Abstinence only in Tucson.... what is this-- the 16th Century!?

As many of my regular readers know, I moved to Tucson from Michigan last November. Having been told for many years of the support in Arizona for personal freedom and a celebratory attitude toward personal conscience I truly thought I could find a home here; a home where I would be accepted, even if not always agreed with, where my thoughts and ideals of personal freedom and responsibility would be considered normal-- after all the bulk of the state would share those ideals, would they not? Even if the interpretation was different, it was personal, and therefore we could all enjoy the freedoms to disagree.

At least, that is what I thought. I was rudely disabused of that notion, and continue to be so, day after day in this place. I have come to resent this state, and county, sadly, I have found more accepting and freedom loving persons in the often called socialist states of Vermont and New Hampshire as well as the state I moved from.

At the very least, I thought that Arizona would value A) her children, B) their education and C) the freedoms and rights entailed in the Constitution (not one is listed as “The right to be a complete tool, I might add.)

My son attends --- Middle school. We're already talked about his school, I know. And let me tell you, it gets better and better every day... Already knowing this state devalues education-- so much so that the individual school boards have to beg for an override in order to fund their schools-- I should not have been surprised by the stupidity running rampant. I should not be surprised to find myself embarrassed that my son is attending his local public school. I should probably have switched my brains into the “Neutral” position and picked up a sign protesting something “anti-American” in Washington.

But I wasn't. I was shocked, and appalled.

Recently I received a so-called passive permission slip. This means “if you don't sign it, we can do it; if you do sign, we can't”. This passive slip would allow my son to receive mandated abstinence only sex-education. In a state that rounded out the top five states for teen pregnancy, I am being asked to passively give permission to NOT teach my son how not to knock up some girl by the time they get to high school

I am being asked NOT to ask why, not to question the intelligence of this programme. Instead, I am being made to feel like a terrible person... after all, I am singling my kid out-- not giving permission, signing that slip makes him one of the Others... one of the outsiders. I am marking him as the dreaded Different.

I would rather be the parent known as “that trouble maker”, than support this district in Non-Teaching.

The strange thing is, this isn't the first stupid thing I've seen since he started there. He's only in the 6^th grade, this is his first year. I've signed, or seen, three different slips that make me question the intelligence, education and (quite frankly) the ability of his teaching staff and administration.

The first was a note home detailing possible book choices for this year. Rather than the usual classics, I was asked, if possibly it might be ok if maybe they found it, could my son read the teen-romantic-pap novels known as the “Twilight” series. These books are highly misogynistic, support the stalking of women, mistreatment of men, and anyone who cares about you-- so long as you “get what you want” and “he/she loves me”.

This is what I call training for domestic abusers... not literature. Rather give him “Catcher in the Rye” and deal with that fall out, but it would require thinking on both his part, and the part of his teacher.

Second, I gave permission for him to watch President Obama's speech. This speech was specifically intended for school children. The administration supported it, and yet, his teacher (another one entirely) decided she didn't have to follow the mandate put forth by the school. “You won't learn anything anyway” she claimed, and disregarded parental choice in the matter. Frankly, if she did not wish to view it, she could have gone with her students who didn't have permission, and return a few moments later, when the speech was over. Rather she let her own, apparently ideological, choice make the decision for all parents (you can read my reaction to it in an earlier blog if you are so inclined). If this was the case, why waste the paper printing the permission slip? Instead, let me know, as a parent, “We're not broadcasting this speech due to the overwhelmingly Republican presence in the area, sorry about that”. It's a free country, I probably wouldn't have agreed, but I wouldn't have been upset. As is, I am quite cross with this school's 6^th grade teachers, and this is long before I got the letter.

“Dear Parents and Guardians,

Once again, due to popular demand, --- Middle School (Along with Pima Prevention Partnership, a local non-profit organization) is offering your student an opportunity to participate in an Abstinence Education curriculum.

We focus on:

building healthy relationships

effective communication

decision making

setting goals

refusal skills

the risks of being sexually active (STD's/HIV/pregnancy)

self-esteem building

The Abstinence Education program conducts a curriculum that is informative and activity based that will give your student engaging hands-on lessons in developing life skills.

The 6^th graders will receive the 8-10 hour curriculum during P.E. Class during 1^st semester.

We will be using a passive consent form (permission slip attached). If you choose for our child not to participate, please return the form within three days, and the school will assign an alternative project.

We look forward to offering your student this information. If you have any questions, please contact DeeAnn Arroyo or Christina Brown of the Abstinence Education program at the Pima Prevention Partnership: 326-2528 ext. 2107 or 2122. (emphasis and italics in original)

Now, I got this slip home about two weeks ago, and according to my kid, they've already started the classes. He and two other boys go off to another room to “hang out and talk” while their class mates are learning not to have sex, and well, frankly I'm not sure what “setting goals” or “refusal skills” actually means. They're in 6^th grade... and no sixth grader I've ever met has a problem saying, “No” or telling me what he/she wants.

I don't know why this place is so backward, so uneducated that it's normal to continue teaching nothing to the next generation. I don't know why it's the norm here for a family to have 4 to 8 kids, and then the oldest couple kids have a kid or two (yes, this is happening, I see it in my neighbourhood: big sister is pregnant, and big brother has weekend visitation with his baby).

I don't know why Pima county is choosing to ignore the CDC's numbers, especially since you can't get any sort of help from the County anyway-- even getting help with food stamps, or child support payments (as in getting them started or switched from another state) is damned near impossible... it's not like these kids could possibly magically popping out fully grown tax payers to put money into the coffers of this corrupt and bankrupt system... rather they're having babies they can't take care of, and I blame their parents and their schools.

If you give your kids the tools they need; the information they desire, and everything they need to make a good decision, then chances are they will make good choices. My twelve year old knows how “babies are made” and while the idea grosses him out totally (thank the Creator!!) he also knows there are ways to prevent those pregnancies and that I want him to wait to have sex until he's grown, until he can make mature decisions. He is ready to wait, for now, and I'm glad. It's up to me to reinforce that idea: Wait until you're ready. And it is up to me to continue to introduce more information about pregnancy and disease prevention and the entire “How not to knock up your girlfriend!!” I am his mum, it's my job... it is not up to the school or county.

All mothers and fathers who don't teach their children about sex education at home, before age 8--

All school administrators who are too busy making themselves look good for the RCC and LDS communities down here--

All the parents who are too busy, too stupid, too ignorant or just don't give a f*** and take the attitude of: “let the schools deal with it”--

All the governing officials who think it's ok to promote ignorance, to add to the problem by not standing up for actually teaching--

Yeah, I blame all of you. The teen pregnancy rate in Arizona is your fault. You've let politics, and religion take charge instead of science and common sense. You're all too afraid to admit that your kids might possibly Not listen to you and might just get a piece of ass before they're married...

Get with it people! Get a grip on reality, look in the mirror, admit you're not perfect, that your kid screws up and figure out what you can do about it. As long as you all think for one moment that “My kids would never”... yeah, you're part of the problem.

It's your fault that babies are being born to babies... that they can't have help when they need it, that they will grow up to perpetuate this life of ignorant poverty.

Your fault... I know what I'm doing about it. What are you doing about it?

Links for your edification:

Teen birth rates up in 26 states-USA Today

Guttmacher Institute-2006 numbers, short form

National Vital Statistics Reports- March 2009, CDC

(C) WW/ES 2009, all rights reserved, it's all mine except where noted

Knee Jerk reactions and schools teaching stupid.... ugh!

September 3, 2009

Dear Parent/Guardian,

On September 8, 2009, President Obama will address school children across the country. This will occur at 11:00 am. Many staff will be showing the address in its entirety. This is not an attempt to indoctrinate students. It is my decision, as a teacher, to show the address in its historical context. By signing the bottom of this permission slip, you give consent to your student to view this broadcast. Please have your child return this form to their 3rd period classroom.

If you would rather your student not watch this address, a site and alternative assignment will be provided. Students who watch this address will be given a brief writing assignment to express their opinions followed by a discussion period.


[signed] --- Middle School
[phone number]


The emphasis is in the original...I removed the middle school's name, as well as the Principle, Vice-Principle and Office Manager. I didn't want to intrude on their privacy. My son goes to the above unnamed middle school. His third period teacher is a woman named Sonia. Why am I not refusing to name her, you ask? I mean, after all I redacted the other names...

Because Ms. Sonia decided, regardless of what the parents chose, she was refusing to show the vid. I signed a permission slip... and I acted in my sons' interest (it's not common for a President to address students, after all) and Ms. Sonia reacted with the same knee-jerk reaction as the Religious Reich/Conservative over-boarders and refused-- across the board-- to show it.

My son came home from school yesterday and told me her decision. “She told us she wasn't going to show it, because 'all it's going to say is to get an education-- which you're already doing' “.

I looked blankly at my five feet plus tall son (almost eye to eye). I know I blinked a couple times, but my mind was somehow refusing to process the information. Youi see, I had just read about an entire “movement” of people who were determined that President Obama was out to “get” their kids. To “indoctrinate” them (no, I don't know how he's going to do that), and void out all those years of parental brainwashing...

Gods forbid!!!

I did a Yahoo news search (Obama school speech+parental reaction) and found countless news stories. Each news story showcased the paranoia the school administration is feeling (or acting like they're feeling): Schools configure plan for Obama speech; Some local schools to provide alternatives to Obama speech; Schools address Obama's speech; Obama school speech a concern for some; and my local paper: White House: Why the fuss over school talk? (there was a small couple inch “local angle” which we'll get back to in a little bit).

These stories are from all over... not just my local area. I haven't read all of them, but I did skim them. About three paragraphs in (or so) my brain started shutting down, as it usually does when I see people panicking.

My first thought was the proverbial “WTF?!?!?! Are these people just that stupid?!”

My second thought was “Oh Goddess, these people are serious, they honestly think an education pep-talk is going to somehow turn these kids into 'flaming liberals'.”

Then I thought, “Ok, not everyone understands exactly what indoctrination and brainwashing really are. Maybe if they take a weekend and research they will change their minds”.

But I know that is not the case. How? Because of this little gem from Utah:
“Guy Sanderson, a sixth-grade teacher in Park City, says educators should pay mind to what's beyond the surface of Obama's speech.

"My last four years in the military, I worked the propaganda for special ops; we called it PSYOPS or information management," said Sanderson who plans to preview the speech before sharing it with students.” (emphasis added)

Now the Pres. can't even give a “Please stay in school because Americans are dumb” speech without America showing the world exactly how dumb we are (collectively)... Wonderful! And I bet you that the people who believe this pap are the same sort who proudly call themselves “Teabaggers” or “Birthers”.... (yes, I do know the sexual connotation of “teabagging”.... seems no one else does though; and yes when I hear a media person say it I laugh like a middle school boy).

I understand there are a lot of people out there who do not like the President. I know they consider a Democrat in office to be close to the “anti-christ” being in there. I know this because I was raised by a rabid Republican (my mother). I heard more railing against a President when Clinton was in office than I have heard combined by anyone else-- ever. More than the entire left railed against George W. More than the right wing is railing now (and I get the feeling they're just warming up). She hated Bill Clinton. He was the cause of all bad things, everywhere-- ever. Including, but not limited to WWII, Vietnam, the sexual revolution, my smoking, teen pregnancy-- you name it, Clinton caused it.*

I also know there are so-called religious leaders out there who are stoking this fear, this paranoia, and the faithful are eating it like candy. Isn't that what we do? Listen to our religious leaders? In this case, the Christian Coalition/Religious Right/rabid-anti-choicers/Catholics/and anyone else who thinks that this country needs to be a theocracy are merely adding to the mess, as opposed to helping clear it up.

When I go to a priest or priestess I am going for advice. I want their opinion. I value it, as I think they're wiser than I. I expect them to be honest, even if they don't know the answer, and to be sincere.

What is going on now with this “OMFG Obama wants to brain wash my babies?!?!?!?!?11111” is just as stupid as “OMFG W stole the election” and “OMFG Bill likes to sleep around!!!!” or “OMFG we did have more taxes, he lied?!!?!?!?!”

You get the idea. This same paranoia gets passed from one side of the political isle to the other when the White House changes parties.

Experienced pol-watchers blow it off for the most part. I honestly can't tell you I've seen anything new, up to this point.

The idea that a short-ish speech by the sitting President is going to turn my son into a Obama-fan boi though amuses the shit out of me. My home is rather liberal in political clime. I'm very libertarian, although I am Democratic in some things, Republican in others-- mostly though I'm Anarchist. This sorta rubs off on your kids, you know... so my kids tend to be politically more anarchist than anything else.

They'd have to become more conservative to become fan-bois of the President. They would have to stop thinking on their own, and give over their Goddess-given brains to another person-- something I've expressly forbidden, and something they aren't digging on anyway. Who in the world wants to give up their autonomy? (Ok, yes, right and left wingers are usually the first ones to give up their own free-will, sorry, I forgot about those built-in fan bois and grrls).

My favourite part of the paranoia has to be the local angle in the paper here though; local reporter Rhonda Bodfield wrote:

Carrie Fort, a 32-year-old mother of a fourth-grader at Wright Elementary School in the Tucson Unified School District, was among those asking her school not to air the speech.

"My daughter has been like his No. 1 supporter since she first saw him. Everything he says she takes strictly to heart," she said. "I don't want him slipping something in about health care and then have her come home saying, 'Why aren't you doing something about this?' "

Meanwhile, Cathy Mackie, a 58-year-old social worker, said the controversy "is beyond me."
"Here is a black man who was raised by a single mother. You just know he wasn't rich. And he rose to become the president of the United States. He's telling every child out there — Hispanic, black American, Asian — that they have a chance to be president of the United States."

Mackie said she fears that bias lies at the root of some of the furor. "You can put as much sugar as you want on it, but racism is racism and I'm calling it that."

Most local school districts are leaving it up to individual teachers to decide if they want to allow the viewing of the speech in their classroom.” (emphasis added)

One mother, knowing her daughter is digging on the Pres. Says “Not just no but hell no!! My daughter like, might actually like ask me like something about current affairs-- or better yet, like she might like totally (gasp) talk to me!!!” (Yes, please read that in your best Valley Girl... it's one of the local dialects down here). While a local social worker automatically decides it's all about racism, even though the majority of the reasoning given by those opposed have nothing to do with what colour the President's skin is... it has to do with their phobia of his policy (or rather their Perception of his policy.... a huge difference).

When you're done giggling, please don't cry. I know I wanted to.

These are our kids. They are supposed to go to school to be educated. Instead they are being used-- yet again-- as pawns for the ultra-right wings' hatred of open discussion. (Is it honestly any wonder that Arizona placed 49 last year amongst the nations' educational ranking?)

Why do I say that? Think for a moment:
The reaction of these people: I do not like you, I do not like what you have to say-- even if I don't know what it is. Therefore Shut Up!!! And if you don't, I will shut you up.”

These same persons are usually out there lambasting everyone with whom they disagree for “shutting down free speech” or some such nonsense.

The single most adult way to deal with this would be to let their kids see the speech, and then take the time to discuss it with their children! Ask what he said, what their kids thought about it, and what (if anything) can be taken from it, learned from it.

Instead, I have to call the school first thing Tuesday morning, and lodge a complaint:
My son has permission to view this vid. Your employee is infringing on that permission for a lame ass reason. Do something about it.”

I really hate being that ass-hole parent that pesters the schools to behave...

To actually educate...

But I'll be damned if I let the anti-thinkers, the paranoid-Please Don't Make Me Think For Myself!!!, the “My Pastor said so” people run my kids' schools.... this ain't a so-called “christian” school.... just like this isn't a christian nation... and these people need to get a grip.

The Christ never said, “When you believe in me, you automatically stop thinking...”

At least if he did, I missed that translation.


Make of it what you will, I know I'm annoyed by it...
And I know, I know, I can't stab people for being stupid, but damn....

-WW


*For those of you who might think I'm exaggerating, please know I am not. She would blame the exchangbe rate on him when the Mark went up against the Dollar (we lived in Germany). She blamed soldiers not getting promoted, the entire draw-down (including stuff that had started before he was elected) and swore he “stole” the election-- I know, sounds familiar, doesn't it?

The Declaration of Independence, in the language of America, 2009:

The Declaration of Independence, in the language of America, 2009:

I wrote this "translation" of the Declaration into our modern day English, to highlight the differences in our word usage-- much has changed in the past couple centuries.

I hope you enjoy it, it's meant to be tongue in cheek, not serious at all.


From Congress on July 4, 1776

We all decided, all thirteen of us-- you can call us the United States of America,

You know, things change, and time passes, and sometimes it’s necessary for one part of a country to leave the other part and get divorced; it’s necessary for that newly single country to make its own laws, and to be on its own; it’s also the normal thing, for that newly divorced country to be single in the eyes of the rest of the world [divorce party anyone? Our place, tomorrow!], and that they should probably explain why they got divorced.

We believe there is some stuff that's so obvious we don’t even need to mention them: all humans are created equal, that they’re given certain rights from the Creator that can't be taken away; and that some of those rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness [which means getting stuff!!] We think that to protect these rights, the Government is made by normal people, and gets to be in charge, because we said so. We also think, if the government stops helping and protecting them, the people have the right to make changes, or fire the government and start over. The new one, of course, would be made with the job of providing safety and happiness for the people. If we’re smart [and of course, we are!], we know that governments shouldn’t be over-thrown every day, especially when they’ve been around for awhile- and not for just any reason; but, we’ve seen too, that humans are usually ready to deal with horrible things from their government, rather than risk making a new one- “Better the devil you know…” But when there is such a long list of terrible things the government has done, absolute tyranny and evil, then the people must fire them, and make a new one.

This is what we've done, and we went through a lot of pain before deciding to do so. We’ve been patient, but the King of Great Britian has done so many things, over and over, all in order to be an absolute dictator over us [talk about bossy!].

To prove our case for “country-divorce” let us list our troubles for the world to see:

He didn't let us make laws, to protect the people.

He didn't even let his own Governors pass laws, even the very important and needed ones; at least until he could approve of them all himself. However, while we waited, he forgot about us, and ignored the laws needing his attention.

He wouldn't let us send in our counts [our population has grown so much and we deserve Representatives under the Parliment], and so the new citizens had to give up their right to representation: this is something that only a true tyrant and real jerk would do!

And another thing, he called our representatives away for out of town business, it’s not like we can take a ship from Boston to London in three days or something! And when he calls them, he makes sure that it’s hard to get to all the important public records and information they need [we, unfortunately don't have Wikipedia or Google]. The only reason for this is to embarrass them into doing what he wants.

He fired all of our representative houses, the Colonial congresses, several times; the only thing they did was tell him he was taking the rights from the people.

After firing the Representative, he wouldn’t let us elect more, not for a long time; this killed the legislative abilities of the people. This also left the States without protection from crime, and they were unable to protect the people from being invaded.

He wouldn’t even let people who moved into the States become citizens. By not passing laws that made it legal, and easier for them to come here, he’s preventing population growth and making it so people don’t want to come.

He obstructed justice, by not signing the laws we need for judges.

Now only that, but he pays the judges, and decides how long they sit on their benches; this makes them want to do only what he wants, rather than be fair and lawful [Ol' Boys network, anyone?].

He created all sorts of new official government jobs, and sent hordes of them here specifically to harrass the people, and eat us out of house and home (because he’s making us feed them, or go to prison).

He has had armed soldiers all over the place, during peace time, keeping an eye on us, without our permission.

He even made the military immune to the civillian authorities, and even considers them to be more powerful.

He has even gotten together with some of his buddies (in the Parliment) to make us follow some so-called laws, that are illegal. He has signed several acts into law, from their fake laws:

One that forces us to move them in, feed and provide for a very large army of soldiers, who happen to be armed to the teeth.

One that set up fake trials for murders they committed on us (also known as playing pretend).

One that cut off our free trade with the rest of the world (so we can’t sell to anyone but Britain, or buy from anyone but Britain).

Another that taxes us, without our consent (by having our own people in the Parliament to represent us, we just want to be heard).

One took away our right to trial by jury.

One drags us off to Britain for false crimes, to have a trial there,

One that changed the laws that rule Canada, setting up a government of his own people, and making it much larger; he’s using it as an example of what he can do here.

They took away our Charters and Constitutions, got rid of our laws, and changed our governments.

One closed our own Legislature, fired them, and sent them home, and claims that the only ones who can make laws for us, is the Parliament.

The King has given up governing us here, by saying we were no longer protected by the British crown, and by going to war against us.

He attacked us at sea, pillaged on the coasts, burned up our towns and killed many of our people (those that lived, were ruined).

He is, right now, bringing a large army of German mercenaries to kill us; he started this with his soldiers, but will continue it with cruel barbarians- not something the ruler of a civilised nation would do, but more like an abusive spouse.

He has allowed and encouraged us to be kidnapped from our ships, and forced us to fight against our own country- to kill our friends and family, or to be killed by them.

He has caused fights among us, and tried to kill the people who are living on the frontiers, by hiring the “Indian Savages” (who kill everyone, men, women and children).

Every time the King and Parliament have done these things to us, we’ve asked, begged and pleaded for them to stop; we’ve been given more of the same. A King, who acts like this, is a true tyrant, and isn’t good enough to rule free people.

We haven’t ignored our British cousins. We did warn them, every once in a while, that when they tried to make laws over us, they were over their pay grade. We reminded them why we moved here, and why we live here now. We asked them to look into their hearts for kindness; we reminded them that we are related- we’re brothers- and asked them to protest this treatment from the King (which we knew would probably cause us to divorce them.) They haven’t listened either, and so, we accept that it is needed to separate from them. We will count them the same as any other country: enemies in war time, friends in peace.

We, Represent the newly formed United States of America, got together on this, and now appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world to witness our honesty in this choice; we do in the Name, and by the Authority of the People of the Colonies solemnly declare:

That these United Colonies are (and have every right to be) free and independent states; that they are divorced from any connection to the British Crown, and all political connections between them and Great Britian is completely disolved. As free states, they have the power to make war, peace, friendships or alliances, set up commerce and anything else that Independent States have a right to do.

And, in support of this Declaration, asking for the protection of Divine Providence, we promise our lives, money and honour to one another.

John Hancock

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton

Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton

Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
G’

Veo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean

Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark

Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton

(c) WW/ ESD 2006 all rights reserved.

Declaration of Independence

Most Americans never actually read the document that is our country's birth certificate, or perhaps divorce decree. So for your edification, I am posting it here. You can go to US History.org or US Constitution.net and find all sorts of interesting things about the birth of our nation.

Happy Birthday America!

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 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 its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton

Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton

Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
Geo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean

Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark

Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton

Arizona joins the anti-abortion fray even while they can't balance their budget.... Republicans!

Yesterday was a lovely day. My partner and I went to lunch at a lovely little Italian place, went to see Transformers 2 (don't believe the morons who hate it, one guy actually can't tell the different between a super sonic jet and a Stealth fighter, so how would he know a good movie?) and then we went to Baskin-Robbins for ice cream.

Would have been a perfect day, except I noticed the headlines on yesterday's Arizona Daily Star: Senators OK abortion restrictions: Measure requires 24-hour wait, other limits; Brewer's signature would make it law. (you can read it here)

I just stopped, pivoted on my toes and started digging out the 75 cents I needed to buy that paper. My partner noticed the headline as well and asked me "What restrictions?!" His voice, bless him, was just as incredulous as mine.

Arizona has a lot of problems; every state does. I had been under the impression (from everything I'd seen, read and studied about this state) that Arizona was one of those states that prided itself on freedom and celebrated civil and personal liberties. I had been told by a resident or two "just because the legislature is weird, it's not that bad. The Governor is a Dem, the Congress is Rep, so it kinda balances out". Not a problem, I'm used to State Governments duking it out and looking stupid all the time (if you can't remember, go back to my blog on the budgetary crisis in Michigan, or the stupidity over the Primary dates).

Then President Obama tapped Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security; now we have a Republican governor, Jan Brewer (former Secretary of State). As of right this moment, (I counted myself) Arizona state legislature has 18 Republican Senators, and 35 Republicans in the House; there are 12 Democratic Senators, and 25 Democratic Party members in the House. All three of my State level legislators, as well as my two US Senators, and my House member.... every last one of them is a Republican. Add in the unhealthy obsession with traffic camera (including, but not limited to roving vans spying on people) and it sounds like Arizona is not part of that whole "personal freedom movement" any more.

I am Pro-Choice. I've said it in the past. Until a man gets pregnant when he rapes a woman; until a man can be pressured into sex by his female partner and get pregnant becuase she won't use precaution; until a man has to look at the ultrasound of a foetus that is malformed, missing organs, brains or is already dead; until a man has to choose between giving birth and caring for himself and his family--yeah, like that world will ever happen-- until then I will be Pro-Choice and tell men to butt the hell out.

No man, partnered lovingly to a pregnant woman or not, will ever feel a foetus kick the same way the woman will; no man will ever suffer morning sickness, labour, cravings, bemoaning not seeing his feet, and no man can ever tell a woman she shouldn't have an abortion if that is the best choice for her.

Every woman I know who has been pregnant and contemplated a termination agonised over it. She didn't just see those little pink lines on the test, shrug and call the doctor to schedule the abortion. She talked to her partner, she talked to her priest/priestess/minister, some talked to their sister, or mother, or mother-in-law. Some cried for days before she went to the doctor trying to get past the guilt she had at not feeling guilty, others felt relief that she had a choice and could make it freely. Not one hated herself for it. I know many women who have chosen this, and not one has chosen it more than once. Some have kids, some don't; some were partnered happily, some unhappily and one not at all. One was raped by her partner, another by a stranger, and one was on the pill. Not one of them felt it was a form of birth control: it was a decision she felt she had to make, and was relieved that she could, privately make it.

Let's break down the article, shall we? (This is not going to be quoted in its entirety, I urge you to read it for yourself and if you live here in AZ write your reps).

"The bill would require a woman to wait at least 24 hours between the time she first sees a doctor and the time she actually can get an abortion. It also establishes a series of procedures that must be followed in that time."

Yet another state to force women to wait days for something that should be done immediately; if she was bleeding because of an ectopic pregnancy they would have her in there immediately being sawed on by the doctors, but because she feels it's necessary to terminate a pregnancy she has to wait around.

This is a transparent attempt to prevent woman from being able to have the procedure done; some of us can't afford to take time off work randomly to do things-- we plan ahead of time, as we have kids. Who's going to watch the children of these ladies as they go up three or four times to have an hour long procedure done? Pu-lease...

"At the first meeting, the doctor who will perform the abortion must discuss the risks and alternatives to the procedure, as well as the probable "anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed."

If you are an educated woman, you don't need a doctor to tell you that a foetus at 6 or 7 weeks is the size of an apple seed, that is has rudimentary nervous system, and that it does not yet have a four chambered heart, but a heart-beat of sorts can be detected. If you have access to the intarwebz you can go to www.WebMD.com So why this part? To salve the conscience of these fat-asses up there in Phoenix... they can say they're on the side of (how do they put it?) "pre-born children"(wtf is that, I couldn't tell you?) because they're educating these poor women... Right. I can't print what I have to say to that, but it rhymes with "trucking moopid"...

"It also requires someone at the clinic — it would not have to be the doctor — tell the woman that medical assistance benefits may be available if she decides to keep the child, that public and private agencies and services are available to assist during pregnancy and after childbirth, and that the father is liable for child support even if he agrees to pay for an abortion."

If these people cared as much for the foetus after it started breathing on its own as they care when it's symbiotically linked to its mother the world wouldn't be full of kids starving, parents working themselves to death to clothe, feed and educate them. Instead there would be comprehensive contraceptive programmes from puberty til the adults were ready to procreate.

I've said it before, if these fat-cats want to do some good for the pro-life camp: Adopt Children and raise them yourself! Quit forcing women to carry babies they don't want, or can't care for. WTF is your deal man?! It makes me so angry :(

"HB 2564, which was approved on a 16-12 vote, also would:
• Expand existing laws that now allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions to also include other health professionals, hospitals and pharmacists. That would allow them to refuse to dispense "morning after" pills, even to rape victims.
• Specify what factors a judge may consider in determining if a minor is mature enough to have an abortion without first getting parental consent. It also requires any parental consent form be notarized.
• Permit surgical abortions to be performed only by physicians, ending the practice by Planned Parenthood Arizona of letting nurse-practitioners with specialized training do some early-term procedures."
Thank you for making it easier for some pompous pharmacist to tell me I can't get my pills, condoms or the morning after pill from you... thanks for making it harder and harder for the average woman in a poor state to live.

Thanks for making it harder for a minor to get an abortion, even if her parents are ok with it. Not everyone knows how to get a notary stamp.

Thanks for making it that much harder for a woman to have a procedure done. Nurse-practitioners can deliver a baby, they can suture, provide anesthetic, do all sorts of invasive stuff, but they can't give a pill to a woman and preform the simple D&C... yeah, I could probably safely preform a D&C... they're not like open heart surgery.

*snip*Brewer already is on record as supporting a 24-hour waiting period for abortion. She also has said, in a 2006 questionnaire, she wants to prohibit abortion except when the life of the mother in danger."
Thanks Gov... that's looking out for woman.... you lost my vote lady...

"Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, called the measure an improper government intervention into a private decision.

"It assumes that this Legislature knows what's best for a woman who's making one of the most difficult decisions of her life," she said."

"It puts this Legislature squarely between a woman and her physician, and between a woman and her family," Lopez continued. "This Legislature has no business in either place."
Woohoo! Someone in Phoenix who gets it! Too bad she's not mine :(

But Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, said he will vote for anything that places new restrictions on abortion.
"In my view, when we talk about domestic violence, I think abortion is the ultimate case of severe domestic violence in which a child dies," he said.
This is new rhetoric... it's stupid, but some one will pick i u p and run with it.... like that freakjob who killed Dr. Tiller... now we'll have people murdering and harassing woman and their doctors calling them domestic abusers! I am almost too shocked to talk about it.

Questions I'd like to ask: Does this Senator know anyone who has been abused? Has he looked into the eyes of a woman when she has no choice but to terminate a pregnancy she wanted becuase the foetus is dying, or without a brain? I want this man to take in every single "child" he thinks he's saving and raise them on his dime... no help from anyone... Then he can tell me and every other women in Arizona what we can and can't do. He can tell us what abuse is... This man is a domestic abuser on an entirely new level.

People of District 19, please don't re-elect this woman beater... this child beater... he might never lay hands on them, but he's abusing us the same. By voting to remove our choices, he's pillaging us as much as if he locked us in a closet. I am shamed that this rhetoric is being spewed in my state capitol... and I can't wait to GTFO of here.

Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe, said there wouldn't be a need for this legislation if teens were provided sufficient information about how to prevent pregnancy. She said the message of abstinence, which is taught in Arizona public schools, is not always effective.
Woohoo, someone else who gets it... sadly again not mine.

*snip* In separate action Tuesday, the Senate voted 20-8 to adopt a new — and presumably legal — state statute banning "partial-birth" abortions.

Arizona outlawed the procedure in 1997. But that law was struck down by a federal judge.
HB 2400, which also has passed the House, mirrors a federal law that bans the procedure, a law that the U.S. Supreme Court declared legal."
Yeah, about this one.... it's stupid...

"Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson, said it is still a bad idea.
"This bill does nothing to protect a woman's health," she said. "It keeps doctors from using their medical judgments to decide what medical procedures are safest for a woman."
Woohoo, she's got it too!!

Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, said the legislation contains an exception to save the life of the mother. Other than that, she said, there is no reason for the procedure to exist.

"The mother has had six months prior to this to make a decision on what to do with the baby that is growing inside her," she said.

She said the existence of a federal ban is insufficient because it could be argued federal prosecutors can bring charges only in cases involving interstate commerce.

I'm not sure what to say here. I've never known a woman who had to have a late term procedure. I have known woman who were nervous about their amnios. I've never had to hold the hand of a woman as her desperately wanted baby was dying. I've never had to be the doctor to tell a woman her baby was without a brain.

That doesn't sound like a woman who just dicked off for six months and just never "got round to it". Anyone who does, please email me? I'd honestly like to hear from that side.

Sen. Linda Grey, you're a disgrace! Until and unless you can prove that this procedure is unnecessary, you should stop talking.

Last tidbit:
This measure, if signed by Brewer, would let county attorneys prosecute doctors.
Yay... yet another block between a woman and her privacy.

Tell me something?

Why is it ok, encouraged and expected that a group of people will stand in the way of a woman's privacy? Would these same people get involved in the "below-the-belt" health of a man? Do they care if he's getting penile implants, taking too much Viagra, screwing everything that moves?

Hells no! They care that a woman might possibly choose NOT to be pregnant.

Yeah, this one gets me upset,
I do not believe anyone has the right to interpose themselves between a woman and her doctor. Privacy is important to me.

I have the right to be left alone! And this means I have the right to choice.

Back off Phoenix...

You're treading on my Constitutional rights...

And that makes you WRONG.

You make me ashamed to live here... and I just got here, so I didn't even vote for you people.

-WolfWytch,
(c) 2009 the article is AzDaily Star, the analysis is mine. All rights reserved.

Bankruptcy Law, the Constitution and the President...

This op-ed was brought to my attention, Monday night; but the topic it discusses has been on my mind for awhile now. I might not blog much any more, as I've been deluged as that thing called “life” has been taking up more and more of my time, but I do read the news every day, and pay attention to what is happening over in DC. I might be three thousand miles away from DC, but I'm not on Mars-- I do pay attention to my government.

I wasn't sure I would actually write about this, as I'm getting more and more frustrated with my elected officials. I am becoming disconnected from them, in an attempt to preserve what little respect I have for their positions. I am at risk of becoming apathetic, and I know it; so I have been pulling back from analyzing what is going on up on the Hill. I've been doing it in preservation of my first love, the Constitution. I don't want to become so annoyed and apathetic of the politicians that I forget how beautiful and wonderful the Constitution is.

So I read it, and read it again. I dug out my copy of said Constitution because something didn't look right-- yep, sure enough, we have a typo, but other than that, the premise is very good: Mr. Todd J. Zywicki is right. The President is in breach of contract, he is walking a dangerous line going against the rule of law, and I am surprised and saddened that more people aren't talking about it.

The way things work up there in Washington, DC is simple: the President is responsible for EVERYTIHNG! When 1 635 832 345 things go wrong it's “Off with his head!!!11-one-one-eleventy-one!!!” When three things go right, we can thank the God-President for his wisdom and wonderfulness and the miracle he blessed us with (may he live forever). Are you following me in this stupidity? I hope so, as I really only want to go over it once.

I've been meaning to go through the Constitution, one Article at a time, and dissect it for everyone. I'd enjoy it immensely, and I hope you would at least get a handle on the simplicity of the document. I don't have time for that today, so let me give you a quick run-down of what the President does, and doesn't do. (You can see a digital copy of the Constitution here (it's a pfd) ).

1. He/she is chief executive, meaning the CEO of the country; if you don't think you're up to it, you can skip the next bit, as I explain exactly how the Constitution lists and delegates the singular responsibilities of the President.

2. Article II. Section 2. covers the powers of the President:

a. (Clause 1): The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
b. (Clause 2): He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
c. (Clause 3): The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

3. The Duties of the President are covered in Article II. Section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Alright, let's break it down.
1.President is commander in chief of the Army and Navy; he can also grant pardons.

2. He can, with Senate input (ie confirmation) make treaties with other countries; he nominates Ambassadors, certain public officials, the Supreme Court Justices and can fill his cabinet with people he wants in there.

3. He can appoint Senators to any vacancies (say one dies while in office, or resigns) on a temporary basis (their “term” expires when the next election is up.

4. He has to give a State of the Union address “from time to time”, can adjoin Congress, call up special sessions of Congress and give/send up the budget.

Nowhere in there does it say he is God Incarnate; no matter what party he heads, he's still a fallible person, a human with flaws. Therefore it's not up to him to fix everything immediately, but he can do some simple things to prevent the economy, for instance, from getting worse. If your budget at home was going down the tubes would you charge a new television, get a new car and pour a thousand or so down the garbage disposal? Ummmm, no, neither should the President (although the disposal in this case is “budgetary expenditures”, TARP, the bail-out for banks and the auto-industry.... need I go on?)

The bail out has many many people up in arms; I'm one of them. I have hollered at my elected's long and loud, but none want to hear a damned thing. This is good press for them, you see, their lobbyist-constituents are happy, their banking people are happy, the unions are happy (did I just say that?!) and of course they can pat themselves on the back for “helping defer and halt the worst recession since Moses took the children of Israel out of Egypt, causing a Huge labour stoppage and total shutdown of the Pharaoh's economy”. Sorry, the sarcasm is seeping out again. I'm trying not to dead-pan everything, but it's hard when you're a cynic.

The bail-out of the auto industry is a damned near constant topic of conversation around my house, probably hockey is the only other thing that gets as much air time around here. My partner is a car-freak. He's a Detroit native, so I think instead of a heart, he's got a V-8 thrumming away in his chest. He is also GM fan, while I loathe all domestic car companies (bad experiences with domestics as an owner of them has turned me off). We talk about this every day, comparing this idea and that, and wondering why the CEO's haven't thought of them. Then we remind each other than they're probably not that smart anyway, and as they're only in it for the money, why does it matter.

“But the companies are going broke,” you say. “There is no money! They had to get help from the feds to pay everyone.”

Ummm, no, they got cash from the feds to pay off the unions, to sop their special interest groups and to make their books look decent. This is never more obvious when you look at the Chrysler bankruptcy. And now, we're back to the topic of Mr. Zywicki's op-ed.

While I will not quote the entire op-ed, I will encourage you to read it yourself, allow me to quote a few lines, to illustrate mine, and Mr. Zywicki's point:

“The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V [sic] of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies”.” (emphasis added, also, I believe Mr. Zywicki was referring to Article VI, and will continue discussing it instead.)

Article VI states, in its entirety:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis added)

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Clause one is often referred to as “existing obligations”. This means that the framers of the Constitution knew that the monies borrowed to finance the Revolutionary War, as well as that borrowed during the time the US was under Articles of Confederation would be repaid. It showed that this new, federal government would be responsible for the debts of the old Confederation.

Clause two is the “supremacy clause”, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (insert epic music here).

The final clause, three, explains that everyone, from the President (executive) down to Senators and judicial officers (US Supreme Court Justices) are bound to support the Constitution-- this means the President has to uphold and obey the supreme law of the land, by the way; and states specifically that there isn't a religious test to hold office.

Let's take a look at Article I, Section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

We see that Clause 1 lets Congress pass laws governing taxes, but more importantly to our discussion, clause 4 says Congress will uniformly (across the board) create and allow to be enforced, bankruptcy laws. Add in Article VI, Clause 3, we see something very simple:

The Congress shall create, write and cause to be enforced, the laws governing bankruptcies, and this shall be the supreme law of the land, with regards to these bankruptcies.

Simple enough, isn't it?

Then why is President Obama throwing our bankruptcy law, and our Constitution out and letting the Auto-Unions run the show with Chrysler's bankruptcy?

Mr. Zywicki continues: “The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.” (emphasis added)

“Wait one moment, Wytch,” you say. “You've never just thrown something like this at us, and expected us to swallow it whole.”

“Nope, I haven't. So let me show you a couple more news stories. All fairly new, and all found by putting “Chrysler bankruptcy+UAW+President Obama” into Google news search. I am not a fan of UAW, although I have tried to be fair, or avoid writing on them altogether. As you can see, they have altogether too much invested in these bankruptcy proceedings-- they're a union, not bankruptcy court.

“Indiana's treasurer won't invest any more money in the corporate debt of companies receiving federal funds after state pensions were stung by millions of dollars in losses in the Chrysler LLC bankruptcy....But Mourdock said the losses shouldn't have happened. He said the Obama administration put the financial interest of other parties ahead of secured lenders such as the state, even though secured creditors are typically first to get paid in a bankruptcy.”Deanna Martin -Chicago Tribune online

“With less than two weeks before the May 31 deadline for General Motors to reach an agreement with the United Auto Workers and its bondholders or face bankruptcy, it is increasingly clear the Obama administration is relying on the UAW as its principal instrument in destroying the jobs and living standards of auto workers. ...The concessions are expected to match or surpass what the UAW agreed to last month at Chrysler.” unnamed New York Times reporter, editorial

“Less than three weeks after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection, it looks as if the Obama administration will pull off its goal of completing the carmaker’s restructuring by June, allowing it to emerge as a smaller, more viable contender in the global auto market....Chrysler’s bankruptcy has been so smooth and fast because the government held its hand all the way — including providing financing to keep it running through bankruptcy and cover its warranties so consumers would keep buying.

The process started with a precooked government plan to divvy up the company between Fiat, a trust fund run by the United Automobile Workers union and the American and Canadian governments. Even then it took a sympathetic bankruptcy judge to convince a group of recalcitrant lenders that it was in their best interest to drop their opposition. The company is still meeting fierce resistance from some of the 789 dealers it plans to shutter, as it shrinks to fit its smaller role in the global market.” --Jerry White, for the World Socialist Website.

“You can call the plan to merge Chrysler and Fiat good for the economy. You can think it creative.

You can say it’s the start of “a vibrant new company,” as Chrysler LLC Chairman Robert Nardelli did last week.

But there’s one word that you can’t call the Chrysler bankruptcy package: legal....So if U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez follows the law, the Chrysler rescue plan dies. If he blinks and approves it, secured creditors everywhere should feel a shiver of unease, and quick sales of insolvent companies to avoid court scrutiny would multiply. ” -- Ann Woolner, for Bloomberg

I will close this by saying that the President is wrong. He is overstepping his authority. I can prove it, with the Constitution, the supreme law of our land... but unless the Congress takes him to task, nothing will be done about it until possibly re-election.

Please remember he's not a king, he's the third leg of the stool of our government. He can't stand on his own, any more than the Congress can... but until people decide to hold him to the same standards they held George W, or Bill Clinton he will continue to make freshmen, uninformed and potentially horrific mistakes.

Links for your edification, in addition to the above:

Chapter 11 bankruptcy law

(c) 2009 WW/ESD, it's all mine, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.

Laundering the stimulus money?

My dear long suffering readers, I beg your indulgences and forgiveness for not writing as often as I ought. Allow me to update you on the status of the asylum before we get into the meat of this blog:

As many of you know, we moved across the country back in November. The job I moved here for fell through in a big way, and I have been doing the recession scramble (just like you, I'm sure) to make up for it. With my Honey working his little tail off at The Place Which Cannot Be Named and the kiddos running amok our schedules have been busy; I've been tripping over cats and kids and not able to put my thoughts into a coherent blog for you. Spring Break started yesterday (yeah, on a Thursday), and only goes over the weekend (I do not understand Tucson, people, I really don't). Add in the threat of a nasty depressive episode and you have the recipe for my past couple weeks. I have been coming out of the depression, and thankfully it wasn't a true episode, just a week or two of some very sad days. Those of us who are depressives don't ask for it, they just happen... and then they stop. Then comes the time to pick up where we left off when our minds shut down and our hearts just hurt... and that's where I am now. Before you ask, my depression has nothing to do with the kiddos or the Honey-- it stems from a betrayal by someone who has known me for many, many years and who I thought would never do anything like that; when the heart hurts, the body suffers.

Now, on with the blog. Thanks to Jeremy for finding me this story, as he's all over the Detroit news. Wednesday is his day off during the week, and he spends the morning catching up on the news (yes, we love news here, it makes us happy!!) “Hey, you seen this?” he asks, pointing at his monitor. I shake my head in the negative as I read: “Detroit council votes to demolish Michigan Central Depot, charge owner”. “Uh huh,” I think, and my brain starts turning.

Since the swearing in of President Obama and VP Biden, I have been in a bad place as a political blogger. I promised myself ages ago, and my readers as recently as 20 Jan 09 that I wouldn't criticise the President in public, unless he did something completely bone-headed. That is not my way. I inform, explain, but not criticise. Gaff after gaff, from AIG and Citi's bail out to the random shootings causing people to –yet again call for banning guns-- to the Russian “reset button” all the way up to the iPod-Queen Elizabeth scandal and the President of the US bowing to King Hussein in Saudi Arabia... well, there have been plenty of things I wanted to holler about; things the handlers should know better than to let happen, that intelligence would rein, that naivete can't excuse, but that the MSM will often overlook. So I have been silent. Have I not said, many times, it's better to be silent sometimes? “Just because I can doesn't mean I should”. If this naivete continues, Ladies and Gentlemen, then I will be unable to remain silent, however I am hoping the political handlers start doing their jobs, and we won't see any more snafu.

However, Detriot's city council is not on my “don't talk about it” list. Boy oh Boy have they done a doozy this time. “The City Council today passed a resolution calling for the emergency demolition of the Michigan Central Depot and then going after billionaire owner Manuel "Matty" Moroun to recoup the costs.”

You read it right, they are going to demolish a building, belonging to a private owner and then charge the man after the fact. Last I heard, unless the courts have gotten in on such things, they are illegal... something about “illegal search and seizure” could be pulled out for this one. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search and the persons or things to be seized” (Amendment 4, your US Constitution).

Now, I know, the old Detroit Central Depot is empty, and has been a mess for some time; since it closed no one has taken care of it, and so vandals have been in and out of there. However, if you take a look at the building, you can see history seeping throughout. You can almost hear the trains, almost taste the soot in the air. This building should be declared a historical building, protected, and perhaps turned into a museum of sorts-- instead the all knowing and all greedy Detroit council wants to rip it down.

“"We can't wait any longer," said Councilwoman Barbara-Rose Collins, who sponsored the resolution. "It's been an eyesore for too long."

Cockrel had asked for $3.6 million for the demolition. Collins said that money could be used for the neighborhoods.
Chimed in Council President Monica Conyers: "He has billions."”

Who cares if Moroun has “billions”?! What does that have to do with anything? Detroit is supposed to receive about $500mlln in stimulus funds, in addition to the cash brought in by the ungodly taxes and fees from Lansing and Detroit proper. Unfortunately I don't have any hard numbers on how much they've gotten already, or even if the 500$mlln is firm, I am sorry about that. However, I do know that “U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has warned that he will hold back federal stimulus money if states and school districts don't spend it properly....Detroit, one of the state's biggest winners, will get more than $500 million.

There are good reasons to be concerned these districts will not spend the aid appropriately.
The Detroit Public Schools, for example, in 2007 provided summer remedial classes to just 15 percent of its third-, fourth- and fifth-graders who failed to reach proficiency in math and reading tests. The district actually returned $16 million of unused federal money.”
Now, isn't that interesting...

Michigan is being warned, amongst other states, to use the money they receive from the feds exactly the way they were told to use it... Detroit isn't very good at following the law, and if you need evidence of that, please refer to my blogs about former-Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick or use your Google-F00 to find “King Kwame”. However, according to The Detroit News the cost for not behaving is high, “The challenge will be districts that will receive some stimulus money directly from the federal government. If they misuse the money, the entire state may lose out on additional funds.”

My dear partner, a Detroit-native asked me (about four days ago): Do you think they're laundering their stimulus money? They could call it “infrastructure improvements” and then when Moroun pays back the money, they have a couple million free and clear to do whatever they want.

I nodded, thought about it a little and then put the article away. When I got it out, while listening to the Red Wing game on internet radio for him (Poor Honey is working today!) I did some digging for how much cash Detroit might get... and here I find this cute little op-ed in The Detroit News that basically repeats Secretary of Education Duncan's threat: Spend it right, or we'll take it away.

Usually when money is taken by the government, it's called a levy or garnishment. If they over-paid you, they just take it right out of your bank account if they can... and I'm betting that all stimulus money is being send straight to the various States “banking accounts”... I know the mess Michigan is in, how bad the budget is up there (remember the State shut down, how embarrassing!!)

Now, just imagine if 500$million dollars showed up in Detroit's coffers... you know as well as I do, that it'd be spent before the day was over. As I understand it, those states and municipalities who are taking stim-funds have to account for how, and how much, the cash is spent. Something like business travel, you have to turn in all your receipts. If the Government Accounting Office (I believe they're overseeing this, I am not positive, however) doesn't like the look of those expenses they can take all 500$million bucks back from Detroit, and everything from Michigan... that's a lot of money-- and this is just the stim-funds federally earmarked for schools, this isn't going anywhere near any other cash that's floating about.

This makes me think, and ponder. Detroit schools suck. They are so bad that they could be the example of the mess interest groups can make with schools. They are so bad, that I am amazed when anyone claiming Detroit as a home town can read more than their names! No, I'm not exaggerating, I am speaking with all seriousness; education is important to me, you, my readers should know this. Eastern Michigan has some excellent uni's, top ten actually, but elementary and secondary education is dead last... it's like a knowledge black hole-- you can feel your intelligence leaking out your ears when you have to listen to some of these people talk... I can't imagine what that would do to a small child's brains-- turn it into oatmeal, I suppose. And yes, I am sure that people from Detroit are now mortally wounded and upset and hurt that I have insulted their schools... so let me ask: Did you graduate from Detroit's consolidated school system? Or did you graduate from one of the myriad suburban high schools? There is a huge difference in “Detroit school district” and “the rest of the Detroit area's schools”.

What I know about money laundering is probably what you know about it: what I've seen on the television on the mob shows. I know it means taking money from A (usually from a crime) and doing something with it a B to make it normal money-- money that is “clean” and much like that fiver you used for your coffee yesterday morning. How that works, I have no idea; seems to be if it was crime-cash at A, it's still crime-cash at B. This is why I don't work for the Secret Service or FBI in their money divisions; those sorts of numbers confuse me greatly. Give me x= ±b √b² + 4ac/ 2a* any day, at least I can plug in the equation and make some sense out of it.

Could it be, that Detroit's council could use a couple million from the stim-fund to demo that gorgeous building, and then turn about and use the “repayment” from Moroun as-- I dunno, bonuses for themselves? Clean up and redecoration on the mayoral mansion for the new guy? Pay back Kilpatrick's legal team? Finish paying off the cops who sued, or rather “pay the police officers the money Detroit owes them”? Hell, for all I know, they're adding to their marble collections-- I don't know what that money would be used for... calling it “neighbourhood money” makes no sense, as Detroit will be getting “neighbourhood monies” through the stim-fund. Money that can be used to fix the roads, so the potholes are so large they swallow small houses; money to put lights back in the light polls, so the roads aren't as dark as the road to Hades... imagine that!

I am not accusing Detroit's council of doing anything in particular. Rather, I am bringing my thoughts to the fore about how they're overstepping themselves yet again. Unless they have taken Moroun to court, they can't touch the Depot. And if they have, then Moroun can get an injunction against them, until it's finished the council can't do a thing. If they do, they would have to pay to rebuild it :) Now, wouldn't that be even more interesting... If it was mine, I'd sue the pants off the council for intimidating and threatening me, for infringing on my 4th Amendment rights, and for anything else I could come up with.

This blog isn't typical for me I realise. It's more of a bloggy-blog: my thoughts in a meandering fashion. But I hope it imparts something for you to think upon:

If we voters, supporting the Stim-fund or not, don't get a handle on how the money is being spent, we're going to be left behind a huge friggin' bill and only be able to scratch our heads in wonder. These are our elected officials-- therefore they're accountable to us...So, let's keep them accountable.


(c) 2009 WW/E.S. all rights reserved; it's all mine unless otherwise noted.

*This formula is the Quadratic Equation; I love it, it's my favourite mathematical equation. I'm no mathematician, in fact, I am just “Ok” at it, but I love trig, algebra, geometry and calculus. :)