They All Fought for All of Us

It is Memorial Day, the day we are to remember those that fought and died for America. It is interesting that the holiday has its roots in the Civil War. On the first Memorial Day (it was called Decoration Day then), May 30, 1868, the graves of soldiers that died in the War Between the States were decorated, in both the North and the South.

The Civil War was fought between families, friends and neighbors. Those that enlisted made a decision based on fighting for their country, on both sides. The people that would benefit from their sacrifice were not always just like them. Yet, everyone was honored, no matter their side.

Today, we have an all volunteer military. So those in the military enlisted because they felt the calling to do so. They, like the fallen during the Civil War, came from many different backgrounds. Poor, rich, educated or not. Men and Woman, of many different nationalities and cultural backgrounds. They are Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindu and many other religions or none at all. They are straight, gay, married or single. Most are citizens, a few are not.

They didn’t enlist to fight just for their own point of view. They didn’t enlist to protect the conservatives or liberals. They don’t fight for one religion or another. It wasn’t for the south, the north or western states. Like those that enlisted during the Civil War, they joined to fight for their country, setting aside their own personal stories and feelings.

This is where the honor we bestow on them should rest, that no matter their own background or personal point of view, they took up arms willing to sacrifice their own lives if necessary for America and its freedoms.

The next time we think that this country is home to just one religion, or political point of view, think of the men and women of the military. All of them fighting for all of us. Their backgrounds are as diverse as ours. If we think that this great land is just for one political view point, religion, or lifestyle, and denying a single right to anyone, we might as well be denying that right to anyone of them.

From all of us in America, we pledge to honor all of you, the men and women of the military for all you have fought for and will continue to fight for.

Thank you.

-----

Expanding Visitation Rights to Gays and Others

The headline reads “Obama orders most hospitals to grant gays visitation rights”.


But read on, the article later reads that this would also allow visitation by un-married heterosexual couples, people of religious orders that may not allow marriage, elderly people with deceased spouses and others.

President Obama issued a memo to the Health and Human Services agency ordering the secretary to ensure that all hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid money to honor all patient’s directives about visitation privileges. This means that the patient can list people he or she would like to have visitation privileges without regard to family status.

A senior fellow at the conservative Family Research Council, Peter Sprigg, insists that, “The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage and furthers big government takeover” of the health care system.

It is difficult to find a compelling reason why government or hospitals should allow visitation rights to only family members when the patient requests non-family members visitation rights. Government should only act when there is a risk to the secure and safe environment. Then, it should act in the least intrusive way. No valid argument can be made that proves this is a takeover of the health care system or undermining the definition of marriage. Just the opposite. First, this is getting government and policy out of the health care system. Second, if a patient requests someone to have visitation rights, why should those rights be denied?

This is a big step for gay couples who in the past have not been able to see their loved one because of outdated hospital rules and cultural norms. But, it is important to understand something even more fundamental. When one person has less rights, all do. These same outdated rules excluded plenty of other people.

People in ill health need the support of people they share an emotional bond with. This move helps assure that they will be around when needed.

-----

Kilpatrick Received Equal Justice Under Law

“Equal justice under law”, which is written over the entrance to the Supreme Court building, means that all will be held accountable to the same law, it doesn’t mean that all will receive the same sentence. It has never been that way and should never be that way.

The words “Equal justice under law” were used yesterday by Kwame Kilpatrick’s New York City-based spokesperson Mike Paul. He didn’t think that the former mayor received a fair sentence yesterday in a Detroit court for violating his probation.

Kilpatrick, who admitted to lying under oath to a grand jury and other charges, spent 120 days in jail before being released on probation. He still had to make restitution to the City of Detroit of a $1,000,000. Then, Kilpatrick moved to Dallas, Texas and lived a very comfortable life style to say the least. For a few months he kept up with his restitution payments but then began to default. After a long legal battle, Judge David Groner sentenced Kilpatrick to one and a half to five years in prison. After the sentencing, Paul said that the Ex-Mayor was, “Clearly not treated equal to all citizens under the law. As a result, treating him differently is unconstitutional.”

Kilpatrick was held accountable to the same law as everyone else. This wasn’t any special law that was created just for his case. He even admitted to the crime and accepted a punishment that saved him from jail time other than the 120 days.

The Judge Groner may have indeed sentenced him to more time than the average for violating his parole, but judges have wide discretion on most cases, as it should be. As a community, we would like everyone to be held accountable to the same law. But, if there are circumstances that lead a judge to believe that they are not fully responsible or the accused has fully accepted his responsibility, then sentencing should be lighter. On the other side, if the judge believes a stronger punishment is due, then it should be done.

A politician that violates the trust placed in him by the voters should be held accountable to a higher standard. As an example to other people in the same position, harsher treatment of Kilpatrick was justified.

-----

Pontiac Man Challenges City on Right to Carry Handgun

Ben Shattuck of Pontiac carries his side arm with him in open view. He carried it with him when he made a statement about Pontiac’s gun law to the city council. It certainly is his right, but not necessary.


In a Responsible Community we did not give up the right to own weapons. But, if the community has a compelling reason to restrict gun possession and use, then it has the responsibility to act in a reasonable and limited manner to protect the community. This means, with some exceptions, it can act unilaterally from any higher governmental body. It could require a permit to even carry the weapon in the open as Shattuck does, or make it illegal to carry a weapon anywhere in public.

This is where the responsible community parts with the constitution. But since we live in a community that has an excellent constitution, we must stand by its standards. That doesn’t mean that the understanding of the document can be clear at all times or that we can all agree with that understanding. We must search for middle ground.

The Second Amendment has wide interpretation across the political spectrum. One viewpoint says that individuals have the right to bear arms in a limited way because of the statement about a well regulated militia. Others believe in a more open understanding, that individuals have the right to bear arms regardless of their membership in a well regulated militia. In either extreme, it is clear that individuals have at least some right to own and bear arms. So Ben Shattuck does have the right to own firearms in his home and on his person with reasonable restrictions.

But, no right is absolute even in an open interpretation. The Constitution never meant to guarantee any right beyond the point of safety. Government, with compelling reasons, can and should restrict ownership and use of firearms. Some examples might be requiring training on use and safety, surrendering the weapon when requested by a police officer or proper holstering.

The current interpretation of the Constitution does allow Mr. Shattuck to own a weapon and carry his weapon around with him. The City of Pontiac can’t stop him from owning but it should be able to restrict its use for compelling reasons.

Who Will Decide the Truth for Voters

Sinclair Broadcasting thinks they have the responsibility to do just that.

Television Station WPGH in Pittsburgh, owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, pulled a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad this week. The station management did not return phone calls to news organizations requesting comment on the issue. Other stations in the market said they would continue to air the commercial as scheduled.

Kent Gates, a political adviser for Tim Burns, the Republican candidate who is the target of the pulled ad, says that it, "falsely claims Tim Burns supports a 23 percent national sales tax and wants to ship jobs overseas." Burns is running against Democrat Mark Critz in a special election last Tuesday, May 18, 2010, for the late John Murtha's seat. Some sources that are familiar with both the station and the Republican campaign claim that FactCheck supports the claims by the Burn’s campaign.

FactCheck also states that both sides are airing ads that are "chock full of false and misleading claims." But, of all the ads that are being aired and run in the market, only Sinclair pulled the Democratic supported commercial.

But, is the community best served by having the media determine what we see and what we don’t in a political campaign?

It is the voter that ultimately must decide what is important. To have a media outlet determine for the voter what is fact sets up the opportunity to have corporations choose what goes on the air based on a political point of view they may support. (While FactCheck, the website that Sinclair appears to have used to support their action, also said other commercials where wrong, yet, Sinclair didn’t withdraw those commercials. This indicates that the broadcaster took a position in the election.) FactCheck.org, as an example, doesn’t ask for commercials to be removed or force commercials off the air, they research the statements and provide supporting evidence for their conclusions. Voters can go to web sites like FactCheck for their own research. Additionally, it will help the voter decide who to vote for by knowing what outrageous claims are being made by candidates.

In the end, the collective intelligence of a well informed community about all sides of a political decision is better than one that is receiving filtered information. Sinclair Broadcasting didn’t serve their community in an open and fair way by refusing to air a commercial that didn’t support their own political position.

But, apparently, the voters saw through all of that. Mark Critz, the Democrat, won the election, not the candidate that Sinclair supported.

Supreme Court Rules about Life Sentence for Children

A child can’t be sentenced to life in prison without a chance for parole for crimes less than murder the Supreme Court has ruled. The court strongly asserted the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eight Amendment in the ruling.

In Florida, Terrance Graham, was 16 when he was involved in a armed robbery while out on parole. The prosecutors rightfully tossed his parole agreement and pursued charges for the armed robbery. The jury and the court found him guilty and he was sentenced to life in prison without chance for parole. He is now 22 years of age. (It is believed that Florida doesn’t have a parole system for any prisoner.)

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that few underage individuals, only 129 in all of American and 77 of those in Florida, were sentenced to life without parole. Most jurisdictions allow a prisoner to demonstrate he has reformed and should be allowed to return to society. Sense there are only 129 cases in the country that don’t allow a chance for review, the court decided it was cruel and unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Kennedy along with four other justices.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from them majority. They believed, as Thomas wrote, that the court was imposing “its own sense of morality and retributive justice". He believes that states should have the right to impose such sentences as supported by the voters.

During the colonial times, there were forms of punishment that if applied to today’s standards would be judged to be cruel and unusual. Lawbreakers at the time could be whipped, placed in a stockade in the town square or hanged for more than just the crime of murder, in some cases, petty theft. Many representatives that attended the Several States Convention to write a new Constitution in 1787 were concerned that if the Eight Amendment was adopted, many of the punishments that were currently used at the time would be deemed cruel if not also unusual.

To accept the current court ruling as being appropriate, there must be a way to reconcile the Eight Amendment with shifting standards. The answer is embedded in the debate that the representatives engaged in at the convention. They supported a vaguely worded amendment that would allow each generation to apply their own standards of punishment. It wasn’t because they didn’t believed they had the right answers about crime and punishment. It was with the wisdom to know that perhaps better ways could be developed that were less cruel and unusual but still provide the deterrent that is needed. This, of course, would need to be determined by each generation based on the amount of crime and the sensitivities of the public (voters) at the time.

With only 129 children held without parole, it seems that the that voters through their judges, prosecutors and legislative bodies have made their sensitivities about crime and punishment very clear.

The court ruled with a well reasoned opinion that supports the community.

(1) The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution 111 by Jonathan Elliot

End illegal immigration in five steps

We can end illegal immigration with 5 difficult but worthwhile steps. These are not solutions from the moment. These are what have be gleaned from years of research from all sides of the political spectrum. But, be careful, we will need to support these solutions with a functioning budget of people, time and money.

1) Enact a national identification program that is real and tough for everyone. Until we are sure who is here legally we can’t expect anyone to up hold the law. That means that every one that lives in the country must have documents that prove they are a legal worker or a citizen. This has received very strong opposition from all sides. There is the fear of the government intruding on our lives and a severe loss of privacy. But, that is the cost that must be paid.

2) Enforce the law about employing the undocumented worker. This must be done on the national level, not the local or state level. Unless every employer understands very clearly what they need to do to make sure their work force is legal, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore on the most flagrant level. If each state has different rules, employers will have a huge bureaucratic problem.

Employers, small and large, must also believe that I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) could arrive at any moment for an employee audit. Employers must be obligated to document that each employee is legally employable in this country. If they can’t, they must pay a fine that is far greater than the risk of being caught.

Now comes the hard part, but these solution must also be developed otherwise the first two will not work.

3) Manage the border, not control it. Let them in if they can prove who they are. After all, we let thousands if not millions in everyday so they can vacation in this wonderful country. This will mean the United States must work with other countries to insure that all parties are properly documenting everyone. If they can’t get a job because of point two, what will they do? They will spend money, see relatives and go home.

This also means that those that are already here will be able to return to their host country with the knowledge that they can return. Right now, the illegal worker doesn’t go home occasionally or at the end of the work season because they may not be able to return. So, instead they stay.

Additionally, the people who now patrol the border trying to control it, will be able to do the real work of keeping the bad guys out.

4) Provide a path to legalizations. Every generation since the turn of the last century has done this. The only way the illegal’s will come out of the shadows of black market employment is by the security of knowing that they will be able continue to live and work in America. With other measures that are enacted, they will receive pressure from their employers to turn legal. This will be in the best interest of companies to help their employees since enforcement from I.C.E. will mean heavy fines if they don’t.

5) Finally, build the economies of the host countries. People don’t leave their families, their communities and their countries unless they have to. Some do leave for wonder lust or political reasons, but for the most part people want to be successful at home, not somewhere else. People from poor countries will always want to migrate to rich countries for work. Migration will not be stopped until they feel they can provide for their families where they are.

None of this will be easy. It will cost money that some people in this country will not be willing to support. They will continue to believe that they are easier solutions, such as just through the bums out. Then, to keep them out will take a far greater investment by controlling the border then by managing it.

Success at anything doesn’t come easy. We have to invest and work hard to be successful. If we make the investment in these solutions there is no reason to believe that the pay off will not be a much better community for everyone.

-----