Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

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

Finding Money For Teachers, John Kerry’s Resume, Regulating Tobacco, Federal and State Marriage Amendments, Dan Rather

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

1.       Where to Find Money For Teachers? – Kentucky teachers are threatening to strike over an increase in the cost of their health insurance.  Governor Fletcher has called a special session to try to come up with a solution to the problem.  Since increasing taxes on Kentuckians would only drive business away and result in a weaker economy and a smaller state budget, a tax increase cannot be the solution.  If teachers are going to get more money, then money must be found somewhere else in the budget.  How about ending the subsidies for Kentucky Educational Television (KET) in order to free up over $15 million per year for teachers?  If there ever was a time when it made sense to use tax money to subsidize television, that time is long gone.  With the Internet, DVDs, cable television, and other technologies widely available and inexpensive, there is no reasonable argument that can be made to continue the subsidy of KET.  KET should be able to stand on its own two feet through advertising revenue or donations.  President Clinton promised us that subsidies for educational television would end, and now it is time to keep that promise and use that money for teachers. 

2.       John Kerry’s Resume – The more I learn about John Kerry, the more amazed I am that so many people can support him as a candidate for President of the United States.  I am no Bush fan myself and wish we had a better alternative, but Kerry certainly is not it.  If we elect John Kerry as a protest against Bush and his policies, then where will we be?  Kerry is a traitor to his country, having conspired with the enemy (North Vietnamese Communists) during a time of war.  He and his Vietnam Veterans Against the War made outrageous lies about atrocities committed by American soldiers, which affected U.S. public opinion, giving aid to our enemy, and resulting in policies that caused the deaths of many American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians.  He even confessed to committing terrible atrocities himself.  If he was telling the truth, then would we really want a person who was capable of committing such terrible atrocities in the position of Commander In Chief?  And if he was lying, would we really want a person who would spread such lies in the position of Commander In Chief? 

If Kerry had wanted to protest the Vietnam war in an honorable manner, there were many avenues he could have taken, but conspiring with the enemy and concocting such lies were not the actions of an honorable person.  Thomas Sowell has made some very interesting remarks concerning Kerry’s resume http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040923.shtml , which we all should consider as we make our decision.  As Sowell has said, “If someone applied to you for a job but didn't want to talk about what he has been doing in the last 20 years, wouldn't you be suspicious?”  It is unfortunate that, with all the extremely talented people we have in the United States, we cannot manage to find better candidates for the office of President, but, given the current options, at least we should make the “least worst” choice.

3.       The Latest Reason To Regulate Tobacco – I had to chuckle at the most recent reason I heard for regulating tobacco.  Basically, the argument goes like this:  Government already regulates nearly everything in our lives, including the food we eat, so it is outrageous that it does not also regulate tobacco.   If you think you would be better off if George Bush or John Kerry and their armies of regulators made all your personal, private decisions for you, including whom you should marry, how to raise your children, and what health care you should be able to access, please raise your hand.  If your hand is raised, then, by all means, I urge you to take advantage of the free mental health screenings currently being offered by the state.

4.       Federal and State Marriage Amendments – Many people are justifiably concerned that the definition of “marriage” is being arbitrarily revised for all of us by a few activist judges who are taking it upon themselves to legislate from the bench.  Marriage is the institution that is the foundation for families and for our entire society, so we should have more than a passing interest in the attempts to use the law to force us to redefine that institution. 

What is the impetus behind these efforts to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions?  Do the promoters of homosexual “marriage” want to destroy the institution of marriage?  If so, they will harm us all, especially helpless children, who need the protection of a stable home with a mother and father.  Or do the promoters of homosexual “marriage” want some kind of stamp of approval from the state for their personal arrangements?  If people believe that what they are doing is right, why do they need approval from some government bureaucrat?  Or do the promoters of homosexual “marriage” want to take advantage of benefits that are available to spouses?  Most of those benefits can be achieved through contract and other legal arrangements and do not require the redefinition of “marriage”.  Other benefits, such as social security, are only a problem because they are controlled by the government.  Social Security should be privatized and removed from the control of government, so people could control their own assets as they choose, in order to benefit a spouse, a niece or nephew, a friend, or anyone else they want to benefit.  There is no need to destroy or redefine “marriage” in order to achieve these goals. 

Activist judges in Massachusetts should not have the power to redefine “marriage” for people in other states.  I oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to give the federal government power over marriage, because marriage is a state issue and should be controlled by the states.  However, I support federal legislation that would remove the issue of marriage from the subject matter over which federal courts have authority, so federal judges could not force states to recognize homosexual “marriage”.  Also, it makes sense for the states to amend their constitutions in order to enshrine a traditional definition of marriage in order to make it more difficult for judges to arbitrarily redefine marriage by legislating from the bench.  The argument that you must be a bigot if you support these amendments is ridiculous.  It is not bigotry to try to support the traditional institution of marriage -- the institution that gives security and support to children and that is the cradle of our civilization.    

5.  Dan Rather - It just goes to show that extreme arrogance will eventually get you!

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