Is it time for gun control?
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
My personal blog
Folks, I'm beginning to wonder if it's time for a little gun control as a desperate attempt to stop these senseless gun related deaths.
Just this last week here in Tulsa, OK a 6 year old boy with down syndrome accidentally shot and killed himself with a .22 caliber revolver. Before I move forward I want to say, I am sorry for this families loss, my thoughts and prayers are with you. Moving on.
Further into the investigations surrounding the events Tulsa Police have discovered that the gun was stolen during a home burglary the preceding Monday.
Folks... I hate to say this... but gun control might have stopped this senseless death.
But... before I really and truly say that, let's examine something else for a moment. Let's see if there is possibly anything else going on in the world right now, where gun control is already present, that would support gun control as a way to end senseless deaths.
Well, lookie here... there is. In Belgium today, where guns are strictly prohibited and under no circumstances can a citizen have one, a man armed with a knife walked into a day care and stabbed 13 people, killing 3, 2 of them being small children.
But how can this be? I don't understand. This just doesn't make sense. In Belgium there are no gun rights therefore there should be no crime and no murders, accidental deaths, etc. But here it is, bright as day. I'm reading it right now. "Knife attack kills 3 at nursery"
I think I know what is needed here folks.
We need some knife control in Belgium, and probably here in America too. I mean my God... I just started thinking about this and I am honestly terrified. Think about this for a minute.
Right now... at this very moment... whether it's a dollar store, a walmart or an expensive home decor outlet, millions and millions of deadly knives are for sale for less than $10.00. What's more, anyone can buy them! It doesn't matter if you are 8 or 80, if you have the couple dollars to fork over to a careless cashier at the local grocery store, you've got yourself an instrument of destruction and death.
Think for a minute how many people you know who have been accidentally injured by knives. I am willing to bet you have injured yourself at least 3 or more times in the past 10 years while carelessly using this device of death.
I just thought about this... right now, there are knives in every single government indoctrination center (public school) in the country! Jesus Christ! How absolutely irresponsible are we!? We have placed deadly weapons into the hands of children without ever giving it a second though. My God! Perhaps we are the ones who belong in prison.
Obviously, with knives so readily available, it's only a matter of time before you or a family member accidentally injure or kill yourself. Not to mention; What's going to happen when one of these manic depressive students abused by the system realizes they have the power to use this knife which just so happens to be handed to him by the local lunch lady?... People are going to die. That's something to think about. Think about that head line "Tax payer negligence leads to lunch room murder."
We have to stop the sale, distribution and ownership of knives world wide and we have to do it now folks!
We need "no tolerance knife control." Perhaps we need a knife buy-back program, or perhaps instead of car washes this year we get the Hooter's girls involved with a new "spanks for shanks" program.
I don't know what for sure, but we've got to do something. In Belgium, completely removing guns from the picture didn't stop anything.
Okay... now that I'm done pretending I'm a liberal let me be the brilliant and true conservative that I am.
We have gun control in America. It has never stopped a single gun related death. Legal gun owners do not kill people without cause, it just doesn't happen. If a law abiding citizen discharges their firearm you can be assured it was in defense of life, be it their life or another.
Belgium, and other places with no tolerance gun control still have gun related violence. How is that possible? Because criminals don't respect or follow the law. They are going to get a gun one way or the other, no matter where in the world they happen to be. What's the difference in America? The criminals stand a little less chance of survival since the citizens have the ability to protect themselves.
Do you think knife control would have stopped this lunatic from walking into that nursery and killing people? Of course not. That is as absurd as saying gun control would stop someone from walking in there with a gun. Let's imagine, for just a moment, that he couldn't get a knife. What would he use then? A baseball bat, barbell, 2x4 or a chainsaw? Or maybe he would go Hollywood and use a really sharp and sinister looking axe?
Folks... any type of weapon control is never going to stop violence, or murder. I am the first to say, if gun control would truly stop all murder and violence, I would turn over my guns in a heart beat. But it won't folks. Criminals don't obey those laws and they never will. That is one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was put into place. Our founding fathers, among other things, wanted to assure our ability to protect our lives and property against any and all threats.
As it stands now, in America, law abiding citizens still, if they decide to, have the upper hand over criminals. You can purchase a firearm, obtain a concealed weapons permit and carry your firearm with you just about anywhere you go. You can also, without needing a license, purchase a firearm and keep it in your home to protect yourself, family and property. Will I ever have to kill someone? Probably not, and I pray not. Will most legal gun owners ever have to kill someone? Odds are very much against it ever happening, and I assure you they also pray they will never have the need to do so.
But... so long as a threat exist, we make sure we are ready to respond to that threat with whatever force is necessary. This may come as a surprise to you, but I am not anticipating nor do I expect my home to ever catch on fire. It could happen, but, statistically, it's very unlikely I would wind up in that smaller statistic. Regardless, I still keep a fire extinguisher in my home... and it, like my gun, is also loaded and ready to go.
As you know, President Obama, who swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, has already said he intends to establish no tolerance gun control laws within his term. Even though doing so is, by definition, a tyrannical act against the people by it's government.
I leave you with a quote from one of our founding fathers, the Honorable Thomas Jefferson; "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
I bid you good day.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Understanding Oil & Gas Economics
Kaiser Proposes Legislation; Bad News For Taxpayers
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
USA Conservative Movement
My personal blog
Before we even begin this story I want to explain some very simplified economics.
Imagine you own a small business. As an employer, you have overheard costs. You have to pay your rent, utilities, employees and of course for your merchandise. As time goes on you learn how to balance everything out so that you make a profit, or at the very least break even.
Let's imagine that as part of an incentive to get you to continue selling widgets, you are offered a tax break at the end of each quarter/fiscal year for each widget you buy. So what do you do? You buy some more widgets. It's a popular item, it's just expensive which is why you considered discontinuing it.
You get used to the price of it with the tax incentives offered and you balance everything out so your numbers break even and you are not in debt. Then the tax incentive disappears. Your company has become known for these widgets and you can't just stop selling them. If you did, your company would close. So what do you do? This is going to cost more money out of your pocket now. Something has to be done. But what?
Do you pass the costs along to your customer (the consumer)?
Do you pass it along to your employees by cutting benefits and freezing salaries?
Do you pass it along to the economy by starting a hiring freeze?
Do you pass it on to the employees by laying some of them off?
What do you do?
The truthful answer is this... you do all of them. When you run a business you can't play it small and hope for effective results. When you are faced with potential losses you act swiftly and largely to effect the most positive results.
The consumer will now pay more for the product. Some employees will lose their jobs, sending them to the unemployment line. Some will not be able to get jobs where they were once available, thus keeping them in the unemployment line. Employees will lose benefits, and possibly suffer from salary cuts, sending them to the government assistance lines.
Just to think... all that occurs from a little tax incentive being taken away. Now... let's multiply this into the billions.
If you live in Oklahoma you know who George Kaiser is. He is a philanthropist and a very successful entrepreneur. He is the chairman of BOK Financial Corporation and the controlling share-holder of Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, which is based in Tulsa, OK.
Mr. Kaiser has met with law makers, and, out of the kindness of his heart, having only the best interests of the tax payers in mind, has proposed a tax incentive currently in place for oil companies not be renewed.
Kaiser told the Oklahoma State House Appropriations & Budget Committee that the tax-payer is in much more need of a tax break than the oil & gas industry. Wow! What a man he is folks. Knowing this will effect his own oil company, this man, out of the kindness of his heart, and out of his concern for the tax-payers, wants to eliminate the oil and gas tax incentives. What a saint folks... or wait... is he?
Let's explain the "logic" of how this is supposed to work. More money is needed here and there and there and there, etc. Someone has to pay for it. With everything in place as it stands, the tax-payers may end up paying a few more dollars to cover everything. But, if the tax incentives are removed from oil & gas companies then the State can take the money from them and thus, rescue the tax payer. Kaiser & the sitting democrats will look like heroes folks. Just a thought here... who wants to bet that Kaiser will be making an announcement for office in the near future?
In the 2007 fiscal year, according to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the rebates (which is the form of these incentives) totaled about $27 million dollars.
It seems like the modern day democrat/liberal mumbo jumbo doesn't it? Give the little guy a break and make those big, greedy oil companies pay their share. It's rather noble really. Robin Hood; Steal from the rich, give to the poor.
Folks... you can not trust democrats/liberals. There is always another card up their sleeve and as soon as they get you to look away, they'll play it.
Remember your course in economics from above? Good. Let's see what's really going to happen.
Bob Sullivan, of Sullivan and Co., has already expressed his concern about losing the incentive. He said it played a huge role in his company. Although Sullivan never used the incentive to make his decision for drilling (such as horizontal drilling, which is part of the incentive), he did use it to pay salaries or to pay for the drilling itself. (Are you still remembering the economics lesson? Good.)
So let's say the democrats get their way and this incentive goes away. What are these oil and gas companies going to do? Just like small business, they are going to have to make some changes. The executives will be faced with the same questions a small business would be. Do we raise prices? Do we lay off employees? Cut salaries? Freeze salaries? Get rid of benefits?
Guess what folks, in order to keep the business alive, they'll do whatever it's going to take. So what does that mean to you, the consumer... the tax payer who is supposed to be helped by this?
First and foremost, gas prices are going back up folks. When you take money away from another place, you have to get it from another. The company will pass the price onto us first folks. Contrary to what you may believe, they don't want to raise prices. The more it cost the less you buy, the less it cost, the more you buy. Nevertheless, they will increase the gas price. That's more money coming out of your pocket. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
As gas prices go up you will purchase less, and the oil and gas companies know this, and they will react to it before it even happens. Why? They know it's coming, they'll be prepared. As Bob Sullivan noted, they used money for among other things, paying employees. No more money = no more employees. Where does that send them? Unemployment line folks. Where else? Welfare line. Who pays for the welfare lines? We do. Where does the money come from? Our taxes. What happens when more people apply but only so much money is available? Democrats rush to the rescue. Legislation is rapidly pushed through to provide the money and guess what, you'll pay more taxes. Where do those come from? Right out of your pocket. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
If they think it will be necessary, they'll cut benefits. What does that mean? More visits to the emergency room. Why? No insurance. Everyone knows if you can't afford a doctor you go to the emergency room where you won't have to pay. Guess whose taxes are going to pay for that in the long run. That's right, and those are coming out of your pocket too. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
Don't forget now, this isn't just one company being hurt by this. Every single oil and gas company in this state will be doing the same things. Laying off employees, ordering hiring freezes, cutting salaries, getting rid of benefits, and let's not forget, raises their prices.
Incidentally... if you look at the really big picture, it gets even worse. Oil for your car goes up as well. What does that mean? Local ma' 'n' pa' oil changing businesses are going to pass that cost along to you. When they get to the point they can no longer afford to compete with bigger companies this will entirely put them out of business. Say good bye to a lot of small businesses, and a whole lot of jobs. I wonder where those people will all end up. Unemployment and welfare line perhaps? Sadly, the economy is already headed towards hiring freezes so don't expect these workers to be getting jobs anytime soon.
Who do you think is going to have to support all these employees who can't find work? That's right... the democrats will rush in, raise taxes, and you, again, will pay the price. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
When you look at this stuff folks you have to sit back and really take in the BIG picture. It's like the old saying, "if you kill a butterfly in the past it will dramatically change the entire future." When you play with taxes in the present, it will dramatically change the future. Once something is in motion changes WILL occur.
Of course this is the time of change. President Obama has promised change and keeping in line with it democrats around the country are following suit. Personally, I want to send an email telling them the same thing I do a Sonic car-hop, "keep the change."
Write your State Representatives and tell them you don't want this. Let your voice be heard folks. The only way to stop it is by doing something. If you say nothing, those are the results you will get every single time.
I bid you good day.
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
USA Conservative Movement
My personal blog
Before we even begin this story I want to explain some very simplified economics.
Imagine you own a small business. As an employer, you have overheard costs. You have to pay your rent, utilities, employees and of course for your merchandise. As time goes on you learn how to balance everything out so that you make a profit, or at the very least break even.
Let's imagine that as part of an incentive to get you to continue selling widgets, you are offered a tax break at the end of each quarter/fiscal year for each widget you buy. So what do you do? You buy some more widgets. It's a popular item, it's just expensive which is why you considered discontinuing it.
You get used to the price of it with the tax incentives offered and you balance everything out so your numbers break even and you are not in debt. Then the tax incentive disappears. Your company has become known for these widgets and you can't just stop selling them. If you did, your company would close. So what do you do? This is going to cost more money out of your pocket now. Something has to be done. But what?
Do you pass the costs along to your customer (the consumer)?
Do you pass it along to your employees by cutting benefits and freezing salaries?
Do you pass it along to the economy by starting a hiring freeze?
Do you pass it on to the employees by laying some of them off?
What do you do?
The truthful answer is this... you do all of them. When you run a business you can't play it small and hope for effective results. When you are faced with potential losses you act swiftly and largely to effect the most positive results.
The consumer will now pay more for the product. Some employees will lose their jobs, sending them to the unemployment line. Some will not be able to get jobs where they were once available, thus keeping them in the unemployment line. Employees will lose benefits, and possibly suffer from salary cuts, sending them to the government assistance lines.
Just to think... all that occurs from a little tax incentive being taken away. Now... let's multiply this into the billions.
If you live in Oklahoma you know who George Kaiser is. He is a philanthropist and a very successful entrepreneur. He is the chairman of BOK Financial Corporation and the controlling share-holder of Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, which is based in Tulsa, OK.
Mr. Kaiser has met with law makers, and, out of the kindness of his heart, having only the best interests of the tax payers in mind, has proposed a tax incentive currently in place for oil companies not be renewed.
Kaiser told the Oklahoma State House Appropriations & Budget Committee that the tax-payer is in much more need of a tax break than the oil & gas industry. Wow! What a man he is folks. Knowing this will effect his own oil company, this man, out of the kindness of his heart, and out of his concern for the tax-payers, wants to eliminate the oil and gas tax incentives. What a saint folks... or wait... is he?
Let's explain the "logic" of how this is supposed to work. More money is needed here and there and there and there, etc. Someone has to pay for it. With everything in place as it stands, the tax-payers may end up paying a few more dollars to cover everything. But, if the tax incentives are removed from oil & gas companies then the State can take the money from them and thus, rescue the tax payer. Kaiser & the sitting democrats will look like heroes folks. Just a thought here... who wants to bet that Kaiser will be making an announcement for office in the near future?
In the 2007 fiscal year, according to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the rebates (which is the form of these incentives) totaled about $27 million dollars.
It seems like the modern day democrat/liberal mumbo jumbo doesn't it? Give the little guy a break and make those big, greedy oil companies pay their share. It's rather noble really. Robin Hood; Steal from the rich, give to the poor.
Folks... you can not trust democrats/liberals. There is always another card up their sleeve and as soon as they get you to look away, they'll play it.
Remember your course in economics from above? Good. Let's see what's really going to happen.
Bob Sullivan, of Sullivan and Co., has already expressed his concern about losing the incentive. He said it played a huge role in his company. Although Sullivan never used the incentive to make his decision for drilling (such as horizontal drilling, which is part of the incentive), he did use it to pay salaries or to pay for the drilling itself. (Are you still remembering the economics lesson? Good.)
So let's say the democrats get their way and this incentive goes away. What are these oil and gas companies going to do? Just like small business, they are going to have to make some changes. The executives will be faced with the same questions a small business would be. Do we raise prices? Do we lay off employees? Cut salaries? Freeze salaries? Get rid of benefits?
Guess what folks, in order to keep the business alive, they'll do whatever it's going to take. So what does that mean to you, the consumer... the tax payer who is supposed to be helped by this?
First and foremost, gas prices are going back up folks. When you take money away from another place, you have to get it from another. The company will pass the price onto us first folks. Contrary to what you may believe, they don't want to raise prices. The more it cost the less you buy, the less it cost, the more you buy. Nevertheless, they will increase the gas price. That's more money coming out of your pocket. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
As gas prices go up you will purchase less, and the oil and gas companies know this, and they will react to it before it even happens. Why? They know it's coming, they'll be prepared. As Bob Sullivan noted, they used money for among other things, paying employees. No more money = no more employees. Where does that send them? Unemployment line folks. Where else? Welfare line. Who pays for the welfare lines? We do. Where does the money come from? Our taxes. What happens when more people apply but only so much money is available? Democrats rush to the rescue. Legislation is rapidly pushed through to provide the money and guess what, you'll pay more taxes. Where do those come from? Right out of your pocket. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
If they think it will be necessary, they'll cut benefits. What does that mean? More visits to the emergency room. Why? No insurance. Everyone knows if you can't afford a doctor you go to the emergency room where you won't have to pay. Guess whose taxes are going to pay for that in the long run. That's right, and those are coming out of your pocket too. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
Don't forget now, this isn't just one company being hurt by this. Every single oil and gas company in this state will be doing the same things. Laying off employees, ordering hiring freezes, cutting salaries, getting rid of benefits, and let's not forget, raises their prices.
Incidentally... if you look at the really big picture, it gets even worse. Oil for your car goes up as well. What does that mean? Local ma' 'n' pa' oil changing businesses are going to pass that cost along to you. When they get to the point they can no longer afford to compete with bigger companies this will entirely put them out of business. Say good bye to a lot of small businesses, and a whole lot of jobs. I wonder where those people will all end up. Unemployment and welfare line perhaps? Sadly, the economy is already headed towards hiring freezes so don't expect these workers to be getting jobs anytime soon.
Who do you think is going to have to support all these employees who can't find work? That's right... the democrats will rush in, raise taxes, and you, again, will pay the price. (Wasn't this supposed to put more money in your pocket?)
When you look at this stuff folks you have to sit back and really take in the BIG picture. It's like the old saying, "if you kill a butterfly in the past it will dramatically change the entire future." When you play with taxes in the present, it will dramatically change the future. Once something is in motion changes WILL occur.
Of course this is the time of change. President Obama has promised change and keeping in line with it democrats around the country are following suit. Personally, I want to send an email telling them the same thing I do a Sonic car-hop, "keep the change."
Write your State Representatives and tell them you don't want this. Let your voice be heard folks. The only way to stop it is by doing something. If you say nothing, those are the results you will get every single time.
I bid you good day.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Home School: My letter to Senator Adelson, OK Senate District 33
As you folks can imagine, I try to keep myself in close contact with my Senators and Representatives. Recently, I discovered two Senate Bills which, if passed, would violate the privacy of home schooling parents/children. Both bills are borderline in violation of The U.S. Constitution, article IV section IV and the IV Amendment. The following is my letter to State Senator Tom Adelson, (D) Dist. 33, Oklahoma.
If you live in Oklahoma, and in district 33, and want to stop these bills, contact Senator Aderson. If you are in Oklahoma but unsure of your district, go here and find out who you need to contact.
Senator Adelson,
I am writing you today concerning S.B. 472 & 308. As I am sure you are aware, these bills violate the very principles brought forth by the founders of our Republic. Government schools themselves violate these same principles, but that is an issue for another time.
I am highly concerned that law-makers are seriously considering a bill... correction... bills, which would violate the sanctity of individualism & individual liberty, and thus, freedom. The very land we live on we do so at the high price of a soldier's blood. I find it sad that law-makers would want to work against the very liberty that blood was shed for.
The right of a parent to decide their child's future, and how it shall be handled is not only a God given responsibility, but it is a natural right of man. When we framed this great Republic (let's call it what it is, it's a republic, not a democracy, although it's becoming the latter) we founded it on the idea that government does not interfere with the private lives of its citizens.
I understand Oklahoma has it's own Constitution, but no Constitution is so great as to become stronger or more important than that of our nations. If you will allow me to quote that wonderful charter of freedom:
Article IV...
Section IV - Republican government (notice that "republic" thing)
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
... end quote.
Sir... no where in our founders minds was there ever an intention of government regulation of citizens private affairs. The job of our government, both federal and state, is to protect us from foreign and domestic threat. It never was, nor should it have ever become the duty of them to protect us against ourselves.
Who is the government to decide what is best for an individual? It is the individual who decides what is best for themselves, not the government. Furthermore, it is the individual who, in a Republic, decides what is best not only for themselves, but for their government as well.
There are not homeschooling parents all over the state sitting their children in front of TV's. Why? Because these are not homeschoolers, they are drop-outs. I have met numerous home schooled children and I would be confident placing a 13 year old against a high school senior any day of the week. The level of professionalism and dedication displayed by these parents is far superior to that of the Oklahoma government school system.
I'm sorry, but in a State where children being educated in government schools have the lowest achievement/success rate in the nation, I hardly believe it is the right of the State's law-makers to say they know what is best when it comes to education.
I say, and urge you sir, vote NO on both of these bills. If you value liberty, freedom and the individual, you will not help pass these bills. I urge you to speak with your fellow Senators and express the concern of your Constituents. The article about this is on TulsaWorld.com today and so far has over 63 comments from readers. (Whereas most stories average 1-5 comments, at best 8-9.)
What is the general consensus of the readers/commenter's? Pro-home school rights AND the lousy and poor education in Oklahoma's government schools.
The State has no right telling parents how they can and can not raise their children, and what they will and will not be taught.
If the State suspects a child has become a drop-out and is receiving no education I still do not believe the State has a right to act. It is that parent's right, and duty as an American, to decide their child's upbringing, not the State's.
If the State wants to truly decrease the rate of drop outs then I would like to make the following recommendations:
1) Strip the teachers unions of their power. There are far too many teachers who are allowed to continue teaching, despite pathetic results, because of the unions. They wouldn't get away with turning zero positive results anywhere else, why should they be getting away with it with our schools?
2) Increase the standards of education. We have lowered the standard of education far too many times. We now have seniors graduating who can not spell "graduation." That, to me, seems to suggest a problem.
3) Make Oklahoma a shining example to the nation. Bring back corporal punishment. There is nothing wrong with a child receiving discipline. It is not abuse, it, in itself, by it's very nature, is education.
4) Create a voucher system. Allow capitalism to do what it does best. By this system, investors could build their own schools. They would compete to receive the students and thus the vouchers by offering the best education, the best teachers and the safest environment for the students. We already know capitalism works... it is literally what made this nation what it is. Why all of a sudden are we thinking that it isn't the answer? Likewise with parents choosing what school to send their child too, allow home-schooling parents to keep their voucher and use it to educate their children.
People talk about disgraceful and sad. I'll tell you what is disgraceful and sad and at the same time impressive and proud. Even after all the tax increases, the lottery, and every other amount of money Oklahoma has thrown at its government schools, it's still turning out the lowest results in the nation. Yet somehow home schooling parents are able, with limited resources, to educate their children and still turn out better results than the State education system could ever come close to. Imagine what those parents could do if we had a voucher system where they would have thousands of dollars more to work with.
Getting back to the S.B. S.B. 308 gives truancy officials and local police the authority to question and detain children if they believe they are not receiving an appropriate education. Sir, who decides what this appropriate education is? It obviously can't be the State. Why? (again) We have the lowest results in the nation so obviously what the State has deemed appropriate is not even a valid system.
S.B. 472 requires parents to register with local government schools and provide progress updates. Why? What business is it of theirs. Better idea... from now on, when ever I get bored, I, as a tax-paying lawful citizen, have the right to walk into any classroom and evaluate the educator. If they are not performing at the level I and other tax-payers feel is appropriate, then we have the authority to fire them on the spot.
Both S.B.'s are violations of human rights by law of nature. They are violations of liberty and freedom. They compromise the individual itself. And, as noted, they violate the U.S. Constitution itself.
1) They are not the duty of the government to begin with.
2) The 4Th Amendment. I am sure you are familiar with it, but just in case you're not.
"Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As I am sure you know sir, this comes down to "intrusion upon seclusion", which is the principle behind the 4Th Amendment. Not today, not yesterday, not even a decade ago. Over 200 years ago, the framers of our great nation realized the importance of the private rights of its citizens, and their expectation of privacy in that private life.
When you write a law which allows truancy officials or law enforcement to investigate home schools, you are making an unconstitutional law allowing government officials to enter a residence, violate the Constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and take actions against the right of the individual.
Some might argue that a warrant could be obtained naming what is to be searched for, where at, and who will be searched/interviewed. I'm sorry, but again, that law would be unconstitutional. Referring back to the U.S. Constitution article IV section IV, the ONLY duties the government has are too protect us from foreign and domestic threats... i.e., war, crimes of moral turpitude, robbery, burglary, vandalism, etc. I hardly believe a home schooler qualifies as a domestic threat... that's kind of stretching it a little don't you think? Likewise... even if a parent wants to allow their child to drop out... that's not a domestic threat either. It's a bad decision, to this there is no argument. However, it is a decision the parent has a right to make.
I think I have more than made my point and I hope you understand that the only appropriate action for you to take is voting NO to both S.B..
Sincerely,
Matthew Q. Llewellyn, (R) Constituent of Senate Dist 33
If you live in Oklahoma, and in district 33, and want to stop these bills, contact Senator Aderson. If you are in Oklahoma but unsure of your district, go here and find out who you need to contact.
Senator Adelson,
I am writing you today concerning S.B. 472 & 308. As I am sure you are aware, these bills violate the very principles brought forth by the founders of our Republic. Government schools themselves violate these same principles, but that is an issue for another time.
I am highly concerned that law-makers are seriously considering a bill... correction... bills, which would violate the sanctity of individualism & individual liberty, and thus, freedom. The very land we live on we do so at the high price of a soldier's blood. I find it sad that law-makers would want to work against the very liberty that blood was shed for.
The right of a parent to decide their child's future, and how it shall be handled is not only a God given responsibility, but it is a natural right of man. When we framed this great Republic (let's call it what it is, it's a republic, not a democracy, although it's becoming the latter) we founded it on the idea that government does not interfere with the private lives of its citizens.
I understand Oklahoma has it's own Constitution, but no Constitution is so great as to become stronger or more important than that of our nations. If you will allow me to quote that wonderful charter of freedom:
Article IV...
Section IV - Republican government (notice that "republic" thing)
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
... end quote.
Sir... no where in our founders minds was there ever an intention of government regulation of citizens private affairs. The job of our government, both federal and state, is to protect us from foreign and domestic threat. It never was, nor should it have ever become the duty of them to protect us against ourselves.
Who is the government to decide what is best for an individual? It is the individual who decides what is best for themselves, not the government. Furthermore, it is the individual who, in a Republic, decides what is best not only for themselves, but for their government as well.
There are not homeschooling parents all over the state sitting their children in front of TV's. Why? Because these are not homeschoolers, they are drop-outs. I have met numerous home schooled children and I would be confident placing a 13 year old against a high school senior any day of the week. The level of professionalism and dedication displayed by these parents is far superior to that of the Oklahoma government school system.
I'm sorry, but in a State where children being educated in government schools have the lowest achievement/success rate in the nation, I hardly believe it is the right of the State's law-makers to say they know what is best when it comes to education.
I say, and urge you sir, vote NO on both of these bills. If you value liberty, freedom and the individual, you will not help pass these bills. I urge you to speak with your fellow Senators and express the concern of your Constituents. The article about this is on TulsaWorld.com today and so far has over 63 comments from readers. (Whereas most stories average 1-5 comments, at best 8-9.)
What is the general consensus of the readers/commenter's? Pro-home school rights AND the lousy and poor education in Oklahoma's government schools.
The State has no right telling parents how they can and can not raise their children, and what they will and will not be taught.
If the State suspects a child has become a drop-out and is receiving no education I still do not believe the State has a right to act. It is that parent's right, and duty as an American, to decide their child's upbringing, not the State's.
If the State wants to truly decrease the rate of drop outs then I would like to make the following recommendations:
1) Strip the teachers unions of their power. There are far too many teachers who are allowed to continue teaching, despite pathetic results, because of the unions. They wouldn't get away with turning zero positive results anywhere else, why should they be getting away with it with our schools?
2) Increase the standards of education. We have lowered the standard of education far too many times. We now have seniors graduating who can not spell "graduation." That, to me, seems to suggest a problem.
3) Make Oklahoma a shining example to the nation. Bring back corporal punishment. There is nothing wrong with a child receiving discipline. It is not abuse, it, in itself, by it's very nature, is education.
4) Create a voucher system. Allow capitalism to do what it does best. By this system, investors could build their own schools. They would compete to receive the students and thus the vouchers by offering the best education, the best teachers and the safest environment for the students. We already know capitalism works... it is literally what made this nation what it is. Why all of a sudden are we thinking that it isn't the answer? Likewise with parents choosing what school to send their child too, allow home-schooling parents to keep their voucher and use it to educate their children.
People talk about disgraceful and sad. I'll tell you what is disgraceful and sad and at the same time impressive and proud. Even after all the tax increases, the lottery, and every other amount of money Oklahoma has thrown at its government schools, it's still turning out the lowest results in the nation. Yet somehow home schooling parents are able, with limited resources, to educate their children and still turn out better results than the State education system could ever come close to. Imagine what those parents could do if we had a voucher system where they would have thousands of dollars more to work with.
Getting back to the S.B. S.B. 308 gives truancy officials and local police the authority to question and detain children if they believe they are not receiving an appropriate education. Sir, who decides what this appropriate education is? It obviously can't be the State. Why? (again) We have the lowest results in the nation so obviously what the State has deemed appropriate is not even a valid system.
S.B. 472 requires parents to register with local government schools and provide progress updates. Why? What business is it of theirs. Better idea... from now on, when ever I get bored, I, as a tax-paying lawful citizen, have the right to walk into any classroom and evaluate the educator. If they are not performing at the level I and other tax-payers feel is appropriate, then we have the authority to fire them on the spot.
Both S.B.'s are violations of human rights by law of nature. They are violations of liberty and freedom. They compromise the individual itself. And, as noted, they violate the U.S. Constitution itself.
1) They are not the duty of the government to begin with.
2) The 4Th Amendment. I am sure you are familiar with it, but just in case you're not.
"Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As I am sure you know sir, this comes down to "intrusion upon seclusion", which is the principle behind the 4Th Amendment. Not today, not yesterday, not even a decade ago. Over 200 years ago, the framers of our great nation realized the importance of the private rights of its citizens, and their expectation of privacy in that private life.
When you write a law which allows truancy officials or law enforcement to investigate home schools, you are making an unconstitutional law allowing government officials to enter a residence, violate the Constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and take actions against the right of the individual.
Some might argue that a warrant could be obtained naming what is to be searched for, where at, and who will be searched/interviewed. I'm sorry, but again, that law would be unconstitutional. Referring back to the U.S. Constitution article IV section IV, the ONLY duties the government has are too protect us from foreign and domestic threats... i.e., war, crimes of moral turpitude, robbery, burglary, vandalism, etc. I hardly believe a home schooler qualifies as a domestic threat... that's kind of stretching it a little don't you think? Likewise... even if a parent wants to allow their child to drop out... that's not a domestic threat either. It's a bad decision, to this there is no argument. However, it is a decision the parent has a right to make.
I think I have more than made my point and I hope you understand that the only appropriate action for you to take is voting NO to both S.B..
Sincerely,
Matthew Q. Llewellyn, (R) Constituent of Senate Dist 33
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
