Everywhere I go; the classroom, on campus, even on the bus, I hear people misquoting things about the protesters. While I have tried to correct some of them, others become argumentative, and obviously have little to no understanding of what this movement is about. For the sake of time, I have decided to include some of the answers to the questions I have heard people asking or corrections to the misquoting people are doing, as an attempt to denigrate the Occupy movement.

1. Occupy Protesters Need to Get a Job or Go to School!

This one is kind of ridiculous. A lot of protesters are college students, already. Many also have jobs. Most of the people I have spoken to, who have been organizing Occupy Dayton are actually going from their jobs to the Occupy site. They work in shifts so that those who have work or other obligations, can attend to their obligations. Both Ashtyn and I have been protesting. Ashtyn has a job. I have a small on-campus job working for Student Government and I am a full time student. Yes, there are many people who are unemployed who are protesting, but unemployment levels have skyrocketed, so to assume that the unemployed will not be protesting would be naive. These people WANT jobs. Many of them actually have college degrees. Some are even considering leaving the U.S. if they cannot find a job soon, as there may be more work opportunities abroad.

2. The Occupy Protesters want to punish hardworking, rich Americans.

The whole 99% movement is geared more towards the wealthy corporations and not the people. I, personally, do not feel it is prudent to punish a hardworking American, especially one who has pulled themselves up from the bootstraps to make themselves a decent living. The corporations and politicians who are all quite wealthy are what the majority of people in the Occupy movement are protesting. We believe that it is not fair to force small business owners to pay excessive taxes while the upper 1% of corporations often do not pay a CENT in taxes. They get write-offs and many have special interest deals with Washington.

General Electric has not paid any taxes. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America. All of the banks we bailed out with our taxpayer dollars have turned their faltering businesses around. They are making millions, if not billions. Instead of paying back the money they were given, or at least paying taxes on their current income, these corporations are able to get tax exemptions and have used their money to give their upper management bonuses, buy exorbitantly priced gifts like corporate jets, and have spent their second chance dollars irresponsibly.

I should also mention that many individuals who make a lot of money say they would gladly pay extra taxes to help other Americans. However, this is not happening, nor are they the group of people we are targeting with our protests. It seems unfair to have middle class Americans paying over 20% of their income and the businesses that can afford to pay a lot more money than any other business are paying 0% of their income. This is part of why people are protesting.

3. The protesters are a bunch of whiny, trust-fund kids with no motivation. They live in their parents’ basements and have no idea what being self-sufficient means.

I wish I was a trust fund kid, because I would have plenty of money to have all of the things I want and need. If I had a trust fund, I’d also have a lot more money to help others out. While I have met a few people who still live with their parents, as students or because they lost their jobs and are trying to get back on their feet, the majority of protesters have their own homes, put themselves through school, are currently in school (on their own), are working a job or jobs, or have been laid off and are trying to find a job. Of those still living with family, most of them have lived on their own and have earned their own way, at some point.

Yes, some people have money and jobs that are supporting this movement, but that is because they see what the rich are doing to eliminate the middle class. These people want something to change for others. They know how lucky they are to have health insurance, food, shelter, and to live with no fear of having their house, car or other property repossessed. They stand in solidarity with the 99%.

4. The Occupy Movement is disorganized and has no real goals.

This is inaccurate. Yes, when things first started happening there was a bit of disorganization. Any new organizational effort has its bumps it must overcome. However, at least in my own area, I have watched this go from a group of people meeting up with similar goals into a full-fledged movement with united goals and solid ideas on how to implement these protests. There are specific things the Occupy Dayton movement hopes to accomplish. These include enacting legislation that will punish those involved in white collar crime, closing tax loopholes, and preventing politicians from mutually profiting by being held in the pockets of corporations.

5. The Occupy movement is anti-Semitic, anti-Republican, and anti-Capitalism.

We’ve all seen the video of the Wall Street protester who was saying anti-Semitic things, in spite of claiming to be a Jew himself. I have to tell you that every movement has its fringe group members, who show up to cause trouble or whose goals do not fit with the majority of those assembled. We see this at Tea Party rallies a lot. How many times have we heard Tea Partiers swear they are not like the racist guy at their rallies or the anti-veterans, anti-disability rights assholes who make their entire group look like a bunch of douche-bags? The media searches for these kinds of idiots to interview because it makes for far more interesting journalism. However, the vast majority of protesters are about equality, peace, and unity. Racism, Antisemitism, etc. all go against the entire purpose of this movement.

The anti-Republican claims are unsubstantiated. Many of us blame ALL of the politicians. This is not a rally in support of Obama or any other politician. Occupy transcends political parties to bring together Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Republicans, Tea Partiers, Democrats, Socialists, Anarchists, Independents. You name it, the political group is represented. This also means that not everyone is anti-Capitalism. The capitalist-esque system is not being utilized properly and therefore it is not working. Many Occupying WANT to fix the system. Yes, some people hate capitalism, but most of us understand it is not going anywhere.

Occupy ___________ is about standing up as Americans and letting our voices be heard. If that is un-American I do not know what being American means and I would be disappointed to be a part of such a country.

Technorati Tags: Occupy, Protesters, Wall Street, Misconceptions, List, Protest, Rally, Dayton, Ohio, America, Americans, Liberty, Occupy Movement

The dark haired girl looked around my age, which is 30. She was farther along in her pregnancy, maybe six or seven months. The blonde looked about 5-6 years younger and was four to five months pregnant with a smaller baby bump, but one nonetheless. Her purse had pictures of her other kids littered across them in T-Ball style pictures featured on buttons. I watched in amazement as she struggled to pop the top on her big Starbucks can of caffeine-filled goodness, wondering if she knew pregnant women should not be drinking such drinks. This turned to disgust as she walked around to an empty lane, while her checker rang up her goods, and threw her gum into an empty basket, rather than a trash can, since she could not bother to look past one lane and find one.

The brunette was quieter, and seemed almost friendly. Their cart was littered with junk. There were two kinds of twinkies (strawberry and chocolate), at least 30 cans of imitation pasta, particularly Chef Boyardee products and four bags of chips (not baked or all natural either), to start. Everything in their cart was processed, fully fattening and barely constituted a meal. There were no fruits, no vegetables, no juice, no meats (not lunch meat nor any other kind), no actual pasta noodles with spaghetti sauce. Everything seemed to be microwave friendly or ready to eat out of the box.

Then the blonde pulled out her Ohio Food Stamps card. She spent over $300 in Food Stamps on crap I wouldn’t feed my dog, let alone my kids. She spent $30 in non-food items, like toilet paper and a cute outfit, and for that she paid in cash. However, as she was rolling away, the checker noticed the six 24 packs hidden under her cart. To her credit, she did have a pack of water in there, as well, the healthiest thing in there. Of course, she was planning to steal her water, though she blamed the checker by telling her she thought she rang it up. We continued to stay there and wait for her as she made the brunette look through the receipt as though she really thought the pop was paid for, but none of us were stupid nor oblivious to her game.

Six containers of Mt. Dew and Dr. Pepper were rung up and then she pulled out her Food Stamps card, swiped it and was off on her merry way with her brunette friend (or sister – who knows who she was). The even funnier part (ironic perhaps) is that mid-checkout, a clueless dad let his two or three year old scream bloody murder throughout the store. As everyone turned to watch the wailing child, dad tried to muffle the kid by shoving his hand over his mouth. When that didn’t work he gave the kid what he wanted and that shut him up. Mid-scream, Blondie turns to Ash and tells her, “Well that deserves a beatin’!”

For real. We do not believe in beating our kids, but then we also believe in feeding them healthy food. We also do not believe in taking Food Stamps when we have the ability to buy our own food and get jobs to ensure the child can eat. If our kid was starving and we lost our jobs, or some other tragedy arose, we would use Food Stamps as necessary, but it was clear the blonde, at least, was a career welfare/Food Stamps recipient.

This disgusts me. It makes me see why so many say the system needs to end. Unfortunately, it is the Welfare and Food Stamps abusers who ruin it for those who truly need assistance. Really, the system does not need this kind of representation, because all the people who complain about services to help those really in need use these kinds of people as the examples for why assistance should not exist. Without assistance some people could not survive, but others just use it as an excuse to not work.

There need to be strict regulations for what can be bought with food stamps. There should be regulations for how welfare can be spent. Buying Fido a T-Bone while hardworking Americans making their own cash can seldom afford a good T-Bone is just ludicrous, but it happens. Buying necessities is one thing, but using money for drugs or things Americans cannot afford when they aren’t on welfare is an abuse of the system, and a tragedy.

Technorati Tags: abuse, welfare, tragedy, Americans, public assistance, the system, food stamps, government assistance

This means, for me, unlike most supposed liberals, I support the death penalty. There are some crimes so harsh…so vile, that a person reneges their right to breathe air on this planet. That is true justice for the victims of crime…the justice liberalism promises us all. I would go even further, with thoughts aiming toward the fair and just Hammurabi, as I believe some crimes by criminals unable to be rehabilitated (let’s face it, child molesters can’t be) are so bad that the “eye for an eye” mentality is the only true justice allocated. Unfortunately, we live in a time where the prisoner has more rights than their victims. We live in a time where a criminal can pray to God, Allah, Jehovah or whatever imaginary figure in the sky they claim to believe in and believe they are absolved of their crimes without having to take a single shred of responsibility for their actions.

That brings me to the raging debate on gun control. I have never owned a gun. I do not have anything against guns. I play plenty of video games that are first and third person shooters, but I have never had the desire or need to own a real gun. I do not hunt and have never lived in a neighborhood where I felt I’d be more safe if I were packing heat. I have plenty of friends who do hunt, though, and I have nothing against the practice, unless it involves the illegal hunting of endangered animals.

Someone recently asked me what I’d do if I were confronted at 3 AM by an intruder. I’d lay in bed, because I do not have the ability to get up, and chances are, I could not even aim a gun, since I sleep on my left side, usually towards the wall. I do have my phone and I’d call for assistance, but if a burglar is going to break in, I would avoid the confrontation and let the person take what they wanted and leave, just so I would not have to put myself or my family into any kind of dangerous situation. If I ended up getting shot and died, then I guess it was my time to go.

My mother-in-law was confronted by a gunman once. She was working in a convenience store. He put a gun up to her head, and her instinct was to turn away and let him take what he wanted. He did, he left, and she called the proper authorities. She believed that if it was her time then he would have shot her. Since then, she has never felt the desire to own a gun. She sees no point in it. It just perpetuates the kind of violence that she had to endure at the hand of that gunman. Yes, it was a terrifying experience, but her theory is that targeting violence with more violence is not the way, and for her, that gun signifies violence.

As unnecessary as I feel guns are, I am not saying those who like to shoot for sport need to have their guns taken away. It’s not my hobby, and I really do not get it, but that does not mean that I disagree with people doing it. However, there are supposed to be laws in place that protect us, as Americans, from nutbags who have every intent of using a gun as a weapon against humans. The argument is that a crazy person will get a gun illegally, but in these shootings, we are not seeing guns purchased illegally. We are seeing them purchased legally.

Jared Lee Loughner was kicked out of the military for excessive drug use. He was also clearly insane. He had no trouble getting a gun, despite the fact that, by law, he was not eligible to have one. First, the military never reported the fact he had been discharged nor why. That is a big problem. Second, the sporting good store where he bought the gun ignored his obvious, outward signs of psychosis. It is even worse that one Walmart recognized his insanity, when he tried to purchase ammo, and they would not sell it to him. Unfortunately, another Walmart sold him the ammo, just a few moments later, ignoring his obvious mental issues. In fact, he had magazines with over 30 rounds.

The man who shot up soldiers at Fort Hood, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, walked into a Gun Galore store and purchased a legal gun. The Joint Terrorism Task Force had been investigating Hasan due to his relationship with a radical man who was said to have ties to al Qaeda. The FBI background check done before the gun was released to Hasan showed nothing alarming, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force was also not alerted of the purchase, prior to the actual shooting.

In 2008, Steven Kazmierczak shot up the campus at Northern Illinois University. He killed six people and injured twenty-one. He had purchased four different guns legally, and passed the only check run on him by the store, a criminal background check. While in High School, Kazmierczak was treated at the Elk Grove Village Thresholds-Mary Hill House psychiatric center for mental illness. His parents were in denial about their son’s mental status, calling him unruly, rather than sick. He too was discharged from the military, because he had lied about his mental illness on his application. He ended the rampage by killing himself.

The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, received more than one mental health diagnosis while in high school. He was in therapy, but chose to discontinue treatment. Virginia Tech’s review board found several alarming, warning signs that the massacre could be coming, but those were ignored. In 2005, just two years prior to the massacre, he was declared mentally ill, legally, and required to seek treatment. Despite this fact, Cho was able to purchase two guns, a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun, legally. Cho killed 32 people and injured numerous others, in the bloodiest, school massacre in U.S. history. He then killed himself.

I could go on and on listing all of the shooting rampages in history. What all of these shooters have in common is that they all have significant mental health and/or drug abuse histories that SHOULD have prevented the sale of a weapon to them. These guns were not purchased illegally, and maybe they would have found a way to get the guns illegally, but they didn’t. They were able to walk into a gun store or order a gun online with little problem in receiving the weapon. The problem is that these men never should have had the chance to receive guns so easily, so legally, and perhaps if it would have been harder for them to do so, there would be many people alive, many families unaffected, and less chance of these shooters shooting up innocent people for no obvious reason.

As much as these shooters are responsible, the states are also at fault for not updating these records. Further, background and other checks are not required for the purchase of guns at a gun show. That is common knowledge. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they do not have to worry about their background. They can just go to a show and get a gun. There are problems with this. This is not an issue of striking down the Second Amendment. No one wants to do that. This is an issue of enforcing what gun laws are in place, giving states incentives to update their databases, and making sure current gun laws are strict enough to prevent the sale of legal weapons to those who cannot handle the responsibility of owning such a weapon.

These men should be held accountable for their crimes. Some took that away from the victims and their families by killing themselves. Others, like Loughner, deserve sentences so tough they never would punish them in such a way here in the U.S. At the same time, we need to hold agencies accountable. The military, the FBI, mental health facilities have failed the victims of these crimes by not making sure these mentally ill, deranged individuals were listed as not fit to own a gun. By law, not a SINGLE one of them should have had access to a gun, yet they did and we, as a nation, have had to suffer from the wrath they inflicted on our fellow man.

The laws need to tighten up to prevent legal sales of firearms to the mentally ill and deranged. Yeah, maybe these shooters could have purchases guns illegally, but how do we know this? We don’t because none of them had to do so. We do not know how easy it would have been for them to get a gun had they been denied legal purchase. They got their guns legally, and this is the first problem we need to address. This problem falls on our shoulders, as a society. It is our job to keep the other citizens in this nation (and ourselves) safe, and to do that we must find a way to prevent the sale of guns to the mentally ill, for our own protection, if nothing else.

Also, I’ve heard they could use any other weapons like knives, utensils or even crayons. I have never heard of anyone being crayoned to death. Maybe if you poked someone in the eye enough they might get brain damage, but that seems awfully tedious and unlikely. It would also take quite a long time to have the same impact as a shooting massacre. You can wear rosy-colored glasses when it comes to these attacks, but that does not discount the fact guns were chosen for a reason. They are easier to use from distances, allowing a shooter to remove himself from contact with others, and keep the shooting going for longer. Bullets are effective weapons…much moreso than a box of Crayolas. The rounds Loughner used were specifically designed for killing and he accomplished his task…mostly. He killed six. Of course, he missed his obvious target, Senator Giffords, who is recovering slowly, but surely. Still, his intent was to kill and he did.

Look. I see it like this. If you are a sane, non-criminal, American who wants to own a gun, then you have absolutely nothing to fear. Yes, stricter gun laws may mean it takes a little longer to get your firearm, but what’s a few days when you know the reasoning behind it is to make sure the crazies don’t get a weapon, too? If you are a supposedly sane, rational person then why do you need a gun right away anyway? We wait for deliveries from Amazon longer than it takes some people to get a gun. Isn’t that a bit problematic to you? It is to me. Chances are, if you need a gun right that second, you have a nefarious intent when using said weapon. The Big Boys and Girls who want it for hunting or protection can wait because it is the right thing to do.

If shooters like Loughner and Cho were getting guns illegally, then my issue would be with finding ways to prevent criminals from attaining guns illegally. This is not the case. The problem is that these men are getting their weapons legally (which is illegal for the mere fact they are not allowed to have them based on Federal Law), and therefore this is the issue that needs to be addressed. Stop making the issue about you and your rights, which aren’t even being discussed as being compromised, and start thinking about the victims who lost their lives to these monsters and their families who must live their lives every day knowing what these shooters have done…all because they bought the weapons they used to kill their victims LEGALLY.

Technorati Tags: gun laws, gun control, Jared Lee Loughner, shooting, massacre, Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho, Steven Kazmierczak, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, legal gun sales, mentally ill

Regardless, I learned that not all Muslims are radical thanks to actually knowing a Muslim. The woman I went to school with actually seemed rather liberal. I mean, she was a theatre student, so that may have had something to do with it. She never brought up her religion or her beliefs unless I asked her about them. Really, we usually just talked about classes, what we were up to…you know, normal things. She was about as down to Earth as it gets, and I relished a chance to talk with her.

Every religion has its crazies, so blaming an entire religion of people for the actions of radical Islamics is not only wrong, it’s stupid. Did we learn nothing from Adolf Hitler? He was the last person to successfully persecute a group based on religion. Hitler’s plans to eradicate Jews from the face of the Earth started out in what seemed harmless to the German people. First, he raised anti-Semitic feelings by saying things like “the Jews killed Jesus” and playing on the fact that the hardworking Jews had money while many non-Jews were poor. This is exactly what many Conservative pundits are doing today. I regularly see people posting anti-Muslim sentiments on Facebook, comments on blogs and news stories and all over the web. All Muslims are terrorists is one such false claim. These political leaders use the same misinformation and tactics Hitler used on the Nazis, to persuade Americans to hate Islam and Muslims.

Then Hitler gave the Jews curfews and took away their right to free enterprise. Anti-Jewish sentiments spread to the destruction of Jewish businesses (i.e. bricks through windows). We have not given Muslims curfews, but look how many Muslim-run businesses have been attacked? Mosques have been bombed, bricks have been thrown thrown through the windows of mosques, Muslim-businesses and homes of Muslims. Now, we are trying to prevent Muslims from opening businesses where we don’t want them to be. If that is not a restriction on free enterprise, I do not know what is. I wonder how long it will take for leaders to call for the rounding up of Muslims and Muslim sympathizers, if they are allowed to continue to spew such hate-filled rhetoric.

All of this led to research, and a realization that many of these leaders sound like Hitler. Some of these quotes are about Islam. Others, were rather surprising, as they covered all non-Christian religions. Can you guess which of these quotes are by Adolf Hitler and what are by Conservative Christian leaders of today?

THE QUOTES

1. “The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers – the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel.”

2. “”My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

3. ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’

4. “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

5. “Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.”

6. “… the world has no reason for fighting in our defense, and as a matter of principle God does not make cowardly nations free…”

7. “I think Mohammed was a terrorist. He – I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and – and – non-Muslims, that he was a – a violent man, a man of war. And I do believe that – Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.”

8. “The task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission.”

9. “Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”

10. “If you don’t want a Christian nation, then go to one of the many nations that are heathen already, rather than perverting ours.”

11. “This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God’s help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth can stop us.”

12. “Peoples which bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence…”

13. “This is God’s world, not Satan’s. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians.”

14. “With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people.”

15. “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’

16. ” Jews are the real Nazis. They started all the wars of the world.”

17. “We are on God’s side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It’s a war between God and the devil.”

18. “Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … (few) years.”

19. “We ought to tell every other Moslem (sic) living in this nation that if you say one word, you’re gone.”

20. “Who says I am not under the special protection of God? ”

These quotes are all very disturbing. They are harmful and hurtful to the message of peace that Christianity’s greatest figure, Jesus Christ, was attempting to spread. They go against the very nature of liberty, justice, and freedom for all.

Are you ready for the answers?

Some are a little obvious, but others were surprising.

Here is a list of the people who have said the above quotes.

THE ANSWERS

1. David Chilton
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Adolf Hitler
4. Ann Coulter
5. Pat Robertson
6. Adolf Hitler
7. Jerry Falwell
8. Adolf Hitler
9. Adolf Hitler
10. Jeff Fugate
11. D. James Kennedy
12. Adolf Hitler
13. Gary North
14. Adolf Hitler
15. Ann Coulter
16. Bill O’Reilly
17. Benny Hinn
18. Adolf Hitler
19. Jimmy Swaggert
20. Adolf Hitler

I have to wonder how and why hate drives these people? Did we learn nothing from World War II and the Holocaust? I only hope Americans wake up before another genocide occurs.

Technorati Tags: quotes, Adolf Hitler, Conservative Christians, Christian leaders, Politicians, Conservatives, Religion, Christianity, Jews, Islam, Muslims, Religion, Hate

After reading about Maria and her six year old, Bella, I felt enraged. I am furious that a public school has been able to get away with this for almost an entire school year. I am incensed that young Bella was “punished” for exercising her Constitutional right while whoever was getting the kids ready for lunch was breaking the law. Yes, anything Unconstitutional is illegal and the worst part is the perpetrator of this particular crime was doing such to innocent, impressionable children. Punishing a child not involved in the law breaking hardly seems fair, but this entire debacle is one big mess candy coated with religion.

You can check out the full story on Maria’s blog at http://www.icanonlybe.me. However, in short, the event that occurred at Eastern Wayne Elementary in the Wayne County School District (North Carolina), involved daily recitation of a prayer before the kids were to go to lunch. These children were led in a prayer familiar to most of us raised Christian, “God is Great, God is Good…” What some may dismiss as just a harmless incident holds tragic implications for those who do not practice Christianity or even those that do, who prefer to be the ones to introduce their young children to the God they believe in.

This is a public school. Prayer is not allowed in a taxpayer and government funded institution such as this. Maria, a taxpayer and an atheist, pays for these teachers to be in this school. She does not pay for her child to go to a school to learn about a God that her daughter knows nothing about nor one she (Maria) does not believe in. If a teacher were leading a prayer based on Islam, Judaism or any other religion, you can bet Christian parents would be throwing a fit (with the school scrambling to fix this), and yet, Maria is still waiting for answers to why such law breaking practices are allowed to occur in a school she helps to fund.

Every child has a right to pray if and when they want to, but it should not be required or led by a teacher or other authority figure at any public learning institution. Every child has a right NOT TO pray. I am sick of self-righteous people of any religion trying to stuff it down the throats of everyone around them. I am sick of them believing non-believers must be coerced to convert from their own beliefs. The forefathers believed religion was a private thing between man and whatever God (or lack thereof) he believed in. Thrusting religion into the public sector defies everything the forefathers stood for and disavows all of the freedoms they offered to American citizens.

This apparently, does not apply in North Carolina. If you don’t subscribe to the religious practices of the public school, you get punished. After Maria raised the issue, Bella was put out in the hall, so all the other little kids could be led in prayer. Bella was punished for upholding her constitutional rights; rights she is too young to understand she has. Instead, she just knows she is the one put out in the hall, while those in her classroom continues to break the law.

Technorati Tags: Religion in schools, Religious, Atheist, Eastern Wayne Elementary, Wayne County Schools, Children, God, Religion, Prayer, Prayer in School, Constitution, Illegal, Break Law

We’ve seen this before throughout history with rulings like Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education and enactments of bills into laws like the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These rulings and laws were passed because minority Americans, on a state level, were prohibited from equal access to things like marriage and education. It seems like the states cannot or do not wish to protect minority Americans and, therefore, do not allow such laws to go into effect. Therefore, the Federal Government has to intervene.

Now, the states are passing laws that are discriminatory to Americans. These Americans fall into minority groups. The two most obvious bills I am speaking about were passed into laws in Arizona. The first law allows police officers, who have reasonable suspicion to suspect someone is an illegal immigrant, to detain any Latino or Hispanic person in Arizona and ask for multiple, valid forms of ID to prove citizenship. The second is the law banning the teaching of Ethnic Studies. Both of these laws are not only flat out discriminatory, but they are worded poorly.

For the first law, what does reasonable suspicion mean? A truck driver in Arizona was detained at a weigh-in station. The guy was born in California. He presented his driver’s license and other forms of identification, but was held by officials until his wife left her place of employment to go home and get his birth certificate. Only after they had his birth certificate stating he was born in California did they release him. This guy was singled out because of the color of his skin. Apparently, reasonable suspicion could mean you look Mexican therefore you are suspected of being an illegal immigrant. I’m having flash backs to my knowledge of apartheid. Those who weren’t white always had to carry identification. What a major step back for the state of Arizona, and, in turn, America.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be handled. Our country is made up of immigrants. I am related to immigrants. I am, proudly, third generation Polish-American on my dad’s side. That means my dad’s grandparents were immigrants who came to this country. I am not against immigration because that’s rather hypocritical of me due to my European American heritage (I have not a lick of Native American in me), but I believe people need to become citizens and not enter illegally. However, questioning EVERY person who has tan skin is ridiculous. Many who will be questioned will be legal immigrants or worse yet, American citizens, BORN in America. Why should American citizens be questioned in such a way? What if they happen to see multiple police officers in one day? Should those officers be allowed to question the person again? What a repetitive waste of time this is going to be.

The Ethnic Studies Law raises further questions. What qualifies as Ethnic Studies? If you want to get technical, no studies about Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America should be allowed. The one true American Ethnicity is Native American. So, U.S. history should be changed to Native American History and only allow white folk to enter the picture when the Pilgrims came. Further, any studies that discuss what are seen as Caucasian values should be banned. Arizona has a huge population of Latinos and Native Americans. A concern I have is whether these primarily WHITE lawmakers decide that Native Americans are not like white people and therefore, their history should be banned. They have more right to U.S. history than those of us Europeans do. For now, the bill seems to target Latino ethnic studies programs, but to quote the Conservatives, “it’s a slippery slope.”

I also have a big problem with the state saying how our kids are educated. That’s a major reason we homeschool! Nobody has a right to tell parents what programs they can or cannot put their children in and this is just one more way the government has upped its control over the people. I thought “Republicans” (and I use that term loosely) were against bigger government/more government involvement? I guess they only like it when it benefits them!

The third thing I am concerned about is a bill in South Carolina. The bill calls for a State Day of Prayer because, according to a state Rep, South Carolina is all about prayer. I am not even going to begin to list how UNCONSTITUTIONAL this bill is, but I will say this:

1. There are atheists in every state. Atheists are not religious and therefore, this bill tramples on their first amendment rights. You do not have to agree with atheists to agree that declaring the state as being about prayer, or in the words of Rep. Limehouse himself, “We want to make sure everyone is very sure and comfortable the state of South Carolina is about prayer. We need it in schools, the Legislature and our everyday lives,” violates the rights of those who do not pray.

2. The United States was formed with the intent to separate church and state. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that this was the meaning of their writing of the first amendment. We are a nation founded on religious freedom or freedom from religion. The pilgrims came to escape religious persecution and there were so many denominations of religion by the time the Constitution was written that it became clear that the first amendment needed to be written to allow for freedom of religion. The point is, the government declared no religion was right AND it was not up to said government to get involved in religious matters for THIS VERY REASON!

3. What about those who are religious, but do not pray? What if they find their spirituality through other ways such as meditation? Isn’t it limiting to say that the state is a state of prayer when not everyone in the state prays?

I just hope this bill does not pass.

I hold true Jeffersonian Republican ideals, where government is not involved in the lives of Americans unless a specific group of Americans are being singled out or unless all people are not being given equal rights. That is what the Constitution’s signers wanted when they signed it, protecting Americans in the process.

Now, we are trying to trample these freedoms, protections and our forefathers’ legacies by trying to inject government into more aspects of our lives than any American deserves. What comes next? An Orwellian police state? That kind of control is what I fear from our government.

Technorati Tags: Jefferson, Constitution, Prayer Bill, South Carolina, Immigration Law, Ethnic Studies Law, Arizona, Freedom, Americans, Native Americans

I talk to many parents who have children with disabilities. They are on my Facebook and my Twitter. I hope that through me they realize that their children may have the potential for productive adult lives. As such, I often receive messages, good and bad, about groups, fan pages, and interesting individuals pertaining to the disability community. None have shocked me quite like a post on a mother’s Facebook wall about a group on FB called KEEP DOWN SYNDROME SUFFERERS OUT OF SOCIETY.

The title alone was appalling to me, but I figured it was just a group of ignorant kids fooling around on Facebook. Going to the group was even more insulting. The group description included tips on how those with Down Syndrome should either be locked away or murdered at birth. The group had many people joining to tell the founders and group supporters how sick they were (fruitless, I believe), but there were also many, disgusting posts. Some of them discussed hitting children with Down Syndrome in the face to try to get the “Retard Look” to go away. One was a picture of a mauled, aborted child, with the caption, “This should be all people with Down Syndrome.”

Upon further inspection, I was surprised to learn that not only were teenagers partaking in such vile behavior (parental supervision, anyone?), but 20 and 30-somethings were joining in the hullabaloo, too. Luckily, Facebook has an option that lets members of the site report groups that revolve around hate speech, or disparage a group or individual. Pictures, discussion posts, and wall posts can be reported, too. After making my rounds reporting the group and certain, offensive posts and pictures, I wrote this message on my FB profile:

Mind you, I had been thinking about writing a post like this for a while.

As you can see, I didn’t explain anything about the group or ask anyone else to report the group. I did go on Twitter and urge my friends there to report the group and some of them did. After a friend responded to my FB post, I explained why I was upset, as it pertains to disabilities. This was my reply:

Well, it has been something I’ve been thinking about saying on FB for a while. I think people with disabilities are often looked past, looked over, spoken over, deemed unfit, etc.

What those people doing this don’t realize is ALS could strike them tomorrow, MS could put them in a wheelchair, they could get in an accident at any time. Then, everyone will start doing what they did to others – ignore them, look past them, underestimate them, etc.

Honestly, the final breaking point for me was the creation of a group telling people on FB to exclude people with Down Syndrome from society. The group said to either lock them up or just kill ‘these morons’ at birth. This ignorance, that it even exists, is beyond disappointing. It’s disgusting. I’ve reported the group to FB, and so have many others. Let’s just hope FB doesn’t pull the free speech crap we often hear….

There is freedom of speech and their is hate speech. Hate speech should never be tolerated.

This turned my post about disabilities into a massive debate about free speech, and the right of the group to say what they want. My entire message of, “you reap what you sow,” and “treat others as you wish them to treat you,” was completely lost in this debate. For this blog post, that is neither here nor there. It’s merely something worth noting. What is important, is understanding why I feel there is a difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech.

Yourdictionary.com describes the legal definition of Hate Speech as:

Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

Similarly, Dictionary.com defines Hate Speech as:

–noun
speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

In the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we are guaranteed the right to Free Speech. We are also guaranteed access as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

With these definitions in mind, I feel that the aformentioned group was not created to exercise the right to free speech. If the legal definition of Hate Speech holds true, their speech is not protected by the Bill of Rights because it is not Free Speech. It is disparaging, degrading, and hateful to human beings who deserve the same rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution regardless of ability or lack thereof.

Additionally, their proposed solution for getting rid of the Down Syndrome population is to kill them all so they can no longer pass on their defective genes or go back to something outlawed against racial minorities nearly 60 years ago – separation, isolation, segregation. This goes against human beings’ with Down Syndrome’s right to Life, but also Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is no liberty locked away somewhere and there is no way to pursue any potential happiness these people could have if they were segregated from the mainstream population.

This goes back to the original point of my post. These hateful individuals who created this group can’t get Down Syndrome themselves, but they could have a child with it, one day. They could end up being disabled in some other way and see just how hurtful remarks can be when aimed at them. Karma is a bitch. We as humans often realize this too late in our lives.

In the end, the group was removed, though I don’t think I swayed any opinions in the debate. I leave you with these final thoughts I included on FB.

This is more than just mere ignorance. They are posting pictures of dead, mutilated babies and saying this should be all people with Downs. They are saying they’d like to physically attack (punch) people with Downs. They claim they wish to incite violence against a group of individuals with a specific disability and that goes beyond freedom of speech. You may not get it, but allowing such ignorance to congregate and spread on such a forum leads to misinformation and more ignorance….

People will disabilities are still treated like second class citizens. The disability community is, by far, the most discriminated against minority group. It’s also the biggest minority group and the only one any individual in the world can become a part of at any point in their life. The reason for this is because so many people take such a laissez faire attitude when it comes to defending the inalienable rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) of people with disabilities. The right to life…not death regardless of disability. So, it’s okay to say they want to take away someone’s human right because they deem the person inferior?

You pointed out the exact problem with why Hitler was not stopped early on. The U.S. had an attitude of, “Hey it isn’t us.” So, we chose to do nothing. We only ended up getting involved because of Pearl Harbor. We had to be personally attacked before we would stand up to Hitler, and even then, it wasn’t because we actually wanted to get involved and save the Jews.

It is the strength in numbers idea. If you have one or two people who feel a certain way about an idea, they usually keep their mouths shut. Once they grow, then the ideas spread and then it inevitably leads to actions. When Hitler was beginning, not everyone believed the Jews needed to be exterminated. As the Nazi party grew, it soon became better to be a part of the party than not, and adopt such heinous beliefs….

The idea is to try to stop the violence before it begins, to educate the public about these types of groups, and to inevitably protect the minority from the majority. If we tolerate such hate groups, allowing them to spout their rhetoric, in a public forum that allows people like me to COMPLAIN and REPORT them specifically for attacking a select group of individuals, then essentially we are ignoring a problem that could grow into something much bigger.

Facebook obviously feels that certain groups of people or specific individuals should NOT be attacked in any of their forums because they have a report button option specifically for this purpose whether their terms of service espouses such notions clearly or not. It’s one thing to say you hate someone or something. It is another to talk about how you punch children with Down’s Syndrome in their faces or how you want to kill them.

I didn’t ask you or anyone else to report this group. In fact, I didn’t even include a link to said group. I think my entire point in my original post was lost. The original message I was trying to get at was that any person in this world can become disabled tomorrow. So sticks and stones. If you treat people with disabilities like crap and then you become disabled yourself, don’t be surprised when you are treated like crap, too.

Essentially, the goal is to realize that people with disabilities are no different than any other human in the most essential of ways. It is foolish to overlook someone for a wheelchair or for having a low IQ. This person may possess gifts and talents you’d only know existed had you taken the time to give said person a chance. The sad truth is, most people don’t give those with disabilities chances and miss out on the greatness these people have to offer.

I was merely pointing out that this group possesses such attitudes that seek to limit those with a specific disability. This type of ignorance spreads and is part of why people with disabilities are still treated so poorly in mainstream society. I have been educating groups of people on disabilities and all that those of us with disabilities can accomplish despite the limitations society has tried to thrust upon us since I was ten years old. Perhaps I am a bit passionate in my quest to finding a sense of equality for those of us with disabilities, but you’d be hard pressed to find any advocate who is not passionate about such a cause they believe in.

I will continue to stand up for what I believe in, even if it isn’t considered the right way to do things or too emotive. I believe this group did attack a specific group. So, I took the action FB allowed me to take against said group, by reporting them.

I leave you all with this thought:

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Technorati Tags: Facebook, Hate Speech, Freedom of Speech, First Amedment, Bill of Rights, Facebook Group, Down Syndrome, Disability

That being said. I decided to compile a list of rules to follow, that dictate traditional marriage from earlier times. If you don’t fit on this list and are married…then shame on you! You are not upholding the values of traditional marriage!!!

1. Sex is for procreation, not recreation. If you are using birth control (why the heck would you need it?), already have all the kids you want, or don’t want kids at all and you are having sex, you aren’t upholding the traditional purpose of marriage…SINNER!

2. Are you married to someone outside your own race? If you are then you are breaking the traditional view on marriage. Interracial marriage wasn’t even allowed or condoned until the mid-20th century.

3. Are you a non-white person? Then you can’t be married. Tradition in America (at least) dictates that you have no rights and that includes the right to marry.

4. Did you marry for love? Men only married women for property or status originally. Companionship was, more often than not, sought with another — in many cases with a close male friend. Men understand men better, after all! If you didn’t marry for the dowry then shame on you!

5. Are you a woman who has any equal say in your relationship? Why are you not submitting to the will of the man you marry? In a traditional marriage you were required to love, honor and “obey.”

6. Are you a man with only one wife? Stemming back to Biblical times, men were allowed to take multiple wives and concubines. How many wives did Abraham have again?! It wasn’t until the U.S. passed a law prohibiting polygamous marriages that this no longer was allowed. I don’t know why? This was a tradition that is still upheld in some parts of the world.

7. Are you divorced? Divorce is one of the worst things you can do to ruin a ‘traditional marriage.’ How dare you break that sacred bond that was shared between you and your spouse? If you marry again that is even worse. You can only have one holy, sanctimonious marriage.

8. As a woman you know it is your duty to allow your husband sex (for procreative purposes) whenever he wants. If he wants to rape you then by the views of traditional marriage, he can do so. It’s his right!

9. Tradition states that a father can essentially ‘sell’ his daughter to the highest bidder. Back in the day, the girl could be as young as 13 or 14. So long as she was in her ‘child-bearing’ years it didn’t matter how old she was. So, dads, when are you going to start ‘selling’ your teenage daughters?

10. If you are a woman and you lost your virginity before marrying then you are an undesirable. You will either have to spend your days working as a courtesan/prostitute or you will live and die as an old maid.

So, hows about dishing me up a helping of that there traditional marriage? I can totally see where those harping about it are coming from!

Technorati Tags: traditional marriage, marriage defense, one man one woman, dowry, slavery, interracial marriage, argument for marriage

I might not be explaining myself as clearly as I should, so let me give you an example. I am not exactly getting the point of civil disobedience in this day and age. The same people who are telling me that the world should be civilized enough to keep serial killers and pedophiles in prison (more on this later), as opposed to the death penalty, feel it is okay to go out and cause civil disobedience. I’m not sure I understand what is so civilized about this.

I can see why civil disobedience was big in the 60s. Everyone was out burning bras, chaining themselves to buildings, and causing a ruckus with the police. They were also on a lot of Acid, Weed, and other drugs. There really was no civility in the time of free love, and perhaps our nation has become more conservative and conventional, but I don’t see how civil disobedience, in this day and age, is going to make anyone’s perception of a specific group positive. In fact, because we live in a more conservative nation, I feel the perception is, more often than not, negative.

Going even further, let me explain what got me thinking about this. ADAPT hosted/is hosting a week of events in Washington D.C. to protest Obama’s slowness in getting the Community Choice Act (CCA) through Congress and on his desk. Granted, Obama did promise those of us in the disabled community this bill, and he has been sluggish in getting things going for the CCA, but he has one heck of a mess to clean up in this nation and a lot of other promises to uphold. It is going to take time and ADAPT is demanding answers now.

I’m not saying I’m happy with Obama. I voted for Obama partly because I felt McCain was just more Bush and partly because he was the only one who claimed he supported the political actions I support. Like everyone else, I’m waiting with baited breath to see if he can get things together. Yes, he’s been in office just over 100 days, but that’s a small amount of time to clean up 8 years of terrible economic practices. I think we all need to use some patience and give him time to figure out what to do, how to do it, and how to implement it. If by the end of four years he hasn’t kept his promises then we’ll know what kind of president, what kind of man, he really is.

I digress. This has only a little to do with perceptions. I am just trying to give my thoughts on the ADAPT actions, so you can see where I am coming from. I’ve been told ADAPT has a long history of civil disobedience action. They used it to pass the ADA (perhaps the most archaic Act in the history of Congress) and to help get public transportation for all (I don’t think enough has been done for this — but that’s just from someone who depends on accessible, public transportation that is unreliable). Perhaps in 1990, civil disobedience worked, but that is almost 20 years ago. Perceptions change.

I have National ADAPT on my Twitter. Throughout the last few days, my twitter stream has been filled with updates on the action. People in wheelchairs (close to 500 — in total) chained themselves to the White House fence. They blocked the entrance to the White House so visitors either had to cancel appointments or go to another entrance on the opposite side of the White House. They crawled up the steps of the Capitol. They were getting arrested, proudly, left and right. For what? Media attention.

Yes, this did get more media attention than the Jerry Lewis protest in California a few months back, but the perceptions of average Americans to this civil disobedience is not positive. On the whole, its negative. Just go look at the comments in newspapers carrying the story or on various Twitter streams of those finding amusement in the action. People don’t get why the disabled populace is breaking the law and getting arrested. In the end, the true reason behind it all, passing the Community Choice Act (a bill necessary and essential to keeping those of us in wheelchairs who require care in our homes and out of nursing homes) is lost in the muddle.

Furthermore, we need the support of the majority. With majority support the CCA has a better chance of being passed. The perceptions of the majority matter because they help this essential bill come to fruition. The majority needs to help us email Congress, Obama, and demand the bill pass. If the majority sees us in a negative light, they won’t care if Obama is held accountable for his promise or not, and that, to me is a problem.

People think we’re whiners who just want our way. They believe that we expect too much of Obama. They believe the civil disobedience is pointless. We’re crazy. We’re greedy. We’re selfish for not following proper protocols (the protesters didn’t even file a petition to picket/protest in front of the White House — something they could have done). In fact, the only people who find this amusing or think its great are those who don’t like Obama. Suddenly, Obama hates people with disabilities (according to them). Most of these people are from the Conservative Right.

My thoughts on this are that there are more conventional ways to get the issue in the news. We have a three-section government for a reason. When something doesn’t work out with the Executive Branch, it’s good to appeal to the Legislative Branch. If that doesn’t work we always have the Judicial Branch to fall back upon. How many lawsuits have been filed in the past to bring an issue to the forefront? I wonder why this wasn’t considered before going to the Capitol and crawling up a bunch of steps?

I find it hard to be proud of this action. Yes, I agree something does need to be done, but I don’t agree with the methods employed in order to get action. As far as I know, nothing has been accomplished other than to get the story into the mainstream media, and raise the blood pressures of the majority who don’t agree with 1960s-esque, radical picketing tactics. To me, the entire thing is pointless. Negative attention is worse than no attention, especially when it comes to the support of a bill, such as the CCA.

So, do perceptions matter? Do you think that the disability rights movement should care about what the majority thinks in order to garner their support for the cause? I believe that with the disabled being one of the most discriminated groups in the nation, we do need the majority’s support. Without their understanding of our situation, we won’t get that and civil disobedience is no way to go about changing perceptions, for the better.

Technorati Tags: perceptions, disability, civil disobedience, Community Choice Act, CCA, picket, Congress, Obama, discrimination

Yesterday, I watched the inauguration of President Obama on CNN. I don’t often watch other channels, because a lot of them try to go into the negative aspects of a day such as this. I had friends who turned off their televisions when other stations started talking about everything Bush did wrong. I’d say CNN did a nice job of keeping away from the negativity, for once, and focusing on Obama. This was his day, after all.

Online, some friends of mine in the disability community informed me about what was happening on MSNBC during the inauguration. Chris Matthews, the Hardball guy, was covering the inaugural events, and he made some harsh comments about Dick Cheney. Unfortunately, the way in which he said them were critical of every person in a wheelchair.

You probably already know Dick was in a wheelchair after he strained his back while lifting boxes as he was moving. Friends of mine, like Kara Sheridan have posted their thoughts on this, especially about how he could have rented a better wheelchair, so he could either push himself or motor into the inauguration. I, personally, felt Cheney was ashamed of the wheelchair, and getting something more comfortable, might have been too much for a proud, evilite like him, to handle.

Regardless, the issue was sensitive for him, and the press couldn’t keep from commenting about it. CNN was the most polite. They sort of brushed over the fact he was in a wheelchair, other than to explain why he was in one. That was fine. Tom Brokaw angered a few with his comparison of Cheney to Dr. Strangelove. I’m not so sensitive that this bothered me. In fact, I believe Brokaw said what he meant in a stupid way. I believe he was reflecting on the irony of the fact that, like Dr. Strangelove, another evil man has ended up in a wheelchair. He wasn’t offending the wheelchair user, but rather dissing Cheney. I think he phrased it stupidly, but I don’t think there was malice in what he said.

What I can’t forgive is Mr. Hardball’s comments. Chris Matthews said something downright stupid and inaccurate. By all intents and purposes, he tried to say (not verbatim) that Cheney’s evil ways meant he deserved to be in the wheelchair he was in. It’s a metaphor for the low esteem in which he is held by the world. Sure, I can agree Dick is a DICK. I can’t stand him, but making cracks because he’s in a wheelchair? How does he think the people in wheelchairs, who are there long term, felt?

I bet there were some scratching their heads asking, “If he thinks Dick Cheney deserved to be in a chair for his evil deeds, then what did I do to deserve to be in one?”

I can look past Dr. Strangelove, but not these comments. Both comments were stupid, but Brokaw was dissing Cheney, while Matthews was dissing the wheelchair, and why Cheney was in the wheelchair.

What is wrong with him, seriously? What makes people think they can say such crude things, and get away with it? I’m not sure why he said it, but, if you haven’t viewed the video above, you can check out his comments by visiting:

YouTube

So, what do you think about Chris Matthews’ comments? He offended a whole group of wheelchair users, even those of us not easily offended.

If you agree that Chris Matthews was wrong, I’m asking you to email MSNBC and complain about his remarks.

You can email MSNBC here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

Perhaps we can get Chris Matthews to see how insensitive his comments were, and how other networks like CNN took the high road, choosing to ignore the wheelchair in order to keep things positive for President Obama.

Technorati Tags: Chris Matthews, Hardball, MSNBC, Tom Brokaw, CNN, Inauguration, President Obama, Dick Cheney, wheelchair, discrimination