Three law abiding citizens where removed from Bush meeting

This is one of the most blatent disregards for first amendment rights I have ever seen. Three law abiding citizens who where INVITED to attend on of Bush's townhouse meetings on Social Security were forced to leave by a staffer because of a bumber sticker on their car protesting the Iraqi war. And this isn't an isolated incident. It is regular practice for Bush's staff to not only screen those who will be on the stage at the meeting to make sure that they agree with him, but to scan the crowds and get rid of anyone who may actually disagree with Bush. I know that he is afraid of being forced to actually use his brain but come on.

According to the rights given to us by The Constitution they had every right to be their. They were not breaking any laws and they were not being disruptive, they simply disagreed with Bush. I thought that this was what made our country so great, that we could actually disagree with out current leaders and still be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else. Also I thought we were supposed to be able to question our leaders, of course if that was allowed Bush would actually have to come up real solutions instead of hyped up crap that will help his cronies more than it will the people of this country.

American Patriot
"The man who would give up freedom for security deserves niether."
-Ben Franklin

Terri Schiavo life support bills

Alright, I know that this subject is way over blogged but I would like to take a little different look at the issue. In recents weeks State and Federal lawmakers have started to put together bills which would take a persons decision to either go on life support of not in the hands of the court instead of in the hands of a husband or parent depending on whether the person who is in need of the support was married or not.

This is outragoues. A spouse or parent who is already greiving because they are about to loose a loved one but they know that that person would not want to be kept alive either by life support or when they have no chance of recovory should not be forced to go to court to defend their actions. This is a classic case of politician trying to play parent with the citizens of this country.

The decision to put someone on life support is one that can only be made by someone who knows the person and knows their wishes. It is not the purpose of the court to enforce their beliefs onto others. It does not matter whether or not we think that that person may have a chance 20 years from now if we keep them on life support, if the person that they loved enough to marry, enough to share their life, and trust their life, with believes that they would rather not live in that fashion, that they would rather be allowed to pass peacfully, then that is what should be done.

What do you think, I would love to hear what everyone thinks on this one.

American Patriot
"A man who gives up freedom for security deserves neither" -Ben Franklin

Welcome

Welcome to American Patriot Legion. Please look around and respond to any post you like, also feel free to start a post about any issues you feel are important. Please keep all post profesional and legal. Any post which is found to be (a) demeaning to others, offensive in nature (racist, constent swearing, ect.), or which promotes illegal activities will be deleted and the person who post it will recieve on warning after which they will be banned from posting. Basically remeber we are all adults so lets act like it not like a bunch of little kids.

I would love to hear from people of all points of veiw. This is an open forum and I hope that we can debate issues in a civil manner. The main point of this blog is to discuss those issue that affect the freedoms of all of us, Republicans, Democrats and everything in between so I would love to hear from all of you.

ENJOY!

American Patriot