Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Protecting the 14th...
. . . .

Protecting the 14th Amendment

Stephen Tuttle - August 23rd, 2010
Protecting the 14th Amendment
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Crisp, clean and
easy to understand. It is now under attack.
The logic, if you can call it that, of those doing the attacking is we
are being overrun by so-called “anchor babies,” children being born in
this country to parents who are not here legally. Apparently, these
infants are the source of all kinds of trouble.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 as part of Civil War
reconstruction efforts. The idea was to prevent some southern states
from denying former slaves and their children American citizenship,
and making sure everyone was entitled to due process and equal
protection under our laws. (The citizenship clause was authored by
Michigan’s own Senator Jacob M. Howard.)
Some politicians believe they can gain traction with voters by saying
this needs to be changed to halt illegal immigration or, at the very
least, remove an incentive to illegal immigration. One would have
assumed this foolish notion would have gone into the trash bin of bad
ideas. Instead, it has become a common sense-eating political bacteria
rendering those infected very nearly brain dead.
Getting rid of the citizenship clause, we are told, will slow the tide
of illegal immigrants, reduce crime, save taxpayers billions and
restore all that is good and decent. Besides, the advocates say,
Congress could never have anticipated the phenomenon of babies being
born here to illegal immigrant parents or the huge numbers of illegal
immigrants confronting us today. If the debate also distracts voters
from other genuinely serious issues, stirs up even more anti-illegal
immigrant anger and generates a few cheap votes, all the better.
It’s quite likely true the authors of the 14th Amendment did not
anticipate immigration or illegal immigration as we know it today
since there were no immigration laws at all in 1868. The very first,
the Page Act, was not passed until 1875. Regrettably, it was
specifically directed at Chinese immigrants who suffered from the same
bigotry, ignorance, distortions and hyperbolic politicians illegal
immigrants face today. But the Page Act did not contradict the 14th
Amendment nor has any court ruling since. The last time the Supreme
Court addressed the issue directly was in 1898 when they ruled that
Chinese children born to non-citizen parents in the United States were
legal citizens.
Now we’re told illegal immigrants are running amok on our southern
border, apparently a group of blood-thirsty, kidnapping, drug peddling
maniacs from whom all decent people hide, cowering in their homes and
praying they’ll survive until those glorious politicians banish every
damned last one of the invaders. But taking away the citizenship of
babies is not likely to seal the border, end human or drug smuggling,
reduce crime or help us figure out what to do with the millions
already here illegally.
And, we’re told the feds are doing nothing about it at all so it looks
like a constitutional amendment barring citizenship for those born to
illegal immigrants in the United States will magically seal the
Embarrassingly, I wrote about the feds lack of action myself in a
previous column. I was wrong.
The crime wave along the border is a myth. Crime in border states is
flat or down. For example, it’s down more than 15% in Phoenix. Similar
decreases in violent crime have been reported in the southern parts of
Texas, New Mexico and California.
Across the border from El Paso, Texas, is Ciudad Juarez, one of the
most violent cities in the world. In 2009 they recorded a truly
staggering 2,600 murders. And since there are more than 22 million
border crossings annually between Juarez and El Paso, surely El Paso
must be awash in violence. But the fact is violence is down in El Paso
and they’ve recorded but one murder in the last two years.
Those are the facts. It is also a fact that despite what you might
have heard, or read in this column previously, the federal government
is doing plenty. Prosecutions of illegal immigrants have more than
doubled during the Obama Administration and deportations are three
times higher than during the last two years of the Bush
Administration. We are now spending more money and have more
resources on the border, both human and technological, than at any
time in our history.
In short, attempting to remove the citizenship clause from the 14th
Amendment is a cynical political detour designed to deflect attention
from more important issues. The only beneficiaries will be a handful
of politicians trying to save their own jobs at the expense of those
who cannot defend themselves.
Eliminating an essential part of the 14th Amendment is a bad idea.
There is much work to do to solve the illegal immigration issue but
taking away the citizenship of newborns is not the place to start.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5