When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Saturday, August 20, 2005
BBC News quoted a woman at a Crawford, Texas coffee shop:
She's a grieving mother with a right to protest, and I think President Bush should talk to her 
So, what's this about "a right" to protest? Wasn't there a time when anyone in the country could speak about any issue they wished to?
Then, during the Vietnam war, somehow only particpants in the conflict had "a right" to protest it, assuming they comported themselves with honor. Back in the '70s it was ok for John Kerry to protest the war; but while running for president in 2004, he was accused of cowardice - presusmably to take away his "right" to protest or criticize the incumbent president.
But what about my right to protest? I'm neither a veteran nor a grieving (or even worried) mother, father child or sibling of a veteran. Does that mean I have no stake in our country's future? Does that mean I have no voice??
Not according to the Constitution and all case law and common law I know of. Only acccording to conservatives who support the president's warrior policy and will brook no opposition am I to be voiceless.
Those people scare me. They will stop at nothing- this is shown by their willingness to break the law at home (see for example the extensive evidence that the 2004 Ohio election was stolen by the Republicans, like the 2000 Florida [and this ] one before it), to use torture abroad to gain their evil ends.
I claim the right as an American citizen to speak out whenever I care to. I urge those who think they support freedom, who think the "boys" are fighting for it, to practice it a little.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
BBC NEWS | Texas protest is a pressure point
BBC News quoted a woman at a Crawford, Texas coffee shop:
She's a grieving mother with a right to protest, and I think President Bush should talk to her 
So, what's this about "a right" to protest? Wasn't there a time when anyone in the country could speak about any issue they wished to?
Then, during the Vietnam war, somehow only particpants in the conflict had "a right" to protest it, assuming they comported themselves with honor. Back in the '70s it was ok for John Kerry to protest the war; but while running for president in 2004, he was accused of cowardice - presusmably to take away his "right" to protest or criticize the incumbent president.
But what about my right to protest? I'm neither a veteran nor a grieving (or even worried) mother, father child or sibling of a veteran. Does that mean I have no stake in our country's future? Does that mean I have no voice??
Not according to the Constitution and all case law and common law I know of. Only acccording to conservatives who support the president's warrior policy and will brook no opposition am I to be voiceless.
Those people scare me. They will stop at nothing- this is shown by their willingness to break the law at home (see for example the extensive evidence that the 2004 Ohio election was stolen by the Republicans, like the 2000 Florida [and this ] one before it), to use torture abroad to gain their evil ends.
I claim the right as an American citizen to speak out whenever I care to. I urge those who think they support freedom, who think the "boys" are fighting for it, to practice it a little.
Palema
5:40 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|