater. If one added all of the civilian contractors doing what has historically been done by the military, one could get an actual count of the number of Americans in the conflict. To not do so is to understate the numbers.
I wrote:
To recap: using private contractors enables understatement of the numbers actually deployed in country?
How do you think they impact the mission itself? The chain of command? Military morale?
Also, during Iraq and Afghanistan the State National Guards have been widely deployed and exploited. Does this weaken the Guards, which are in essence our militia (vis a vis the Second Amendment)? Could this be intentional downgrading of the "peoples' army?"
This really troubles me: Who commands the loyalty of the private contractors: the U. S. Government, the President, the State Department or the company that hires them?
At this point, would it even be possible to disband them and return to traditional support?
Maybe I should just forget it and trust that our government knows best?
Bob answered:
Well, trusting the government is challenging.
In my day, the services did mess duty, laundry and other tasks only tangential to the fighting. I personally, believe contracting is positive in that soldiers can concentrate on soldiering and not KP and can focus on their jobs.
My point is that if these tasks were to be performed by military personnel in theater, it follows that additional military personnel would be required. Having civilians perform the tasks allows for the stated number of forces in theater to be less than if "traditional" methods were employed. It is much more politically palatable to declare the lowest number of people in harm's way possible.
One shudders to think what number of military personnel might be required if contract service jobs were performed by the military. I believe it would require a draft.
As for our contract fighters, there is no question in my mind that they owe allegiance to the firm that hires them and then places them.
I don't worry about the ultimate client for protection, it's the giant firms that hire the contract warriors that give one pause.
The issue of chain of command is interesting. Instead of company and field grade officers being responsible for, let's say mess, the contractor is responsible to the general service, their relationship delineated by contract documents. A company commander is responsible for feeding his troops but he (she) is most likely restrained by a contract forged on a golf course rather than a battlefield.
The Guard has always been required to be prepared to take a combat role. Historically it has never happened on such a scale for such a time. Ironically, the result is the best trained reserve force anywhere in the world. This level of service is not, I can assure you, what Guard members signed up for.
I wrote back:
Do you ever think it odd how a conservative Republican like you and a liberal elitist Democrat like me so often end up on the same page?
My friend replied:
80% of us are somewhere in the middle with only 10% at the extreme left or right. The challenge is that 10% of 300 million people is a sizable number of "true believers" trying to move an agenda.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Bill of Rights: III, IV, V and VI
The Amendments that protect individual rights (I and II were previously posted) are often particularly vulnerable to subversion and even assaults by public opinion. Guarding them is essential to maintaining a free society. It also requires constant vigilance.
III is a direct response to British actions prior to and during the Revolutionary War.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I do not see how The Patriot Act conforms with Amendment IV.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Under a system in which the accused are offered advantageous plea bargains in exchange for evidence against others, justice is frequently sacrificed to expediency and high conviction rates for ambitious prosecutors.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the legal system is over worked, under-staffed and under-funded and those charged are pressured into making plea bargains rather than confronting the powerful represented by underpaid public defenders, how real is the guarantee of a speedy, public trial by jury? Even those who can afford private counsel often face impoverishment paying for their defense in trials that can last for weeks or even months. Prolonged trials also place a heavy burden on the citizens serving on the juries.
Amendment VI
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 wherein 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 defense.
III is a direct response to British actions prior to and during the Revolutionary War.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I do not see how The Patriot Act conforms with Amendment IV.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Under a system in which the accused are offered advantageous plea bargains in exchange for evidence against others, justice is frequently sacrificed to expediency and high conviction rates for ambitious prosecutors.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the legal system is over worked, under-staffed and under-funded and those charged are pressured into making plea bargains rather than confronting the powerful represented by underpaid public defenders, how real is the guarantee of a speedy, public trial by jury? Even those who can afford private counsel often face impoverishment paying for their defense in trials that can last for weeks or even months. Prolonged trials also place a heavy burden on the citizens serving on the juries.
Amendment VI
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 wherein 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 defense.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Burka Habit
Last night I entered the local convenience store and saw the backs of not one, but two, heavily draped-in-black figures. The visceral response immediately arose - BURKAS!! -- a symbol of female oppression that never fails to revolt me. Whenever I see them, I am torn between wanting to run up to the women and tell them they do NOT have to wear those awful garments here in the U. S. of A. and the urge to rip the offending coverings from their hidden faces. Fortunately for my legal well being, I have yet to do either.
Then one of the figures turned around and I saw a sight familiar from my Roman Catholic parochial school girlhood - a not-so-young nun clad in the traditional "habit."
Stunned, I turned to pay for my ice cream and leave, muttering to myself, "I thought the Church no longer required that ridiculous attire. They probably CHOSE to wear the black costumes that terrorized my youth. I never noticed before how much those things look like burkas, especially from the back. I bet they are every bit as uncomfortable."
I thought about the nun who told us it would be a terrible sin if one of us had a "vocation" and failed to become a nun. And of how my 11-year old self walked home from school repeating the mantra "Please, God, don't let me have a vocation," over and over again.
Hmmm, no wonder my reaction to the burka is so strong.
Interesting after note: after I published this post, four ads for Islamic clothing appeared on my blog entry page. Now THAT was a misfire!
Then one of the figures turned around and I saw a sight familiar from my Roman Catholic parochial school girlhood - a not-so-young nun clad in the traditional "habit."
Stunned, I turned to pay for my ice cream and leave, muttering to myself, "I thought the Church no longer required that ridiculous attire. They probably CHOSE to wear the black costumes that terrorized my youth. I never noticed before how much those things look like burkas, especially from the back. I bet they are every bit as uncomfortable."
I thought about the nun who told us it would be a terrible sin if one of us had a "vocation" and failed to become a nun. And of how my 11-year old self walked home from school repeating the mantra "Please, God, don't let me have a vocation," over and over again.
Hmmm, no wonder my reaction to the burka is so strong.
Interesting after note: after I published this post, four ads for Islamic clothing appeared on my blog entry page. Now THAT was a misfire!
Monday, August 16, 2010
On Speach, Religion, Assembly and Bearing Arms
Below are the first and second amendments to the U. S. Constitution. The language does not APPEAR to be ambiguous, does it? In fact the writing is far more straightforward than we are accustomed to reading in legal documents.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Food for thought.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
