It seems that billboards are becoming fashionable again.  We’ve seen billboards attacking Bush and Obama, celebrating the dedication and sacrifice by our troops, and promoting various social issues over the past few years.  So when a billboard in Charlotte, NC promoting a secular organization, it was within the trend of recent political messages as of late.  Unfortunately, someone felt that the message on the billboard wasn’t complete.

The billboard in question reads “One Nation Indivisible” which is a reference to the Pledge of Allegiance prior to 1954.  After that, two words were added to the Pledge that created a controversy that continues today.  Those two words are “under God.”  Someone felt it was their responsibility to climb up the billboard and, using black spray paint, insert these two words into the phrase.  And while they might be correct, they are wrong.

I don’t care who you are or what your positions are on the issues, but vandalizing private property is wrong.  There could be a picture of Bush made up like the Devil or Obama looking like Hitler, both of which are distasteful and offensive.  However, you are no more in the right for going of there with a can of paint to deface the images than the person who paid to display the ad on the billboard.

It is my hope that the person responsible for this act steps forward and apologizes for their actions and offers to make amends.  I doubt that the secular organization behind the ad would want cash for damages, as their message has now made national news.  In addition, they have become “the victim,” making it seem that their First Amendment rights were being infringed upon because their message runs contrary to the generally accepted position.  May this serve as a lesson to everyone out there who feel that defacing personal property is OK.  Just put yourself in their shoes and see how you like it.

The Supreme Court issued their ruling today on the Chicago handgun ban case.  In the case McDonald v. Chicago, the Court ruled 5-4 against the Chicago law that banned private ownership of handguns within the city.  The decision, written by Justice Alito, stated “that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” If you recall, the Washington, DC handgun ban was the focus of the Supreme Court challenge District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court ruled on behalf of Heller.

The Second Amendment has always been a touchy issue for people around the country and on the political spectrum. It wasn’t too surprising that the Court ruled in a split decision, with the liberals voting against McDonald and the conservatives voting on his behalf. In my opinion, there is only one possible ruling in this case, and that is ruling in favor of McDonald. It has long been understood that the founding fathers believed the only for the general public to keep the government in check is by granting them the right to bear arms. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. This doesn’t mean laws cannot be passed regulating how weapons can be purchased or controlled, and the ruling by the Court doesn’t address those laws.

With that said, here is a sample of the reactions by the general public as listed on the article “Supreme Court strikes down Chicago handgun ban” on CNN.com:

Responses in favor of the Court ruling

The Supreme Court wisely threw away King Richard Daley’s ill-conceived gun control laws that have been hobbling Chicago residents from defending themselves for decades.

No doubt he will soon conjur up another potically motivated piece of gun control legislation that will also get tossed out by SCOTUS in a few years.

One wonders how much safer the citizens of Chi-town would be had Ritchie used the millions that he spent on lawyers defending this onerous piece of unconstitutionality to hire additional law enforcement officers instead.

All gun control does, is help the criminals, be the only people with guns. They obtain theirs illegally,.and then commit their crimes against those who then have no way to defend themselves.

You can thank our corrupt judicial system, for protecting the rights of criminals, over the rights of citizens.

Congress shall make NO LAW……seams pretty clear to me! And for now , it is still WE THE PEOPLE not us the government.

Comments opposed to the Court ruling

More Supreme Court hypocrisy. We can always count on them to cave to the NRA, about whom Kagan is right; the NRA most definitely are bad guys. How else does one explain their lies, hypocrisy and racist imagery on their own website?! Check out gunbanobama.com.

Has anybody kept track of how many gun deaths occur in the U.S. during one year. I started Jan. 1, 2010 and now have 3 pages, typed single space, and I’m sure there are more I missed that didn’t make Headline news. Does the Constitution really mean we all should have guns to shoot each other, or the militia which is the National Guard in modern days? That’s the question the Supreme Court should be looking at.

So, basically, the SCOTUS has ruled that even mentally instable individuals have the right to have a gun and use it.
Run for cover!

Let me start off with saying that being an elected official, especially on the Federal level, means that both you and your family have lost much of your personal privacy.  You can’t go out on the street without being stopped by paparazzi, the news, or protesters trying to get you to say or do something on camera to meet their desired objective.  It is unfair, and it keeps many well-meaning (and I would say better-skilled) individuals from running for public office.

With that said, I would like to introduce you to Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina.  He was walking down a sidewalk in Washington one day when he was approached by two young individuals who greeted him by his elected title.  When he asked the individuals who they were, and didn’t get an immediate response, he placed his hand on the camera to get it out of his face.  Watch the video below.

Etheridge made a big mistake by becoming physically involved with the individuals.  Even though they were within close proximity to his personal space, they hadn’t made contact with the Congressman.  By being the person to make first contact, and then again grabbing a hold of the individual, not only does he appear to be hostile, but he might also be in trouble with the law. 

But I have a question.  Did the Congressman really have the right to know?  In the bit of research I have done online, I have not come across anywhere that states a person not associated with the press has to identify themselves when approaching an elected official.  While it was silly for these individuals not to identify themselves as students working on a project earlier in the confrontation, they weren’t required.  Neither was the Congressman required to stop and engage in a verbal (and then physical) confrontation with the individuals.  He could have easily said “no thanks” and kept on walking.

In the future, I would recommend that the Congressman (as well as any other elected official) to simply smile and walk away if they think they are being set-up by someone with a camera.  There is no since in creating a story when you are trying to avoid one.  Additionally, I would recommend to student journalists that you either identify yourselves verbally or with a small name tag on your shirt/jacket.  It just might save you a few hundred dollars in potentially broken audio/video equipment if your subject turns physical towards you.

UPDATE:  Congressman Etheridge has released the following statement:

I have seen the video posted on several blogs.  I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved.  Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect.  No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response.  I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.

Can someone out there help me? I think my approach towards politics and policy is all wrong. For some reason, I find it important to research an issue before I talk about it. If you want to reflect back to my post on the Health Care Reform discussion I had back in March, I said:

Now I do admit there are times where I will comment on a piece of legislation before fully reading the text, something that even our elected officials are guilty of. My excuse, if you want to call it that, is that I do have a full-time job which leaves me with very little time to dive into bills that are sometimes over 2,000 pages. However, I will research a topic before posting about it to make sure that my arguments are founded on fact … especially when the topic is very emotional.

So, when I wrote my article about the Arizona Immigration Law when it was passed, I spent a few minutes to read the bill before questioning if it would survive a legal challenge. I even provided a link to bill SB1070 so you could read it for yourself. Well, it seems that the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary are not reading the U.S. Common Sense blog, let alone the recently passed Arizona bill.

During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Eric Holder was asked by Representative Ted Poe:

And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

To which Holder replied:

I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

Haven’t had a chance? Seriously? I had a chance to read it, and it has nothing to do with my job. But he is in good company, since Janet Napolitano has not read it yet either. During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Senator John McCain asked:

Have you had a chance to review the new law that was passed by the state of Arizona?

To which Napolitano replied:

I have not reviewed it in detail, I certainly know of it, senator. … I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law.

She hasn’t read the law, but knows it is a bad law?

Come on folks. As citizens of this great nation, you need to be aware of the laws that are passed that impact this country. In addition, you should demand that your politicians know and understand the material they are debating and voting on, especially since they are your representatives to our nation. There is no excuse that these two individuals, who knew that they would have to (or already have) comment on the bill, to spend the few quick minutes to read it. And if they didn’t think that they would be asked questions about it, then I seriously have to question their competence in their assigned positions. We deserve better.