Little known facts about the wonderful ACLU and its founder
Perhaps after reading this some of you may think that a more apropos name for the ACLU would be the Anarchist Civil Liberties Union.
Roger Nash Baldwin founded the ACLU and left the legacy of an institution that is fundamentally un-American and subversive to the principles upon which America was founded.
On January 16, 1981, President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and the International League for Human Rights. While lauded as a champion of human and civil rights both domestically and internationally, Dr. Baldwin left behind as his legacy an institution that is fundamentally un-American and subversive to the principles upon which America was founded.
Baldwin, visited the Soviet Union in 1927. He was greatly intrigued by Communism. So enamored by the Soviets that in 1928 he released the book Liberty Under the Soviets. To most, right minded people liberty under the Soviets did not exist. Baldwin, however, looked to the Soviet Union as a sort of “superprogressive” state. Baldwin’s ties with members of the Communist Party in the America were well documented. William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, two of the first board members of the ACLU, would later become card-carrying Communists.
Despite the ACLU’s efforts to present themselves as the “nation’s guardians of liberty,” their history belies that assertion. History points to a group bent on the destruction of freedom, Christianity, and American way itself. Tom Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute argues that “a powerful faction within the ACLU has been determined to remake America along ‘progressive,’ if not communist lines.”
Among the ACLU’s repertoire of victories are cases involving the defense of Communists, anarchists, Ku Klux Klansmen, and those who sought to overthrow American government. More recently, the ACLU attacked the city of Redlands, California for displaying a small cross in their city’s seal. Unable to face the well-funded and well-staffed ACLU, the debt-ridden city was forced to cower as the pack of ACLU lawyers started to feed. Nearby, Los Angeles County was also under attack for a similar display of the city’s heritage. Why is it that the ACLU attacks a small cross, nestled below the larger and more visible Greek goddess of vegetation on the Los Angeles seal? Because they are bent on the destruction of our country, that’s why.
From its inception, the ACLU has worked to create a new America, one in their own distorted image of what should be. To bring about this deranged agenda the ACLU found it necessary to achieve two main goals: first, the abolishment of Constitutional barriers to governmental power and second, the enervation of man’s soul to make him weak and dependent on government. Both of which move America towards a progressive state and, according to Dr. Krannawitter, are advanced by “removing God from the American mind.”
In order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America’s fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government. Our forefathers founded this country on the fact that rights come from God, not government. When God’s presence in the American mindset ceases, however, people no longer look to God as the grantor of rights and the supreme power but to government as the great oracle and omnipotent entity. The ACLU argues that the more power the government has, the better off the people under it are. If anyone looks at the history of the Soviet Union and any other Communist country, one will be apt to find Communist leaders who predicated their form of government on atheism and a secular state religion. This sort of anti-religious atmosphere precludes the existence of any rights beyond that which the government has granted, (enter Hillary and or the Democratic Party).
In addition to the emphasis on “from where we receive our rights” and or governmental power, the ACLU has worked to make people needy and dependent on government. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of those like the ACLU who wished to exacerbate the malignant tendencies of democracy. He explained that the government, if people allow it to do so, will create an incessant dependency of the people on the government as it expands its power under the guise of utility, finally reducing “each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.” The ACLU seeks not only to create a people that are dependent and needy, but also a government that “little by little extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls” by giving them all they want, so that they will be naively content without hopes, dreams, or a will of their own. This is a sort of despotism unlike any other.
Christianity is an antidote to the ACLU’s despotism and poison that is dependency on the government. It goes hand-in-hand with limited government and personal responsibility since it instructs individuals to trust in God for provision and it teaches people a strong work ethic. These are things that are not conducive to the ACLU’s ideal citizen. In short, religion creates a society of people who look not to government but to the Creator for support.
As the ACLU continues its assault on Christianity and limited government, every American must understand what is at stake: our liberty and freedom. Our hope as Americans lies in the foundations of America that, though undermined, still exist today. Though seemingly esoteric, the founding and moral principles present a hope to our country. George Washington said, "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." While it is these “pillars of human happiness” that the ACLU has sought to destroy, Americans have the ability stand up to the ACLU and reclaim America. Don’t let our rights be eroded, as they are being now, “a little bit at a time”. Things like socialized medicine and the power grab of the thinly veiled SCHIPS program are things that eat away at the foundations of our society. Things as seemingly unobtrusive as passing laws or allowing judges to use revisionist law to take away rights a little at a time with barely any notice is how it happens. Not in big extinction level events but in small nearly un-noticeable bumps. Please don’t be lead down the garden path by pie in the sky, “oh let government take care of you, we can administer socialized medicine, things will be just fine, or this ever elusive passage that people seem to think is in the constitution that we cannot have any religion when dealing with governmental workings. The passage is meant to keep government out of the business of religion not take all religion out of government”.
By the way, just in case anyone is actually interested in reading the first amendment, here it is.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice how nowhere does it say you cannot have religion in governmental matters, on the contrary, it specifically says the free exercise thereof, not the abolishment of. When are we as a country going to get a handle on this run-a-muck ACLU mentality and the disgusting over zealous PC crowd. Having said all this, there have been the rare occasions on which the ACLU has actually championed a noble cause instead of the usual ignoble. Those my friends are far and few between
Friday, November 9, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Economy E-shmonomy
Where is this wonderful economy that everyone keeps talking about? I don’t know about the rest of you, but If I’m lucky my salary may increase anywhere between 2.5 % and 3.5%. In the last year I have seen my food costs go up by at least 10% and in some cases 20% or higher. My gasoline/transportation costs has increased by 10 to 20%. My home heating costs by nearly 30%. Well you get the picture. Now how does that compute to a good economy? Maybe corporate America is doing well and maybe the giant multi-national companies and international trade is going along, but think about this. If the consumer’s buying power is shrinking, wouldn’t it follow that it will trickle down and eventually there will be less consumed or purchased and in turn that will lower the profit of these companies and then you have recession and then you have inflation because the profits are down and the corporations need to raise their costs and pass the loss along to the consumer and viola, the vicious cycle continues. What’s the answer? I haven’t heard a single candidate give any solution, unless you count the democrat tax increases a solution, guess what? that will only serve to exacerbate the situation. The answer is simply this; now I know this is economics 101 but humor me a bit here. How about this unique innovative idea that has been proven time and time again ever since there has been organized commerce, "LOWER TAXES" it never fails. The lower the taxes the more the consumer has and the more they spend. This is not rocket surgery here folks, it’s common sense. Raising taxes has never, I repeat, never, been shown to help a failing economy. Right down through history, from the Romans, and I’m sure before that, the scenario has been tried and found to be true. My question is this; why would anyone vote for someone who is intent upon raising taxes and trying to socialize our free market system and the country?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Boy, good old campaign reform is really working well, isn't it?
How much outrage would there be and how many special prosecutors and or commissions would be called upon? How wide-spread would the outcry be to take legal action against any other person running for president in either party other than Hillary if it were to come out that financing for their campaign was coming from non-existent beings or people that could ill afford to put food on the table. Yet they manage to contribute thousands of dollars with little or no visible means to do so. We all know the answer to that question, as we know the answer to many dealings that are of questionable nature where the Clintons are involved. Why is it then that they are given a bye. What is it about them that inures such indulgence on the part of the American public. I suppose that answer is somewhere in the realm of the unexplainable as to why people follow blindly some leaders that down through history have been nothing if not insane. That’s not to say that anyone is insane here, just that the phenomena is unexplainable. The problem is, it continues without confrontation. We really need a candidate to step up to the plate and say: "it's high time that we as a people get back to what this country is all about". We need a candidate that will cut through all the crap and stand on the morals and ideology that was once the greatness of our political system. It's way past time for someone to stand up and say; "OK this is the way it should be, this is what our forefathers fought so dearly for, and what our brave young men and women are fighting for today, namely do what is right for the country not what is right for the party, the special interest groups, or for the love of money and power. Yes we need a person with backbone not some mamby pamby invertebrate that panders to all manner of deviant people and behavior. Come on, we know you are out there.
The elites and touchy feely croud strike again
What is it with the touchy feely crowd, the Hollywood elites, the political misfits that travel to foreign soil and insult and denigrate our president, our military, our country. They are the ones who insult us at every turn and yet embrace murdering tyrannical dictators. They are themselves an insult and a stain on our way of life. They are the ones who are causing the oppressed in the world to stay oppressed. They are the ones who by their actions enable and cause the despotic rulers to become emboldened and continue to oppress millions of people. Yet they insist upon calling our country, which has made them what they are, the evil empire. If it is so offensive to these mental defectives why then do they not denounce their citizenship and move to one of those wonderful places they are so fond of embracing and see how they like it there. I’m sick and tired of listening to ex-presidents and these so-called Hollywood stars, oh by the way these people are “actors” folks, not policy makers, or wise old sages, or the Oracle of Delphi, they are “actors.” They are acting, they loose sight of reality, as do some of these politicians and people with exorbitant amounts of money. They even seem at times to adhere to some misplaced fealty to these dictators. They are at a total disconnect to reality. Then there are the plain old whack jobs that wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the butt. Which by the way would be in the same general area as their heads. Why is it that we pay so much attention to the minute percentage of idiots? Shall I tell you? The P.C. game is afoot once again in many cases. The freedom of speech amendment does not extend to foreign lands. Just let those brain storms try and say the kinds of things they say about this country, about one of those wonderful countries when they are over there and see how long their freedom continues to exist. Further more, the freedom of speech certainly doesn’t extend to what borders on traitorous rhetoric. Read the amendment folks.If you are honest you will see the truth. If you are not, and choose to fog the issue with preconceived notions about the greatness of Hollywood, or misguided souls, then we as a society could quite possibly be doomed.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
How's this for a budget increase?
You had better think long and hard about the next president. Some of you say you hate Bush, well that is just disgusting. You can disagree with policy and even dislike his tactics, but when you throw the word hate into the mix all you are doing is labeling yourself as a person who cannot stand on the issues and has to resort to the politics of hate. That word cheapens and even negates many an argument, for the opposition sees only the vitriolic face you put forward. So go ahead and dissent, go ahead and impugn, but do yourself a favor and do it in a manner that calls for respect not disdain, or even worse, total dismissal of a kook fringe.
The Democrats' $2.9 Trillion Budget Fails To Extend All The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. "Congressional Democrats ... announced agreement on a $2.9 trillion budget blueprint for 2008, promising a budget surplus in five years but only by allowing some of President Bush's tax cuts to expire." (Andrew Taylor, "Democrats Agree On $2.9 Trillion Budget," The Associated Press, 5/16/07)
Senator Judd Gregg, Ranking Member On The Budget Committee, Noted The Budget Would Result In "The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History." "The top Republican on the Senate committee, Sen. Judd Gregg ... said the Democratic plan would produce 'the largest tax increase in U.S. history...'" (Andrew Taylor, "Democrats Agree On $2.9 Trillion Budget," The Associated Press, 5/16/07)
Other proposals by people who say they are watching out for you. Yeah they are watching out for how they can get their hands in your pockets once again.
If nothing else remember this; "the more control the government has, the less control you the citizen has.
If you think (Unjustifiably so I might add) that anyone has lost some perceived civil right with the "Patriot Act)just wait until you let the socialism (Billery)crowd take over, as the man said, "you ain't seen nothing yet."
Don't forget the Patriot Act is for people communicating with known terrorist people or factions, Joe average American. Get with it people, this is serious, quit demagoging around and use some common sense.
Here are just a few disturbing things to ponder;
·Fifty cents a gallon gas tax to pay for entitlement programs and roads and bridges.
·Propose as high as $10.00 per cigar tax to fund Medicaid.
·Sunset the tax rebates.
·Socialize medicine (since when did the government ever run any program efficiently?)
·Increase the inheritance tax and lower the exemption qualification.
·Double the capital gains tax from 15 to 30 %.
·Increase tobacco tax by 60 cents to fund, God only knows what.
·Allow federal scholarships for illegal aliens.
·What amounts to amnesty for 12 to 15 million aliens and include the family reunification amendment to bring the total to 35 to 40 million illegals
·Take profits over a certain amount ( a figure not yet settled upon) away from big companies and redistribute it for socialized entitlement programs. If you think that companies are doing business off shore and overseas, just wait for this little beauty to get passed. They will be
leaving in droves.
·Censorship, by way of fairness doctrine.
·Censure private citizens, (i.e., Rush Limbaugh)
The Democrats' $2.9 Trillion Budget Fails To Extend All The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. "Congressional Democrats ... announced agreement on a $2.9 trillion budget blueprint for 2008, promising a budget surplus in five years but only by allowing some of President Bush's tax cuts to expire." (Andrew Taylor, "Democrats Agree On $2.9 Trillion Budget," The Associated Press, 5/16/07)
Senator Judd Gregg, Ranking Member On The Budget Committee, Noted The Budget Would Result In "The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History." "The top Republican on the Senate committee, Sen. Judd Gregg ... said the Democratic plan would produce 'the largest tax increase in U.S. history...'" (Andrew Taylor, "Democrats Agree On $2.9 Trillion Budget," The Associated Press, 5/16/07)
Other proposals by people who say they are watching out for you. Yeah they are watching out for how they can get their hands in your pockets once again.
If nothing else remember this; "the more control the government has, the less control you the citizen has.
If you think (Unjustifiably so I might add) that anyone has lost some perceived civil right with the "Patriot Act)just wait until you let the socialism (Billery)crowd take over, as the man said, "you ain't seen nothing yet."
Don't forget the Patriot Act is for people communicating with known terrorist people or factions, Joe average American. Get with it people, this is serious, quit demagoging around and use some common sense.
Here are just a few disturbing things to ponder;
·Fifty cents a gallon gas tax to pay for entitlement programs and roads and bridges.
·Propose as high as $10.00 per cigar tax to fund Medicaid.
·Sunset the tax rebates.
·Socialize medicine (since when did the government ever run any program efficiently?)
·Increase the inheritance tax and lower the exemption qualification.
·Double the capital gains tax from 15 to 30 %.
·Increase tobacco tax by 60 cents to fund, God only knows what.
·Allow federal scholarships for illegal aliens.
·What amounts to amnesty for 12 to 15 million aliens and include the family reunification amendment to bring the total to 35 to 40 million illegals
·Take profits over a certain amount ( a figure not yet settled upon) away from big companies and redistribute it for socialized entitlement programs. If you think that companies are doing business off shore and overseas, just wait for this little beauty to get passed. They will be
leaving in droves.
·Censorship, by way of fairness doctrine.
·Censure private citizens, (i.e., Rush Limbaugh)
Things are not always as they seem
Out of the 27 amendments the first may arguably be the most controversial. However, when people resort to shock tactics they are quite often looking for a response. In the case of the professor it is unclear as to his true intentions. The student stated in an interview that she was certain that the professor was serious as the context of the entire class reflected his demeanor in that fashion. Of course what with the world being what it is today, there had to be some fancy foot work immediately for damage control, hence the recanting. So when all is said and done was it really a serious set of statements, or some thinly veiled attempt to spark discussion in an institute of higher learning?
You don't think there is indoctrination?
If you think there isn't ideological indoctrination in our institutions of higher learning than you have got to be living in a cave. The only reason for a recanting what so ever is that the professor is only an associate. The system and the professor are doing some serious back peddeling.
Flag-burning 'lesson' provokes UM student
By Toni-Lynn Robbins
Saturday, November 03, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
ORONO, Maine - A University of Maine student alleges her former professor offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech.
On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.
"I was offended," McDade said Friday. "I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background."
In an e-mail responding to a request for comment from the Bangor Daily News on Friday, Grosswiler said he thought McDade misunderstood the class discussion, which was intended to elicit thought about the First Amendment. He said he has held this same discussion for years without incident.
"I don’t intend for students to burn either the Constitution or the flag, and over the years hundreds of students have understood that," Grosswiler wrote.
The incident was made public recently when The Leadership Institute, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization, distributed a press release detailing the classroom discussion.
The Leadership Institute was founded in 1979 by Morton Blackwell and has a mission to identify, recruit, train and place conservatives in politics, government and the media, according to the organization’s Web site.
A field representative for the institute met McDade on Oct. 1 at UM, when she shared her experience and expressed an interest in spearheading a group "Students for Academic Freedom," Blackwell said Friday.
The group’s initial goal would be to convince UM to enact a "Student Bill of Rights," as other colleges have, which would protect students from professors who treat and grade students differently based on religious or political beliefs, McDade said. The institute has assisted McDade in the startup process, she said.
"When we heard the story, we said ‘Hey, this is probably worthwhile our doing a news release,’" Blackwell said. "When you expose leftist abuses, it invigorates conservatives. I am sure that the administration, like most administrations we deal with, is not happy when leftist abuses come to life. They far prefer to have students under their thumb and indoctrinated."
McDade said Friday she was a little uncomfortable with the publicity and that it might have gotten out of hand. She said her intent was not to put the focus on Grosswiler, but to give students an opportunity to voice their concerns.
A journalism and political science double major, McDade said the first class of her fall semester at UM began with the typical syllabus introduction and class overview. Despite repeated "liberal" comments made by Grosswiler, McDade said, she was not uncomfortable in the classroom until the flag burning comment.
"Everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs, and more power to you if you are passionate about it," McDade said.
When Grosswiler listed the extra-credit opportunities, McDade said the class of approximately 50 students grew very quiet, and some questioned whether he was serious.
At first, student Kathleen Dame said she thought Grosswiler was joking, but then he went on to explain to the class that burning the flag was not illegal. While Grosswiler approached the topic in a serious manner, Dame said she felt he used it as a tool to educate the class on the First Amendment.
"It was pretty outlandish and [he was] trying to prove a point," Dame said Friday.
While McDade said she would not be surprised if students followed through with the flag burning, Dame disagreed.
UM spokesman Joe Carr said Friday that Grosswiler’s classroom comments were not intended to be taken literally and that extra credit would not be granted for carrying out such activities.
A second person in the class did submit a complaint about the lecture, but Carr did not know in what form it was filed.
When asked whether the university would pursue disciplinary action, Carr replied, "No."
He said Grosswiler has worked at the University of Maine since 1991, is one of the more veteran professors in the department of communication and journalism, and is a "well-respected member of the faculty."
In his e-mail Friday, Grosswiler, who is a former BDN employee, explained that he refers to provocative examples, such as flag burning, to demonstrate the courage necessary to support free expression.
"If they don’t tolerate thought that they hate, they don’t believe in the First Amendment," he wrote.
"I applaud the student’s exercise of free expression. If she had stayed in the class, I would have given her extra credit for publicizing her opinions."
Flag-burning 'lesson' provokes UM student
By Toni-Lynn Robbins
Saturday, November 03, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
ORONO, Maine - A University of Maine student alleges her former professor offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech.
On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.
"I was offended," McDade said Friday. "I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background."
In an e-mail responding to a request for comment from the Bangor Daily News on Friday, Grosswiler said he thought McDade misunderstood the class discussion, which was intended to elicit thought about the First Amendment. He said he has held this same discussion for years without incident.
"I don’t intend for students to burn either the Constitution or the flag, and over the years hundreds of students have understood that," Grosswiler wrote.
The incident was made public recently when The Leadership Institute, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization, distributed a press release detailing the classroom discussion.
The Leadership Institute was founded in 1979 by Morton Blackwell and has a mission to identify, recruit, train and place conservatives in politics, government and the media, according to the organization’s Web site.
A field representative for the institute met McDade on Oct. 1 at UM, when she shared her experience and expressed an interest in spearheading a group "Students for Academic Freedom," Blackwell said Friday.
The group’s initial goal would be to convince UM to enact a "Student Bill of Rights," as other colleges have, which would protect students from professors who treat and grade students differently based on religious or political beliefs, McDade said. The institute has assisted McDade in the startup process, she said.
"When we heard the story, we said ‘Hey, this is probably worthwhile our doing a news release,’" Blackwell said. "When you expose leftist abuses, it invigorates conservatives. I am sure that the administration, like most administrations we deal with, is not happy when leftist abuses come to life. They far prefer to have students under their thumb and indoctrinated."
McDade said Friday she was a little uncomfortable with the publicity and that it might have gotten out of hand. She said her intent was not to put the focus on Grosswiler, but to give students an opportunity to voice their concerns.
A journalism and political science double major, McDade said the first class of her fall semester at UM began with the typical syllabus introduction and class overview. Despite repeated "liberal" comments made by Grosswiler, McDade said, she was not uncomfortable in the classroom until the flag burning comment.
"Everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs, and more power to you if you are passionate about it," McDade said.
When Grosswiler listed the extra-credit opportunities, McDade said the class of approximately 50 students grew very quiet, and some questioned whether he was serious.
At first, student Kathleen Dame said she thought Grosswiler was joking, but then he went on to explain to the class that burning the flag was not illegal. While Grosswiler approached the topic in a serious manner, Dame said she felt he used it as a tool to educate the class on the First Amendment.
"It was pretty outlandish and [he was] trying to prove a point," Dame said Friday.
While McDade said she would not be surprised if students followed through with the flag burning, Dame disagreed.
UM spokesman Joe Carr said Friday that Grosswiler’s classroom comments were not intended to be taken literally and that extra credit would not be granted for carrying out such activities.
A second person in the class did submit a complaint about the lecture, but Carr did not know in what form it was filed.
When asked whether the university would pursue disciplinary action, Carr replied, "No."
He said Grosswiler has worked at the University of Maine since 1991, is one of the more veteran professors in the department of communication and journalism, and is a "well-respected member of the faculty."
In his e-mail Friday, Grosswiler, who is a former BDN employee, explained that he refers to provocative examples, such as flag burning, to demonstrate the courage necessary to support free expression.
"If they don’t tolerate thought that they hate, they don’t believe in the First Amendment," he wrote.
"I applaud the student’s exercise of free expression. If she had stayed in the class, I would have given her extra credit for publicizing her opinions."
Monday, November 5, 2007
people taking the first amendment too far
Why is it that when people go way too far and start to infringe upon everyone Else's rights they hide behind the first amendment. Isn't it about time we started using some common sense and quit being so PC that it is ruining the country? Just in case you were wondering just what the first amendment said I figured maybe some of you should read it. It seems that many use it and few read it, so here you go. Oh yeah and here are a few more amendments just to get you thinking and maybe confuse you a little.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
America is at the mall
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq . Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not. War was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
Imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets. No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
Author unknown
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not. War was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
Imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets. No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
Author unknown
Friday, November 2, 2007
Take the politics out of politics and elect on issues
Ok let’s take all the names, party affiliations and ideology out of the up-coming election and make decisions on the issues, not on some misguided ideology or loyalty that has long since gone missing:
National defense; someone is going to be tough and realistic and some refuse to even admit we are in a struggle for our very existence.
The war effort to confront terrorism world wide, i.e. secure borders; some want to allow amnesty and reward people for breaking the law and others wish to find a fair workable solution.
U.S.A.’s sovereignty and national security; it seems that some would welcome anarchy by allowing open borders and thereby furthering the dismantling of our society.
The Iraq war; Debacle that it may be, we still need to do what is best for our safety. Whatever your opinion, that above all should be driving your decision, not whether you like someone or not. That’s just plain old numb.
The illegal immigrant problem; Now look, Regan tried the amnesty thing and we all know how wonderful that turned out. Yes the government and business is complicit in our problem but, can we stop complaining about the government not doing anything to fix it, and yet when they do start there are all manner of people up in arms about the fact that we are finally doing something about it. We can’t have it both ways people, let’s buck up and get with it.
Taxes and governmental spending; I bet we all thought that one party over the other was for smaller government and lower taxes, well it seems that it is becoming increasingly harder to discern one from the other. We are spending like a bunch of drunken sailors and it appears that one is trying to out spend the other. They go to extreme lengths to find new ways to get into your back pocket, and that is way too close to my nether regions for my liking. How about someone coming out with some of the good old ethics and morals about government and spending.
Healthcare; I don’t know of one program that the government runs effectively, oh I’m sure some of you could list some but it hurts my head to try and think that hard. So why than does anyone think that we need the government to socialize medicine? That is on the road to disaster. If I ever saw anything going that way, that program would be it. This SCHIPS deal is a poorly veiled attempt to bring about a guaranteed debacle. Why don’t we do the right thing and stop this foolishness about, “Oh it’s for the children.” Last time I checked a twenty five year old was far from being a child and besides children are covered now. We just need to up-date the program not start another governmental fiasco.
Energy independence; Some don’t want to use the clean efficient technology we presently have in nuclear power. Others don’t want to drill anywhere. My question is this; what the hell are they doing? We need to develop some independence here. Until we have the new technology to get our energy from other sources we need to use what we have sensibly, not bemoan common sense approaches to our energy problems.
Foreign policy, including our support of a large portion of the world in some fashion; Our foreign policy while trying to do the right thing, helping to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world has to include working WITH other governments or factions within them to bring about change that is for the good of the planet not just some tin plated dictator with delusions of grandeur. The other thing we need to do desperately is knock off this politician and people of notoriety going on foreign soil and insulting and denigrating our country and our military. That needs to just out and out cease. Now we have freedom of speech in this country and that is as it should be however it does not extend to treason or defamation of hate speech. Dissension can be a good thing if tempered with sanity and common sense.
Big government, which includes more governmental control; some wish to enact and pass law after law that will eat away at your personal liberties in the name of the wonderful benevolent government. Guess what, there is no such thing. The more control you give the government the less you have, ergo, you lose again.
Entitlement programs; We have way too many as it is. Some wish to further the government programs to the point of bankrupting not only our pocket books but our society. When has it ever been shone that entitlement gimme mentality actually lifts up any segment of any society and that includes the experiment that the Romans try that eventually brought about their downfall.
The war on poverty; We have spent nearly nine trillion dollars on the war on poverty in the last forty years and maybe it’s about time that someone said, “hey maybe we should try something different.” Unless I’m very mistaken we have a considerable amount of poverty sill in existence. Why then do we not try some new approaches. President Clinton got some headway ( no pun intended) into the problem with his welfare reform. It was just the first step in what will prove to be a long and arduous journey, but a necessary one.
In most cases some common sense and the knowledge is there to do the right thing. The problem is the politicians get in the way. However since we are stuck with this system we need to make decisions on what is best not affiliation or demagoguery. Let’s try and see the problems for what they are and act appropriately. The time for partisan politics has to be over we as a society in order to progress and prosper need to stop the crap and elect officials that are truly trying to do what is best for our country not themselves or their party or special interests. We don’t need to elect people how’s lives are totally contrived and will say or do whatever it takes to get their hands on the power and the hell with the country and you and me.
National defense; someone is going to be tough and realistic and some refuse to even admit we are in a struggle for our very existence.
The war effort to confront terrorism world wide, i.e. secure borders; some want to allow amnesty and reward people for breaking the law and others wish to find a fair workable solution.
U.S.A.’s sovereignty and national security; it seems that some would welcome anarchy by allowing open borders and thereby furthering the dismantling of our society.
The Iraq war; Debacle that it may be, we still need to do what is best for our safety. Whatever your opinion, that above all should be driving your decision, not whether you like someone or not. That’s just plain old numb.
The illegal immigrant problem; Now look, Regan tried the amnesty thing and we all know how wonderful that turned out. Yes the government and business is complicit in our problem but, can we stop complaining about the government not doing anything to fix it, and yet when they do start there are all manner of people up in arms about the fact that we are finally doing something about it. We can’t have it both ways people, let’s buck up and get with it.
Taxes and governmental spending; I bet we all thought that one party over the other was for smaller government and lower taxes, well it seems that it is becoming increasingly harder to discern one from the other. We are spending like a bunch of drunken sailors and it appears that one is trying to out spend the other. They go to extreme lengths to find new ways to get into your back pocket, and that is way too close to my nether regions for my liking. How about someone coming out with some of the good old ethics and morals about government and spending.
Healthcare; I don’t know of one program that the government runs effectively, oh I’m sure some of you could list some but it hurts my head to try and think that hard. So why than does anyone think that we need the government to socialize medicine? That is on the road to disaster. If I ever saw anything going that way, that program would be it. This SCHIPS deal is a poorly veiled attempt to bring about a guaranteed debacle. Why don’t we do the right thing and stop this foolishness about, “Oh it’s for the children.” Last time I checked a twenty five year old was far from being a child and besides children are covered now. We just need to up-date the program not start another governmental fiasco.
Energy independence; Some don’t want to use the clean efficient technology we presently have in nuclear power. Others don’t want to drill anywhere. My question is this; what the hell are they doing? We need to develop some independence here. Until we have the new technology to get our energy from other sources we need to use what we have sensibly, not bemoan common sense approaches to our energy problems.
Foreign policy, including our support of a large portion of the world in some fashion; Our foreign policy while trying to do the right thing, helping to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world has to include working WITH other governments or factions within them to bring about change that is for the good of the planet not just some tin plated dictator with delusions of grandeur. The other thing we need to do desperately is knock off this politician and people of notoriety going on foreign soil and insulting and denigrating our country and our military. That needs to just out and out cease. Now we have freedom of speech in this country and that is as it should be however it does not extend to treason or defamation of hate speech. Dissension can be a good thing if tempered with sanity and common sense.
Big government, which includes more governmental control; some wish to enact and pass law after law that will eat away at your personal liberties in the name of the wonderful benevolent government. Guess what, there is no such thing. The more control you give the government the less you have, ergo, you lose again.
Entitlement programs; We have way too many as it is. Some wish to further the government programs to the point of bankrupting not only our pocket books but our society. When has it ever been shone that entitlement gimme mentality actually lifts up any segment of any society and that includes the experiment that the Romans try that eventually brought about their downfall.
The war on poverty; We have spent nearly nine trillion dollars on the war on poverty in the last forty years and maybe it’s about time that someone said, “hey maybe we should try something different.” Unless I’m very mistaken we have a considerable amount of poverty sill in existence. Why then do we not try some new approaches. President Clinton got some headway ( no pun intended) into the problem with his welfare reform. It was just the first step in what will prove to be a long and arduous journey, but a necessary one.
In most cases some common sense and the knowledge is there to do the right thing. The problem is the politicians get in the way. However since we are stuck with this system we need to make decisions on what is best not affiliation or demagoguery. Let’s try and see the problems for what they are and act appropriately. The time for partisan politics has to be over we as a society in order to progress and prosper need to stop the crap and elect officials that are truly trying to do what is best for our country not themselves or their party or special interests. We don’t need to elect people how’s lives are totally contrived and will say or do whatever it takes to get their hands on the power and the hell with the country and you and me.
Need parental permission for asprin, but what about the pill?
So in these times that are so politically correct that you can't sneeze and say, "God bless you", eleven year old students in Portland Maine can get contraceptives without specific consent. If the parent gives consent so that if the child gets a cut and needs a band-aid, doesn't it follow that they should automatically get the pill and the parents are left out of the loop once again. The following is an article from the Portland Press Herald. Now the program has some merit in that it would cut back on the number of pregnancies, (seventeen in three years in the system) but what ever happened to parenting?
what do you think?
Students who have parental permission to be treated at King Middle School's health center would be able to get birth control prescriptions under a proposal that the Portland School Committee will consider Wednesday.
The proposal would build on the King Student Health Center's practice of providing condoms as part of its reproductive health program since it opened in 2000, said Lisa Belanger, a nurse practitioner who oversees the city's student health centers.
If the committee approves the King proposal, it would be the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to some students in grades 6 to 8, said Nancy Birkhimer, director of teen health programs for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. Most middle schoolers are ages 11-13.
Although students must have written parental permission to be treated at Portland's school-based health centers, state law allows them to seek confidential health care and to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive, Belanger said.
Proponents say a small number of King students are sexually active, but those who are need better access to birth control.
Of 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year, five students, or 4 percent, reported having sexual intercourse, said Amanda Rowe, lead nurse in Portland's school health centers.
"This is a service that is totally needed," Rowe said. "It's about very few kids, but they are kids who don't have the same opportunities and access as other students."
The percentage of middle school students in Maine who reported having sexual intercourse dropped from 23 percent in 1997 to 13 percent in 2005, according to the Maine Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
"Thirteen percent is still more than one in 10 students," Birkhimer said.
The School Committee will meet at 7 p.m. in Room 250, Portland Arts and Technology High School, off Allen Avenue.
Robert O'Brien, who chairs the committee's policy subcommittee, said his panel has yet to discuss the proposal.
He declined to comment until after the matter has been aired.
The issue could stir controversy, as it has in the past.
"I'm personally fine with it, but I know some parents might not be," said Jennifer Southard, wife of City Councilor Edward Suslovic, who has two daughters at King. "I think information and access are good things. I would hope my children would come to me, but some students might not have that option."
The city's Division of Public Health, which made the birth- control proposal, operates seven health centers in Portland Public Schools in an effort to increase access to physical, dental and mental health care.
They are located at Portland High School, Deering High School, Casco Bay High School, King Middle School, West School special education program, and two elementary schools -- Reiche Community School and East End Community School.
The first centers opened in the high schools more than a decade ago, Belanger said.
There are 27 school-based health centers in Maine, 20 of which are funded and overseen by the state, including those in Portland, Birkhimer said.
There are more than 1,700 school-connected health centers in the United States.
One in four provides birth control ranging from condoms to prescription contraception, said Divya Mohan, spokeswoman for the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.
Last year, Portland's program cost about $500,000 to operate, including state and foundation grants, MaineCare/Medicaid and private health insurance reimbursements, and in-kind contributions of space and services provided by the city, Belanger said.
Of 2,877 students eligible to attend Portland's seven health centers last year, 1,261, or 44 percent, were enrolled. The center at King, which has 510 students, enrolled 134 students and tallied 266 visits last year, Belanger said.
The health...centers at Portland High, Deering High, Casco Bay High and West School have provided prescription contraception as part of overall primary health care since 2003, Belanger said.
The King Student Health Center has provided condoms since it opened in 2000, along with counseling and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, she said.
Contraception would be prescribed after a physical examination by a physician or nurse practitioner, Belanger said.
Types of prescription birth control available through the health centers include contraceptive pills, patches or injections, as well as the morning-after pill. Diaphragms and IUDs are not usually prescribed, she said.
Belanger said health center workers encourage students to tell their parents about their health center experiences, but by law they cannot compel students to do so or inform parents without the student's consent.
King is the only one of Portland's three middle schools with a health center, primarily because it has more students who get free or reduced-price lunch, Belanger said.
Moore and Lincoln middle schools don't have health centers, and their students are ineligible for treatment at the King Student Health Center.
Belanger said the top five reasons for visits to the health center last year were, in descending order: immunizations, physical examinations, sore throat, upper respiratory infection and asthma.
Nationally, the top five reproductive health services offered at school-based health centers were, in descending order: pregnancy testing, abstinence counseling, HIV/AIDS counseling, birth control counseling, and the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, according to the national assembly.
Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:
kbouchard@pressherald.com
what do you think?
Students who have parental permission to be treated at King Middle School's health center would be able to get birth control prescriptions under a proposal that the Portland School Committee will consider Wednesday.
The proposal would build on the King Student Health Center's practice of providing condoms as part of its reproductive health program since it opened in 2000, said Lisa Belanger, a nurse practitioner who oversees the city's student health centers.
If the committee approves the King proposal, it would be the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to some students in grades 6 to 8, said Nancy Birkhimer, director of teen health programs for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. Most middle schoolers are ages 11-13.
Although students must have written parental permission to be treated at Portland's school-based health centers, state law allows them to seek confidential health care and to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive, Belanger said.
Proponents say a small number of King students are sexually active, but those who are need better access to birth control.
Of 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year, five students, or 4 percent, reported having sexual intercourse, said Amanda Rowe, lead nurse in Portland's school health centers.
"This is a service that is totally needed," Rowe said. "It's about very few kids, but they are kids who don't have the same opportunities and access as other students."
The percentage of middle school students in Maine who reported having sexual intercourse dropped from 23 percent in 1997 to 13 percent in 2005, according to the Maine Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
"Thirteen percent is still more than one in 10 students," Birkhimer said.
The School Committee will meet at 7 p.m. in Room 250, Portland Arts and Technology High School, off Allen Avenue.
Robert O'Brien, who chairs the committee's policy subcommittee, said his panel has yet to discuss the proposal.
He declined to comment until after the matter has been aired.
The issue could stir controversy, as it has in the past.
"I'm personally fine with it, but I know some parents might not be," said Jennifer Southard, wife of City Councilor Edward Suslovic, who has two daughters at King. "I think information and access are good things. I would hope my children would come to me, but some students might not have that option."
The city's Division of Public Health, which made the birth- control proposal, operates seven health centers in Portland Public Schools in an effort to increase access to physical, dental and mental health care.
They are located at Portland High School, Deering High School, Casco Bay High School, King Middle School, West School special education program, and two elementary schools -- Reiche Community School and East End Community School.
The first centers opened in the high schools more than a decade ago, Belanger said.
There are 27 school-based health centers in Maine, 20 of which are funded and overseen by the state, including those in Portland, Birkhimer said.
There are more than 1,700 school-connected health centers in the United States.
One in four provides birth control ranging from condoms to prescription contraception, said Divya Mohan, spokeswoman for the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.
Last year, Portland's program cost about $500,000 to operate, including state and foundation grants, MaineCare/Medicaid and private health insurance reimbursements, and in-kind contributions of space and services provided by the city, Belanger said.
Of 2,877 students eligible to attend Portland's seven health centers last year, 1,261, or 44 percent, were enrolled. The center at King, which has 510 students, enrolled 134 students and tallied 266 visits last year, Belanger said.
The health...centers at Portland High, Deering High, Casco Bay High and West School have provided prescription contraception as part of overall primary health care since 2003, Belanger said.
The King Student Health Center has provided condoms since it opened in 2000, along with counseling and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, she said.
Contraception would be prescribed after a physical examination by a physician or nurse practitioner, Belanger said.
Types of prescription birth control available through the health centers include contraceptive pills, patches or injections, as well as the morning-after pill. Diaphragms and IUDs are not usually prescribed, she said.
Belanger said health center workers encourage students to tell their parents about their health center experiences, but by law they cannot compel students to do so or inform parents without the student's consent.
King is the only one of Portland's three middle schools with a health center, primarily because it has more students who get free or reduced-price lunch, Belanger said.
Moore and Lincoln middle schools don't have health centers, and their students are ineligible for treatment at the King Student Health Center.
Belanger said the top five reasons for visits to the health center last year were, in descending order: immunizations, physical examinations, sore throat, upper respiratory infection and asthma.
Nationally, the top five reproductive health services offered at school-based health centers were, in descending order: pregnancy testing, abstinence counseling, HIV/AIDS counseling, birth control counseling, and the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, according to the national assembly.
Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:
kbouchard@pressherald.com
Racino in Downeast Maine
Whether you are for, or against the proposal, you should at least know some of the facts. There is nothing more dangerous than decision by ignorance or demagoguery. The following is an except from the debate on Thursday November 1, 2007 at Husson College, courtesy of Bangor Daily News.
News
Greater Bangor
Passamaquoddy Tribal Chief Richard Phillips-Doyle (L) and Senator Kevin Raye (R) debate CasinosNO representative Dennis Bailey (not pictured) at Husson College on Thursday. Bennett) CasinosNO representative Dennis Bailey listens as Senator Kevin Raye and Passamaquoddy Tribal Chief Richard Phillips-Doyle (both not pictured) debate with him onphoto Question 1, a ballot proposal that would allow the Passamaquddy tribe to operate a casino in Calais. Penobscot tribal members (L to R) Dave Almenas, Brenda Fields and Elizabeth Kimball listen to the debate between Senator Kevin Raye and Passamaquoddy tribal chief Richard Phillips-Doyle and CasinosNO representative Dennis Bailey at Husson College on Thursday afternoon. All three Penobscots support the casnio project in Calais.
Foes face off on racino questionBy Aimee DolloffFriday, November 02, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
By Aimee Dolloff and Diana Graettinger
BANGOR, Maine — Representatives on both sides of the fence regarding referendum Question 1 — the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s proposed racino in Washington County — threw verbal punches at one another during forums Thursday in Bangor and Machias. The issue will be decided during the Nov. 6 statewide election.
A recent public opinion poll shows a majority of likely voters favor the racino, which was evident at the afternoon event at Husson College in Bangor that was attended primarily by tribal members and residents who support the proposed gambling facility in Calais. They didn’t hesitate to applaud and cheer representatives from the advocacy group Yes on 1 — Rick Phillips Doyle, governor of the Pleasant Point reservation, and Sen. Kevin Raye, R-Perry.
Dennis Bailey of CasinosNO! was the sole representative on the other side of the table at the Husson forum, organized and moderated by staff and students of the New England School of Communications.
"I have great respect for the tribe and their leaders," Bailey said, noting that the group he represents has a fundamental difference of opinion with supporters.
"We don’t believe gambling casinos represent true economic development," he said. "CasinosNO! may be behind the times, but we still know it’s a scam."
During questions from the public directed at each side, Raye used the opportunity to call Bailey on the carpet for having worked for the Scotia Prince — a cruise line with gaming on board.
Bailey quickly claimed that CasinosNO! isn’t opposed to gambling, but is opposed to the expansion of gaming in Maine.
"This campaign’s not about me," Bailey said. "It’s about a really bad idea in Washington County."
He also stated that different gaming ventures bring varying levels of impact to individuals and communities, and that this likely won’t be the last attempt to create a gambling facility in Maine.
Raye and Doyle disagreed with Bailey’s negative image of what the racino would bring and stressed that the proposed facility would provide much-needed jobs to a desperate Washington County. The facility, according to Raye, would make the area a destination for tourists who otherwise might pass through without stopping to spend money in the county.
"We have been studied to death," Raye said. "Meanwhile, our struggle continues. The time for study is over, the time for action is here."
Penobscot Nation tribal members and leaders from Indian Island also are in support of the initiative, Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis said in an interview before the forum.
Francis was adamant that the Penobscots’ support is not about gaming or slot machines, even though they have a bill in the Legislature to add slot machines to their high-stakes bingo game.
"It’s about self-governance and self-sufficiency," Francis said.
Although the tribes don’t always agree, they have found ways to work with each other for more than 10,000 years, and this is no different, he said.
"Our bill has nothing to do with this referendum," Francis said. "We have no self-interest in this referendum. People are suffering in this state, and the people that are responsible for those people are trying to act … The whole area will thrive because of a tribal initiative."
He explained that Maine is now a gaming state and the tribes only want access to what other tribes all over the country have.
"It’s about more than slot machines and revenues," Francis said. "It’s about bringing hope to a region of the state that has none right now."
Yes on 1 reports that 41 percent of the racino revenue is slated to go to the state, and while Bailey didn’t dispute that, he said the money wasn’t going to lower taxes or help fund schools.
Another point of contention that drew gasps from the crowd at Husson College involved crime rates.
Bailey noted a 22 percent increase in Bangor’s crime rate since the opening of Hollywood Slots in 2006, but added that in its report, his group never directly associated the spike to the racino.
Bailey did say that when Bangor Police Chief Ron Gastia was asked about the increase, he said it couldn’t be attributed to any one thing, but that three new methadone clinics had come into the area.
"You may want to ask why your police chief in Bangor isn’t doing as good a job as Biddeford [and other places that have methadone clinics]," Bailey said.
Raye later countered that it was "unfair to suggest that Bangor’s chief of police isn’t doing his job correctly just because he didn’t have the answers Mr. Bailey wanted."
Bailey, Raye and Doyle were joined by Indian Township tribal Gov. William Nicholas on Thursday evening for round two of the debate at the University of Maine at Machias.
While much of the second event rehashed similar arguments, there was an emotional exchange that occurred after Bailey drew a parallel between drug dealers selling their product and the tribe trying to sell the state on gambling.
Bailey said that what he hears when the tribe talks about the money it is spending on the racino proposal is, "It’s our money and we can do what we want with it. That’s what drug dealers say about selling a product that people want. I don’t know where that stops."
The remark brought an immediate response from Nicholas.
"We earn our money with what we do here in Washington County in our seasonal work. We are not drug dealers," he said. "I take that offensively. ... I gotta tell you, to be labeled as drug dealers because we’re the people of Washington County, I wouldn’t take that, nobody should take that. What we say we’re doing with our money is for the people of Washington County."
Bailey quickly responded, "You’re not a drug dealer and I never said that. That’s a cheap shot."
Later during the event in Machias, Raye also suggested that Bailey and the backers of CasinosNO! were out to stop all gaming in Maine. He predicted that Bailey and his group would go after Hollywood Slots in Bangor again if they were able to defeat the tribe’s initiative.
Despite the jabs taken by both parties Thursday, however, Raye shook Bailey’s hand after closing remarks at the Husson College event.
"This is a very difficult decision for all the voters of Maine," Bailey said. "It’s not a simple issue."
• • • • • •The following poll is the result of a statewide telephone survey of 408 likely voters conducted in late October by Portland-based Critical Insights. The poll has a 4.1 margin of error.
Question 1: Citizen InitiativeDo you want to allow a Maine tribe to run a harness racing track with slot machines and high-stakes beano games in Washington County?
Yes: 56 percentNo: 36 percentUndecided: 8 percent
News
Greater Bangor
Passamaquoddy Tribal Chief Richard Phillips-Doyle (L) and Senator Kevin Raye (R) debate CasinosNO representative Dennis Bailey (not pictured) at Husson College on Thursday. Bennett) CasinosNO representative Dennis Bailey listens as Senator Kevin Raye and Passamaquoddy Tribal Chief Richard Phillips-Doyle (both not pictured) debate with him onphoto Question 1, a ballot proposal that would allow the Passamaquddy tribe to operate a casino in Calais. Penobscot tribal members (L to R) Dave Almenas, Brenda Fields and Elizabeth Kimball listen to the debate between Senator Kevin Raye and Passamaquoddy tribal chief Richard Phillips-Doyle and CasinosNO representative Dennis Bailey at Husson College on Thursday afternoon. All three Penobscots support the casnio project in Calais.
Foes face off on racino questionBy Aimee DolloffFriday, November 02, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
By Aimee Dolloff and Diana Graettinger
BANGOR, Maine — Representatives on both sides of the fence regarding referendum Question 1 — the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s proposed racino in Washington County — threw verbal punches at one another during forums Thursday in Bangor and Machias. The issue will be decided during the Nov. 6 statewide election.
A recent public opinion poll shows a majority of likely voters favor the racino, which was evident at the afternoon event at Husson College in Bangor that was attended primarily by tribal members and residents who support the proposed gambling facility in Calais. They didn’t hesitate to applaud and cheer representatives from the advocacy group Yes on 1 — Rick Phillips Doyle, governor of the Pleasant Point reservation, and Sen. Kevin Raye, R-Perry.
Dennis Bailey of CasinosNO! was the sole representative on the other side of the table at the Husson forum, organized and moderated by staff and students of the New England School of Communications.
"I have great respect for the tribe and their leaders," Bailey said, noting that the group he represents has a fundamental difference of opinion with supporters.
"We don’t believe gambling casinos represent true economic development," he said. "CasinosNO! may be behind the times, but we still know it’s a scam."
During questions from the public directed at each side, Raye used the opportunity to call Bailey on the carpet for having worked for the Scotia Prince — a cruise line with gaming on board.
Bailey quickly claimed that CasinosNO! isn’t opposed to gambling, but is opposed to the expansion of gaming in Maine.
"This campaign’s not about me," Bailey said. "It’s about a really bad idea in Washington County."
He also stated that different gaming ventures bring varying levels of impact to individuals and communities, and that this likely won’t be the last attempt to create a gambling facility in Maine.
Raye and Doyle disagreed with Bailey’s negative image of what the racino would bring and stressed that the proposed facility would provide much-needed jobs to a desperate Washington County. The facility, according to Raye, would make the area a destination for tourists who otherwise might pass through without stopping to spend money in the county.
"We have been studied to death," Raye said. "Meanwhile, our struggle continues. The time for study is over, the time for action is here."
Penobscot Nation tribal members and leaders from Indian Island also are in support of the initiative, Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis said in an interview before the forum.
Francis was adamant that the Penobscots’ support is not about gaming or slot machines, even though they have a bill in the Legislature to add slot machines to their high-stakes bingo game.
"It’s about self-governance and self-sufficiency," Francis said.
Although the tribes don’t always agree, they have found ways to work with each other for more than 10,000 years, and this is no different, he said.
"Our bill has nothing to do with this referendum," Francis said. "We have no self-interest in this referendum. People are suffering in this state, and the people that are responsible for those people are trying to act … The whole area will thrive because of a tribal initiative."
He explained that Maine is now a gaming state and the tribes only want access to what other tribes all over the country have.
"It’s about more than slot machines and revenues," Francis said. "It’s about bringing hope to a region of the state that has none right now."
Yes on 1 reports that 41 percent of the racino revenue is slated to go to the state, and while Bailey didn’t dispute that, he said the money wasn’t going to lower taxes or help fund schools.
Another point of contention that drew gasps from the crowd at Husson College involved crime rates.
Bailey noted a 22 percent increase in Bangor’s crime rate since the opening of Hollywood Slots in 2006, but added that in its report, his group never directly associated the spike to the racino.
Bailey did say that when Bangor Police Chief Ron Gastia was asked about the increase, he said it couldn’t be attributed to any one thing, but that three new methadone clinics had come into the area.
"You may want to ask why your police chief in Bangor isn’t doing as good a job as Biddeford [and other places that have methadone clinics]," Bailey said.
Raye later countered that it was "unfair to suggest that Bangor’s chief of police isn’t doing his job correctly just because he didn’t have the answers Mr. Bailey wanted."
Bailey, Raye and Doyle were joined by Indian Township tribal Gov. William Nicholas on Thursday evening for round two of the debate at the University of Maine at Machias.
While much of the second event rehashed similar arguments, there was an emotional exchange that occurred after Bailey drew a parallel between drug dealers selling their product and the tribe trying to sell the state on gambling.
Bailey said that what he hears when the tribe talks about the money it is spending on the racino proposal is, "It’s our money and we can do what we want with it. That’s what drug dealers say about selling a product that people want. I don’t know where that stops."
The remark brought an immediate response from Nicholas.
"We earn our money with what we do here in Washington County in our seasonal work. We are not drug dealers," he said. "I take that offensively. ... I gotta tell you, to be labeled as drug dealers because we’re the people of Washington County, I wouldn’t take that, nobody should take that. What we say we’re doing with our money is for the people of Washington County."
Bailey quickly responded, "You’re not a drug dealer and I never said that. That’s a cheap shot."
Later during the event in Machias, Raye also suggested that Bailey and the backers of CasinosNO! were out to stop all gaming in Maine. He predicted that Bailey and his group would go after Hollywood Slots in Bangor again if they were able to defeat the tribe’s initiative.
Despite the jabs taken by both parties Thursday, however, Raye shook Bailey’s hand after closing remarks at the Husson College event.
"This is a very difficult decision for all the voters of Maine," Bailey said. "It’s not a simple issue."
• • • • • •The following poll is the result of a statewide telephone survey of 408 likely voters conducted in late October by Portland-based Critical Insights. The poll has a 4.1 margin of error.
Question 1: Citizen InitiativeDo you want to allow a Maine tribe to run a harness racing track with slot machines and high-stakes beano games in Washington County?
Yes: 56 percentNo: 36 percentUndecided: 8 percent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)