Like a lot of folks in the United States, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. And the main reason I have no problem with a drug test is because I have nothing to hide. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who are doing drugs and never have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

A 1999 Michigan law called for a pilot program of random substance abuse testing in at least three counties. Drug testing started at the beginning of October in Alpena, Presque Isle, and Berrien counties and a designated area of Western Wayne County, including some of Detroit’s west side neighborhoods.

All the new applicants for that area had to provide a urine sample to officials or give up their right to any government aid. In addition, any applicants already in the system had to submit to random testing.

A class action lawsuit was filed by the Michigan chapter of the ACLU two days prior to schedule testing. The suit charges that the program violates the constitutional rights of welfare recipients. Two Michigan mothers and a Detroit organization (The Westside Mothers) were named in the suit. The organization focuses on representing hundreds of welfare recipients and their families. Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU in Michigan says, “The Fourth Amendment guarantees that no individual in this country can be subjected to a search by the government unless there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed some crime, welfare recipients may be poor, but that’s not a crime not yet, anyway.”

I have spoken to a number of people in person and on forums about their thoughts and the ones that oppose this have the same stance, that it is unconstitutional. In my opinion, it seems that I am not pushing random drug test onto any random citizen. The welfare recipient chooses to get help from the government. So just like submitting paperwork, you must submit a urine sample. Another stance people talk about is false positives. Well if they claim false positive, then do a hair follicle test.

If urine test are unconstitutional, then scrap the whole welfare program. Let your voice be heard on Political Majority.com.

“The Stilleto” is a weapon featured in Clarke’s science fiction novel “Earthlight”. In the 1955 Clarke novel, the weapon is said to emit a beam of light that was able to pierce a spacecraft. The writer afterwards explains that the weapon he mentioned in his novel was actually a stream of liquefied metal that gets shot through space with very high speed and force.

The research and development arm of the Department of Defense (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency or DARPA) is developing a weapon called MAHEM. This is patterned after Clarke’s fictional weapon.

MAHEM stands for Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition. The weapon will be using magnetism to propel either liquid or solid metal. It will be similar to other currently existing weapons since it will use explosions and electromagnetism to power the release of the metal. Weapons that use the same kind of power are called High-Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT). One example of a HEAT weapon is a bazooka.

DARPA is currently developing MAHEM as something that can be attached to a warhead. Once the missile is near the target, it will release MAHEM and be able to stop tanks and other large moving vehicles at close range.

This is not the first time that Clarke has inspired a scientific or technological change. He is also known for the geostationary orbit. The geostationary orbit means that an object in the sky can appear not to move as long as it is aligned with the earth’s equator. This means that the signal from a point on earth will correspond directly with a satellite placed in this orbit. Clarke popularized this in a 1945 with an article in the Wireless Word magazine.

Arthur C. Clarke writes science fiction books and makes inventions. The British national joined forces with renowned director Stanley Kubrick to write the book 2001: A Space Odyssey. The book was later turned into a movie with the same name that was directed by Kubrick.

As the research and development arm of the Department of Defense, the mission of DARPA is to ensure that the United States remains more advanced than other countries in terms of military offense and defense. Originally named Advanced Research Projects Agency, the organization was established in 1958 and its name was changed to DARPA in 1972.

Earthlight was a book released in 1955 of the science fiction genre. Set in the 22nd century, the story revolves around conflicts between the Earth and colonies on the moon along with other people in the solar system.

In the Bill Of Rights, the First Amendment to the Constitution, titled “Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression” states the following: “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.”.

Now, I am not an attorney nor am I a legal scholar, and I realize that the courts have interpreted the foregoing in numerous ways, however, I also realize that how the Amendment is interpreted depends on which judge is sitting on the bench at the time a case is heard and just because a person is a judge does not mean that that person is infallible and it does not mean that that person does not have his or her own agenda. Judges are, after all, still human.

In my opinion, having organized prayer in school is not “an establishment of religion”, but is instead the carrying out of the will of the majority of the people in this nation. I further believe that to forbid school prayer is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It is also “abridging the freedom of speech” of the majority. This nation is supposed to be a Republican Democracy where the will of the majority of it’s citizens is supposed to rule. As far as I can determin, the majority of the citizens in this country believe in prayer, of one type or another, and only a small minority, comprised of certain athiests, far left politicians, “Hollywood celebrities”, etc., are against prayer. To allow this small minority to override the will of the majority is wrong. To allow this small, very loud, very activist, very well financed minority to take away the right of the ’silent’ majority, to pray as they wish, is to allow them to corrupt our system and to take away freedom of religion from our citizens. I realize that our citizens can still pray at home and in church, however, public schools are paid for with public tax pounds, and as long as the majority of tax payers want school prayer then they should have school prayer.

When a teacher leads a class in prayer, no one is forced to pray. Some people claim that when a child does not join in the praying, that child may be embarrassed or ridiculed by the teacher or other students, therefore they claim that class prayer is harmful. I disagree. No good teacher would criticize a student for not praying. If a teacher does so then that teacher should be reprimanded or dismissed because that teacher is not worthy of being a teacher. If some students ridicule a non praying student then those students have not been taught properly about the rights of others and should be corrected. For my own reasons, I never prayed during class prayer and no one ever said anything to me. I was never ridiculed or critcized. I knew others that did not pray and to the best of my knowledge they never had any problems, except that some of their parents embarrassed them by complaining to the school. It seems that while the non praying students did not mind school prayer, their parents did.

The majority of Americans find hope and comfort in prayer. To deny them the right to pray because a small minority does not approve, is just plain wrong. I realize that in a small number of cases some children do have problems with school prayer, but to deny the large majority of students the hope and comfort of starting their school day off with a prayer is to stomp on their rights. To deny the majority their religious freedom goes against what this country stands for.

One of the most important things about attending school is that children learn how to deal with other people. All kinds of things go on in school that affect or bother various students. They can not and should not be protected from everthing that they don’t like. Some children are embarrassed by going to physical education class, should we then take physical education off the curriculum? Some children are bothered by certain things taught in history class, should we then take history off the curriculum? Some children are embarrassed because they are not good at math, should we then take math off the curriculum? If we took everything off the curriculum that might embarrass or bother a student there would no longer be any schools. If we protected the students from everthing that bothered them then they would not learn how to cope with problems and would not be able to function as adults.

In my opinion, forbidding school prayer is just another case of ‘political correctness’ gone overboard.

It’s been 10 years now. Still, Rwanda’s 100-day war casts a long shadow across the lives of its children. It is estimated that more than 1 million Rwandans were murdered during the 1994 war - most at the hands of machete-wielding neighbors, friends and fellow churchgoers - in a genocide rivaling the horrors of the Jewish holocaust and Cambodia’s killing fields.

Though Rwandans are working hard to rebuild their broken nation, nearly every child and family has at least one relative who was murdered or who remains imprisoned because of the genocide.

Compassion International was one of the few organizations able to maintain a presence in Rwanda long before, during and after the war. Compassion is a holistic child development organization working with children living in poverty in more than 20 countries.

Today, Compassion ministers to more than 19,000 children in Rwanda, but the devastating effects of war on the children are still evident.

One such child is 9-year-old Tuyisingize Alexie. As an infant, Alexie was sent to prison with her mother who was indicted for war crimes in 1996. The young mother continues to emphatically maintain that she was not involved in the genocide.

In 2000, government officials declared that older children living in prison with their parents needed to have foster parents and attend school. The first couple Alexie lived with after prison made her do hard labor and often kept her from school. As a result, she had to repeat first grade.

The only family Alexie knows is the family she now lives with (her maternal aunt, uncle and three cousins), along with her Compassion sponsors.

Today, Alexie is a lively young girl who enjoys sports and helping at home. She is often seen laughing and playing with the other children as if they were all siblings.

Compassion staff members report that Alexie’s development has improved over the past couple of years since living with her aunt’s family and becoming involved in a Compassion project. She attends project activities and last semester she was second in her class. Alexie wants to finish school, become a primary school teacher and help other students like herself.

Although she misses her mother, Alexis is very thankful for her new family and the blessings of Compassion’s ministry.

2008 Election candidates’ face-off in the professional wrestling ring at WWE’s Monday Night Raw in April 21, 2008. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all tried a new tactic to gain votes with their pre-taped appearances on the famous professional wrestling show.

The WWE Company had given all presidential hopefuls an invitation to appear live on the show as well as play a match on the ring. Instead all of them opted to send in pre-taped appearances that pandered to the sensibilities of wrestling fans.

Clinton’s video was shown first. It featured the former first lady giving herself the wrestling name “Hill-Rod”, Clinton also likened the primaries and the upcoming election to the “King of the Ring”, one of WWE’s major activities which showed several wrestlers fighting on the ring until only one wrestler was left standing.

After Clinton’s pre-taped appearance, Barack Obama’s video was shown, He, on the other hand, likened himself to WWE Superstar Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson. Obama even used The Rock’s trademark spiel and paraphrased it saying, “Do you smell what Barack is cooking?”

John McCain’s video featured the Republican candidate calling his followers McCainiacs and declaring himself the sure winner in the November elections.

After the videos were shown, the WWE made do without an actual candidate wrestling match by making one up. They had previously asked Democrat candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton if they wanted to do a live face-off on the ring to settle their differences before the end of the Democratic primaries. Both candidates declined, but that didn’t stop the show from having a fake Obama and fake Clinton battle it out on the ring. WWE featured its latest video game, which showed a simulation of a Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tiff, even throwing in a digital Bill Clinton for additional effect.

John McCain remains the last standing Republican candidate after Mike Huckabee dropped out of the Republican primaries. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are still battling it out in the ongoing Democratic primaries where they both stand neck to neck in terms of votes.

This is just the latest appearance of the candidates in popular TV. Other previous appearances include appearances on the Late Night with David Letterman, the View, Saturday Night Live and others. Several actors and celebrities have also voiced their preference amongst the presidential hopefuls. The 2008 elections will be held in November and the primaries will decide whom the presidential candidates for both political parties will be.