I have listened to reasonable objections that several organizations such as the League of Women’s Voters and AARP have raised about the bill, and worked to amend the objected sections out of the bill. Despite this, several organizations are purposely trying to misinform about LB 239, and the facts need to be given so that the public understands the importance of this bill.

These organizations opposed to LB 239 say that any voter ID laws are excessively burdensome. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Indiana voter ID law in the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In writing the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens–long considered a liberal cornerstone of the court–said “the inconvenience of making a trip to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” In regards to all the hypothetical scenarios that could be thrown out there, Justice Stevens added, “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient” to invalidate the entire law.

As the Supreme Court was deliberating the Crawford case, American Civil Rights Union attorney Peter Ferrara noted, “the slight burden of additional paperwork for a fraction of one percent, to show who they are and thereby prove their eligibility to vote, cannot come close to outweighing the interests of all legitimate legal voters in maintaining their effective vote.”

A 2005 bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III, found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. In addition to this, the panel recommended a national photo ID system and a national campaign to register voters.

Another argument made against voter ID laws is that they are unnecessary due to “relatively low incidence of voter fraud”. In the Crawford case, Justice Stevens said, “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrates that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Justice Stevens received some criticism of his majority opinion, because he included a quote that drew references to the “Boss Tweed” days of Tammany Hall in New York City. Those who say that couldn’t happen in this day and age need to remember that in 2011 alone, there were investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. We are only three states into the 2012 Presidential Primary and Caucus season, and there have already been charges of voter fraud in all three states. Those who say we’ve never had vote fraud in Nebraska need only go read up on Omaha’s own political boss Tom Dennison to find out Nebraska had large amounts of corruption in the 1900′s.

Justice Stevens also added this in his Crawford opinion: “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”

Integrity in the election process should be important to every American, and current polls show that it is. A December 2011 poll by Rasmussen says that 70 percent of likely voters believe we should have voter ID laws. Among Hispanics–the fastest-growing voting block nationwide–Resurgent Republic found overwhelming support for voter ID laws in a September 2011 poll. AARP would do well to contact their members before issuing a blanket statement against LB 239, because the overwhelming majority of seniors who have contacted my office are very much in favor of it.

LB 239 attempts to add integrity to our election process. Opponents argue that a very small percentage of Nebraskans might possibly be inconvenienced.

Integrity vs. inconvenience.

What should be our priority when dealing with something as important as our election process?

If you have any questions about LB 239 or would like to show support for the bill, please go to www.stopvotefraud.net.

He promised to bring both parties together when he was campaigning. Today, we have the bitterest partisan divide at anytime in this country.

He promised that that stimulus package would prevent unemployment from climbing over 8%. Today, we are at 9.2% and his administration has told us that this will be the “new normal.”

He told us that his health care package would lower health care rates for us all. Instead, Aetna moved out of Indiana today and last month, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a report showing that health care costs will rise faster with Obamacare in place than they would have in its absence. That just seems wrong.

The straw that broke the camel’s back for me, though, was the debt limit fiasco. “Once we raise the nation’s debt limit, we will put investors’ fears to rest and maintain the country’s AAA credit rating.” Mr. President, the stock market dropped more than 500 points today and has now gone backwards for the year.

I think you are now 0-for-term on your pred

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Why an article like this today? I started thinking. Many of our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, are going to be graduating from high school and college in the coming days. I only wish them the best. But I started thinking about the state of the economy, the country’s financial woes, and began to wonder, “How can they fix this?”

Finally, the answer hit me — Repeal the 26th Amendment. It’s a radical idea. But it might just have merit. The argument for the amendment (40 years ago) was that since 18-year olds could drink and be drafted into military service, they should be allowed to vote. Today, 18-year olds can’t drink and the country doesn’t have a draft so that argument doesn’t work anymore (hence, the repeal of their right to vote). If you are an 18-year old serving in the military, none of this applies to you. You can vote.

People under the age of 25 aren’t married (usually), don’t own a house, effectively have no tax burden, and according to ObamaCare are allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance policies because they are children. We don’t let children vote because they might screw things up. Can you imagine who your 10-year old would vote for?

Research has shown that a person’s brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. Insurance companies have known this for years as they set prices on auto insurance premiums. A person’s frontal lobes, which play a significant role in decision-making, aren’t fully developed until then. Why are we going to let people that can’t make sound decisions vote for the president?

Someone once said, “If you’re under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you’re over 30 and not conservative, you have no brain.” Who would have ever thought that someone telling our 18 year olds two years ago that they should, “Vote for Obama! It’ll be cool!” would have cost them their futures?

We let them vote and now we have seen the error of our ways.

There has been a lot of talk the past couple of months about the “Utah Compact” and how it impacts illegal immigration in our country. Both sides of the political spectrum are taking only pieces of the compact, and using it to push their agendas. The public, as well as quite a few lawmakers around the country, seem to be confused about what the Utah Compact does. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to take a look at what the Utah Compact is.

First of all, let’s mention one thing that the Utah Compact is not, and that is a law. The Utah Compact is a set of ideas that were written down to be considered for future legislation in the area of immigration. Religious officials, business leaders, politicians, and even Hispanic activists from Utah got together last fall and wrote this compact. Even in its very first sentence, it says it is simply “a declaration of five principles to guide Utah’s immigration discussion.”

There were bills that were introduced in Utah during this recent legislative session that were supposedly based on the Utah Compact. But the ideas laid out in the compact do not address any specifics on immigration, only generalities. A lawmaker saying they have based a bill on the Utah Compact is like saying you have based a tax reform bill on the Declaration of Independence. It speaks to the ideals you hope to convey but in the end, does not speak specifically to what you want your bill to accomplish.

The Utah Compact itself lays out five different principles. They are:
1. Immigration is a federal policy between the U.S. government and other countries–not Utah and other countries.
2. Local law enforcement should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.
3. Opposition to policies that unnecessarily separate families.
4. Acknowledgment of the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers.
5. Adopting a humane approach to the immigration situation.

Let’s take a look at each of these principles.

The first says, in essence, that immigration is a federal policy, and federal policy is “hands-off” to individual states. This was an argument that was made frequently in the LB48 debate. But yet, individual states feel that it is acceptable to go against federal law and grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. They do not, however, offer in-state tuition to U.S. out-of-state citizens. In Utah specifically, they plan to start a “guest worker program”, granting permits to “undocumented workers” (illegal aliens) already living in the country, and starting a pilot guest worker program with the Mexican state in Nuevo Leon. This would clearly be an example of a state trying to enter into an agreement with a foreign country, and in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also gives the federal government the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (Art. I, Sec. 8). A state cannot create its own visas.

In the second principle, local law enforcement solely focuses on criminal activities, rather than the “civil violations of federal code” that illegal immigrants commit. But what happens if one of those “civil violators” crosses over into committing criminal activities? Local and state law enforcement need to know that they have the authority to enforce laws without being neutered by a federal government that has, for decades, not shown the political will to enforce immigration law.

The third principle specifically states that “Strong families are the foundation of successful communities.” While that is indeed a noble ideal, it strays away from reality. What are the criteria for “successful” and who determines them? Are we talking about families with children that have good grades, or are healthy, or are good athletes, or have good manners? A problem with throwing out phrases that promote “feel-good” emotional responses are that then there needs to be a way to measure that success, and that encourages competition with others to see who is the most successful. It becomes an immeasurable goal, but wow…it sure does feel good to say we’re building “successful communities”. Hopefully, one criterion for those “successful communities” would be recognition and adherence to the law.

As far as unnecessarily separating families, it is a reality to say we have people in this country that commit crimes. Those crimes have consequences. And sometimes those consequences require families to be separated for a period of time. It is an unfortunate circumstance, but it is also a necessary one. Our society dictates that the person who committed the crime should accept the responsibility for their actions, and accept the consequences that come with that. It is important to note that it is the person who committed the crime is the one who created the situation where the family was separated, not society as a whole.

The fourth principle acknowledges the role and economic impact that immigrants have had in our history. There is no doubt that this country was built by immigrants. But it is also undeniable that the workers 100 years ago faced much less stringent labor laws than what we have today. If Utah initiates its “guest worker program”, there will be a lot of questions as to how our current labor laws will relate to these foreign workers. Will they work the same hours and be paid the same wages as U.S. workers? Also, would these guest workers be protected by workman’s compensation laws, which vary greatly from state to state? If they are ever no longer needed, are they eligible to file for unemployment? Will they get social security benefits? Unfortunately, with Utah’s unemployment rate running at 8.1% (February 2011) it seems like the state is putting the needs of illegal immigrants ahead of its own citizens.

Finally, the compact says we need to adopt a humane approach to the immigration situation, and I couldn’t agree more. It says “the way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors.” Enticing and harboring illegal immigrants, paying them low wages, encouraging identity and social security fraud, and making them distrustful of law enforcement does nothing to further their dreams of a better life. Instead, it fosters a nightmare of fear, keeping them in the shadows and relegating them to a life of uncertainty.

Law enforcement works. A report from February shows that local officers trained through the 287(g) program made about 40,000 arrests in 2010, which represents nearly 20 percent of ICE’s criminal alien workload for the year. What makes this all the more interesting is that the report was issued by the Migration Policy Institute, the Obama administration’s pro-amnesty think tank.

A new report from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that the illegal immigration population declined by 17% after the passing of the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which required all businesses to use the E-Verify system.

Asking immigrants to comply with the law shows real and measurable results. It might not make us feel as good as saying some highly quotable, politically correct catch phrases, but it does get actual and substantial results.

The FAMC program is staffed by a team of healthcare professionals that includes a certified diabetes educator, a registered dietitian, a registered pharmacist, and a physical therapist. They use a combination of individual counseling and group seminars to cover topics that range from nutrition and meal planning to the prevention, detection, and treatment of complications. The program is recognized by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) for meeting the National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education Programs.

FAMC’s Diabetes Self-Management Program meets for three sessions – two three-hour group classes and an individual session. Classes are scheduled for April 12 and 13, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., with an individual appointment time to be arranged at the patient’s convenience. Classes meet on the third floor of FAMC’s Health Park Plaza. Physician referral is required.

Most insurance companies will cover the program, as will Medicare. To participate, consult your physician for a referral or call (402) 727-3355.

* Richard Dobesh, 45, of Fremont was sentenced to 2-4 years in prison for delivery of a controlled substance-marijuana, a Class III felony.

* Daniel Fowler, 21, of Cedar Bluffs admitted to violating his probation for attempted burglary, a Class IV felony. Sentencing was set for April 25.

* Nicholas Harmel, 31, of Fremont pleaded no contest to DUI-third offense-greater than .15 percent blood alcohol content, a Class IIIA felony. Sentencing was set for May 2.

* Jared Stricker, 22, of Fremont pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, a Class I misdemeanor. Sentencing was set for May 2.

* William Cusick, 24, of Omaha admitted to violating his probation for attempted first-degree assault, a Class III felony. An updated pre-sentence investigation was ordered and sentencing set for April 18.

* Jeremy Rouseau, 31, of Scribner had his sentencing for possession of a controlled substance-morphine, a Class IV felony, continued until April 4 so he could seek treatment at a residential facility.

The Grief Support Group is facilitated by Scott Jensen, FAMC Chaplain, and meets for three consecutive Thursday evenings from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., on the third floor of FAMC’s Health Park Plaza. Meetings are scheduled for March 31, April 7, and April 14. The group is recommended for anyone 18 and older. There is no cost to attend.

The Grief Support Group is a free service offered by Fremont Area Medical Center to help meet a full range of patient and family needs. For more information and to register, contact Scott Jensen at (402) 727-3663 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (402) 727-3663      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, or visit www.famc.org

The event is hosted by the Christensen Field Improvement Task force and will be held at Christensen Field in Fremont on Friday, April 8th and Saturday, April 9th.

The event lineup includes Bull Riding, Bull Fighting, Mutton Bustin’ and Funny Man Acts in the Indoor Arena on both nights.  Adult tickets can be purchased for $15 in advance and $20 at the gate per night.  12 & under are just $1.00 at the gate!

Making its debut this year is the Rural Living Expo.  The Expo will take place in Christensen Field’s Main Arena and will feature marketplace shopping, demonstrations, a“ Cowboy Cave” sponsored by Right Now Rental Purchase with big screen TV’s from Audio Video Specialist, beef and beer tasting, bounce house and pony rides for the kids, food vendors, and so much more! Admission to the Expo is FREE and there is something for everyone.

The Expo will also feature a Cowboy Poetry Contest with prizes sponsored by Sapp Bros. Travel Center and the Fort Western Outfitters.

Friday night, after the bull riding event, don’t miss out on the Beef-N-Beer Brew Ha Ha with comedian James Johann, ”Rural Genius” sponsored by the Fremont & Dodge County Convention & Visitors Bureau.  Brew Ha Ha tickets will be sold for $10.00 at the door only. $5.00 discount with a bull riding ticket.  This is a 21 & over show only.

Saturday night, following the Bull Riding event, kick up your heels and dance to the live music by Dylan & the Dirt Road Detour.  All ages welcome. Dance included with bull riding ticket, or $5 at the door.

For complete event details and available ticket outlets please visit www.bullridingclassic.com.

Last month, his debut album, “The Greatest Story Never Told,” debuted at number one on the rap charts and he is currently touring as part of the Strange Noize Tour which hits The Slowdown Sunday.

“It felt good man,” the Brooklyn rapper said. “To have an album that’s five years old hit number one? Yeah.”

Prior to the release of his album, he also had a successful stint playing himself on the HBO series Entourage, being managed on the show by Turtle.

Things weren’t always good for Saigon. Originally signed to Atlantic Records, Saigon announced in 2007 that he was quitting the rap game because of artistic differences with the label and the fact that it wouldn’t release the album he recorded.

“I just wanted to get out of the Atlantic Records contract, I didn’t want to quit rap,” he said.

In 2010, he finally was released from that contract and signed with Suburban Noize, an independent label started and run by Brad “Daddy X” Xavier of Kottonmouth Kings fame.

“They see my vision, man. THey let you do you,” Saigon said from a tour stop in Cleveland. “You appreciate it, man. They didn’t try and change me.”

“The Greatest Story Never Told” was executive produced by Just Blaze of Roc-A-Fella fame and includes contributions by the likes of Kanye West, Q Tip, Faith Evans and even Jay Z. It was released just as it was originally completed.

“I knew Jay Z for years – he’s a great friend of mine. He’s the big brother to all of us,” Saigon said. “Like a big brother, he took some of little brother’s beats but gave me a verse. To have Jay Z on my first album is just amazing. You can’t walk in and say ‘Hey J, here’s $100,000. Will you be on my album?’ He don’t need money. He’s got to want to work with you.”

The new album hearkens back to old school hip hop and isn’t the “wannabe gangsta” style so many try to have today.

“It’s classic hip hop. Me and (Just) Blaze are just two hip hop heads who went into the studio and put our minds together and made a great disc,” Saigon said. “Looking back, I want to be able to say I made a contribution to hip hop.”

The disc also has a positive message.

“It’s social commentary, I try and put a message in my music because it’s marketed to the youth,” Saigon said. “A lot of what they market to the youth is adult now. I try and have them get something out of my music. I grew up with KRS-One, Public Enemy – even LL Cool J. To me, there was always something we could take from hip hop growing up in New York. There was a message.”

Touring with the likes of Johnny Richter of the Kootonmouth Kings and Krizz Kaliko from Tech N9ne’s crew is a bit different for Saigon.

“It’s not my typical crowd. It’s a challenge, but I like a challenge,” he said. “It’s a very diverse tour. It’s all hip hop, but different types of hip hop. I’d rather have it like this where we don’t all have the same sound.”

He’s even been kicking around collaboration ideas with some of his tour mates, but is most excited to reach new and old fans live.

“We gonna turn it up. You can expect a high energy show,” Saigon said. “I can’t wait man.”

Saigon will play as part of the Strange Noize tour at 6 p.m. this Sunday at The Slowdown along with Krizz Kaliko, Johnny Richter, Potluck and others. Tickets cost $16 and can be purchased at etix.com or any Homer’s Music stores.