The Danger of the Supreme Court Ruling on Guns

June, 2008 the United States Supreme Court rules that Americans have the right to own guns. Did they have to do this and what is the danger of this ruling?

It is sad that the Supreme Court had to rule on this. It’s well stated in the Constitutions second amendment that Americans do have the right to own guns. It is necessary for our own defense.

It is unlikely that we’ll have to fight with guns to protect our homes from foreign invasion. It’s possible, especially with the threat of terrorism the past ten years, but it’s still unlikely that we’d need our weapons to defend our homes against foreign invasion. We have the best military in the world despite the fear mongers on the liberal side saying that our military is drained.

The Constitution was written following the Revolutionary War. The men that wrote the Constitution were very familiar with tyranny. Farmers and shoemakers and tinsmiths and blacksmiths and land surveyors took up arms to fight the most powerful country on earth for their freedom and the freedom of those that followed in the future. The designing of the Constitution was based on their experience with that tyranny.

If we look at the Declaration of Independence, they give us a reason why it’s necessary for the second amendment. “…That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying is Foundation on such Principals, and organizing its Power in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

What this means is that power is lent to the government by the people. When the government takes power from the people and claims it for itself, it is to the detriment of the people and it’s the people’s right and responsibility to claim that power back. Government takes power from the people by removing their freedoms. The right to own guns, bear arms, is one of those freedoms.

By taking away the right to bear arms, the government then has the ability to coerce the people who will find it much more difficult to exercise the rights and responsibilities stated in the Declaration of Independence.

So what is the danger of this ruling by the Supreme Court? The danger is that it shows our rights are dangerously close to being usurped by the government in each of the three branches of government.

Legislators at all levels are trying to regulate our right to bear arms. This case was about a Washington DC law banning citizens from owning guns for the past 33 years. We also know that there are many in the United States Congress that want to take away our right to bear arms. A prime example is Senator Chuck Schumer. In addition, we’ve had those in the executive branch that wanted to take away those Rights. President Clinton was one that wanted gun control laws. Senator Hillary Clinton, had she been nominated and then elected is another that would have been for a gun ban. Senator Barack Hussein Obama is another that has said he prefers gun control. Now he’s changed his position a couple of times, depending on the group he’s speaking to on any given day, so we’d have to assume he would ban guns.

Now we find out that the Judicial Branch is also looking to ban guns. We know this because the vote on the case of gun control was 5-4. We were lucky that one of the justices, who seems to go back and forth on our rights depending on the topic, voted for the Right to bear arms.

We are precariously close to losing our rights. One nomination away from the vote going the other way. If Obama becomes President and the wrong Justice retires or dies in office, that vote will go the other way and our rights are lost to us.

I could argue all day about how when the gun ban was put in place in Washington DC the crimes increased where guns were used. It’s an old line but it’s still true. If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Or the numerous places where gun carry laws have been passed and those crimes went down. However, that’s no longer the issue. The issue now is our government removing more and more of our rights and if they manage to get a gun ban in place, they will have disarmed us. This is a very real danger and it was pointed out very clearly in this ruling by the Supreme Court last week. It was a great victory, but it should also be a wake up call to all Americans. We’re one vote away from losing more rights, which means we’ll have less freedom.

The danger of this ruling should be a wake up call to us all. We are one vote from that tyranny that our forefathers fought against.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

My Letter to Representative Tim Walberg

Honorable Tim Walberg,

I am not a happy constituent. Not necessarily with you, but with the Republican Party. First of all, we have a Presidential candidate that is not a Conservative. My vote, which I hold precious, is being cheapened by having to vote for an inferior candidate that is liberal. Calling him less liberal than either of the Democrat candidates is no consolation.

I see no leadership in the Republican Party. I’d love to blame the news media for not putting out the Republican issues and positions, but I can’t. The Republicans have no message, no issues and no positions. Republicans were turned out in 2006 not due to the Iraq war, but rather because Republicans in Congress spent money like Democrats and President Bush didn’t veto those exorbitant spending bills.

First, we need a leader in the Republican Party. Since nobody holding the positions of leadership in the Republican party is stepping up to ensure some victories, or even one victory, this fall. It means the position is open. Step up and claim the position! If you wait for a handout of the position, you’ll be playing the game. It’s time that the Republicans did what they did in 1994 and put together a plan of action for this summer and fall and then go further than they did in 1994. In 94, they put together the Contract with America. They did exactly as they said they would. Then they became part of the Washington establishment. You don’t need to make friends with the press, nor with the liberals. Pick your issues and stand firm.

I have a few top issues that I believe should be burned into every Republican’s talking points.

1. End the war. Not in the way that the liberals want to end the war. End it with victory. Keep the force there that’s needed to hold the areas taken. Send forces in to the other provinces that are not under Iraqi control, hit them hard and turn it over to the Iraqi’s. Then tell the Iraqi government, quit dragging your feet and settle your problems now. If an end date is to be given, it should be between the Iraqi Prime Minister and the President. It should not be made public anywhere in the world.
2. Make the tax cuts permanent. We, in Michigan, cannot afford another tax increase by allowing the tax cuts to expire. We, in America, have gone through a boisterous economy over the past 7 years. The last six months have been sluggish, but it’s still a positive and will be growing stronger. This excellent economy we’ve been through the past 7 years is due in large part to the tax cuts. Make them permanent and then go to work on revamping the tax code.

3. Immigration reform. Amnesty didn’t work in 1986. If it had, we wouldn’t be dealing with it now. Protect the border. Keep the illegals from sneaking in. As we find the illegal aliens here, send them back. I don’t want to hear that we “can’t round up 20 million illegals”. This is America and we can do anything we set our mind to doing. Get that fence finished. Use the technology to watch the borders as well as the border patrol. We do not need another attack on this country.
4. Inspection of shipments to the United States. We need to start inspecting cargo coming to this country. We inspect fruit crossing state lines, it’s unbelievable t hat we can’t inspect cargo coming into this country. If you cross a state line to buy cigarettes because the taxes are lower in Indiana than they are in Michigan and you’re caught, you will be prosecuted. Yet we can’t inspect cargo? If another attack happens here due to open borders or uninspected cargo, the fault will lay firmly at the feet of the United States government. The President, EACH Senator, and Each Representative.
5. Social Security: It will be operating in the red in 2017 and it will be exhausted by 2041. This is a failed system! The current retirees must be taken care of through the current system. This can still be done. However, those still working would benefit more, and the system would be self sufficient without depending on the government if we were permitted to choose where we invested our money. The law could be written that everyone must pay into the system as it is now. But each person would be permitted to choose where their money should be invested to give them the maximum amount available for their own retirement supplement. If I want to invest my money in mutual funds, that should be my choice. I should be allowed to move the investment if I feel, or my advisor suggests, but the deposits would still be a requirement as under the current system. In addition, when I die, my family would receive that money as a death benefit. No more of the $255 token amount to my family should I die. They would get all that I’ve paid into the system.
6. Health Care: Get government out of the health care business. They have failed! Example; Medicare. It will be in the red this year and it will be exhausted in 2019. If this is what the government does with health care, they’ve failed and there is no reasonable expectation that they can handle a health care plan for all. Let the market work.
7. Oil Independence: Drill for oil in this country. Put the American people to work and their ingenuity. If we open several of the oil sites that we have available we’ll lower our dependence on foreign oil. We must then encourage Americans to find alternative fuels. Going with ethanol only increased the prices of corn chips, and taco shells, etc. It’s not the answer. Use the time we have by drilling for our own oil and lowering prices to find alternative answers for operating our cars, heating our homes and so on. Drill now and research now to find alternative power.

These are just seven items that I’ve put down as I’ve been typing this. These are all winning issues. When a candidate runs as a conservative they win. It’s been proven over and over. If you want to lose as a conservative, run in San Francisco.

We also need candidates across this country that have some self control. No more political correctness or being afraid to say what’s obvious because you’re talking about a colleague. Senator Larry Craig should have been forced out. Not due to his guilt or innocence, but because he pleaded guilty to cover it up. Representative Kennedy should have been booted out for driving drunk into a road barrier.

I consider Conservative Republicans have the right message and the right path. I demand more from them. So they should stand up for what they believe in and stand up forcefully. They should be told to keep their pants zipped and to stay out of and away from brothels, bars and escort services. I don’t want to hear of a spouse of another Representative or Senator picking up a prostitute ala Debbie Stabenow. If they are, they should resign or forced out of their elected office. That’s not what they were sent to Washington to do.

Unfortunately, Republicans are not articulating their message. It’s time for a leader to step and take control of the Republican party. If we continue as we’re going right now, we’re going to end up with a President Obama or a President Clinton. As it is, if we get a President McCain it will be Democrat lite and that to me is a slap in the face to the American people and the Republican Party. We will also end up with seats in the house that won’t amount to much more than a poker game and in the Senate we wouldn’t have enough to have a ping pong match.

I realize that I’m being very blunt. It’s probably not proper etiquette but at this point I don’t care. I don’t want flyers that come to me asking me what I think of the issues which is only a disguise for the collection of money or to garner votes or to reaffirm votes.

I’m not sending any money to the Republicans. None of them. I did that throughout the 90’s and the first couple of years of the aughts whenever I could. What have I gotten for my money? Nothing. It’s been a waste of whatever meager amount I could send when I could send money.

It’s time the Republicans started earning the expectation that I’d even open mail from them. I’m not sending it to Democrats, but I’m not sending it to Republicans that fail to do as they say. I’m also not interested in form letters as a response to this. If you really want to respond, the best response is to be the leader or find a leader that will make Conservatives follow the Conservative issues and protect this country from the coming storm that we’re sure to get from any of the Presidential candidates and to do it today. The only way to protect the American people from these candidates is to get Conservatives elected to the House and the Senate.

I’d apologize for the length and tone of this mail, but I really don’t feel sorry for stating the truth.

Sincerely,


Brett Young

Penalize the Vote...or Ballot Stuffing

On Saturday, the Democrat Party decided to give Florida and Michigan their seats back for the National Convention in Denver. Not all of the seats that they are entitled to, however.

The history on how this came about goes back to 2007. Florida and Michigan wanted a more prominent role in choosing the nominees for President. Florida has a Republican Congress and a Republican Governor, however, it was a Democrat that first proposed moving their primary up the order. The Democrat National Committee warned them that if they moved their primary to an earlier date, they would be penalized by not allowing Florida to seat their delegates.

Michigan also wanted to move their primary up earlier so they too could have more of a say in the nomination. Michigan has a Democrat Governor, a Democrat House and a Republican Senate. They too were told that they would be sanctioned with the loss of their delegates being seated at the convention. Florida moved their primary up to January 29 and Michigan moved theirs up to January 15.Please note that the people that decided to move the elections up were the Congresses of each state. It was not decided on by the people of the two states.

The Republican National Committee penalized the two states by removing half of their seats at the Republican Convention in September. The DNC removed all seats of both states for their Convention the end of August.So what we had was the RNC and the DNC both penalizing the voters of the two states for the actions of the elected officials. All of the Democrat candidates agreed to follow the DNC rules which included no campaigning in the two states.

From this point, I’m going to mostly confine my remarks to the state of Michigan because I’m in Michigan and a little more familiar with what’s happening and happened here.Prior to the Michigan Primary, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, along with Senator Joe Biden, former Senator John Edwards, and Governor Bill Richardson, all candidates, decided to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan.On January 15, 2008 Michigan held its’ primary.

Due to so many of the Democrat candidates removing themselves from the primary in Michigan, the state decided to add another unnamed candidate. They called this candidate “Uncommitted”. So if you were voting for a Democrat, your choices were Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich (who did campaign in Michigan despite the rules) and Uncommitted.Clinton won the Democrat primary. Her take from this victory was 73 delegates which represented the vote she received. The other named candidates have since dropped out of the race, but the votes they received were insignificant. Uncommitted however came in second place.

Let’s stop for a second and talk about what this has done in Michigan to this point. When Presidential candidates come to a state, they naturally generate business in the areas that are visited. Usually, this means visits to the Detroit area on the east side of the state, the Grand Rapids area on the west side of the state and Traverse City in the northern portion of the lower peninsula of the state. Citizens show up for these events. A chance to meet possibly the next President of the United States.

When they show up, they visit businesses in the area, which helps the economy of the area. This is especially important in Michigan which is currently in a one state recession and has been for nearly four years. The revenue generated from these visits wouldn’t do as much as the baseball All Star game a few years ago, or the Super Bowl game two years ago, but it does create economic activity in the area.

Let’s move ahead to Saturday, May 31, 2008. The rules committee of the DNC met to hear why Florida and Michigan should be permitted to seat their delegates. There were three proposals put forth to allow these delegates and how many for which candidate.The officials from the State proposed dividing the delegates up between the two remaining candidates based on exit polls from the primary. Their reasoning was that had Obama been on the ballot, Clinton’s victory would have been closer. They proposed that Clinton get 69 votes and Obama get the remaining 59 votes.

The Obama campaign gave their proposal which was to take Michigans delegates and split them 50/50 because Obama wasn’t on the ballot due to the primary not counting according to the DNC rules as stated prior to the primary.The Clinton campaign said that Clinton should receive her 73 delegates based on the vote. However, their exit polls showed that Obama only received 75% of the uncommitted vote, with the bulk of the remainder going to Edwards.

The DNC rules committee decided on the Michigan proposal. This took the actual votes that Clinton had won and removed four delegates from her, giving the balance to Obama who wasn’t on the ballot. This meeting was a farce. It very much reminded me of the election of 2000. We all remember that election. It took 35 extra days, and numerous court visits. Florida laws were tossed aside during this process and we were subjected to county workers holding ballots up in the air, staring at ballots and deciding how the voter INTENDED to vote based on whether the chad was hanging, pregnant or any of the other descriptions that they used. What it boiled down to was that elected officials were determining how people voted regardless of whether the voter voted that way or not.

This meeting on the 31st was much the same thing again. The DNC took delegates away from Hillary Clinton that she had earned by keeping her name on the ballot. She received the votes, but the DNC told some of the voters that their votes didn’t matter. That THEY have decided that it’s fairer to remove votes from Clinton and give them to Obama despite the fact that he chose to remove himself from the ballot. Again, this is reminiscent of the election in 2000 in Florida. The Gore campaign wanted a recount, but they only wanted a recount in certain areas. With each recount that was taken, both during that 35 day election process and every recount done since by various news organizations and others, Gore lost each time. Yet the Democrats, to this day, only talk of how they were cheated out of the 2000 election.

Getting back to the Michigan delegates, again, elected officials in the state moved the primary up. Not the voters. The DEMOCRAT National Committee’s rules committee decided to take votes away from the Michigan voters that chose Clinton and give some of them to Barack Hussein Obama, who chose not to be on the ballot. With each of these elections, the Democrats don’t seem to want the voters to decide, nor to follow the wishes of the voters. In addition, they stripped Michigan of half of it’s delegates. So even the votes that did come in, they only counted as half.I think it’s probably easier to say that the Michigan elected officials put the voters of Michigan in a precarious position in choosing the next president, and then the Democrats took some voters choices from them and gave them to a man that didn’t want to be voted for by Michiganders.

Wouldn’t this be the same as ballot stuffing?

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Is this the best the Democrats have to offer?

There is just one week left before the final primaries take place. While the Democrat race has been an historic one, it's also a bit disconcerting. Is this the best the Democrats have to offer?

I'm already unimpressed with John McCain. But this isn't about the continued boredom of the Republican Party and their eventual nominee. This is about the Democrats.

There are two candidates left. They seem to be tripping over themselves and the news media to see which of them can become the bigger fool.

Hillary Clinton. I'm hesitant to go back into the 90's and all of the scandals that she was involved in that we know of and the ones that she was probably in that we don't know the details. I just don't know that there is enough space on any computer, any website to cover all of that.

She came into the race as the inevitable choice of the Democrats. Now she is in a tight race with another Senator. Remembering how the Clintons were in the 90's, I don't count her out. I seriously can envision her taking this all the way to the convention and duking it out there. I can see her pulling a fast one and stealing the nomination away from Obama. In fact, I'm almost hoping for it.

Clinton has had her problems. First she said she was under sniper fire, which turned out to not be true. This past week, she said that she didn't understand the bellowing for her to get out of the race. After all, her husband didn't wrap up the nomination until June in 92 and Bobby Kennedy was killed in June of 68. So why should we be so surprised that the Democrat nominee hasn't emerged as of May of 2008?

Frankly, I'm surprised that there has been so much upset in the Democrat party over these words. They are, after all, true. She says something that is true and she's attacked by her own party over it. The same ones that backed her "vast right wing conspiracy" invention that turned out to not be true.

Hillary has enough problems. She has done nothing in the Senate other than to vote for the war in Iraq, then change her mind when it was time for her to run for President. She has no legislation in place. In fact, the only real thing I can remember off the top of my head of her time in the Senate is that she told General Petraeus that it would strain credibility to think that his plan of the troop surge would have any success....just before it became a raging success.

Her opponent is even less qualified. Barack Obama has ties to communists, socialists and terrorists. He's been a Senator for three years and done nothing. He attended a church for 20 years, but apparently didn't hear his Pastor say anything negative about the United States, nor any of his racist rants. I guess it pays to miss church at times, although I don't know how he knew which days to skip church.

This weekend alone was enough to show how inexperienced, incompetent, and unaware of history he is. Memorial Day; he was giving a speech and said he could see some of the soldiers in the crowd that we were honoring on Memorial Day. To do this, he'd have to have had dead soldiers in the audience. Memorial Day is a day to honor the fallen. The men and women that have died in service to the United States. Those that gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Then he followed that up the next day by saying that his great uncle was one of the first Americans to liberate Auschwitz. He used this story as a way of talking about how we need to take better care of the soldiers when they return home and have seen things that humans have done to other humans. He said his great uncle had gone to the attic and stayed for six months, not leaving the house.

Here's the problem with his story. First, Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians. Not by the Americans. Now if his great uncle was a Russian, his story just became believable. But apparently, he wasn't Russian. That would open up a whole new can of worms.

Second, this was a family member that was talked about in the family because he had been in Germany and had supposedly brought home photo's.

Barack Hussein Obama's just lost credibility. So the press had to go into overdrive to fix their candidates problem. Within a couple of hours, the real story came out. His great uncle had actually been to another camp and did take part in the liberation of that camp, but it wasn't Auschwitz.

Here's the problem. Shouldn't Barack Hussein Obama have known as he was telling his story that something was wrong with it? Shouldn't have had known as soon as he started telling it that Auschwitz was actually liberated by the Russians? Any candidate for President of the United States should know that simple fact.

Since Obama's great uncle was so upset upon his return, and refused to go out of the house for six months, and this was enough of an important story for Obama to use, wouldn't you think that he'd get his facts straight. Especially such a simple fact that nearly any high school student should be able to get correct.

Another aspect is that if his great uncle was so upset about this, why would Obama bring it up? It's a personal story in his own family, and if it's true that his great uncle wouldn't talk about it, why would Obama talk about it for him? Even the press didn't talk to that uncle. They talked to another uncle, who is a brother to the one in question apparently because the great uncle involved still doesn't like to talk about it. Yet, Obama throws an incorrect story out there for his own benefit despite the privacy his great uncle prefers on that topic.

This reminds me of when he claimed his grandmother made racist statements when he was a boy and it made him cringe. His grandmother can be known as a racist, his great uncle described as needing mental health care. If it weren't for his facts being all wrong, I'd have to question if there is something genetic that should keep him from being President.

Obama and Clinton are the number one and number two liberals in the Senate. Both of them act like it. They promise all of this spending that they are going to do, in addition to surrendering to the terrorists and what they don't talk about is who is going to pay.

There is one answer to both questions. The American people will pay for their spending programs that they are promising and the American people will pay when the terrorists decide to strike us again after being emboldened by the liberals in their surrender.

If either one of these two are elected to the White House, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton will likely be two very happy former Presidents. Right now, it's a toss-up as to who is the worst President in history. A case can be made for both of them. If we elect Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, either one of them could give Clinton or Carter a run for their money at being the worst President in history.

Republicans run trying to emulate President Reagan (the best President of the 20th Century) while the Democrats trot out candidates to alleviate Former Presidents Carter and Clinton from being the worst President in history.

Unfortunately, this is the best the Democrats have to offer. Although, it's probably fortunate for McCain. I'm afraid he'll be the worst Republican to be President from the day he takes office.

I guess that says alot. I'm willing to vote for the worst Republican over the worst possible President we could have.

I welcome your opinions and comments.

Brett

Why is it rare for a Senator to be elected President?

Need I say more?

Where are the Republicans?

Not just where are the Republicans, but where are the Conservative Republicans? The liberals are talking about windfall profits taxes, bringing the troops home from Iraq immediately after the election, letting the Bush tax cuts expire if not repealing them immediately after the inauguration in January. What have the Republicans said about all of this? Zero, zip, nada. NOTHING.

Can you name the Republican National Committee Chairman? Can you name the leading the Republican in the House? The Senate? I would venture to say that not many can.

Finally!! A Republican stands up and calls the liberals to task. President George Bush, in and address to the Knesset in Israel said that Appeasement has failed throughout history and even gave the example of the Republican Senator from Idaho in 1939 saying that if only he could have spoken to Hitler before his march, it might have prevented it.

Do we need to be reminded of what terrorism has done in the past 16 15 years? The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. There were no less than 7 other attacks on this country during the 90’s under President Clinton. What did Clinton do? He passed on the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden. He passed on three opportunities to take bin Laden into custody. His final act was to do nothing after the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 when they knew in early December who was responsible.

President George Bush was in office less than 8 months when we were attacked on September 11, 2001 and 3,000 American civilians were murdered. In less than 30 days, President Bush took the fight to them.

A year and a half later, after intelligence from several countries, including our own intelligence agencies, showing that Hussein was working towards weapons of mass destruction, he gave Hussein a time limit to give it up. When Hussein didn’t, Bush took the war to Iraq with the Senate’s and the House’s blessing. You can look up the resolutions voted for by the House and Senate authorizing war. It wasn’t just due to the intelligence on WMD’s.

We are now 8 months from President Bush’s final day in office and he stands up and talks about appeasement from the liberals. The liberals are up in arms. I have seen just one Republican (not counting Senator McCain) speak out about this statement. Senator John Kyle asked why the liberals are so upset about this statement when their names weren’t mentioned, leading him to believe that they must have taken this personally. His quote was “Me thinks thou doeth protest too much”.

The liberals are claiming that President Bush is politicizing the war on terror and that it’s beneath the dignity of the office. That he’s injecting himself into the presidential campaign. Yet, they don’t complain that Senator Durbin compared the troops to pol pot, the gulags and the nazi’s. Yet Hillary Clinton is upset that President Bush would dare compare a Democrat to the nazi’s.

Thank God President Bush has finally stood up for America. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republicans with the possible exception of Senator Kyle and Senator McCain, are sitting on their hands, offering nothing and giving absolutely no reason to vote for them like a scolded child placed in a corner for punishment.

It’s time the Republicans, ESPECIALLY the conservative Republicans get off their dead backsides and start standing up for their beliefs of lower taxes, less government, secure borders and the ending of illegal immigration as well as the deportation of those already here illegally.

They lost the election in 2006 not because of the Iraq war, but because they spent money like Democrats. They need to put it in writing and put their names big and bold next to their assertions and promises that they will not only address these issues but to bring them to a vote on the floor. They blew it in 2006 it’s up to them to correct their errant ways and they’d best start doing it loudly and clearly immediately. If they don’t get their priorities and principles in order and start showing it loud and often, they will be doomed to failure in the fall and that dooms this country to four years of higher taxes and more terrorism.

Cowardly acts, like pulling the troops out of Iraq without winning will only lead to more terrorist attacks on our soil. Remember, under President Bush, we have had ZERO attacks since September 11, 2001. This will end if the Coward Barack Obama is elected President. This will end if the Coward Hillary Clinton is elected President. We need the Republicans to start standing up and stating what they are for and proving to us that they are going to follow their conservative principles to avoid an all out war on terrorism in our own back yards.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

We are NOT in a recession

The news has been inundating us over the past couple of months that we're in a recession. They have claimed that because of the housing crisis the recession is on us. Well, the numbers came out on April 30. Once again, the news is wrong.

A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. In the fourth quarter of 2007 the economy grew at 0.6%. Since there was growth in the fourth quarter, we cannot officially be declared in a recession until at least June 30, 2008. If the growth rate had come in at a negative growth at the end of March (reported on April 30), we still can't be declared in a recession until the end of June, which would be reported in mid to late July.

However, the economic numbers came out on April 30 for the first quarter. Once again, the economy grew at 0.6%. Anemic? Yes. Slow? You betcha. But it's still GROWTH. So this now means that we cannot be officially declared in a recession until at least the end of September, reported in Mid to late October.

The news has cited as their main reason for declaring that this is a recession is that their polls say that people feel like they are in a recession. This report that came out in April should prove to you that reporting people's feelings is not the same as reporting the facts.

One of the first indicators that we're headed into a recession is the unemployment rate would jump. It hasn't. The unemployment rate did increase from 4.6% to 5.1% over a four month period, but that's not a significant jump. If we were to see unemployment jump to 6% in a two month period and then a little higher after that, it would be a good indication that things are getting worse. However, the unemployment rate just dropped to 5% in April. Another indicator is consumer confidence would drop. It did drop. Then it went up. Then it came down again. Then up again.

With the stimulus package that was passed and the checks having started going out this past week, I believe that the economy will get a needed boost. The question then becomes, will it be enough to boost the economy into performing well after all of the checks are distributed? Since these checks will be distributed over the next few months, it is unlikely that the economy will see a drastic downturn before spring of 2009.

It is interesting to note that these problems with the economy have come about since the election of 2006 which is when the Democrats took over Congress. It appears that since that election, people are more cautious with their hiring, their spending and their savings. We know from history that tax cuts stimulate growth in the economy and tax increases cause a constriction in the economy. Since we also know that Democrats look to raise taxes, it makes absolute sense to me that the slowdown in the economy has a direct correlation to the election of Democrats to the Congress in 2006.

Again, it comes down to the Ownership Society vs the Community Society. When people have their own money to make their own choices with, the economy thrives. When government confiscates more of that money and tells people how they must spend it, or spends it for them, the economy constricts.

We are facing massive tax increases on January 1, 2011. If the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent by then, the Democrats will have put a horrendous tax increase on us. Income, Capital Gains, dividend and death taxes will all increase substantially. I refer you to a previous blog on here that shows this in more detail.

The good news is that at the worst, the economy cannot be declared a recession until October of this year and that's not likely now.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Community Society vs. Ownership Society

In the recent past, politics has become very polarized in this country. It began on a small scale with Ronald Reagan, but really escalated during Bill Clintons years in the White House and then became even more bitter following the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

George Bush ran on being a uniter. I believe this was a mistake. To be united, both sides must be willing. Once one man declares he will unite the two sides, the other side, if unwilling, can only make him look bad by being obstinate on everything that comes from the White House.

This trend of the past seven years has narrowed down much of the debate between the two sides to two very distinct positions. One side believes that government has the solutions. That government can move the country for the people. The other side believes that the solutions reside within the people. The classic liberal vs conservative. This is also known as the Community Society vs the Ownership Society.

See the following chart comparing the Community Society to the Ownership Society:


Community Society ***********Ownership Society

Government-Social Security ***Your personal account
Government Medicare and Employer Health Care*** Health Savings Accounts and Individually owned health plans
Employer Pension Plans ***Your Individually owned Savings Accounts
Your Personal Savings ***Your Enhanced Savings through Consumption Tax

The above chart is enlightening. Government believes that retirement responsibility
should be through Social Security and forcing employers to provide pension plans.
While the Ownership Society believes that people can save for their own retirements,
do a better job of it and provide themselves a higher and better prepared income for
retirement.

Social Security was begun in the 1930’s under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
However, even President Roosevelt said that it should become privatized. In addition,
he said that Social Security is only meant as a supplement to whatever people do on
their own.

Social Security money was moved from it’s own Trust into the General Fund which then
allowed Congress to borrow the money. Pension plans were taken by employers when
they ran short of funds. This happened in Germany in the 1980’s and then spread to the
United States.

In two instances of forced savings by government and employers, both have failed.
Congress in one instance, and employers in the other. Yet ,government feels they can
do a better job for people’s retirement than the people are able to do for themselves.

As we know now, Social Security will be operating in the Red starting in 2017 and will
be exhausted by 2041. The only thing said to this point is that for Social Security to
continue beyond 2041 is to reduce the benefits by 30% in 2041 or taxes would need to
be increased. So if you’re receiving $1,800 per month, it will be reduced to $1,260 per
month in 2041. By the way, if you that’s beyond your lifetime, think of this. People born
in 1976 are the ones first affected. Those born in 1976 turn 32 this year!

Then there is health care. Take a look at the next chart:


Community Society -Health Care- Ownership Society

Opposes Individual Accounts ****Favors Individual Accounts
Mixed feelings on “Cap Adjustments ****Opposes Tax increases
Favors “locked box” on Trust ****Favors Wage to price indexing

Favors Universal Health Care Coverage ****Opposes Universal Health Care Coverage

Costs imposed on employer/individual/government*** Favors Free Market Health System
Tax subsidy for small employers ***Tax deductions/credits to purchase health insurance.
Expand Medicaid & SCHIP ***Encourage State initiatives
Drug Price Negotiations ***Expand HSA’s
Pay for coverage thru Medicare Restructuring/expired ***Limit SCHIP

Again, the Community Society advocates government as shown in the chart above.
Let’s look at how well the government has done with the health care they do have now.
Medicare will be operating in the red during the year 2008. That’s THIS YEAR!!
Medicare will be exhausted in the year 2019. Those born in 1954 will be put onto
Medicare but there will be no money to pay for it. Do we really want to turn our health
care over to the government that hasn’t been able to run the health care system they do
have successfully?

They will put the costs on the employer, the individual and the government. Government
doesn’t earn any money. They only confiscate it. So while they will be responsible for
writing the check for the health care, they’ll get the money to write those checks from
employers. The employers won’t pay for this out of the kindness of their hearts, so
they’ll collect the money from the employee. That’s you and I.

The ownership society advocates people finding their own health care and paying for it.
There are plans out there that not only pay for health care, but also help the people
save money within their health care plan. Again, the solution found within the people
and not from the government….AND IT’S AFFORDABLE!!

Finally, there is tax reform. Again, the community society wants to increase taxes. The
Alternative minimum tax has affected people in ways that weren’t planned, but the
Community Society says to reduce it, maybe eliminate it, but not without making it up
somewhere else.

They are willing to reduce SOME of the capital gains, but not all and they want to raise
the death tax.

The ownership society wants more and more to move to the Sales tax, also known as
the Fair Tax. They want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and they want to reduce
and/or eliminate the Estate Tax. See the chart below.


Community Society -Tax Reform- Ownership Society
Eliminate/Reduce AMT ***Consumption tax
Some cap gain reductions*** Sales (Fair) tax
-Business startups*** - VAT
First $250 ***Make Bush Tax Cuts permanent
Raise the Estate Tax Exemption Level ***Eliminate/Reduce Estate Tax

So what happens if they let the Bush tax cuts expire? The answer is, on January 1, 2010 our taxes will increase. I’ve posted the following before, and I’ll do it again. This comes from www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes during the 1990’s *****Taxes under Bush
Single making $30 K- Tax $8,400 **Single making $30k-Tax $4,500
Single making $50k- Tax $14,000 **Single making $50k-Tax $12,500
Single making $75k- Tax $23,250 **Single making $75k-Tax $18,750
Married making $60k-Tax $16,800** Married making $60k-Tax $9,000
Married making $75k- Tax $21,000 **Married making $75k-Tax $18,750
Married making $125k-Tax $38,750 **Married making $125k-Tax$31,250

It is mind boggling that the Community Society can get away with saying that the rich got the tax breaks while the poor didn’t when looking at the facts.

If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, we’ll all be getting an income tax increase less than one year after the new President takes office. In addition, if the new President is to take on Social Security we can expect yet another tax increase. If they take on Medicare, we can expect another tax increase, and if they work on health care, we can expect a huge tax increase to pay for “free” government health care. One thing is certain, nothing is free. By the way, Happy Tax Freedom Day. From January 1, 2008 until today, you've been working to pay your taxes. Today, you begin earning money for yourselves.

If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, tax freedom day will move back into May.

Power is in the people, but "loaned" to the government.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Educate the Children

Is Homeschooling a viable choice?

This writing focuses on three aspects of education.

1. History and results
2. Socialization –The ability to interact in society
3. Who’s to blame?

History and Results

In the early days of North America, children were schooled at home. Governor Bradford did not hop a school bus in the morning and head off to school. Nor did George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and so on. They were taught at home. I don’t think many would disagree with me that these were some of the finest minds in history, and we of course know that some of them created possibly the finest documents in history. The Declaration of Independence , the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States. Many of that era did go off to apprentice with others. Again, one to one training.

The first organized public school didn’t come into existence until the 1850’s in Massachussetts. Even coming into our own lifetimes. How many of our parents and/or grandparents attended a one room school house in the early 20th century? Drive the countryside. You’ll see many one room school houses now being used as child care centers, or historical monuments.

Homeschooling became more popular and began to grow in the early 1970’s. It’s always been around, but it began to grow significantly in the 70’s. Today, there are 4 million children being taught at home and that number is growing by 20% per year.

There are several reasons given for the growth in homeschooling. Parents want their children safe. Parents don’t want the liberal agenda of the public school system. The majority are for religious reasons. In 1962, God was removed from the public schools.

Beginning in 1962, SAT scores plummeted. Teen pregnancies, drug abuse, pornography, sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, suicides and illiteracy immediately rose by 200%.

More recently, textbooks are missing information or have errant information in schools. One textbook says the atomic bomb caused the end of the Korean War instead of WWII. Another says that 53,000 American deaths came from WWI rather than the 126,000 Americans who actually died. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are relegated to six lines in textbooks.

Abortion is taught as a part of birth control while homosexuality, masturbation and premarital sex and adultery are taught as normal parts of life.

Safety is a big issue in the news in recent years. An elementary school in Washington DC suspended recesses due to the drugs and violence taking place no the playground until they could allow the children to have their recesses in a pit surrounded by police.

In light of this information is it any wonder why more and more people are choosing homeschooling over public education?

So what are the results of the past forty years of homeschooling compared to public and private education? Is homeschooling successful?

Here is an excerpt from a recent study of homeschoolers: "According to a report published by the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, homeschool student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade were well above those of public and Catholic/private-school students. On average, homeschool students in grades one to four performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests. Students who had been homeschooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs."
One interesting facet of the study noted that academic achievement was equally high regardless of whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether the parent had a state-issued teaching certificate.
The study states, "Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the homeschool students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for homeschool students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time homeschool students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts."
Do we really need to analyze that? It’s there in black and white. The performance of homeschooled students exceeds that of public and private education. A parent, that does not have a state-issued teaching certificate is just as high as those with the teaching certificate.

Another aspect of education is the tremendous waste of time in schools. A homeschooled student will participate in their education for 2-3 hours per days. In my own experience, my children averaged 3 ½ hours per day. Yet in the public education system they waste more than two hours per day on lunch, recess and class changing.

Socialization

It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."
Many homeschoolers share this sentiment when it comes to public schools, believing that the moral relativism, violence, peer pressure, drugs and promiscuity found inside their gates provide an inadequate setting to properly socialize their children. Yet 92 percent of superintendents believe that home learners are emotionally unstable, deprived of proper social development and too judgmental of the world around them, according to a California study by researcher Dr. Brian Ray .

The facts of this research are interesting, but what’s even more interesting to me is that 92% of superintendents believe that home learners are emotionally unstable, home learners are emotionally unstable, deprived of proper social development and too judgemental of the world around them. I really don’t care what superintendents “believe”. I am more concerned with the facts.

Let’s look at the socialization of the children. Most children are eligible to begin their kindergarten year if they turn age five by December 1. The parents may begin their child’s education the following year if they choose if the child is four at the beginning of the year, but turns five before December 1. Immediately, we’re told that all four and five year olds will begin school in early September. All of the four and five year olds are put together in the same grade. They will be with 25 or 30 other four and five year olds. The following year, they will be in the first grade with all five and six year olds. The second grade will be all six and seven year olds and that follows right on through their senior year in high school.

Lunches and recess are divided into sections. Kindergartners might be mixed with first or even second grade students. The third fourth and fifth grade students will each their lunch abit later and be on the play ground after the younger students are back in class. This also happens in middle school and high school. So the closest these children come to interacting with others that are not their age are at recess and lunch, and then only limited to within a year or two of their own age.

Homeschooled children aren’t limited to this age restriction. They will eat lunch with their parents, or guests that stop by, or in restaurants with people of many ages.

After 12 years of being confined to your own age level in public schools, you’re now turned loose on society in your chosen career. Look around at your own workplace. Is everyone the same age as you? The chances are you’re working with people that are older than you and younger than you. As you age, you’re not moved to another section confined to all 30 year old colleagues, and then 40 year old colleagues. You may gravitate to those of your age group for friendship, but you’ll be working with and dealing with people of various ages and lifestyles.

From an early age, children of homeschooled parents are mingling with, conversing with, and participating with others of various ages and various walks of life. Homeschooled students are actually more socially aware than those in the public education system.

So where do these children get their interaction with others? First, they get them in society. The libraries, where they spend a lot of time. 4H is very popular among homeschoolers as is boys and girls scouts. For sports, there are city athletic leagues and regional athletic leagues.

In recent years, more and more groups of homeschoolers are banding together for education and activity purposes. Spelling bees, science fairs, debate clubs, sporting leagues. From my own personal experience, I know that homeschool groups participate against each other in various groups as well as against the public and private school leagues. Lansing has a group. Grand Rapids has a group, Battle Creek and Kalamazoo have groups. All of this just in the mid and west Michigan areas.

Dr. Thomas Smedley believes that homeschoolers have superior socialization skills, and his research supports this claim. He conducted a study in which he administered the Vineyard Adaptive Behavior Scales test to identify mature and well-adapted behaviors in children. Home learners ranked in the 84th percentile, compared to publicly schooled students, who were drastically lower in the 23rd.

Dismantling the stereotype that home learners spend their days isolated from society at kitchen tables with workbooks in hand, NHERI reports that they actually participate in approximately five different social activities outside the home on a regular basis.
Furthermore, researcher Dr. Linda Montgomery found that 78 percent of high school home learners were employed with paying jobs, while a majority engaged in volunteering and community service.

Research presented at the National Christian Home Educators Leadership Conference divulged that homeschool graduates far exceeded their public and private school counterparts in college by ranking the highest in 42 of 63 indicators of collegiate success. They were also ranked as being superior in four out of five achievement categories, including socialization, as they were assessed as being the most charismatic and influential.

Boston University says, "We believe students educated at home
possess the passion for knowledge, the independence, and the self-reliance
that enable them to excel in our intellectually challenging programs of study.
More colleges are even having their own admissions policy's for children that are taught at home.

One more item that I saved for last, partly because I wasn’t certain how to present it and partly because it applies to both the success rate and the socialization in homeschooling is that of race.

As mentioned, homeschooling has been increasing since the 1970’s, but what of the minorities. This too has been growing of late. More and more blacks are electing to homeschool their children.

I have no statistics, nor do I have any research to cite as to why minorities, mostly blacks, are slower to come around to the homeschooling boom. I only have an opinion at this point. Prior to the 60’s, and even moving into the 80’s, the black people in this country had to work harder to succeed. They were hindered until the civil rights actions of the 60’s and as with all things, it does take some time to improve ones circumstances.

We all remember or have read about how black people were banned from white schools, drinking fountains were segregated and they were just treated at worse than second class citizens. So as they increased in their learning, their opportunities and their success, more and more have come to join the homeschool movement. A

As bad as public education is, the inner city schools are even worse. Detroit is graduating less than 40% of their students. Many cities around the country are having graduation rates decline and that is hardest hit in the inner city schools.

The Blame Game

We all know there are problems with education in this country. Just open any newspaper or watch the news on television. Schools are constantly running out of money. They need millage elections to raise money to replace buildings, build football fields, put in a pool, get new computers and a myriad of other reasons.

Children are not learning and the answer of the NEA and the teachers, administrators, and Federal, State and local governments is to throw more money at the schools. For over 20 years, we’ve been throwing more money at the schools and still they continue to decline.

Liberals and Conservatives blame each other. School boards blame the economy, regardless of how the economy is performing. Teachers and Administrators blame the parents. Parents blame the teachers. BUT NOBODY ACTUALLY SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

We can go back to the ruling in 1962 that took God out of education and see that all bad things increased while all good things decreased. Perhaps we could blame that. Or we could blame the relaxed standards of education over the years. Or maybe we could blame government interference for forcing indoctrination to government is good, home is bad, or for taking on the feeding of the children through the school lunch program or breakfast program. Or we could blame the parents for using the schools as nothing more than a baby sitting facility. Or we could blame the schools for taking on the role of babysitter and being accepting of poor performance by the students.

Again, this is my opinion. No statistics or studies to back it up. Just my opinion. I blame two groups of people. The parents and the teachers. Not one more than the other, but both equally.

I blame the parents for turning over more and more power to the schools and accepting that they have little to no effective input at school boards or with the government. Parents have just turned over the lives of their children to the school systems without holding the schools accountable. They’ve entrusted their most precious possession, their legacy, their children to strangers and if there is a problem, they in effect, say “ well, they are the professionals, they know best”. I think the studies above have proven that these so-called professionals don’t know best.
I also blame the teachers as much as the parents. These teachers are with the children for 8-9 hours per day. They have our children for 1/3 of their day. We have our children for 2/3 of our day, and of that more than 1/3 they are sleeping. The teachers are also aware of the school board side and the government side of education. The teachers should have the character to stand up for the children and their education. They should know what is best for the children in their care regarding education. They should not be following the school board because the school board chooses to implement something. They should have more say or take more say in the education of the children in the public school sector. If teachers are going to be considered professionals, they should have more input into what is taught in school and not be worried about losing their jobs if they speak out about something that is wrong.

Since parents and teachers haven’t taken back the schools and the education system from the various government bodies, there is but one choice a parent can make if they truly care about the education of their children. That choice is homeschooling their children.

Homeschooling is more successful. All studies to date have shown that parents teach their children better than those with teaching certificates and that homeschooled children are better equipped to interact in society than public school children.

I believe that the public education system can never be better than homeschooling children, however, I also believe that public education can be a very strong second to homeschooling with some immediate restructuring of the public education system. I base my opinion on the studies, and the statistics.

My opinions are up for debate. However, the statistics and studies are no longer debatable. There have been too many over too long of a period of time for them to be in error. My opinion, based on the studies and statistics and NOT ON FEELINGS, is that homeschooling is the best form of education in this country and that public education (or government schools if you prefer) is the worst form of education in this country.

Do not take my word for it. Do your own research (or your own home education if you will). You can google the information that I’ve provided in this writing and verify for yourself what I’ve said. I started off by typing in Homeschool vs Public school on the google search line. From there, it snowballed and found a lot of information. It’s your choice. You can choose to believe the myths of anti socialization within homeschool students or you can read and find that the actual anti-social behavior is found to be in public education.

Public schools and the government have a habit of saying “our children’ when talking about the students, but your children are in fact, your children. They don’t belong to the schools nor to the government. The teachers are just entrusted with the teaching of the children. When the education system is failing, and it is, it is our responsibility as parents to either hold the education system accountable or to see to it that they are educated to the best of our ability. Our ability has been proven to be superior through homeschooling to that of the public education system.

Brett

Barack Obama's Judgment

Over the past week, there has been plenty said about the United Trinity Church and in particular, Reverend Jeremiah Wright who is Senator Barack Obama’s minister in the Trinity Church. There are so many levels to this story it’s nearly impossible to break them all down and those are just the ones we’re all familiar with.

Barack Obama began attending Trinity Church nearly twenty years ago. Reverend Wright was the minister chosen by the Obama’s to marry them. He baptized their children. Why did Obama choose this church?

It’s speculated that he chose the church due to the size of the church, the networking that could be done through the members of the church and the future those people who attended the church could provide him.

I think back through my own church selections over the years, and it’s so completely different from what seems to be Obama’s reasons. My parents raised me as a Methodist. When I was very young, we attended church that was a block from where I lived. I don’t remember my parents joining to try improve their jobs. What I remember is that they chose based on how they were raised, and wanting to provide a moral compass for themselves and their children. Learning about God, and the lessons that are taught in the bible.

When I was older, I met someone that asked me to attend their church. In this church, they taught from the bible, again, life’s lessons on how to lead your life, treat other people and last but certainly not least, to prepare for life after death through belief in God. I became a Baptist from that experience. When I married, I had the same concerns as my parents for my own children and we attended a Baptist church in the town we lived. Again, life’s instruction through God.

I’ve attended Methodist, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventists, Presbyterian, and Catholic churches. While I didn’t agree with the teachings with some because they didn’t teach from the bible, or their rituals seemed outlandish to me, I didn’t go back, but never did I choose a church based on how the people there would affect my career or make me more popular in my community.

The primary theme in any church attended was God. Not politics, not social activities, and not politics. Comments might be made about politics, but they were made in the context of what the Bible taught and on the issue that was in the news if it was a big enough story. Patriotism is prevalent in church because this country was originally inhabited by people looking for religious freedom and the country was based on a belief in a supreme being. That’s as far as it went. We were thankful for a country that allowed us to worship in the way that we choose.

Sermons were never based on political parties. Never was another race of people put down due to the color of their skin. All men were created equal. Women were to support their men, men were to support their women and families. Not once in my 51 years did any pastor of mine in any church, even the ones that I didn’t agree with, ever say that God should Damn America.

Not once did a preacher ever say that we were held under the thumb of the rich white man, or corporate America. We weren’t told to oppress the black man. We instead were told to love others. We weren’t told that we were better than black people. We were taught that we were all brothers and sisters. Yes, even in the 60’s during the civil rights marches. We heard love thy neighbor. Treat others as you’d want to be treated. Don’t lie, cheat, steal, murder. Honor your mother and father and above all have no other God’s before the one God. We were taught to pray for God’s will and for each other and for others.

These don’t seem to be the teachings of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He seems more intent on blaming the white man, and this country for any poor treatment or perceived poor treatment of members of “his” race.

Barack Obama first said when asked, that he hadn’t heard this type of sermon from the Reverend Wright. In his speech, however, he said he had heard it and disagreed with it. So which is true? Why would Barack Obama remain in the church if he disagreed with it and thought it divisive? His continuance under the tutelage of Rev. Wright makes me wonder if Obama is running for President of the United States for all of this country’s people or if he’s running for one segment of the country.

Obama is asking the people of this country to consider him based on his judgment. That being the case, I can’t trust the judgment of a man that would choose to sit and listen to this type of speak from the pulpit and subject his children to this type of speak from the pulpit. I can’t trust a man that says he won’t throw overboard the pastor that led him to God. Yet he also let us know that his grandmother was afraid of black men passing her on the street, and used racial or racist terms that made him cringe. He can throw over his grandmother but not his pastor?

He won’t give up on the Reverend that married him but he’s willing to hint that Geraldine Ferraro is a racist. He won’t give up on the Reverend who preaches divisiveness, that baptized his children but he’s anxious to have Bill Clinton’s words in South Carolina igniting race as a topic, chastised.

It appears that Obama is right that we consider him based on his judgment. However, that judgment has proven to be flawed through all of this. His judgment has propelled us back into the sixties. The days of the riots. The days where Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. When Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated. How long before we start hearing about the drinking fountains for whites only? How long before we’re thrown back to lunch counter sit ins? How long before we’re bounced back to lynching’s?

Barack Obama is not ready to be President of the United States. He’s still dealing with the injustices put on the black people of this nation. He hasn’t moved on to making it better, he’s still wallowing in the past. His choice to stay in a church that likes to pit the races against each other shows his poor judgment.

At one time, the rich white men did hold back the black people of this country. However, those rich white men also worked to free the slaves from the very beginning. When laws were passed making black people 3/5 of a voter it wasn’t to say that the black man was less than a white man. This is a myth. The fact is that our founding fathers passed that law to help the black man and to lead to an end to slavery. The southern colonies wouldn’t join in making one nation without slavery. With the slaves mainly in the south, counting them for representation would ensure that the south would have higher representation. By listing a black man as only 3/5 of a vote they cut down the representation and made it possible for the slave debate to continue and eventually bring it to an end. This isn’t even taught in schools, so you can be certain that it’s not taught in churches.

Barack Obama’s speech was not a great speech. It was instead, an indication of his poor judgment which is exactly the reason he’s asking for the vote of the American people.

Obama seems to have two things to draw from. Obama said that he was raised by a white grandmother. Most children are influenced by those that raise them. Should we be concerned that Obama has admitted that his grandmother was a bigot?

He’s admitted he can’t just dismiss Rev. Wright because he’s like family, brought him to God, married him, baptized his children. Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been exposed as a bigot.

What seems to be the two most important people in his life; the one that raised him and the one that ministered to him, both are bigots. One we’ve seen on the news for a week and the other he’s told us about. The first, he didn’t choose. His grandmother raising him was not his choice. She was responsible for molding him into what he became, while being bigotted against black people. What he became was a man that chose a church led by a man that preached bigotry against the white man and blamed his own country for the attacks on this country on September 11, 2001.

Senator Barack Obama’s judgment should be considered when deciding to vote for him or against him just as it should be considered when deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton and it should also be considered when deciding to vote for John McCain. That judgment displayed by Barack Obama leads me to believe that Barack Obama is not the right man to lead this country in the future. Knowing what we know now, the people of Illinois should be wondering why they voted for him to enter the United States Senate.

Brett

Education in America

Last week an appeals court in California said that Homeschooled children being taught by parents or others that are not certified teachers is illegal. This means that nearly 166,000 homeschooled students in California are in danger of being arrested for truancy, and their parents are subject to the same legal charges for not having their children under the guidance of an accredited teacher.

So how dangerous to society are homeschooling parents? How safe are children in the public education system? How do homeschool, public schools and private schools compare?

Since 1960, homeschooling has increased in tremendous numbers. There has been a growth in the homeschooling community that is unbelievable. The reasons most often given for homeschooling over public schooling is the agenda of the public schools. They have banned God from schools with the exception of the pledge of the allegiance. Public schools are accused of forcing their beliefs, or lack of beliefs on the children they are in charge both political and anti religious. The common thought is they are liberal and anti God.

Since the primary concern for children is their education let’s start with that. Homeschooled students have outperformed public education by a wide margin. They have outperformed private school students by a lower margin, but still outperformed. Colleges and Universities are looking more for homeschooled students and the reason given is their study habits. There are many web sites that will give you this information and you can get to them by googling Homeschool vs public education.

These children are being taught by their parents. Some of those parents are certified teachers. They gave up their teaching careers to teach their own children. The majority of these homeschooling parents are without teaching certificates. Not just in California, but nationwide. Yet, these students are outperforming the public education system. Given this information, can we really say that these parents who choose to educate their children at home are a danger to society and need to be removed and incarcerated?

Then there is the safety factor. We all remember Columbine and the students who died there in the shooting by two students. Since 1996 there have been numerous school shootings. Nearly every week we’re hearing that a school in some part of the country is in lockdown due to someone shooting in a school or someone spotted near a school with a gun. Try as I might, I can only remember one homeschooling situation where kids were in danger and that was the lady in Texas a few years back that drowned her five kids in the bathroom.

In the past three years we’ve heard of no less than 30 teachers sexually abusing their students and these are just the female teachers. How many homeschooled parents have you heard of sexually abusing their children?

Another argument presented by the opponents of homeschooling is the “socialization” factor. They claim that they are not dealing with the real world because they are not around others. They don’t get the activities that public schooled children get and they don’t get the diversity provided in public school.

This argument has been completely debunked in several studies. Homeschooled kids are involved in other activities in their community, and in their churches. They are subjected to a variety of people of all age ranges and it’s been discovered that homeschooled kids are able to converse with a wider age range than those in public education.

Can you name me any profession where you’re put in a group of people that are all the same age? If you work in a factory, there will be people near retirement, others with ten years experience and others that have just begun. In the office, you’ll have a wide range of ages. Even the teachers in public schools have a wide range of age groups. The teacher who taught you are still there teaching your children. The younger teachers your child has may be some day teaching your grandchildren.

Yet, in public schools, all kids are jammed together with other children that are the same age as them. Kindergartners are all five or six years old. First grade is six and seven year olds and so on. If there is an older child in the class, it’s the exception to the rule and it’s because the older child has been held back a grade. So the diversity that public schooled children get is non existant. They are with others their same age.

In the classroom, there isn’t supposed to be any socialization. The socialization the children get is on the playground, where there is virtually no supervision or if there is that supervisor is far outnumbered by the amount of children on the playground. In addition to that, the younger children in lower grades have their lunch recess at a different time than the older children. So they are separated from that diversity by their ages yet again.

However, a homeschooled student will be around more people of various ages. They aren’t all locked up in the house. They are outside playing when the public school kids come home and they play with them. They are using public libraries. They are participating in organized sporting events and many states have homeschooling associations that create sporting teams, science groups and more that compete against the public and private school systems.

Each one of the arguments against homeschooling is refuted. Homeschooling proves that accrediting teachers is not a benefit to teaching children. Public schooling has their problems. They are complaining about the lack of money. They are complaining that children are not learning and t hey spend their time blaming the parents for the children not learning or blaming the children for not having the desire to learn. Homeschooling doesn’t have that problem. In fact, homeschooling parents pay their taxes to the schools and get no benefit from those taxes and they still pay for their children’s curricula in addition to those taxes paid and you just don’t see the news stories saying that parents need more money to educate their children. You don’t see news stories complaining about the lack of education resources or that their children are just not willing to learn.

Finally, you might be interested to know that our founding fathers were homeschooled. Public education didn’t come into being until the 1850’s in Massachusetts. Our founding fathers were taught at home, or were taught by being an apprentice. I don’t think you’d find anyone, even in the public school system, who would say that our founding fathers were not intelligent.

Homeschooling is a success. Public education is becoming more and more the model for failure. Nationwide, we’re falling in math and science behind countries that don’t have indoor plumbing.

By declaring homeschooling illegal, the appeals court is saying, ‘success is not to be harnessed and exploited. It’s more important that our public school system has control over the children’. It is no wonder that public education is becoming more and more recognized as the Government Schools.

Homeschooling is a success. If our government and courts were at all concerned about the children, they would learn from the homeschooling community and try to incorporate what homeschoolers do into the public education system. Alas, with these courts and our government, what we’ll continue to hear is that we need to throw more money at the failed public education system. Homeschooled parents do more successfully with their children in 3-5 hours per day than the public education system is doing in 9 hours per day five days per week. That's a success rate to be admired, not criminalized!

Brett

What does Senator Barack Obama Stand For?

There is a groundswell of support for Senator Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination for President. Some have called it a "movement". I've heard the question asked in other places and never heard an answer. What does Barack Obama stand for? If you're going to vote for him, please state why and be specific. If you're going to say he's for "change" please give some specifics about those changes.

If you're going to vote for Obama, why? What does Senator Barack Hussein Obama stand for?

Brett

Are Democrats Concerned about The Safety of the United States?

The recent debate over the FISA extension bill has created several questions. Recently, the FISA bill was about to expire. Congress passed some extensions while they debated or didn’t get around to debating the merits of the bill. This bill will allow the Government to monitor communications coming into this country from foreign countries and to monitor communications going to other countries from this country.

On February 22, 2008, the final extension given to this act, expired. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, decided not to allow it on the floor for debate and a vote but instead sent the House packing for it’s vacation.

On February 28, 2008 President Bush held a press conference. His main concern for this was the passing of the act. His claim is that this bill not being passed puts Americans at risk. What did the House do on February 28? They passed a tax increase on Oil Companies and sent it to the Senate.

The sticking point to the leadership of the House on the FISA bill is that they don’t want to give immunity to communication companies if they are sued for sharing information with the Federal government on communications. Notice, I said the “leadership of the House”. If this were allowed to the floor of the House, the compromise bill from the Senate would pass. Nancy Pelosi seems to think that it is more important to tax oil companies than to protect the safety of the American people. This tax would increase the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans, while the Democrats go on television complaining of the high cost of gas.

I believe that just in the reasoning of the House leadership you can see that the safety of the American people is not high on their list. What other evidence is out there that might indicate the Democrats have no concern for the American people’s safety?

I looked back at the most recent democrat Presidency. That of William Jefferson Clinton. There is quite a list of terrorist acts perpetrated on this country from 1993 through 2000. Clinton took office on January 20, 1993 and left office on January 20, 2001. Following is a list of terrorist attacks on this country during that time.


January 25 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others

February 26 1993: World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups:

March 1: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City

April 19 : Oklahoma City bombing kills 168 people, 19 of them children; the most deadly act of domestic terrorism in the United States to date.

June 25: Khobar Towers bombing – In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Hizballah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Hizballah) with Iranian support,

February 24: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda,

October 12 2000: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port of Aden, by al-Qaeda;

What did Bill Clinton do during those years? In February of 1993, barely a month after taking over the Presidency, he went on National television and said that he’d worked very hard, but just couldn’t find a way to give the middle class the tax break that he promised during his campaign.

In 1993 he started the siege at Waco and ended up killing Americans. Granted, David Koresh played games. However, one day prior to the siege, Koresh was watched as he ate an ice cream in town. They let him go and instead decided to serve him with their warrant the next day. On April 19, they decided to push tanks into the citizens at Waco killing many including David Koresh.

There were the numerous scandals during his administration. The health care debacle run by his wife, Hillary Clinton and who can forget the ATF breaking into a home and taking Elian Gonzalez, and 8 year old boy, and shipping him back to Cuba.

There were no less than two chances to kill Osama bin Laden that he passed on, once because he couldn’t be bothered due to watching a golf tournament on television.

There were three opportunities for President Clinton to be given Osama bin Laden that President Clinton passed on saying later that he had no crimes with which to charge bin Laden.

President Clinton sent our military to Kosovo, Haiti and Serbia. He left Rangers without the necessary backup and ammunition to protect themselves and fifteen of our best were dragged through the streets.

While the blowing up of TWA Flight 800 wasn’t and isn’t listed as a terrorist attack, it is my belief (without any proof) that it was an attack and it was covered up by the Clinton administration. There is quite a bit of Jamie Gorelick’s hand in that event.

His reign ended with the attack on the USS Cole. Again, he did nothing. During his years, Clinton took the intelligence of this country and removed the emphasis off of the human element and moved it towards technology. This removed intelligence on the ground. Human intelligence. In addition, we all know that he cut the military.

In November of 2000 the election took place between George Bush and Al Gore. It lasted 35 days before it was decided who the President would be.

George Bush took over as President in January 2001. The spring and summer was spent putting cabinet officials in place and getting their confirmations over. It was spent replacing the W’s on the keyboards in the White House when the former administration left behind petty vandalism.

Less than 7 months after taking office.....

September 11: Attacks kill 2,997 immediately, and many more later from exposure to toxic dust in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit the United States Capitol Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers; by Al-Qaeda, being the most catastrophic terrorist event ever known.

On October 7, 2001 President Bush announced the beginning of the war on terror by sending the military to Afghanistan. There have been no attacks since. There have been attempts, but they’ve been thwarted. The ones we know about; the attempt to have ten planes coming from Britain blown up over US cities is the best known, have been stopped.

In the past year, the Democrats have said over and over that it’s time to get out of Iraq. The Bush strategy was not working and we need to leave Iraq. When Bush changed the strategy and sent in the surge, nearly immediately it had an affect. Bombings are down, attacks are down, military deaths are down, civilian deaths are down. The Iraqi’s are taking over more and more of their own security. The government is beginning to take steps to take over their own country. The Democrats say we need to come out.

Even now, the Democrat Congress is passing measures to try to stop funding for the war. They are determined to end the war before it’s won despite the fact that we’re winning.

So what happens in the future? I’ve always believed that after the next election, when we have a new President, regardless of which party that President comes from, that the terrorists would step up their attempts to attack us. Whether this is a test to see if the new President would be tough on them as was Bush or just to see how far they can take the next President.

I believe this is more likely with a Democrat President than it is with a Republican President, but I still believe that the attempt will be made even if McCain is the next President.

The question is how will it be handled. When the attack on September 11, 2001 happened, there were comments made by former Clinton people that it’s too bad it didn’t happen during Clinton’s administration. He could have become the President that the nation rallied around rather than President Bush. It would have eliminated the stories of impeachment, his constant affairs and accusations of sexual harassment, rape and lawsuits and the myriad of scandals. It would have eliminated the talk of all of those that were imprisoned from his administration.

In other words, it would have been about President Clinton instead of the attacks on the American people.

Given all of these stories, and petty acts of President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton and his people that left their jobs when President Bush took over, I can only believe that Democrats are more interested in how they look, rather than what’s best for the United States of America.

Given the eagerness of the Democrats to surrender in Iraq and to go on vacation rather than do the work that is necessary to protect this country from attack, I have no choice but to believe that the Democrats are more interested in their own personal agenda rather than the protection of the United States.

It’s been reported that during the attack on September 11, 2001, there were two planes that didn’t hit their mark. One didn’t get off the ground in Boston and the other was taken down by the passengers in Pennsylvania. One of those planes were meant for the Capitol and the other was meant for the Capitol building. I find it interesting that the people of the United States (those on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania) made the ultimate sacrifice and quite possibly saved the lives of the members of both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats in Congress aren’t interested in saving lives of Americans across this country and the world by doing something simple, like passing the protection act.

Are Democrats concerned about the safety of the United States? My answer is no. They are concerned about how they are perceived. They don’t want to win the war unless they can take credit for it. After 8 years of one Democrat doing nothing, and a Republican attacking the problem within 8 months of taking office and NO ATTACKS SINCE I find it impossible to believe that Democrats care at all about the American people.

With the Democrats ignoring the FISA law, yet passing tax increases on the American people through the oil companies, it seems to speak volumes about their priorities. They want to take more of your hard earned money, but they aren’t interested in extending a law that has worked.
The Republicans were wrong for spending like Democrats and lost their majority over it. Bush was wrong for not vetoing all of the spending the Republicans did and paid the price by losing his back-up in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, the price will be paid by the American people in higher taxes and less security if the Democrats are put in power in the White House and even worse if they are given the majority in the House and Senate as well.

There will be one change that will take place, however. When we are attacked again, we will see over and over the pictures of the attack. Something that we haven’t been permitted to see after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Brett

Who Really Pays the Taxes in this Country?

Now that we’re in the waning months of the George Bush Presidency, one of the larger topics that comes up is the taxes. Both Senators Obama and Clinton are saying flat out that they will eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That they will increase the taxes on the rich and the corporations.

Four years ago, in the campaign leading up to the 2004 elections, this was also a topic. It was discovered at that time that John Kerry, the Democrat Presidential nominee who was in favor of eliminating the Bush tax cuts, paid 12% on his taxes. He and his wife are millionaire’s, yet they paid 12% in taxes. Through choices that they’ve made in their investing, they were able to pay less taxes.

In Michigan, the median income is $42,000 per year. Which means that the citizens of Michigan pay more, percentage wise, than John Kerry and his wife (the ketchup queen).

So if you’re making $40,000 per year, you’re paying your taxes, usually deducted from your paycheck. At the end of the year, you figure out your taxes and find that you are getting money back from the government for your taxes. It’s not that you’re not paying taxes, you just overpaid your taxes and they are returning the excess amount that you paid. They do not give you interest for the use of your money. They just return your overpayment.

So who’s paying the majority of taxes in this country? People that earn the most money are paying more than their share of the taxes. Those earning the top 50% in this country are paying 96.03% of the taxes. These figures are from the latest information available which was 2001. I have placed the chart from the US Treasury on the side.

Let’s forget about that portion for a moment and look at income. If you’re making $40,000 per year and you’re paying 28% in taxes, your tax bill is $11,200. If you’re making $140,000 per year, paying a 33% tax rate, your tax bill is $46,200 per year.

So what does everyone get for their tax money? What benefit are the richer getting that the middle class is not getting? Even if we went to a flat tax, and everyone paid 17% income tax on what they earned in a year as was proposed by Steve Forbes years ago when he ran for President. Again, using the same numbers. If you earned $40,000 per year your tax bill is $6,800 per year. If you’re earning $140,000 per year, your tax bill is $23,800 per year.

Again, I ask. What extra do the rich get for their taxes paid? Bigger house? They earned it, they made more money. More expensive car? They earned it, they made more money.

The rich don’t get their own lane in traffic. They have to deal with the same lanes as the rest of us when they drive somewhere. The gas they buy isn’t better than the gas we buy. They use the same gas. If I’m wrong on this, someone please point out where the gas stations are that say “Rich people here, poor people over there.”

Another fact is that corporations do not pay taxes. They write the checks for the taxes, but they don’t pay them. Corporations offer a product. The price of that product is determined by the cost to the Corporation to produce that product. First you need a building to produce the product. That has expenses built into it, such as heating, electricity, water. Then there is the worker to make the product. He/she must be paid and included in that cost is the expense of their health care provided by the company.

The company must also pay into social security for that worker in addition to the amount that the worker pays from his pay.

The company must also come up with their profit level. After all, they are in business to make money. There are costs involved with improving their product and adding other products on that enhance the first product. Then they are taxed for their business. That too is built into the price of the product.

By the time the product gets to the store shelf, the cost of creating the product are all figured into it to come up with a price to charge the consumer. That price includes the taxes the corporation must pay as well as the profit that they earn.

Corporations don’t pay the taxes, they build them into the cost of the product. When it arrives at the store, the store then adds their markup. After all, it costs them to provide space to put the product so that you’ll see it and buy it. They too have many of the same expenses that the corporation has. Utilities, store space, workers, their social security, their health care, and so on.

Once you pick up that product to buy it, you take it to the clerk to make your purchase, then another tax is added. Sales tax. The store doesn’t cover that for you. The corporation doesn’t cover that for you. You pay it. Now the liberal candidates are telling us that they will increase the taxes on corporations. The corporations aren’t going to pay this out of the goodness of their hearts. They will increase the price of their product.
What about personal taxes?

As you go through your personal taxes this year, look at your W-2 form. See how much in taxes was withheld. Then look at your tax form and see how much of that you’re getting back. Subtract how much you’re getting back from how much you’ve paid. Then just for fun, add $100,000 to your income and figure out what you’d have paid and the question that everyone should have is why are they paying so much more? Shouldn’t they be paying the same amount? What added benefit do they get from their taxes paid that I don’t get?

Compare the chart on the side of this blog and ask yourself why richer people are paying so much more proportionately than we are. What added benefit do they get that I don’t get? I’d really like to know the answer to that question.

Brett

Big Brother is coming for our DNA

On Wednesday, February 13, 2008 the House Judiciary Committee has voted to bring to the House floor legislation that requires that DNA will be collected at the time of arrest.

If this bill passes, and is signed into law, you can be arrested and your DNA taken and placed into a database. Apparently, they’ve added something to the original bill that was proposed. If you’re found not guilty, your DNA information will then be destroyed.

Proponents of the law, which is dubbed Katie’s law for a graduate student that died a violent death, say that it will save lives. If you’re arrested and you’ve committed a crime in the past where they have some DNA from that previous crime, but they don’t have your DNA, they will then be able to run you through a national database in the hopes that you’ll be caught from that DNA sample and they can charge with that crime. It’s difficult to argue against it using that logic.

Does the good that this laws advocates state outweigh the possibilities of abuse and infringe on people’s rights? Let’s examine that. First, the day the law is enacted, the law enforcement community will need to start building their database. Remember, this is a government function. We already know how imperfect they are at nearly everything. Social security is failed government program. Medicare is a failed government program. On the state level, we just went through a couple of tax increases because the state was supposedly broke, but then after the law was passed, they miraculously found millions of dollars. Notice they didn’t correct their “mistake” by returning the money to the taxpayer. Can we trust the government at any level to operate this successfully?

Assume for moment that you’re driving down the road. You reach over to adjust the radio and you drift across the line into the next lane. You notice it and move back where you belong. Unfortunately for you, the officer sitting in the speed trap also noticed you cross the line. The lights come on, and before you know it, he’s behind you expecting you to pull over. You pull over and he implies that you’ve been drinking. He orders you out of the car, puts you against the car and searches you, puts the handcuffs on and tells you that you’re being arrested for possible drunk driving. You’ve now been arrested and you’re going to be required to give your DNA. Whatever else happens, your DNA is now collected.

If they find that you’re not guilty, according to the law, they are supposed to destroy your DNA. However, before they release you, your DNA is released around the country to all of the other law enforcement agencies. Are they also required to destroy the results of the DNA test?

Let’s try one more example. Your 13 year old son is throwing a baseball outside. One gets away from him and goes through the neighbors window. The neighbor is very upset and he comes out using foul language. You come out to find out what the commotion is about and you start yelling at your neighbor for using the foul language. Your wife is nervous about the yelling so she calls the police who come right out and witness you and your neighbor arguing. They decide to arrest you and your neighbor for disturbing the peace. They also arrest your son for destruction of property. They handcuff the three of you and haul you in. They take DNA from the three of you. You and your neighbor are charged with disturbing the peace. The police run the DNA through the database and you, your neighbor and your son all are clear from any history of criminality where DNA was found.

Since disturbing the peace is not a felony, yours and your neighbors DNA is supposed to be destroyed. Did the rest of the nation destroy the reports too? Alas ,there is a problem for your son. He’s charged with destruction of property. He’s found guilty. Unfortunately for him, the window he broke was a picture window worth $2,000. Is that amount enough to classify it as a felony? If so, your 13 year old son, now not only has a record, but he also has his DNA kept in the database for the rest of his life. You have a 13 year old felon living under your roof and his DNA is on file with the law enforcement community. All because your neighbor lost his temper and you went out to defend and protect your son.

Normally, in this situation the two neighbors would get it settled and if it were my dad when I was 13, he’d have paid for the neighbors window to be replaced and I’d have had to work off the cost of the window and repay my dad. Or, if the neighbors were arguing like that and the police showed up, they’d just calm everyone down and there would be no arrests. Now, with the opportunity to collect DNA the incentive for them to settle it without arrests is gone.

Some would say, so what? Even if they collect your DNA, if you haven’t done anything wrong you’ll have nothing to worry about. Or, if you never do anything wrong, it won’t matter if they have your DNA. Others might say I’m being paranoid and that the police wouldn’t just go out and start collecting DNA because they can.

To the first, I’d say, how do you know I have nothing to worry about? Suppose they catalogue my DNA wrong? Suppose they don’t destroy it, or some other state doesn’t destroy the reports that come through their computers on me. This is probably worse than the old days when you might have an FBI file created if you protested the war in Ann Arbor and they found out your name.

To the second, about being paranoid and that the police wouldn’t start collecting to build their database, I would have to ask where this trust in officials comes from? Remember, we had a man in the highest office in this land that resigned the Presidency due to his actions that came about from a simple burglary in a hotel. Or another President, that was impeached for lying about his relationship with a girl that was near his daughters age.

Or perhaps we should look at Congress. A Representative from Delaware that drove drunk into a barrier in Washington DC a couple of years ago. Or another Representative that was E-mailing Capitol pages with sexual references in those E-mails. He resigned. We could make it more local by talking about the State government. Those that raised our taxes last year twice. Then after the tax increases were in place, they found $360 million dollars, but didn’t return it to the taxpayers. Let’s move more local. The Mayor of Detroit who lied about an affair in court, then after the case is over, it’s discovered he lied, his Chief of Staff lied, and it comes to light from text messages. Now it’s being reported that it’s tied somehow to a stripper that was murdered.

Let’s get even more local. In Lansing, a man was convicted of a murder at the community college in Lansing. He spent nearly a year in prison before another man confessed to the murder. Now it’s being reported that the prosecutor had knowledge of the first mans innocence but didn’t provide that evidence at the time of trial. They got their conviction and the man was wrongly imprisoned which apparently was known as they were trying to convict him. I’d even argue that those actions cost five other women their lives.

How about the judge that was just reported on today as having manipulated evidence in her court in Lansing. We can even use a local example of a policeman that shot himself, then claimed he was shot by a black man, in Grand Ledge. That turned out to not be true.

The argument that government officials won’t abuse the DNA, during the collecting, during the supposed destruction of the DNA, in prosecuting, in judging and in sentencing is being not just a bit naïve, but irresponsible.

We have a presumption of innocence in this country. We should not be opening the doors for arrests for the sake of collecting DNA from citizens just to maintain them in a database. Once someone is convicted of a crime, if they want to put that persons DNA in a database, that would make much more sense. They do have reason to believe that this person would in the future be a possible candidate for another crime.

However, this law is making the assumption that everyone is going to, at some point, commit a crime and this will help them catch them faster. That takes away freedom from the masses for the purpose of catching a few. There are too many avenues in this legislation and the enforcement of it, for mistakes as well as abuse.

In addition to all of the reasons and examples above, this takes health information and gathers it and puts it in the hands of the government. Your privacy with your health will now be infringed on by the State by letting them collect DNA from you. Maybe someday I’ll add to this with talk about the Aryan race and the State of Michigan if this law passes.

This is bad legislation and infringes on the rights of the citizens of this state and smacks of big brother.

Brett