vol_scouter

Gern,

Rush was hoping that Bush would fail in the bailouts. If Obama steers a course away from socialism, then Rush and many others will applaud him and support his efforts. If he continues down a path set by Bush hurtling into socialism, then Rush and many of us will oppose the course. As the left correctly pointed out in regards to the current war, it is patriotic to dissent in a constructive manner. It is not patriotic to support our troops in a conflict but it is always OK to question whether we should be in the conflict to begin with. Obama will have his way for awhile at least. The left did hope that Bush would fail because they do not agree with many of his policies. Many on the right do not agree with the policies Obama campaigned upon but the country has spoken and we will go down that path. To expect everyone to be happy and supportive is not realistic in a democracy (or more correctly, a republic). If there is no dissent in a constructive manner, then we have lost our freedom.

Perhaps, it would sound better if Rush had said that he hopes that Obama's policies fail to be enacted.

Gern,

Or do as the left has done, scream, yell obscenties, protest, spit on the military, make up lies about the right and stand by them even in the face of evidence until it has been said so much that people believe the lie, destroy the careers of anyone opposed, etc. I think to calmly engage in discussions bringing alternative solutions are better for the country. I don't intend to leave but as long as we have free speech I will speak out against those policies that I see as bad. I hope others on both sides of the aisle will do the same.

The title of the document is dependent upon the individual state. What I described was the description of the process in Hawaii at the time. A birth certificate is a state issued document that is filled out in the hospital by the attending physician and witnessed. It is a legal document generated at the point of birth. Death certificates are the same. Someone not born with an attending physician would not have the same document. They are filled out by the physician who declared the patient dead on a state form. The state of Hawaii should have on file the original paper birth certificate. They would issue for most purposes the computer generated certificate that has been displayed. Many states do this. The original is filed away and an official form is generated. Most people filled out a form for their first driver's license that is kept but they are issued a different form.

Once again, I did not say that I subscribed to these theories. I was trying to elucidate the issues. Obviously, some are as blinded by their adoration as are those of their dislike of the new president.

Merlyn,

That is the point. The First Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from forcing the states to change their state sponsored religions from one denomination to another. Liberals like to point to Madison helping his home state of Virginia to disestablish the state supported Angelican church. He did so because the Baptists and Presbyterians were growing resulting in a desire for them to be treated better. What liberals do not like to acknowledge is that on the same day that Madison introduced the disestablishment bill in the Virginia legislature, he also introduced a bill making it a crime punishable by jail time to work on the Sabbath. Since you are using Madison as your source (most appropriately), please do not use the quote from a single letter from Jefferson, who did not help to write the constituion, about separation of church and state. Also, be sure to include that the government cannot limit the free expression of religion which is almost always left out of these discussions. Also, Madison's ideas of freedom of religion was to allow different Christian denominations. Madison would likely be appaled at the current rulings and twisting of the reasons that this part of the first amendment was written.

Before providing the following explanation, I wish to say that I do not feel that there is necessarily a issue here.

A birth certificate is signed by the delivering physician and a witness (usually a nurse). The time and place (a hospital) is likewise recorded. Hawaii had only been a state for a couple of years when Obama was born. Many children were still born in homes at the time. Those births were not recorded as a true birth certificate. Those children could be issued a Certificate of Live Birth but would not have a true Birth Certificate. Thus, a mother with an infant could apply for a Certificate of Live Birth even though the child could have theoretically been born elsewhere.

The Obama campaign has said that he was born in a hospital so he would have a Birth Certificate. The only thing posted and vouched for by Hawaii is a Certificate of Live Birth. He has defended several lawsuits using 3 expensive law firms when he could have produced a true Birth Certificate that he obtained from the state of Hawaii for very little. His refusal to produce the Birth Certificate has fueled the suspicions as to his ability to satisfy the 'Natural Born' requirement in the constitution that applies only to the president.

The cases have not been decided on the actual merits of the cases but rather that the persons bringing the suits have no standing in the case. The SCOTUS has reviewed several of these cases and has not chosen to hear them without comment.

Thus, the circumstances allows each of us to interpret what the truth is according to our own notions. However you see this issue, it is not good to have this kind of issue following a president. It apparently falls to the parties to be sure that all requirements are met. That is not a good system.

Obama is the president and we must all pray that he makes the best decisions for our country.

Rush points out that socialism has not worked in other countries. He also cites learned economists who have studied the great depression and have concluded that the New Deal served only to prolong the depression. So the conclusion is that massive government spending will in the long run only make the economy worse. Thus, Rush is wanting the country to do well but he believes that Obama's policies will only make things worse not better. Which is more patriotic. To support presidential policies that you believe will make things worse but you support them for the benefit of the president or to try to have legislation passed that supports your opposing view of the optimal solution. If you believe the former, then you would have never criticized President Bush's handling of the war or the wisdom of going into Iraq.

Rush is being just as patriotic as those who are supporting the president. No one knows the best solution and as in the Great Depression, only one solution can be done at a time. Whether a more conservative approach would work was not tried in the Great Depression and is not likely to be tried now. I do not see the wisdom in repeating the same tactics when they did not work before.

Merlyn,

Like all liberals, you only wish to quote part of the first amendment to the constitution which states:

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.

Thus, there should be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We are not to be free from religion. The amendment was to prevent the federal government to force the states to adopt a federally determined religion. Several of the original 13 states had state sanctioned religions. Thus, the intention was not to prevent an individual state from having a sanctioned religion but to prevent the federal government from over riding that individual state's religion. The 14th amendment has been interpreted as federalizing state laws. That was also not the original intent. Both amendments have been twisted by judges to suit the views of that judge which was not the intention of the courts by the founding fathers. The country would be better served if the congress represented the views of the citizens and judges ruled on the original intent. If those laws need to be changed, it is the congress that should change the laws not the judiciary.

Beavah,

Two comments. First, I tend to agree that most conservatives do not agree with unfettered executive power. It is clearly wrong to fire someone whose job is to investigate crime in the executive branch. Similarly, if congress passes a law with which the President does not agree, then the President should not appoint persons who will not carry out the will of the congress because theoretically that is the will of the people. At the same time, the President should be able to demand some degree of loyalty and release those who do not support presidential policy. The extremes are easy to see but much is in a gray area.

My second comment is regarding interpreting the constitution. I believe that most conservatives wish there to be a 'strict' ruling is so that the process can work with input from the people. If the SCOTUS is strict in interpretation of the constitution, then unpopular laws will be addressed by the congress. Politicians like to avoid controversy so they prefer to let the courts take the blame for controversial decisions. If an activist judge interprets the constitution as a 'living' document, then the rule of law becomes arbitrary. The supreme court judges are appointed by the president after being confirmed by the senate. Thus, the people have limited input. The congress should make the constitution and the law a living document, not the courts. I believe that most conservatives see that as the issue.

For example, the Second Amendment was written so that the people could mount an armed rebellion against a government that they deem oppressive. The SCOTUS ruled correctly in the recent case although it was a disappointing 5 to 4 instead of the appropriate 9 to 0. If those that oppose the Second Amendment are upset, they should feel that the appropriate action is to change the constitution with a new amendment that can be presented to the voters through ratification (mostly through their respective legislatures). That is more democratic than trying more court cases to try to legislate from the bench because the congress will not fulfill its' rightful role.

As a conservative, I have been horrified by many of Bush's policies and I fear that the new administration will gladly use powers that have measurably decreased our freedoms.

manoj87,

The implication from your post is that you have bad news after mammography. Hopefully, that is not the case. If the mammogram is suspicious, the biopsy may reveal a non-malignant process. Also, the treatments are improving both in life expectancy and side effects from the chemo-therapy. Try to have a positive outlook. Your mom's fate does not have to be your fate.

I would encourage everyone to be screened for breast, prostate, and colon cancers as is appropriate to you. All can be cured early in the disease.

Merlyn,

SSSCout is right. If the land is leased, the group leasing it have the access. Your last post does not address that. The correct analogy would be for the bus to be leased by a private group and for someone to be offended by that without ever asking to ride the bus. If the bus is leased for a private event, then the public has no right to access at that time.

This is a clear case of discrimination - those who do not like the BSA membership criteria are discriminating based only upon that issue including the judiciary as noted by some of their opinion. To compare this case to bus service for blacks in some sections of the country in the past is incorrect. The purpose of the analogy is to try in the public's mind to equate a legitimate relationship with a true wrong.

The BSA is being singled out because of its' values. By the arguments that I read in the court documents, then any group leasing any land for any purpose who offended someone would be illegal. Clearly, this is not what the court has in mind. Rather the court wishes to single out the ones that are not PC.

Merlyn,

There is something in your post where we might agree though for slightly different reasons. I did not understand when I read the original articles on this subject why the city ever gave any organization control over part of a public park. Perhaps, when it was first done the property was considered far away, undesirable, or both. If the city wished to say that a public park should not have exclusive use for large periods of time by any organization, then I would absolutely support the decision (assuming a reasonable and equitable relocation plan in this case since they have been there a long time and made improvements). It may be appropriate to lease some land to private groups by a city but not land set up as a park.

Merlyn,

Then I assume that you and other atheists would never consider booking a public space because it could offend everyone who believes in a deity. As to the other groups discussed above, those who do not have enough money to contribute are left out. The point is being offended should not be sufficient to change public policies because someone is always offended by others actions.

Sitting at the back of the bus is an analogy that makes no sense in this setting.

Merlyn,

I copied and pasted the following:

The Barnes-Wallaces and the Breens have standing to pursue

their claims because uncontroverted evidence shows that

they suffered injury-in-fact traceable to the Scout defendants

conduct, and that a favorable decision is likely to redress their

injuries. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. The Barnes-Wallaces

and the Breens submitted declarations asserting, without contradiction

by the Scout defendants, that they would like to use

Camp Balboa and the Aquatic Center, but that they avoid

doing so because they are offended by the Boy Scouts exclusion,

and publicly expressed disapproval, of lesbians, atheists

and agnostics. The plaintiffs also object to the Boy Scouts

control of access to the facilities, noting that their use of the

land would require go[ing] through the Boy Scouts and

passing by symbols of its presence and dominion.

We have held that comparable restrictions on plaintiffs use

of land constitute redressable injuries for the purposes of Article

III standing. Our Establishment Clause cases have recognized

an injury-in-fact when a religious display causes an

individual such distress that she can no longer enjoy the land

on which the display is situated. In Buono v. Norton, the

plaintiff, a practicing Roman Catholic, was so offended by the

establishment of a cross on public land that he avoided

passing through or visiting the land. 371 F.3d 543, 546-47

(9th Cir. 2004). We concluded that Buonos inability to

unreservedly use public land constituted an injury-in-fact,

reasoning that Buonos avoidance of the land was a personal

injury suffered as a consequence of the alleged constitutional

error. Id. at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

Ellis v. La Mesa, 990 F.2d 1518, 1523 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding

standing where plaintiffs avoided using land on which cross

was displayed).

It says that prior case law allows people to sue based only upon being offended. That is not a good standard. I understand how people can find something or some group offensive but that does not prevent them from using the land they choose not to do so. So can we ask that there be no more parades because someone will be offended no matter what the parade is about? No groups, except families, should be able to use public land because someone will be offended. Being offended is not a reason to disallow the use of public property. There are groups that I disagree with and offend me. If I saw them in a public place, I might choose not to go there. Yet, they have a right to use the land as well as I do. The BSA should not be penalized because some do not agree with its values.

The dissenting judge is correct, that if this ruling stands, anyone offended can seek restitution in court. It is a disgrace. Sensibility and justice are rapidly leaving our political and judicial systems. Would someone walking down a San Francisco street with their young children be able to sue if offended by a homosexual pride parade? I doubt that they would have standing because they would not be on the politically correct side. Political correctness will destroy this country.

Eagle 1982,

The defendant in this case may not have acted properly. The issue that is disconcerting is that the court parsed rescue and emergency medical care into two different things rather saying that both were the intent of the law. The court could have ruled that if the defendant followed appropriate rescue and first aid procedures she would be protected. Most states require that some accepted rescue and first aid guidelines be reasonably followed. That would have protected appropriate rescues but still allowed this suit to go forward with it being decided on whether proper guidelines were reasonably followed. I leave it up to the attorneys to critique my summation.

Emergency Medical care usually refers to a reasonably equipped emergency room where a seriously injured or ill patient can be possibly stabilized prior to definitive treatment. It does not refer to a health lodge even if staffed by a physician (because the equipment and help does not exist to stabilize seriuously ill patients).

In Tennessee, if a physician fails to render care, they can be sued. However, they effectively have no Good Samaritan coverage because a professional can vary from Red Cross First Aid based upon their judgement. Then when EMS arrives, they cannot direct the care provided by the EMS who can only follow the orders of an ER physician who is always in an ER and not present on scene. Most physicians have coverage in the range of 1-5 million dollars. Any judgement in excess of that amount will be paid by the individual. Most physicians cannot afford the liability that an accident scene entails and will avoid it (and avoid identification). It is sad. As to the comment of doing the right thing, is it right to risk the future of your children and spouse? A $25,000,000.00 judgement will leave the physician owing ~$20,000,000.00 which they can never repay. It can leave their family is a serious financial problem. As to the care rendered, in the field physicians will be able to do only slightly more than first aid trained individuals and less than EMS who will have equipment.

The California Supreme Court has interpreted the state's Good Samaritan law in a narrow manner. A description may be found at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/18/state/n134850S58.DTL

Essentially, a woman pulls her friend out of a car that the rescuer believes is going to explode. The victim suffered a C-spine injury resulting in paraplegia (though when the paraplegia occurred is contested). The court ruled that pulling the victim from a car about to explode is a rescue and not covered by the Good Samaritan Law which covers emergency medical care.

While I understand that the language of the law was followed, it is once again an example of reason being ignored. So be careful in rescuing someone because you have no legal protection at least in California. The court did say that one does not have an obligation to help. It seems to me that as humans, we should try to help one another even in a secular humanist society.

My state law recognizes "fighting words" that can incite the use of force toward someone else. I see the youth with whom we work and adults as different issues. As adults, we should have more understanding and restraint. We should realize when it is appropriate to curb our comments because of the level of agitation that someone else is displaying. We also should be better able to read someone's body language to sense when an attack is perhaps imminent and decrease or halt the rhetoric.

Our youth are learning these skills. So if they misjudge or over react, we should devise an appropriate response so that they will learn from their mistakes.

A final thought, I believe that most of us (males more so than females) can be be provoked to fisticuffs through verbal attacks. I believe that the possibility decreases as we get older. That might be because we have gotten wiser but it could be due to our realization that as we get older we are less likely to prevail!

NJCub,

I know of some numbers but I do not have a reference so I will not quote the number. Recruitment is a common practice. As I said before, for all but small age differences, adult child sexual relations cause significant suffering to the minor. Homosexual relations can result in severe problems in later life. We can not ban all adults. However, just as few would OK two adult males taking girls camping, we should not allow two homosexual males from taking boys camping. The protection actually goes both ways. The problem is that it is usually easy to determine the sex of an individual but difficult to determine sexual orientation.

You are right that the BSA says that the reason to ban homosexuals is that they do not fit into the traditional family structure and as such should not be a role model. Recent studies show that homosexuals have less stable relationships than heterosexuals. They are small minority. So it is not an unreasonable stance.

We now treat smokers relatively badly because of the diseases that they suffer. We say that it is unhealthy. Yet, society turns around and says that a male homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle despite significant health issues sustained in that community. The health issues are significant even without AIDS. For the BSA not to hold a male homosexual lifestyle as a good role model. This seems to be a reasonable and prudent standard. This will unfortunately exclude a very small number of homosexual males who wish to work in scouting for all of the right reasons.

Dan,

People in the forties and fifties would have never dreamed that homosexuality would become first tolerated and now in some communities accepted. We make excuses for murderers where they used to hang in the town square. To deny that as a society we have become more tolerant to all sorts of crimes or former crimes is to put one's head in the sand. I am not arguing that acceptance of homosexuality good or bad. I am saying that the homosexuals provide a study on how to go from a crime to acceptance and others groups will try the same thing. NAMBLA is a good example of an organization pushing for changes in the views of society towards homosexual sex with minors and pedophiles.

You said: "Actually, any post-pubertal children who are sexually victimized by adults are victimized by an ephebophile. And, like pedophiles, most of them are heterosexual relationships. Another straw man."

Thanks for helping to make a point. Same sex relationships between a post-pubertal child and an adult are homosexual relationships. I did not say that all adult-youth sex is homosexual, just when the youth is post-pubertal and the adult is of the same sex. The homosexual community tries to redefine terms so that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth is something other than homosexual. That is dishonest.

Certainly, there are far more heterosexual adults than homosexual adults (CDC estimates

NJCub,

My point was that society determines what is legal and illegal. Homosexual relations were at one time considered immoral in the US and illegal in most if not all states. Due to efforts of the homosexual community, they have won acceptance in most states and new rights have been established in a very few states. The momentum makes it likely that this will spread to other states as well. This is due to society willing to accept their behavior and lifestyle.

Pedophilia is actually well defined and it is the name applied to people who desire or have sexual relationships with pre-pubertal children. Most pedophiles have heterosexual relationships with their victims. They are following the route forged by the homosexuals by working within the psychiatric community to convincethem to change the description from deviant as was done in the fifties in the APA after many homosexuals had become members. Like homosexuals before, they wish to change the activities from illegal to legal and to change from some tolerance to acceptance.

It should be pointed out that post-pubertal children who are victimized by same sex relationships with an adult are victimized by a homosexual and not a pedophile. The homosexual community realized that this issue would harm their desire to move from tolerance to acceptance, so they have tried to imply that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth were pedophiles. That is not true. These are homosexual relationships. So they have largely succeeded in changing the view of this crime by society.

The point about genetics was to show that genetic predisposition should not be sufficient to allow certain behavior. So whether homosexuals are genetically predisposed or not is not an argument for accpeting their behavoir.

Society will decide who receives new rights. Whether society makes wise decisions can only be determined retrospectively.

As to scouting, few would say that it is unwise to allow 2 heterosexual adult males to take post-pubertal girl scouts on a camping trip. The same thing logically applies to 2 homosexual males taking post-pubertal boys on a camping trip. I am a believer in protecting our rights. When it comes to the rights of or youth to be protected, adult rights may have to be infringed upon.

NJCub writes:

Yeah, I know. Imagine those uppity gays, demanding rights and stuff. You'd think they were human beings or something.

So by using that argument, one could substitute for gays pedophiles who are working hard for acceptance. If you wish to bring out a genetic argument, then consider multiple chromosome Y syndrome that produces males that are aggressive often committing violent crimes. We should then excuse them because it is genetic. Whether any group of individuals who are a small minority (the CDC estimates that the actual number of long term homosexuals is less than 3%) is given an expanded group of rights or are to be accepted is largely a function of society. Just the fact that they want acceptance or special rights does not make it an injustice. For example, homosexual males in all states have the same marriage rights as every other male - they may marry a female. All are the same. Homosexuals want extra or new rights which is society's right to grant or deny.

If on peruses the BSA Legal issues website and reads the Cradle of Liberty council's lawsuit, the issue seems to be that Philadelphia is not enforcing the law uniformly. Other discriminatory organizations have similar agreements. A government is obligated to uniformly enforce a law. That seems to tbe the crux of the issue. The BSA was singled out because of Dale.

Merlyn,

I did not know about the ability for either party to end the relationship unilaterally with a year's notice. If there are no other requirements to complicate the issue, then Philadelphia can terminate the relationship and has done nothing wrong. Do you happen to have a link to the agreement? I usually do not agree with you on these subjects but it sounds like the Cradle of Liberty Council must accept the decision. Some of us may not like the decision but it is not right to only enforce certain parts of a contract.