Fundamentalist vs Reformers

For some reason those against education privatization seem to think we have been operating in a vacuum for more than 200 years. So can we, as educators, speak from a position of power if we ourselves are guilty of much of what we are claiming they are guilty of? Given that the US ranks in the 60 percentile internationally that means our A+ students are d students in the global market. We can hardly call that taking care of our children and every American should be screaming at the top of their lungs at this gross delectation of duty.  If responsible parents are seeking  a just education for their children they should not be chastised but rather applauded for doing what others are willing to turn a blind eye to.  We can all complain that our schools are losing money, we can complain that this is not the right move or that “the reformers” are destroying education as we know it but to not raise the bar on education, to not fix it and continue for another century along a path that continues to fail our children is far worse. Failure to fix our educational system quickly, even if it is uncomfortable for parents, students and teachers, means that America will also pay the price done the road as we lose more ground economically and our children continue to lose value in a global market. It is time to stop complaining and finger pointing and start bringing viable solutions to the table.

911 Museum…Remembering…Honoring

Amazing tribute. Seeing the dedication weighs heavy on the heart in much the same way that visiting Dachau concentration camp does. For those that were living on 911 you will remember that for a brief time Americans were a changed people. Time moved slower, people held doors for others, said “please” and “Thank you” and for a brief few weeks we were one nation under God doing unto other as…. The best way to honor those lost and those who worked tirelessly to save others is to go back to being a Nation that says, “please and thank you” a nation that cares for its neighbors, friends and fellow human beings. A nation that sees the good in everyone, leaves no one behind or alone. A nation that loves, not hates; a nation that lifts each other up and that gives selfishly treating each other with respect.

To forget this it to forget where we came from and what has made The United States such a great Country. Honor those and America through your actions and the message your heart carries!

Education Disconnect

So I went and voted and along the way saw many signs that say vote “yes” our children’s education depends on it”. For me this shows a simple disconnect and one of the major issues with America. We out spend almost every other nation in the world yet our children are dumber than almost other nations. Wait, maybe it isn’t an issue disconnect 😉 Seriously, we fall below some third world countries in education. I watched “parts unknown” the other night on CNN and was completely taken a back by the fact that in France they spend almost half as much as we do on school lunches. There is no GMO’s, no processed crap… in fact, theirs was served on porcelain plates, by the chef and would rival any high end restaurant in the US.

So maybe the issue is that when something is broken we just through money at it and figure that will fix it. Which brings me to the definition of insanity…

An Open Letter to the GOP Leaders from a Concerned Member

Dear GOP,
The parties recent trends make us look like we are trying to divide America and the marketing the party is using is only helping the cause. Our constant attacks and lambasting of every single thing the opposition does is making us look like we have nothing to offer. The fact that I just called the Democrats the “opposition” tells me the marketing is working. But the “opposition” is made up of my friends, neighbors, and family. They are doctors, students, mothers and clergy and collectively they are “Americans; least we forget. In war, or peace, I do not want to be a country divided as that sets us up to lose; I want to win. In the end much of our marketing is coming off as unpatriotic and anti-American and that is why so many are leaving the party. It is time to right the ship, get off this country dividing propaganda and start doing your job. Are we not tired of being the party that brings nothing but complaints to the table. I want to go back to being the party of ideas, the party that loves its country, the party that believed in American ingenuity and resolve, the party that believed Americans can do anything bigger and better than the rest of the world, the party who doesn’t talk about reaching across the aisle but rather the one that actually does it! It is time for you to stop trying to destroy the other half of America and come together to build a better, stronger America that every American can be proud of regardless of party affiliation. It is time to put country first and party second and if you can not do that then the party will have succeeded in doing what the terrorists could not.

What dirty secret does the NRA, Dems and GOP share that they don’t want you to know about?

Try this for political clarity: … Lets talk guns, but in a very broad sense. The 2nd Amendment in its entirety has never been heard before the Supreme Court. Parts of it yes, but the actual second has not (no time to cover how that works). The NRA spends mega dollars, supposedly, fighting many small battles of the 2nd. That being said, it would be more cost effective to fight one battle and be done with it. However, no one knows how it will go and that could back fire. Especially when you consider that the supreme court would take into account all the notes and early drafts leading up to the final draft. That means that the senator from PA who wanted to include the right to hunt and all the notes and first drafts with the second being built around the right to bare arms as part of the militia would be taken into account. It would have to weigh that right against the development of a national military that replaced the militia and if that in and of itself made the 2nd a moot point or not… So maybe this is too big of a risk for the NRA and GOP to stick their necks out for an answer that would end all debate. So why not the Dems, to high an issue it might go the wrong way?!? So in the end all sides believe they are 100% right but non enough to take the chance to bring it before the Supreme Court or is there another reason they do not bring it before the Supreme court in an end all. I believe none of them want a real answer. If we have an answer all of them lose because the 2nd is a HUGE money maker for all three of these groups. Take away the emotion and they need to find other issues to ignite passion and drive the dirty money train. When we all finally see this for what it is then you have to ask, “What other issues are they using to divide the country and raise money”? Is there anything patriotic or American in doing that?

Is the NRA and GOP using the 2nd Amendment as a distraction?

Is the NRA and GOP using the 2nd Amendment as a distraction?

Legally, only part of the bill of rights may be about the people. It is noted by the supreme court that Privilege or Immunity Clauses refer to “citizens” whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any “person”. There is much question on why the founding fathers who took such great lengths to word thing had intended the BOR to be for all Americans or those of a special class drafting the bills. Even the 2nd, as you know, was written to protect the rights of the militia and had more than 20 re-writes before it was even voted on the first time.

The USSR used Hitlers possible corpse to distract the world while building a wall around what would become East Germany and this seems to be much the same. Every time a contingency of Americans call for greater gun safety a smaller contingency of gun enthusiast scream, “They are trying to take your guns”. Following these battle cries the NRA and a slew of politicians stand in line to fill their financial war chests, gun and ammo sales spike and people are up in arms (pun intended) pitted American against America. At the same time this has happens, representatives use it to grow funding of the Militarily, but not for the soldiers but rather the companies of the lobbyist who fund their campaigns and livelihood. They have used the money to write out Thomas Jefferson from the history books; his religious views did not match, create PAC groups to funnel greater power and wealth away from the people and to special interest groups, distract the people from issues around human rights, war efforts that cost American lives but fund their private corporations, attacked social security and diligently sought legislation that has actually stripped Americans of their country.

We know the the 2nd was based around a Militia. We know it was added to allow states the right to protect themselves with their citizens. However, we don’t know if it crossed the founding fathers minds that someday it would be possible to own a Gatling gun that fits into your pocket; let alone a Gatling gun. In fact chances are pretty good they did not think of weapon technology past that of the flint lock of that time. They had cannons so was that something they thought to be covered? Although, it is not something that could be “bared”? So does that mean that weapons of such destruction need not be included/excluded since they are so heavy they can’t be carried around? As such the battle rages on between originalist and strict constructionist

The ratification of the second was originally sought to give clarification as to the rights of a person to hunt on their own property. Instead however, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty, curb uprisings, and protect against tyranny.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding the delegates of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein. However, since the organization of a formal army would make this a mute point extending that right to only those actively serving. However, I don’t buy this since that would remove the power of the states to stand up against the government.

In the original bill of right Madison proposed, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”. This brought about great controversy focused all around the religious exception. and was read in as, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms”. That became, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person” and that lead to, “A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. As you can see all of the first drafts dealt with state power and religious rights. The senate later sought to have the words, “for common defense” inserted into the passage but was defeated on grounds that it could force the militia to choose sides and as such removing the very right they sought to protect; the right to form a militia and bear arms to protect the interest of the state and country. It finally passed the senate as, “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but much like today, the house quietly amendment in by adding , “being necessary to” to the passage.

Several Supreme court justices have said, “The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”. In fact, if you apply the grammatical structure of the time of writing, and not that of modern day, to the 2nd is has everything to do with being part of the militia and not ones rights as an individual separate of state. But who knows, maybe these guys already used 20th century grammar?!?

While there are no supreme court cases trying the absolute right to bear arms the supreme court has written, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”. There are two point here that the Supreme court has further ruled: 1) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose 2) States have the right to regulate those rights.

As such, the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Given the governments fire power owning anything less that fighter jet makes the entire right to carry to defend the state and people from the government a mute point.

To date lower courts have held, the firearms registration procedures; the prohibition on assault weapons; and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment…this has never been challenged in the Supreme Court and begs to ask the question, “What then is the NRA actually doing with all the money (Nearing a trillion Dollars) they have been collecting over the 2nd Amendment rights”?

Gov Christie costing residents millions

NJ screwed by the big guy… Governor Chris Christie in an effort to try and show the GOP he is a team player changed his policy to set up a successful health insurance exchange in the state costing the tax payers to lose their $7,670,000.00 grant.

This came on the heals of an awkward town hall meeting where the people were not their passive subservient crowds Christie is used to. When Chris Christie started to talk over a complaining questioner, a signature tactic of the bellicose, pre-scandal governor, the audience here briefly turned on him.
“Answer the question,” some shouted.

When he took a microphone from a long-winded speaker, the man startled Mr. Christie by snatching it right back.

And when he singled out a young woman as his inspiration for repairing the Hurricane Sandy-battered coastline, he failed to grasp that the girl’s mother — sitting just a few feet from Mr. Christie — was angry with him for not doing enough.

“He’s full of it,” she said. While another was threatened by staffers for exercising her freedom of speech….she was holding a sign that read, “Resign Christie”. It seems the once poster child of the GOP is in big trouble.

another debunked Obamacare horror story

Another day, another debunked Obamacare horror story. The larger problem with this one is that it’s got the big bucks of the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity behind it… You know the one:

“I was diagnosed with leukemia. I found out I only have a 20 percent chance of surviving. I found this wonderful doctor and a great health care plan. I was doing fairly well fighting the cancer, fighting the leukemia, and then I received a letter. My insurance was canceled because of Obamacare. Now, the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable. If I do not receive my medication, I will die. I believed the president. I believed I could keep my health insurance plan. I feel lied to. It’s heartbreaking for me. Congressman Peters, your decision to vote Obamacare jeopardized my health.”

Well it turns out it is a farce. Boonstra, the women with Leukemia, herself told the Detroit News that her monthly premium cost had been cut in half, from $1,100 a month to $571. Her assertion that “the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable,” is hard to back up as well because Obamacare limits out of pocket spending to $6,350 for an individual plan, at which point the insurance company picks up everything. According to what Kessler found, all of the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Michigan have that limit. So the out of pocket expenses Boostra is facing will be almost entirely covered by how much she is saving in premiums over the course of the year—$6,348. 

At the end of the day this is the kind of propaganda that Hitler used to scare the public into backing this parties plans…

We The People…

Obama’s speech, when looking past the rhetoric of the three political factions, is neither  left nor the right, it was not about the Democrats views or Republican views….it was about the emerging views of the next generation, the new governing coalition, those who embrace the future, honor the founders and understand the greater possibilities that lie ahead for all Americans and who are not bound by stereo types, color, race…..
America has turned the corner and the old, out dated country dividing rhetoric of the old party views will only live in those who lack the ability to embrace new things, see the possibilities in everything and everyone and those who find comfort in pledging their allegiance to their party first and the greatest country on earth second. Simply put this is the generation gap of political views.

The People’s Plan

The People’s Plan

During his inaugural address President Bush called on Americans to help deliver some of the answers to change Social Security.  I feel I have a valid solution and plan to set it forth in this letter to America.  But before I lay out the plan lets look at a few facts.

If you define “bankrupt” as not being able to pay your obligations in full, then you might argue Social Security will be bankrupt come 2042, using projections from the Social Security trustees, or 2052, using estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.  Using this same argument on America we don’t have to wait till the year 2042 or 2052…We are already BANKRUPT. Following the Presidents thought process we should toss out our current government and create one for the new millennium. Actually, he may have something here!

Social Security is a wonderful program designed to take care of the hard working, sometimes less fortunate Americans.  Over the Last 20 years it has taken in more money than it has paid out.  This is what has allowed for a surplus to be built up. This surplus has been lent out for other ventures and in 2018 Social Security will have to demand that the US government pay back its loan to Social Security. The reason for this is that when Social Security projects, the system will have exhausted its surplus. If the Government is allowed to default on their loan from your Social Security benefits, the company (the United States) becomes more profitable. With the loan repaid to Social Security, the current system would still be taking in enough revenue to cover 75 percent to 80 percent of what is currently promised for the next 40 years.

To bring into balance the $11 trillion dollar deficit that President keeps pointing out as a result of projections made by the Social Security trustees, the payroll tax would have to have to be increased by 1.89 percent. This would take payroll deductions from 12.4 to 14.29 percent.

According to the bureau of labor statistics, the average hourly rate in the US is $13.  An increase of just 12.5 cents an hour (from both the employer and employee) would save Social Security for an additional 75 years.  So by these calculations it is very easy to see that Social Security is not bankrupt and can be fixed very easily.

If we switch to personal savings accounts as outlined by President Bush’s plan and would retire in 17 years, our benefits would be reduced by a mear 10 percent. If you would retire in 37 years that amount would be reduced by about 25 percent. Your children and grandchildren would see their benefits diminish by almost 46 percent.

I agree with President Bush that we shouldn’t put a band-aid on a potential problem. I also feel that if your child breaks their leg you obviously don’t just toss them away. Additionally, you don’t take a faltering policy and replace it with another one.  My grandfather is a retired Brigadier General. He has taught me much over the years and one of those things is, “all of us together are smarter than any one of us alone”.  I call this plan “The People’s Plan” as it was derived from a single thought and input from countless Americans from every walk of life. The program is probably not perfect and would require bipartisan approval and the willingness of all politicians, including the president, to let the American People continue to shape this plan and take credit for its creation. In addition to saving Social Security, “The People’s Plan” will allow for the rollback of the tax cut, address the overactive participation of special interest groups in Washington and build a better America.

The plan is simple and cost effective to all. Here it is:

All Americans will continue to contribute to Social Security at the same rates they currently are contributing. In line with President Bush’s idea, 5 blind trust funds will be created. American workers will be able to contribute money into these (PSF) Private Saving Funds. Their contributions to these funds would be tax-free as they are taken directly from their paychecks. This portion would be administered the same way as withholding taxes are currently managed. The amount to be contributed to your PSF could not exceed $1000 a week. As one might figure, the wealthier Americans will contribute at a higher rate.  Because recent tax cuts address the wealthiest Americans, this would allow them to still have the tax savings while rolling back the tax cut.

Come retirement, those Americans with assets above $1 million dollars or an annual cash flow of $100,000 dollars or more would draw no Social Security benefits.  You might say this is not fair but let me explain.  My grandfather, who I mentioned earlier, is pretty well off.  He lives in an expensive house, has great benefits and several pensions. He continually complains that having to accept his Social Security check puts him in a higher tax bracket. By not receiving Social Security benefits, America’s wealth can cut taxes and pass that money back into the system. With fewer Americans withdrawing, SS funds remain higher longer. To compliment this set-up, a system would have to be set up that would allow full benefits to be paid to those needing it most and reductions for those who are more fortunate. At this point some folks may be thinking it should be called the Mother Therese or Robin Hood Plan. Either way it allows for all Americans to retire comfortably for the contributions they have made to the country over the years.  Should a person’s fate change over the term of their retirement, the benefits would go either up or down!

The last part of this program would do away with special interest groups in Washington.  This is the part that our President and representatives will like least. Let me foreshadow what I am about to propose with this:

All across America people make choices in their careers.  Retail workers give up weekends and nights, sanitation workers deal with smelling other people’s trash for better wages, school teachers accept that they will have a reduced lifestyle because they love working with kids, ski instructors accept that they will have no benefits, low wages and work in sometimes adverse weather conditions in order to do what they love.  A stay at home mom or dad knows that they are giving up a lucrative career to ensure that they are there for their family. Firefighters, police officers and the men and women of the Armed Forces put their life on the line to do what they love and to help others. Every American worker gives up something as part of the career they choose. It is my proposal that our representatives in Washington shall ONLY partake in the blind PSF program for all of their investments.  That is, they shall hold no publicly traded stocks, bonds or market funds.  This rule shall remain in effect during their service in Washington and continue for a period of 15 years after retirement from public office.  With large corporations pulled from the pockets of Washington, special interest groups will carry the same voice as everyday, hardworking Americans.

As promised, “The Peoples Plan” allows for the rollback of tax cuts while still allowing every one to get a tax break by investing additional money toward their retirement.  This rollback will allow America to help pay down our overextended debts and unplugs special interest groups from Washington’s pockets while giving President Bush his Special Saving Accounts.  Most of all it saves social security and provides a better life for ALL AMERICANS.

PS I am taking this plan to the American public. I have notified the press that the President, leaders of the house, senate and both parties as well as ALL of the representatives from Connecticut and a hand full of other states have been given this information and NOT one of them has taken an interest…. It is obviously time to replace self-centered interest group driven politicians with those that are there to serve the public!!

Shared on Wiki