Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Thoughts on Governor Patton’s Pardon, Smoking bans, and Education

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

          I am glad Kentucky’s Gov. Patton pardoned Skipper Martin and his co-defendants, who were accused of violating the state’s campaign finance laws in the 1995 election.  While Patton’s opponent in that contest, Larry Forgy, said the election was very dirty, Martin was not accused of vote-buying or of any other campaign irregularities that would normally be considered unethical.  Instead, he was accused of coordinating his efforts with those of other supporters of Patton, in order to skirt the funding limits that had been placed on that campaign.  The definition of “coordination” is so unclear that virtually anyone involved in a political campaign could be accused and convicted – similar to the old Salem witch trials.  When people are at serious risk of lengthy and expensive lawsuits and prison terms just for daring to participate in the political process, there is something very wrong with the system.  We need more people getting into the competition, not fewer.  Pardoning Martin and his co-defendants is a good first step in recognizing the terrible impact of Kentucky’s campaign spending laws, and a good next step would be to kill the law entirely, so people will feel free to run a political campaign without fear of attack from the government.

          In the past couple of weeks, I have been reminded of the extent to which one excessive government intervention begets another.  As the laws have moved us in the direction of socialized medicine, with each of us being forced to subsidize the health care costs of others in order to obtain health care “insurance” for ourselves, the new argument for even greater intrusion goes like this:  “If I am paying for your health care costs, then I should have a right to control your behavior in order to keep those costs down.”  Currently, this argument is being used as a basis for outlawing tobacco use and for regulating eating habits to combat obesity.  It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee SWAT teams of masked men dressed in black and carrying assault weapons descending on a home in the middle of the night in a no-knock raid based on an anonymous tip that someone in the home was in possession of contraband, such as a can of chewing tobacco or a bag of potato chips.  The SWAT team bashes down the front door, shoots the startled wife, and the husband drops dead of a heart attack.  No contraband is ever found, but, with two more people dead, at least we save money on health care costs! With AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases causing some very expensive health care costs, will the health care police next begin certifying people as “clean” and then begin conducting no-knock raids into people’s bedrooms with instructions to shoot anyone engaging in sexual activity with a non-certified partner?  Well, just as long as it keeps health care costs down. 

          Through Chuck Muth’s News and Views, I became acquainted with the situation of the Bryant family in Massachusetts.  The Bryants have been home schooling their children and have refused to submit to state-mandated testing.  As a result, the state has taken legal custody of the children, although it has not removed them from their home.  This battle has been going on for six years, and, just last week, the authorities again descended on the Bryant home, threatening to remove the children from the home if they refused to take the standardized state tests.  This entire situation is so outrageous, it is hard to imagine that it could be taking place in the “land of the free”.  Sadly, most Americans today seem to support the state’s abuse of parents like the Bryants, who dare to stand on principle -- defying the state and taking seriously their responsibility for educating their own children.  I wonder how bad the situation will have to become before people change their minds and realize that the state is not the great educator and protector of the children but rather is a great threat to families and to parental authority.

More about the Bryant family

http://www.educationalfreedom.com/pages/cases/bryant/index.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33117

http://educationalfreedom.com/pages/cases/bryant/bryant_history3.html

Nyssa knows her refusal to take standardized tests have cost her parents legal custody. Nyssa and her 15-year-old brother, George, are home-schooled, but the Waltham Public Schools and the Department of Social Services insist only a test can determine how much they know.

"They didn't give me a reason that was good enough for me to waste my time to take the tests," Nyssa said.

Her mother, Kim, agrees and insists her children's education is a private matter.

"We don't think we need approval to essentially rear our children as we have had since they were born," Kim Bryant said. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2269584/detail.html

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN