President George (28%) Bush showed today that he really doesn't care about our troops. Though he and the other Republican leadership have used the talking point "This is not an open ended commitment." yet they refuse any sort of timetable for withdrawal. Bush today vetoed the supplemental spending bill that Congress passed that would have provided $124 Billion in additional funding, but only with a timetable.

Bradley Bowen of NTL wrote a pretty good column on this and I don't have much to add, but I will make a few notes here:

1. The House of Representatives ALONE is responsible for appropriations bills. Nothing in the constitution REQUIRES the house to pass supplemental appropriations.
2. Bush can just sit on it for all I care. The Department of Defense has the funding necessary to pay the troops paychecks and bring them home.
3. If Bush leaves the troops in Iraq and allows the appropriations to run out, then it is a reprehensible act contrary to the will of the majority of the American people.

As a friend reminded me today, this war is not ours to win or lose. It's worse than Vietnam, in that we don't even know who we're fighting for in Iraq. At least in Vietnam, we were fighting for the South Vietnamese. For whom are we fighting in Iraq? The Sunnis? The Shiites? The Kurds? No - we're just out there trying to keep the peace - a peace broken by our very presense. Sending more troops was like trying to extinguish a grease fire with gasoline.

Pray that God will give President Bush the wisdom to realize that he has lost the confidence of the American people, and that he is unfit to command.

George W. Bush must resign. Congress must maintain its will and the will of the American people. We must not compromise more American blood.

When can I vote?

Early voting is from April 30th - May 8th. Polls may NOT be open in your area on Sunday, May 6th, so it is suggested to vote as soon as you can make up your mind about what candidates you support.

Early voting occurs generally in fewer locations, and you can generally vote at these locations regardless of your voter precinct. On election day, you must vote at your precinct. Click the sample voter registration card above to see an example card which shows your precinct number. Your locality will publish the polling locations. I'll try to post some locations for the Denton County races, but there are so many cities. For definite information on your city or school district, visit your local city's website.

What do I need in order to vote?

You must be registered to vote at least 30 days prior to the date on which you vote. When voting, you must present EITHER your voter ID card OR a valid government photo ID. It's a good idea to bring both, since some election judges don't know the law.

What are we voting on?

• City Council and Mayor Seats - depending on the city
• City ballot initiatives (some cities)
• School Board Trustees (Most ISDs)
• Amendment to the Texas Constitution (#4,623,296,110)* just kidding!

What is this Constitutional Amendment about?

Here is the official text of the language as you'll see it on the ballot:

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a reduction of the limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for public school purposes on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to reflect any reduction in the rate of those taxes for the 2006 and 2007 tax years."

Basically, the last legislative session, our state legislature played some shell games and moved some revenue around by reducing ad-valorem (property) taxes for everyone (including large industrial and commercial properties) and increasing taxes for small businesses.

I believe my taxes on my $130,000 house went down by about $10 - $20. I don't have the bill with me but it was orders of magnitude lower than the $2,000 "average" savings that Gov. Perry et-al promised. When you cap rates, appraisal districts will simply inflate the appraisals.

The proposed constitutional amendment would offer the same savings to elderly and disabled homeowners, whose rates were already capped, as an issue of fairness.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this bill. On the one hand, voting YES would further legitimize the stupidity of our tax system, and show that we believe what our legislators told us, regardless of what our tax bills turned out. On the other hand, voting NO, in my opinion, would essentially be like saying "screw the elderly and disabled! Make em pay more of their fair share".

In my opinion, this is another attempt by the legislature to simply avoid making a tough and honest decision, and put this on the voters in a lose-lose situation. Nobody will save serious money on this, but schools will see a decline in revenue, or the disabled and elderly will be denied "equal protection under the law" because they don't get a cut that other property owners got, even though they pay less already.

My recommendation: Vote No or simply skip this part of the ballot as a matter of principal to send a message to our legislators that we don't buy their BS. If this hurts your conscience, buy yourself about 20 scratch-off lottery tickets and give them to your nearest elderly or disabled neighbor. You'll have covered their extra taxes, and given them some hope of coming out ahead in all of this.

Can I vote straight-ticket Democrat / Republican?

No. All of these races are non-partisan. Though the candidates may be Republicans or Democrats, they are expected to refrain from promoting their partisanship. This is actually a good thing because the issues that affect a city strongly depend on the specific city. Republicans, who tend to be more hands-off when it comes to government, often believe more firmly in local control, and thus will often agree on things on a local level that they wouldn't dream of imposing at the state or federal level. Most participants in city government agree on the basics: Fire and police protection, sanitation, water, streets, and the fundamentals of city services. The rest of the issues are also agreeable, but there is difference on priorities. This would relate to human services, parks and recreation, zoning, code enforcement, and various quality-of-life issues.

What we really need to do is evaluate each candidate on the merits of their positions and priorities. If you agree with the priorities, and your candidate can show a history of leadership or dedication to your city, then you may have found your candidate.

Is WhosPlayin endorsing candidates this year?

No. This year, we're not endorsing specific candidates - just commenting on which ones seem qualified. Because of the dearth of coverage in local mainstrem media, we have offered interview opportunities to several select candidates - specifically in Lewisville. Lewisville has 5 candidates vying for one spot on the City Council, three of which I consider qualified and sincere. Perhaps during the runoffs, we'll take sides if a candidate seems particularly awful.

Why should I vote?

Your elected officials are responsible to you to listen to your wishes and follow your collective vision for your city. When 2 or 3% of citizens turn out, you send a strong message to your elected officials that "nobody cares" what they do. When you turn out in force, you show that you are paying attention, and intend to hold them accountable. Right now, our U.S. Troops are engaged in Iraq where they have protected the new rights of citizens there to vote. At a time when our nation is "spreading democracy" we need to be setting a good example. Voting is one of the ways that you preserve your own freedoms. Use it or lose it.

Over the past week and a half, as the city council race for place 3 heats up, the candidates began to place their signs all over the city for name recognition. Leroy Vaughn was the first to get his signs put out, followed within a few days by Ron Aljoe, and then Lathan Watts. Patrick Booth indicated that he would only be doing a few banner signs.

In Lewisville, if I remember the ordinances, state law, and the US Constitution correctly, political signs are a form of protected free speech allowed to be placed in the parkways along city streets. The parkway of course, is that city-owned area generally between the sidewalk and the street. When the sign is placed on private property, it’s required to get the owner’s permission to place it. Signs are not allowed in medians, or on city property such as parks, libraries, and city hall. State law does not allow any signs to be placed along the right-of-way for state highways. No signs are allowed in the right-of-way for the I-35 corridor. In the city of Lewisville, this would preclude signs on FM 3040 (Round Grove Rd.), SH 121, FM 407, FM 1171 (Main Street) and I-35. Homeowners Associations (HOA’s) may not restrict residents’ placements of political signs, though this law is fairly new and may not be known by all HOA officers.

The grey area that I’m not so sure about is whether a candidate is allowed to place a sign in the parkway adjacent to private property when it would make it appear that the owner of that property endorses a particular candidate. For instance, a Lathan Watts sign appeared in front of the property that houses my office. I’ve not yet heard whether the owner gave permission, but if not, I would say that he has no right to place this sign. Likewise for residences – it implies endorsement. As far as thoroughfares where there are gated communities behind walls or fences, and it’s not clear that a specific patch of ground corresponds to a house, I would tend to think that’s OK. Then again, I’m not running, and I’m not working on any campaigns this season. I’m allowed a bit of slack if I’m wrong, and I hope someone will correct me if that is the case.

Former Burnt Orange Report writer, John McClelland is running for Dallas City Council - District 12.

As is customary, the Dallas Morning News editorial board interviews all the candidates and "endorses" the incumbents based on some silly thing they pick out of a 5 minute interview. The response to the DMN Editorial Board is becoming an art form. WhosPlayin has published the response to DMN's recommendation of Michael Burgess for Congress, and Myra Crownover for State Rep. I simply can't break the tradition, so here's the response to the DMN Editorial Board from John McClelland - who like other challengers wasted a trip and some time to talk to a brick wall:

Letter to the Editor of the Dallas Morning News (sent 4/26):

While I respect the Dallas Morning News Editorial Board's decision to endorse my opponent on April 23, I do feel it necessary to challenge the editor's view that I am on the "wrong side" of the issues.

The issue I have with the Trinity River Project is not the project itself. The problem is our current Council's decision to place a multi lane high speed flooding toll road inside of the levee system at a cost of over $1 billion to taxpayers, as I stated in the editorial board interview. My opponent would have us believe that we have free money from the DOT to use for this pork project. But we all know that the money provided from the federal government is the same gas tax money that we all pay into the system. It is not a free handout. And scaring the taxpayers of Dallas into thinking the money is going to disappear if we do not hurry up and spend it is irresponsible journalism and an irresponsible statement from my opponent. And on top of the cost, are we really to believe placing a highway in a flood plain is a wise decision? We all need to be certain we are choosing the most cost effective and most reasonable option for this road.

Over the past several years in Dallas, the "hurry up and spend" method of government has gotten us into trouble. It is time for responsibility on our Council. It is time to put people into office that are fiscally responsible and will do what is right for Dallas. What is right for Dallas is not a natural and fiscal disaster. What is right for Dallas is a project we can all be proud of and we can say we did it the right way, without any regret. I challenge the voters of Place 12 and all of Dallas to remember this issue when they go to the ballot box starting next week and on May 12th.

If you live in North Dallas, do yourself a favor and read up on John McClelland before you go to the polls

This election is from 2007. 2009 Lewisville City Council Elections are HERE

This election resulted in a runoff: For more, see this article.

Voters in the City of Lewisville will be going to the polls on May 12, (Election day Voting Locations)and the major race on the ballot for most will be the Place 3 City Council seat vacated by Mike Nowels.

Although I've said I'm not going to endorse any candidates here, I do have some thoughts on the election. Though I've yet to make up my mind who I will vote for, I know without a doubt who I will NOT vote for, and I'll share that in this posting.

First let me say what I think this election is about: I believe it is about finding the right guy who will bring a level of experience and perspective that compliments and balances that of the other council members so that all residents of our city can be assured that their views are heard and considered. Our city faces a variety of challenges going forward, but they all boil down to maintaining and improving the safety and quality of life for our current citizens with maximum efficiency for every tax dollar collected and spent.

For each and every issue facing the city, our leaders ought to be asking "What does this do to help or hinder the current residents? What is the most effective and efficient thing to do?"

The specific challenging issues, as I see them, and as I can prioritize them are as follows:

1. Preventing and reversing the decay of our neighborhoods.

2. Keeping our streets and neighborhoods safe and crime-free.

3. Carefully balancing our growth rate as the city fills up its land, so that we can maintain our vital infrastructure without incurring costly debt, and causing our school districts to do the same.

4. Transportation as a quality of life issue. As our county fills out to the west of I-35E in fast-growing areas, people will pass through Lewisville on the East-West routes to I-35E. This will continue to clog our thoroughfares and keep a lot of our citizens sitting in their cars for more of their day.

5. Keeping our business climate vital and growing to provide tax revenue and jobs for our citizens.

What is NOT at issue here in Lewisville are partisan grand-standing and divisive attention-getting tactics from politically ambitioned councilmen with their eyes on higher office. We've seen what happens with that sort of nonsense in other cities, such as Farmers Branch or Dallas. Our city council, though entirely Republican, under the wise leadership of Mayor Carey, and before him, Mayor Mitchell, have done a good job of keeping this kind of abuse out of the council so that they can spend their limited time focusing on the real issues.

As a city, it is not in our interest to jump in and take an activist role on partisan issues, such as immigration, the judicial system, foreign policy or anything of that nature. As a city, we must be pragmatic and squarely focused on what directly affects Lewisville citizens. Our council must consist of people with a record of service as proof of their dedication to the city and our residents needs. Our council should consist of people who have lived here long enough to understand the differing needs of our differing neighborhoods. Our council must consist of people who can and will devote the amount of time necessary to understand each issue and attend each meeting. Our council must be diverse enough and open-minded, so as to avoid group-think.

For this reason, though I am not endorsing any candidates, I am going to state my opinion about who is not qualified for this office. Using these criteria, I would disqualify even myself from holding this office, if I were running.

Jim Mundt

First, Jim Mundt. Although he has potential for the future, he has no record of any community involvement, aside from his PTA membership. That may carry some weight in a school board election, if he were an officer, but it doesn't carry any weight with me. Like myself, Mr. Mundt is a former Marine with military leadership experience. I count this as a plus, and is why I think that Mr. Mundt has potential for the future. However, I would like to see Mr. Mundt apply for and get an appointment to a city board and spend some time proving his dedication to the city. Mr. Mundt's platform is basically this:

"The key difference is that I am not a political or business leader in the community. I am an average, working class citizen who hopes to represent all the citizens of Lewisville."

Although I can appreciate being average and working class, neither of these things precludes someone from being a leader in the community.

Further, when I called Mr. Mundt, explaining that I was interviewing the candidates for my website, he politely declined after some initial attempts to ignore. In city politics, this is just silly. Mr. Mundt has probably noticed that our local media is not exactly beating down his door for interviews, and any opportunity to get one's message out should be jumped at. When a Republican running for a non-partisan city office refuses a non-partisan interview because the interviewer leans the other way, it shows one of two things: Contempt for those he disagrees with on completely different issues, or a lack of understanding that city leaders need to reach out to all groups if they intend to have any popular support.

I don't dislike Mr. Mundt. I just do not think he is ready to take on this responsibility yet.

You can see more information on Mr. Mundt here: http://www.vgt2004.org/a-dallas07/candidate-detail.go?id=6883436

Lathan Watts

Secondly, and I've saved the "worst" for last: Lathan Watts. I would absolutely NOT vote for Lathan Watts if he were the only candidate on the ballot. This is based not only on my personal interactions with his campaign, but on his brief but tainted past history with our city and some less-than-ethical political activities on behalf of Governor Rick Perry directed at Carole Strayhorn. Mr. Watts likely views this office lightly. I predict that if elected, he will promptly divide our city by grandstanding about deeply divisive conservative hot-button issues to build his name recognition, after which he will abandon the Council and attempt to run for higher office. Mr. Watts served a partial term on the City of Lewisville Transportation Board, then switched to the Planning and Zoning Commission, where his attendance has been less-than-stellar, and has almost gotten him removed for too many absences. In addition to being the Vice President of the Denton County Young Republicans, this 30 year old serves as a lobbyist of sorts for the group Associated Builders and Contractors. He doesn't seem to have or list any experience OTHER than political, having worked on several campaigns, and being deeply involved with the Denton County GOP.

Like Mr. Mundt, Watts also refused an interview with WhosPlayin - twice - because of our reporting on what we perceive as the poor representation provided by Congressman Michael Burgess. Again, like I explained to Watts, I was prepared to interview him without bias, and let his ideas stand on their own. I had already interviewed Ron Aljoe, (also a Republican) and he could see that I've not said anything negative about him in that interview. To me, this shows again either a lack of tolerance or political ineptitude to realize the opportunity to have your views known. I offered him a forum, and he turned it down.

Mr. Watts has already picked his first hot-button grandstanding issue - one that has cost other cities lots of lawyer fees and ruined lives: Redlining where registered sex offenders can live. At last count, our city had 72 registered offenders who had been released back into society after serving their terms. Given the fact that 1 out of 4 women and 1 out of 6 men will be a victim of a sex crime in their lifetime; and that Lewisville's population is roughly 90,000, this staggering statistic would mean approximately 11250 women or girls and 7500 men or boys in our city have had or will have a sex crime committed against them. Even assuming that the average sex offender committed crimes against 3 people, this would mean that there are roughly 6250 unregistered offenders.

But hey: Registered Sex Offenders are an easy target aren't they? Who cares about their families and their ability to rehabilitate? The empty gesture of making them pick up and move will do nothing but provide a false sense of security while preventing no crimes, and possibly preventing registration by offenders.

Lathan Watts may put on a good show, and even pick up some partisan endorsements, but he lacks maturity and substance in his platform, and he mistakes party loyalty for public service. We need less politics and more service when it comes to city government. For a 30 year old, 3 and a half year resident to come along and expect to buy himself a seat on the city council after a lackluster stint on a couple of boards, and very little career and life experience is naïve. Watts needs to spend more time on the P&Z commission, more time with his two young daughters, and more time listening to points of view rather than talking points.

You can see more information about Mr. Watts here:

http://www.vgt2004.org/a-dallas07/candidate-detail.go?id=6883438

Let me stress that there is no personal animosity here with Mr. Watts. I just feel that there are better candidates who will make better use of the office than Mr. Watts.

My next post will review the other candidates, and at some point soon, I'll post all the information on the City of Lewisville, and LISD School Board Elections.

House Resolution 333 was filed today, laying out articles of impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Ballsy move. There's no question that he deserves censure, removal, or even prison for his malfeasance. I just have to wonder whether this is the best use of time for the House. On the other hand, truth is its own reward. The American people will surely see more than they have been seeing in mainstream media when and if impeachment proceedings take place.

The three articles of impeachment are for:
I. Manipulating intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.
II. Deception about a relation between Al Qaeda and Baghdad.
III. Violating US. and International Law by threatening Iran.

Impeachment requires 2/3rds majority vote in the House. Likewise, conviction on the impeachment rests with the Senate, which must convict by 2/3rds majority.

There is never a safe moment for Texans when the legislature is in session. Our freshman legislator, and Dick Armey's favorite puppet from District 63, Tan Parker (R - Flower Mound) has co-authored HB 626 - a de-facto POLL TAX.

The bill requires that voters must present a certified copy of a birth certificate which costs $23 from the County Clerk. United States citizenship papers ($200) for naturalized citizens, or a valid unexpired passport. ($97 - $107). When registering, you must present one of these expensive documents (that many Americans do not currently have available) in person, or you must mail it in a business reply envelope to your county registrar.

Pardon me in advance for the rant I'm about to go on, but let me start by saying that it's a good day to be Michael Burgess. Because from now on, Nathaniel "Tan" Parker IV is on my shit list. What in the sam hell are you thinking? You're a grown-ass man! Did you go to college? Did you ever read about the Twenty Fourth Amendment to the constitution?

Look, I understand that we want voters to be citizens. Nobody wants voter fraud. But that's not what this is about. This is about voter suppression. These Republican legislators ADMIT there is "no evidence of extensive voter fraud". They would like you to think this is about preventing double-voting, or illegal alien voting. But in voter registrars' offices across the state, this will amount to nothing short of sheer clusterfu**. Lets think about this: Who stands to have the toughest time with these requirements? Regular people - that's who.
How many married women out there have a certified copy of a document that proves their citizenship and shows their current married name? This bill hurts women.
How many senior citizens can locate their birth certificates, or keep a current passport? This bill hurts seniors.
What about working people who can't take the time off from thier jobs to go apply in person for a certified copy of their birth certificate? This bill hurts working people
How many low-income citizens will work almost 4 1/2 hours at minimum wage just to pay the $23? This bill hurts low-income citizens
What about college students and other young Americans who change their residence more often as they move from school to school, and into the workforce - from dorms to apartments to marriage and then into a house? This bill hurts young people.
How many smart people trust their county government enough to MAIL their passport to the voter registrar? It's an invitation for ID theft. This bill hurts SMART people

This bill is an inconvenience for most people. At a time when voter turnout is so low, and regular Americans from somewhere in the center are turned off to the Democratic process, the Republican radicals have taken it upon themselves to ensure that only "their type" of people can vote.

This bill is about suppressing the vote. Specifically, this bill is about worried Republican power clinging to their last hope for staying in power: preventing reasonable people from bouncing them out of office for their ineptitude at governing this state.

Regardless of what the authors of this dumb-ass bill might say, this is simply NOT needed. The government already knows who the citizens are. When you send in your name and date of birth on your voter registration card, the burden is on the state to verify your status. If the county can pull your birth certificate records and SELL you a copy of your birth certificate rather than simply check its own damn records, then this is a TAX.

The Texas House is set to debate this bill again on April 30th. CALL TAN PARKER NOW AND LET HIM KNOW HE'S NOT FOOLING ANYONE.

Hey cats, I'm back. You need to lighten up! A *blonde* friend of mine sent me this:

A man entered the bus with both of his front pockets full of golf balls and sat down next to a beautiful (you guessed it) blonde. The puzzled blonde kept looking at him and his bulging pockets.

Finally, after many such glances from her, he said, "It's golf balls."

Nevertheless, the blonde continued to look at him thoughtfully and finally, not being able to contain her curiosity any longer, asked, "Does it hurt as much as tennis elbow?"

First and foremost, let me say that WhosPlayin sends its deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and to those who witnessed the terrible events.

As I sat on the airplane last night on my way from DFW to LGA, thinking about the horrific act of violence perpetrated at Virginia Tech, I wondered how long it would take before the pundits and activists on either side of the gun debate would take to place the blame for this tragedy on something other than a mentally disturbed young man who took his own life and 32 others.

Unfortunately it didn't take long. I will not dignify either side of this debate by posting any links, but I will say that I've seen enough today that it sickens me doubly. Like any Texan, I have my thoughts about gun ownership, but this is NOT THE TIME.

I made a few notes about some other things I'd like to say, and I will write more later. However, I do want to say now that we must not ever allow ourselves to live in fear, though tragedies like this may happen. We must enjoy life and live in the moment, knowing that life holds no promises, and we may not be around tomorrow. Be grateful for each day that we are granted on this Earth, and be grateful for each day with our friends and loved ones.

Say a prayer for the families, and say "I Love You" to your own.

I got the following email forward from my stepmother, who often forwards these to me, knowing that I'm a Texas Democrat, but I pretty much will listen to all points of view. While I don't usually respond, I thought this one made enough valid points that I should take the time to point out what I agree with.

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines.

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

On the other hand, though you may legally acquire things, the price you pay is rarely reflective of the true cost of these things. If your new car guzzles gas, and your big screen TV sucks electricity like a furnace, you are being wasteful. With rights come responsibilities. Each of us has a personal responsibility and a moral mandate to help people with legitimate lack of human necessities.

I would suspect that the author perceives a disconnect between work and reward for some segment of society, and I think I agree that this is the case for too many people, but definitely not the majority of Americans. To my knowledge, there is no rationale for anyone to believe they deserve a new car or big screen TV at someone else's expense. If so, then somebody's momma didn't raise them right.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

What can I say here, but AMEN! Though some speech may be patently "offensive" and other speech simply interpreted that way, we're all bound to be offended. You can choose to "be offended" which is to say that you're a victim. Or you can choose to respond in the legal manner of your choice: You can simply ignore the speech, which in some cases makes it go away, or you can counter the speech with your own.

This doesn't mean it is right to intentionally offend others. Let the golden rule be your guide. The author of this is probably like most conservatives, who tire of those who call others out for their offensive speech or behavior. Usually it is the case that the offender simply fails to comprehend the perspective of those being offended. There is no crucifixion for stupid speech here in America. There is simply a free market where the people who reject stupid and idiotic speech flex their market power. Advertisers decide not to subsidize speech that offends their customers - a wise business decision, in my view.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

Life is inherently dangerous. Some things are more dangerous than others. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children well about avoiding danger. However, we live in a lot safer world than our parents and grandparents did, thanks to the concept of strict product liability. The concept says that if a company makes a product to do a certain job, they should ensure that a reasonable person using the product to do that job will not be injured due to any inherent flaw in the product or any inherent danger which would not be apparent to the reasonable consumer.

While we all certainly hear of seemingly frivolous lawsuits with huge payouts, these are the exception and not the rule. When you buy a car seat for your infant, you expect that it will provide some level of protection. When a manufacturer cuts corners and makes a shoddy product that causes you or a loved one harm, you do have the right to use our court system to make your case before a jury of your peers.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)

I don't think anyone appreciates subsidizing couch potatoes. But I would not be so Orwellian as to say that we should simply let people go homeless and hungry because they've made a bad life choice. Should there be circumstances? Hell yes. Go live in the ghetto and walk a mile in their shoes, and you'll see the circumstances. But the notion of "welfare queens" dragging us all down is way overstated. It does happen. There are some generational welfare recipients. This is a sick cycle that should definitely be stopped. But the solutions are complex - very complex. Everyone has a different case. But all human life is valuable, and nobody is beyond redemption. As heirs to an affluent nation, we have a moral responsibility to provide a social safety net for those who become disabled, or for one reason or another can no longer work or find employment.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice,but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

I have to take a stronger exception to this statement. I will agree in principal that "free" healthcare is impossible. I would also say that "Public" healthcare as it's called here, and probably believed by the author to be inherently socialist would also not work.As American citizens, we already pay for health care. We pay way too much for it, and still do not get enough of it. There is a better way that will cost less money and cover everyone: It's called single-payer universal healthcare, it works like insurance, but without the greed. The government and the market negotiate fair prices, and citizens choose their plans. Your doctor will be free to join the plan or not, just as they do now with insurance plans.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If youkidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if therest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

The electric chair, as horrific as it is, would not be enough to punish some of these offenders. I want them spending their days busting rocks, and their evenings being rehabilitated, and thinking about what they've done. Our current system of locking them up with other criminals and letting them join gangs and learn more criminal techniques doesn't work. At $35,000 per year to incarcerate these folks, we need to focus on setting most of them on the straight and narrow path to becoming a law-abiding tax-paying, contributing member of society. Certain exceptions apply.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

Nobody has the right to steal - it goes without saying. Not street thugs, not gangs or mobs, but also not the corporate robber barons that have ripped off thousands of people with impunity because they can buy off politicians. Again, my comments above, about busting rocks and getting some rehabilitation apply here.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

Another AMEN to that. Everyone must find a trade and do their best at it. Not everyone will be able to get higher education. We will always need people to do menial and dirty jobs, but they should be able to do it with dignity and pride, and bring home enough wage to put food on the table.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

I really can't say I'm sure where this one is coming from. Who exactly is asking anyone to guarantee them happiness? (Besides my kids, who think my wife and I are their entertainment committee) I'd like to know what idiotic laws are being referred to here. Nobody wants idiotic laws interfering with our right to pursue happiness. Laws should protect fundamental rights, and encourage people to do the right thing. Some folks think drug laws interfere with their rights to pursue happiness chemically. I think these folks need to find something better to do with their time, and that these laws interfere with my wallet by unnecessarily burning my tax dollars to incarcerate pot heads.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

This gets into xenophobic territory here. If hearing foreign tongues offends you, you have the right to tune it out. Yes, it's damn frustrating that there are people here that you can't communicate with. Yes, they should try to learn English. Many of them do try really hard. We have a tough language to learn. If it means that much to you, by all means volunteer to teach English to immigrants. Telling them to go back is valid if they're not here legally. However, we have many citizens whose first language is not English. Parents need to speak English in the household so that their children will learn the language. However, this shouldn't be a government mandated thing. What we need here is some reasonable accommodation for both sides. Certain government documents are going to have to be printed in other languages when the demographics of an area warrant it. It does have a cost, but I don't think it's the cost that many people object to. I think a certain amount of racism plays into it.

(Lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

History could not be changed, and should not be changed. Unfortunately, the history books are usually written by the winners. Sometimes the whole story doesn't come out until centuries later with some perspective and study of the literature. It will always be interpreted differently based on the current evidence and past literature.

The author writes as if God Himself is under attack by someone. Though I do not believe our founders shared the same beliefs in God as each other, much less those of us living today; I don't have any problem with "IN GOD WE TRUST" or "ONE NATION UNDER GOD".

I do think it's important that politics and religion be kept separate lest either be cheapened. Using religion to intimidate or offend others by government sponsorship of Christian symbolism is the kind of prideful act that Jesus would have condemned.

As to heritage, I applaud anyone who takes the time to research, preserve, and teach their heritage to their children and others. But we must realize that there are multiple heritages here in America, and our melting pot has blended them into a uniquely American heritage. Heritage will always be a moving target because society changes. We don't live the way our great grandparents did because our economy doesn't work that way. New things get introduced, and we do our best to pay homage to the old ways.

As a Native Texan, I am especially attuned to heritage, and I intend to teach my children about the sacrifices of the great men that formed our Republic, and won it from Mexico. Their independent spirit and willingness to say "come and take it" is the kind of courage I want my children to learn. But I also want to add to that heritage by leaving them with a world just a little bit better than the one I inherited.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothingtragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not, who will?

Sensible people should speak out. But sensible people should also take the time to listen to one another. In this polarized political climate, we all need to listen to each others' perspectives and understand where the opinions are coming from. More importantly, we must look inward and examine our own thoughts, asking ourselves whether they are motivated by fear, or by love.

Love your country, and fear nobody. Reach out and share your vision for a better America, and listen to others as well. Add your own thoughts to the dialogue by posting a comment here.