The CSCOPE program and curricula in use at too many Texas schools has come under fire over the past few months. This has not been without cause or just reason. Parents and patriots are outraged.
Why?
The comprachicos using the curricula have forced students, US Citizens, to commit acts of treason. Such occurred when a so-called "teacher" forced students to deny their US Citizenship and pledge allegiance, instead, to Mexico.
While a stunt of cultural awareness and diversity exposure such as having students wear full Abayiahs or Burkhas in class may upset some people, that act is not as severe as pledging allegiance to a foreign power.
Imagine this is 1943. It may bother parents if a school asked students to wear wooden shoes (sabot) or lederhosen to class while studying European customs.
However, what if those teachers demanded students salute pictures of Adolph Hitler while singing "Deutschland Uber Alles"? Yes, it is the same thing.
In grade school, I took French. We learned the "Marsailles". We did not stand while singing it. We did not salute France's flag. We did not pledge our loyalty to that country. We just sat and sang a song.
Now, as the Blaze reports, students were given a test regarding the September, 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. One of the questions on the test was "Why might the United States be a target for terrorism?". The test's listed "correct" answer "Decisions made in the US have negative effects on people elsewhere".
The author of the test and the course material obviously has no background in counter-terrorism, intelligence, or international relations. The main reason that radical Islamic terrorists attack the US is that they want to force their view of their religion and the tyranny of a theocracy based upon their religious views upon our country. That is the reason.
Other left-wing terrorist groups have attacked our country because of jealousy, pure and simple. They want their oligarchy to rule the world. The US has historically been a bastion against socialism and oligarchic tyranny. We are a symbol of their innate, systemic and ideological failure. They are miserable and want to force us or scare us through threat of force to be miserable as well. That is the reason.
As the revisionist history, such as the claim that the Boston Tea Party was a "terrorist attack, that CSCOPE promotes gets more an more exposed, the program's administrators continue to backpedal and adjust. What this strongly indicates is that they push indoctrinating curricula as far as they can, changing only when they get caught. This does not portray negligence. It strongly appears as obviously intentional.
Perhaps CSCOPE should change their name to something more accurate, such as "Common Comprachico and Indoctrination Curricula For Conversion to Communism (CCICC)". Even better: "Comprachico's Common Curricula and Propaganda (CCCP)". For those too young to recall the days of the Cold War, CCCP was the acronym the Soviets used for the USSR.
Here is a very condescending press release from the Four Bluff Independent School District in regards to CSCOPE. As you read it, you will see the most important governing authority of our kid's education completely ignored -- the parents. In fact, the only reference to parents is that they may be allowed to view some of the course material starting in April. Until then, teachers and comprachicos are forbidden from sharing the material with parents under a Non-Disclosure Agreement with the company that administrates the CSCOPE program. Nowhere does it allow for parents (or students) a role in determining what will be taught.
That displays the false belief some teachers hold that they know better what is best for our kids than their parents do. The best counterpoint to that belief are the statistics that prove that home-schooled children outperform those subjected to the indoctrination in government schools. Obviously, the data proves that parents know better what is best for their kids than the comprachicos do.
More and more, the CSCOPE approved and utilized curricula appear to be indoctrinating our children to despise Texas's and our nation's founding principles. It seems to push for them to prefer ideals more aligned with the propaganda and ideology of the Frankfort School, Marxism and the Zeitgeist movement.
Next, elementary schools will have their students instructed in the proper use of vinegar to remove "chemtrails". "Chemtrails" are the stripes of condensation from an aircraft, called "contrails". Several conspiracy theorists believe that these are actually "Bilderbergers" or the "Illuminati" spraying mind-control chemicals.
Some pro-active state legislator needs to take up the fight for our children. With new legislation proposed to combat grade and student progress inflation and misrepresentation, citizens would think that the state government would act to suspend CSCOPE from Texas Schools until better protections of parental rights can be enacted.
Proposed legislation should push for greater transparency in the schools. All proposed curricula should be made available for review by parents 30 days in advance. If CSCOPE or other controversial material is placed in the curricula, parents should be allowed to opt-out of the instruction with no penalties levied against the students. If a teacher or school uses CSCOPE or other such material for more than 20% of their lessons, parents should be allowed to veto that curriculum and a proper, factual alternative should be offered.
Friday, March 22, 2013
House Resolution To Reinforce 2nd Amend.
Morgan Griffith (R-VA-CD-9) introduced a House Resolution bill that reinforces a freedom implied by the Second Amendment. HR 1290 addresses the right to bear arms across state lines.
Entitled the "Protecting Lawful Transportation of Firearms Act", HR 1290 intends to establish common laws across the states for the transportation of a firearm from one to another. As it currently stands, different states have different laws regarding how a lawful owner may transport firearms. The law would, hopefully, eliminate the necessity to check the laws for each state one travels through, then stop short of that state's border in order to insure compliance.
The law is meant mostly to protect hunters and sportsmen who may conduct interstate travel for hunting or for shooting competitions.
The Second Amendment states that the right to "...bear arms shall not be infringed". This means that a law-abiding citizen's right to carry or transport firearms should not be impeded, restricted, or otherwise hindered. Discrepancies in laws from state to state regarding the regulation of the transportation of privately owned firearms are a systematic infringement of the Second Amendment.
In a press release concerning the legislation, Griffith stated:
Regarding the bill, co-sponsor Bill Owens (D-NY-CD-21) stated:
The full text of the bill is not yet available to the public.
Entitled the "Protecting Lawful Transportation of Firearms Act", HR 1290 intends to establish common laws across the states for the transportation of a firearm from one to another. As it currently stands, different states have different laws regarding how a lawful owner may transport firearms. The law would, hopefully, eliminate the necessity to check the laws for each state one travels through, then stop short of that state's border in order to insure compliance.
The law is meant mostly to protect hunters and sportsmen who may conduct interstate travel for hunting or for shooting competitions.
The Second Amendment states that the right to "...bear arms shall not be infringed". This means that a law-abiding citizen's right to carry or transport firearms should not be impeded, restricted, or otherwise hindered. Discrepancies in laws from state to state regarding the regulation of the transportation of privately owned firearms are a systematic infringement of the Second Amendment.
In a press release concerning the legislation, Griffith stated:
“Current federal law or the Second Amendment of the Constitution should neither be misinterpreted nor ignored to prevent law-abiding Americans from legally traveling with firearms across state lines. I am pleased to be reintroducing this bipartisan legislation, and will continue working to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.”
Regarding the bill, co-sponsor Bill Owens (D-NY-CD-21) stated:
“Responsible gun owners who follow existing laws and procedures should be able to travel throughout the country free from fear of improper arrest or detention. This legislation ensures hunters and sportsmen who travel with their firearms in full compliance with the law will have the appropriate protections to do so.”
The full text of the bill is not yet available to the public.
Cornyn Bill 'No Budget No Pay'
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced SB 620, entitled "No Budget, No OMB Pay 2013". The bill is directed at the Executive Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB is responsible for advising Obama on his proposed budget and expenditures.
Recently, the OMB came under fire as they were very selective on which federal domestic accounts received which cuts and to what extent during the so-called "sequestration". However, they cut all military and most veterans spending at the full rate across the board. This included appropriations accounts such as ammunition procurement, training funds, and operational accounts that keep deployed forces equipped and fed. All defense department accounts were cut near 7.8%, and those domestic accounts that had defense department co-use/concurrent funding were cut at above the 5% domestic account cuts. This was done in order to cut other, less important, accounts less.
Obama has been granted several extensions on his deadline to submit a budget. His latest due date has come and gone without a proposal submitted. In an effort to pressure the OMB to motivate the president to do his job, Senator Cornyn's bill will withhold the director of the OMB's pay until the president obeys the law.
Of course, this bill presumes Obama's empathy and sympathy. The bill could open Obama's spin doctors to place blame on withheld salaries on the GOP.
This bill was introduced in the Senate, the same house of congress that recently proposed a budget that double-counted reduced increases in spending and will not come close to balancing the federal budget. The Democratic Party holds the majority in the US Senate. If this bill lives long enough to see a floor vote, the results will most likely be along party lines. While this is a great political move in taking a stance, it , unfortunately, stands little to no chance of ever passing.
Recently, the OMB came under fire as they were very selective on which federal domestic accounts received which cuts and to what extent during the so-called "sequestration". However, they cut all military and most veterans spending at the full rate across the board. This included appropriations accounts such as ammunition procurement, training funds, and operational accounts that keep deployed forces equipped and fed. All defense department accounts were cut near 7.8%, and those domestic accounts that had defense department co-use/concurrent funding were cut at above the 5% domestic account cuts. This was done in order to cut other, less important, accounts less.
Obama has been granted several extensions on his deadline to submit a budget. His latest due date has come and gone without a proposal submitted. In an effort to pressure the OMB to motivate the president to do his job, Senator Cornyn's bill will withhold the director of the OMB's pay until the president obeys the law.
Of course, this bill presumes Obama's empathy and sympathy. The bill could open Obama's spin doctors to place blame on withheld salaries on the GOP.
This bill was introduced in the Senate, the same house of congress that recently proposed a budget that double-counted reduced increases in spending and will not come close to balancing the federal budget. The Democratic Party holds the majority in the US Senate. If this bill lives long enough to see a floor vote, the results will most likely be along party lines. While this is a great political move in taking a stance, it , unfortunately, stands little to no chance of ever passing.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Texas Bill Will Enact Educator Certification Testing
Parents tend to trust that those people we hired to educate our children are qualified to do so. A bill proposed to the Texas House of Representatives by Mike Villarreal (D- District 123, San Antonio) may better insure that trust.
HB 3484 will require comprehensive examinations for education professionals in order for them to be and remain certified educators within the state. The bill, if passed, will require the state board of education to establish minimum requirements for each category or class of teacher at appropriate levels. It appears, for example, that the minimum proficiency standards for an elementary school teacher will be different from those required of a high school teacher.
If passed, HB 3484 may better enable school choice legislation and parental decisions in regards to their students. It will give parents as well as governing board officials a more clear metric on potential performance. Used properly, if school choice programs are enacted, parents will be better informed when deciding which school best fits their goals for their children.
Other factors do need to be considered, however. Just because the average grade level proficiency in one school is higher than that of the teachers in another doesn't mean the teachers are necessarily more effective teachers. Somebody with a PhD may be well above the minimum proficiency but may be so far above that they have difficulty relating the material to students.
Opponents of School Choice may claim that this bill would negate the necessity for school choice, stating that it will improve all standards for professional educators. This "cookie-cutter" ideology attempts to marginalize parental rights. The education of our children it the ultimate responsibility of the parents until the children reach the age where they undertake the responsibility themselves.
The other effects the bill may precipitate may include future changes in how teachers' salaries are calculated, giving higher wages and compensations to those who perform better on the certification tests. This will make the education industry more competitive leading to better quality teachers in all segments of the industry: public, charter, parochial, and private schools.
Here is the bill:
HB 3484 will require comprehensive examinations for education professionals in order for them to be and remain certified educators within the state. The bill, if passed, will require the state board of education to establish minimum requirements for each category or class of teacher at appropriate levels. It appears, for example, that the minimum proficiency standards for an elementary school teacher will be different from those required of a high school teacher.
If passed, HB 3484 may better enable school choice legislation and parental decisions in regards to their students. It will give parents as well as governing board officials a more clear metric on potential performance. Used properly, if school choice programs are enacted, parents will be better informed when deciding which school best fits their goals for their children.
Other factors do need to be considered, however. Just because the average grade level proficiency in one school is higher than that of the teachers in another doesn't mean the teachers are necessarily more effective teachers. Somebody with a PhD may be well above the minimum proficiency but may be so far above that they have difficulty relating the material to students.
Opponents of School Choice may claim that this bill would negate the necessity for school choice, stating that it will improve all standards for professional educators. This "cookie-cutter" ideology attempts to marginalize parental rights. The education of our children it the ultimate responsibility of the parents until the children reach the age where they undertake the responsibility themselves.
The other effects the bill may precipitate may include future changes in how teachers' salaries are calculated, giving higher wages and compensations to those who perform better on the certification tests. This will make the education industry more competitive leading to better quality teachers in all segments of the industry: public, charter, parochial, and private schools.
Here is the bill:
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to requirements for state educator certification examinations.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 21.048(a), Education Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) The board shall propose rules prescribing comprehensive examinations for each class of certificate issued by the board. The rules must:
(1) require each educator to perform satisfactorily on each section of an examination for an educator to be considered to have performed satisfactorily on the examination as a whole; and
(2) establish for each examination a rigorous minimum score indicating satisfactory performance.
SECTION 2. Not later than January 1, 2014, the State Board for Educator Certification shall propose rules relating to certification examinations as provided by Section 21.048(a), Education Code, as amended by this Act.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2013.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Bill Introduced To Continue Military Tuition Assistance
Over the past few weeks since the "sequester" cuts went into effect, Military Personnel have been outraged to hear that their Tuition Assistance benefits were cut by the White House. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma introduced a bill that may correct that.
S. 614 is titled "A bill to require the continuation of tuition assistance programs for members of the Armed Forces for the remainder of fiscal year 2013". The bill was introduced on March 19. 2013 by Senator Inhofe (R-OK)with bipartisan co-sponsorship from from Socialist Democratic Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina. The bill text is not yet available through the Library of Congress site.
The bill will allow for funds to be transferred into the military education benefits funds in order for military service members to continue to receive their tuition assistance benefits. Tuition Assistance to the military service members benefits both the military members and the armed services themselves. The better education the force is, the better they can perform their duties and missions to defend this great nation.. Furthermore, college credits earned during military service better assist veterans in attaining employment upon separation. This improves the workforce and our nation's overall economy.
Sen. Inhofe released this statement in regards to the bill:
Here is the major portion of the bill's text:
S. 614 is titled "A bill to require the continuation of tuition assistance programs for members of the Armed Forces for the remainder of fiscal year 2013". The bill was introduced on March 19. 2013 by Senator Inhofe (R-OK)with bipartisan co-sponsorship from from Socialist Democratic Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina. The bill text is not yet available through the Library of Congress site.
The bill will allow for funds to be transferred into the military education benefits funds in order for military service members to continue to receive their tuition assistance benefits. Tuition Assistance to the military service members benefits both the military members and the armed services themselves. The better education the force is, the better they can perform their duties and missions to defend this great nation.. Furthermore, college credits earned during military service better assist veterans in attaining employment upon separation. This improves the workforce and our nation's overall economy.
Sen. Inhofe released this statement in regards to the bill:
“Sen. Hagan and I are determined to see the military tuition assistance program restored immediately for our hardworking, active-duty service members. This is an earned benefit that not only assists in recruiting and retention efforts for our all-volunteer force, but it also improves the lives of our men and women as they seek leadership opportunities within the military. Furthermore, our youngest veterans are currently facing high unemployment rates upon exiting the service. We are doing our brave military members and America a disservice if we take away a program that can be critical in assisting their re-entry into the civilian workforce. I applaud the Navy’s recent decision to maintain the tuition assistance program, which goes to show education benefits can and should be prioritized. As our nation’s defense faces unprecedented budget cuts, it’s critical we reestablish the right priorities to support our military and this bill starts us on that path."
Here is the major portion of the bill's text:
SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUATION OF AUTHORIZED TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2013.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretaries of the military departments shall carry out tuition assistance programs for members of the Armed Forces during the remainder of fiscal year 2013 using amounts specified in subsection 1(b).
(b) AMOUNTS.—The minimum amount used by the Secretary of a military department for tuition assistance for members of an Armed Force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) shall be not less than—
(1) the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 for tuition assistance programs for members of that Armed Force, minus
(2) an amount that is not more than the percentage of the reduction required to the Operation and Maintenance account for that Armed Force for fiscal year 2013 by the budget sequester required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Texas Bill Bans Abortion Providers From Schools
A bill proposed in the Texas Senate would, in effect, ban abortion providers or their affiliates from teaching "human sexuality" or "family planning" in public and open-enrollment charter schools. SB 521 includes in this ban any entity that has a direct affiliation with an abortion-performing or advocating entity.
SB 521 passed its committee votes with recommendation for final floor vote at a vote of 7 "yes" to two "nay" votes.
The bill also places requirements on those schools to require parental permission for any such classes given by any entity that is not a direct employee of the school or the district. This would include requiring permission before any contracted company provides such a curriculum. The notice must be presented to parents at least 14 days prior to the scheduled day of instruction. The permission form must be separate from any other permission slip. In other words, a field trip permission slip cannot be combined with the permission slip that allows students to receive "human sexuality" or "family planning" instruction.
The benefits of this bill is that it places more authority back where it belongs, as parental decision.
Here is the pertinent bill text as proposed:
The bill references transparency in regards to current and future curricula dealing with the subjects of "human sexuality" and "family planning". Texas educational code already requires these curricula be made available to parents for review. Here is the applicable portion of Texas Section 28.004, Education Code, Subsection (i):
SB 521 passed its committee votes with recommendation for final floor vote at a vote of 7 "yes" to two "nay" votes.
The bill also places requirements on those schools to require parental permission for any such classes given by any entity that is not a direct employee of the school or the district. This would include requiring permission before any contracted company provides such a curriculum. The notice must be presented to parents at least 14 days prior to the scheduled day of instruction. The permission form must be separate from any other permission slip. In other words, a field trip permission slip cannot be combined with the permission slip that allows students to receive "human sexuality" or "family planning" instruction.
The benefits of this bill is that it places more authority back where it belongs, as parental decision.
Here is the pertinent bill text as proposed:
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the provision of and parental approval for a student's participation in human sexuality and family planning instruction in public schools.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 28.004, Education Code, is amended by adding Subsections (e-1), (e-2), and (i-2) to read as follows:
(e-1) An entity or individual that performs abortions or an affiliate of an entity or individual that performs abortions may not provide human sexuality or family planning instruction or instructional materials for use in human sexuality or family planning instruction in a public school.
(e-2) For purposes of Subsection (e-1), "affiliate" means an entity or individual that has a legal relationship with another entity or individual that is created or governed by at least one written instrument that demonstrates:
(1) common ownership, management, or control;
(2) the existence of a franchise; or
(3) the granting or extension of a license or other agreement that authorizes the affiliate to use the entity's or individual's brand name, trademark, service mark, or other registered identification mark.
(i-2) Before a student may be provided with human sexuality or family planning instruction from an entity or individual other than an employee of a school district, the district must obtain the written consent of the student's parent or guardian. A request for written consent under this subsection:
(1) may not be included with any other notification or request for written consent provided to the parent or guardian;
(2) must be provided to the parent or guardian not later than the 14th day before the date on which the human sexuality or family planning instruction begins; and
(3) must include the information described by Subsection (i)(1) and the name of the entity or individual who will provide the instruction.
The bill references transparency in regards to current and future curricula dealing with the subjects of "human sexuality" and "family planning". Texas educational code already requires these curricula be made available to parents for review. Here is the applicable portion of Texas Section 28.004, Education Code, Subsection (i):
(i) A school district shall notify a parent of each student enrolled in the district of: (1) the basic content of the district's human sexuality instruction to be provided to the student; and (2) the parent's right to remove the student from any part of the district's human sexuality instruction.
10 Years Ago
It was ten years ago. It was yesterday. It was the day before. It was a week ago. It was a lifetime ago.
If you asked most people where they were ten years ago, today, they most likely would have to think long and hard. They would have to do an amount of research of current events of that time and make an educated guess. I don't have that problem.
Like many others, though, I can play the "what if I knew then" game.
Ten years ago today I woke up before dawn. It was hot, but comfortable. I worked diligently to accomplish as many tasks as I could before the sun popped over the horizon and began to make it unbearable. We were making final preparations to shoot, move, and communicate.
I was in a little country in Southwest Asia called Kuwait. Just to my north, on the other side of a huge, man-made sand dune was a war that would kick off soon.
The sand was everywhere. You couldn't breath, talk, drink, or eat without sand tainting the taste of everything.
It was the same with sweat. The arid air stole it away from exposed skin, leaving it dry, flaky, and feeling as though I just rose from being buried in sand at a beach. But there was no cool lake or ocean to run into for relief. Under the uniform, body armor, helmet, and combat gear, however, the perspiration was trapped. Without air getting to it, the sweat was unable to do its job in cooling the body. It made my undershirt stick to my upper body, irritating my skin. To this day, If I sweat, I cannot stand the feel of a wet shirt against my skin.
We were nervous and anxious. We just wanted this thing to kick off and be done with. The waiting was the worst part.
If I knew on that day what I know today, I may not have been in such a hurry to cross the border and start shooting. The war was not a short, violent action like Operation Desert Storm. Ten years later, Al Qaeda is still recruiting those formerly loyal to Saddam and killing innocent people. 50 more died yesterday, March 18, 2013, with 170 injured from bomb blasts. Ten years later and the war is far from over.
This was my first of four tours to Iraq. It would also prove to be the shortest. Despite the outright war with tanks and armored personnel vehicles moving in formation and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) firing rockets and missiles, this would prove to be the least deadly tour, as well.
If I had known on March 19th that three days later, on Camp Pennsylvania, a good friend of mine would be killed by a traitor, I may not have been as optimistic. The murder of Chris Seifert at the hands of traitor Hassan Akbar would later prove to be an omen of how this war wold be fought over the years. The enemy would be cowards in hiding. They would use children to conduct grenade attacks. They would fight from crowds of innocents, using them as shields.
If somebody had told me that I would do four tours, I would have laughed in their face. If they told me that I'd face a 12 year old boy throwing grenades at US Soldiers nearby, I would have laughed harder. I'm not laughing today. It's something I'd actually rather forget. I cannot, though. I still see images of the kid's dead body when I hear children at play.
Ten years ago today, many, many friends of mine were still alive, like Schuyler Haynes and Derek Dobogai. Others were still physically whole, like my good friend Christopher Edwards.
Ten years ago today was a good day.
Since then, I have done so much. I survived the war several times over. I met great people. I saw war do an amazing thing in its horror. I saw it bring out the best in great people. I was tempered into a better man. Since then, I met and married my wife.
It was ten years ago. It was last week. It was yesterday. It was.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Eyes Again On AZ Over Illegal Immigration
Arizona set precedents with its state-level immigration enforcement bill, SB1070. The US Supreme Court upheld the majority of the bill. Since, several other states have proposed or passed their own state-level enforcement bills.
SB 1070 has inspired Texas to introduce two bills based upon key portions of the Arizona law that the US Supreme Court upheld.
The US Congress has another bill, the SAVE Act of 2013, which is, in part, based upon Arizona's SB1070.
Now, another Arizona law is seeing its day in court. Today, on the US Supreme Court's docket is Arizona, Et. Al. v The Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. The main question the case will answer is if federal law preempts state election law in regards to requiring proof of citizenship.
This is not the first time this issue will appear before the court. In some cases, the US Supreme Court struck down the state-level laws because they required proof of citizenship to register to vote on the federal voter registration forms. Arizona has a law in place that does not require such with the federal forms, but does require proof of citizenship to register with the state-level forms. Those state level forms are required in order to vote in local and state level elections and referendums in addition to federal elections.
The US Constitution places election law as mostly a state-level responsibility and authority. Exceptions have all been made through amendments to the US Constitution and have been limited in authority and scope. These have included eliminating a poll tax, allowing all free citizens (non-felons) to vote regardless of race or gender, and setting the national age of suffrage to 18.
Some of the arguments against the Arizona's requirement surround the prohibition of a poll tax. Others will argue that members of indigenous tribes are exempt from state-level election laws.
States seeking to enact voter-ID laws to prevent voter fraud due to stolen identity, non-citizenship, and casting multiple ballots are watching the decision closely. The decision the US Supreme Court issues will states set the foundation upon which these states will build their own voter-fraud prevention laws.
SB 1070 has inspired Texas to introduce two bills based upon key portions of the Arizona law that the US Supreme Court upheld.
The US Congress has another bill, the SAVE Act of 2013, which is, in part, based upon Arizona's SB1070.
Now, another Arizona law is seeing its day in court. Today, on the US Supreme Court's docket is Arizona, Et. Al. v The Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. The main question the case will answer is if federal law preempts state election law in regards to requiring proof of citizenship.
This is not the first time this issue will appear before the court. In some cases, the US Supreme Court struck down the state-level laws because they required proof of citizenship to register to vote on the federal voter registration forms. Arizona has a law in place that does not require such with the federal forms, but does require proof of citizenship to register with the state-level forms. Those state level forms are required in order to vote in local and state level elections and referendums in addition to federal elections.
The US Constitution places election law as mostly a state-level responsibility and authority. Exceptions have all been made through amendments to the US Constitution and have been limited in authority and scope. These have included eliminating a poll tax, allowing all free citizens (non-felons) to vote regardless of race or gender, and setting the national age of suffrage to 18.
Some of the arguments against the Arizona's requirement surround the prohibition of a poll tax. Others will argue that members of indigenous tribes are exempt from state-level election laws.
States seeking to enact voter-ID laws to prevent voter fraud due to stolen identity, non-citizenship, and casting multiple ballots are watching the decision closely. The decision the US Supreme Court issues will states set the foundation upon which these states will build their own voter-fraud prevention laws.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Basement-Dwellers' Post-Menopausal Moms
The title should say it all. However, there are some out there who need it explained to them in slow, painful detail.
Progressive, Liberal Socio-Commies and their Useful Idiots like to refer to the GOP as the "Party of Stuffy Old White Men".
Isn't that "special".
What is even more special is that they fail to understand the difference between a Conservative and a Republican. Most Conservatives tend to vote Republican. However, the two are not one in the same.
Example: John McCain is a Republican (allegedly). He is a stuffy, out-of-touch old man. He is not a Conservative.
The same can be said, emphatically, of Speaker Boehner. Republican, yes, Conservative, no.
Lindsey Graham fills that same mold.
So does Karl Rove.
Though members of the Republican Party, the following are Conservatives who do not fit into the mold. They are round pegs who tend to destroy those square holes rather easily:
Senator Ted Cruz is a dynamo. He has hit the US Senate with a Texas-sized wildfire of conservatism. He is not old. He is also not white, for those who are hell-bent on addressing somebody's ethnic heritage.
Marco Rubio is a conservative, also neither old nor white.
For those who need more examples: Herman Cain, Allen West, Karen Harrington, Sarah Palin, Elisabeth Emken, Mia Love, Condoleeza Rice, and Dr. Ben Carson, to name a few.
While some may say that right-wing political pundits still fill that false collectivist description of the GOP, they are correct when referring to Rush Limbaugh. However, they have it dead wrong if they bother to look at Ann Coulter. Do you want to see them back-pedal and stumble? Show them a picture of the lovely Dana Loesch and Katie Pavlich!
The Democrats need to pay close attention to how they categorize their opposition. Since they felt the urge to start throwing pebbles from the front porch of their glass house, it is fitting to return fire.
If the GOP is the "party of stuffy. old, successful, white men" then the Jackass party is the party of "Post-Menopausal Mothers Of 30-something Basement Dwellers".
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in.
They want their baby-boy safe, warm, protected, and free to play World of Warcraft in the basement without those tiresome burdens like responsibility and accountability. They don't want their 30+ year old baby boys and girls to grow up and leave their nests empty. They don't want them to work and succeed on their own. If they should then, gasp, they may find a spouse! They may raise their own children! NO!
They support abortions for their 20 something daughters. Why? They want them to feel all secure and nurtured by momma. Should they keep the child, they shouldn't worry. They don't need a man! No, the kid doesn't need a daddy. Momma will raise the kid for them so that momma never needs to feel that empty nest feeling.
If you think this is just hyperbole made to poke humor at the socialist ideology, you've missed something.
Senator Dianne Feinstein -- Momma doesn't want you to have guns! You might shoot your eye out! Don't worry, Momma-barbie will protect you! Just stay in your basement and play WoW until five AM. The problem is that she isn't equipped, has no authority, and is completely unable to defend you.
Senator Barbara Boxer -- She will tell you how many oranges you are allowed to grow. She will tell you how much you can water them. But don't worry, she'll make you your tofu and alfalfa sandwich to go with your Pepsi.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz -- does not fit the mold. That is because scientists are still attempting to determine her species.
More examples: Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Claire McCaskill, Hillary Clinton, Elisabeth Warren, and Mikulski.
Even Rep. Henry Waxman fits the bill. She claims to be male, but may really just be a preoperative transgendered post-menopausal woman. The same goes for Harry Reid.
If you require further proof, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. She cooked up a mystery-meat stew and named it "Obamacare". She won't tell you what is in it until you've eaten it. She tells you that it is good for you. What she failed to tell you is that she accidentally grabbed the package of rat poison instead of the corn starch, went a little overboard on the alum, and mixed in a year's supply of progestin.
If you still have doubts, every time one of these women speaks, play Pink Floyd's "Mother" from their "The Wall" album. Heck, take a few minutes to look at their official photographs and voting records while playing that song. It will sink in, eventually.
Progressive, Liberal Socio-Commies and their Useful Idiots like to refer to the GOP as the "Party of Stuffy Old White Men".
Isn't that "special".
What is even more special is that they fail to understand the difference between a Conservative and a Republican. Most Conservatives tend to vote Republican. However, the two are not one in the same.
Example: John McCain is a Republican (allegedly). He is a stuffy, out-of-touch old man. He is not a Conservative.
The same can be said, emphatically, of Speaker Boehner. Republican, yes, Conservative, no.
Lindsey Graham fills that same mold.
So does Karl Rove.
Though members of the Republican Party, the following are Conservatives who do not fit into the mold. They are round pegs who tend to destroy those square holes rather easily:
Senator Ted Cruz is a dynamo. He has hit the US Senate with a Texas-sized wildfire of conservatism. He is not old. He is also not white, for those who are hell-bent on addressing somebody's ethnic heritage.
Marco Rubio is a conservative, also neither old nor white.
For those who need more examples: Herman Cain, Allen West, Karen Harrington, Sarah Palin, Elisabeth Emken, Mia Love, Condoleeza Rice, and Dr. Ben Carson, to name a few.
While some may say that right-wing political pundits still fill that false collectivist description of the GOP, they are correct when referring to Rush Limbaugh. However, they have it dead wrong if they bother to look at Ann Coulter. Do you want to see them back-pedal and stumble? Show them a picture of the lovely Dana Loesch and Katie Pavlich!
The Democrats need to pay close attention to how they categorize their opposition. Since they felt the urge to start throwing pebbles from the front porch of their glass house, it is fitting to return fire.
If the GOP is the "party of stuffy. old, successful, white men" then the Jackass party is the party of "Post-Menopausal Mothers Of 30-something Basement Dwellers".
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in.
They want their baby-boy safe, warm, protected, and free to play World of Warcraft in the basement without those tiresome burdens like responsibility and accountability. They don't want their 30+ year old baby boys and girls to grow up and leave their nests empty. They don't want them to work and succeed on their own. If they should then, gasp, they may find a spouse! They may raise their own children! NO!
They support abortions for their 20 something daughters. Why? They want them to feel all secure and nurtured by momma. Should they keep the child, they shouldn't worry. They don't need a man! No, the kid doesn't need a daddy. Momma will raise the kid for them so that momma never needs to feel that empty nest feeling.
If you think this is just hyperbole made to poke humor at the socialist ideology, you've missed something.
Senator Dianne Feinstein -- Momma doesn't want you to have guns! You might shoot your eye out! Don't worry, Momma-barbie will protect you! Just stay in your basement and play WoW until five AM. The problem is that she isn't equipped, has no authority, and is completely unable to defend you.
Senator Barbara Boxer -- She will tell you how many oranges you are allowed to grow. She will tell you how much you can water them. But don't worry, she'll make you your tofu and alfalfa sandwich to go with your Pepsi.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz -- does not fit the mold. That is because scientists are still attempting to determine her species.
More examples: Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Claire McCaskill, Hillary Clinton, Elisabeth Warren, and Mikulski.
Even Rep. Henry Waxman fits the bill. She claims to be male, but may really just be a preoperative transgendered post-menopausal woman. The same goes for Harry Reid.
If you require further proof, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. She cooked up a mystery-meat stew and named it "Obamacare". She won't tell you what is in it until you've eaten it. She tells you that it is good for you. What she failed to tell you is that she accidentally grabbed the package of rat poison instead of the corn starch, went a little overboard on the alum, and mixed in a year's supply of progestin.
If you still have doubts, every time one of these women speaks, play Pink Floyd's "Mother" from their "The Wall" album. Heck, take a few minutes to look at their official photographs and voting records while playing that song. It will sink in, eventually.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Netflix: Hit or Miss With US Rewrite of 'House'?
Netflix produced an exclusive series entitled "House of Cards". The series stars Robin Wright, former wife of renowned socialist Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Kate Mara, who played the spooky student stalker on "American Horror Story".
Kate Mara seems a bit type-cast in the series, playing a role similar to her "Horror Story" role as a somewhat naive coquettish thorn in the main character's side.
Kevin Spacey's acting is a little overdone. It is almost as though he attempts to reprise two of his previous roles into one. Those roles would be that of "David Gale" and his role from "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil". The role does spark a level of deeper intrigue such as Spacey portrayed in "The Usual Suspects".
The writers did a splendid job reworking the old BBC series of the same name. Like the BBC series did concerning corruption and political intrigue in the British Parliament, the Netflix retelling makes for a good American political thriller.
Where the two series differ is that the BBC version revolved around Britain's Conservatives and Margaret Thatcher. The Netflix version concentrates mainly on the socialist oligarchs that comprise the US's Democratic Party.
The pilot episode opens with the main character, Spacey, awaiting an important announcement. After being elected as a US Representative 11 consecutive times and backing the "right" members of his party, he feels he is due. Congressman Underwood was promised a nomination to Secretary of State by the newly elected Democratic president. However, the president decides to leave Underwood where he is: the house majority whip.
For the most part, the show is a deep exploration of Machiavellian-style political games as the main character works a complex plan for revenge in his attempt to achieve his goals for ultimate power -- an eventual run at the White House. In doing so, he has no qualms destroying people's careers and lives and manipulating members of the press (Kate Mara's "Zoe Barnes"). Underwood even uses his wife, played by Robin Wright, as a pawn in his game.
While this is a work of fiction, it is not too far of a stretch to see some of the same games being played in our current government, mostly by those oligarchy-bent socialists who call themselves the "Democratic Party". For entertainment purposes alone, though, this show creates interesting escapism for political junkies. This is to say, it does once you get past Spacey's butchering of southern accents.
Kate Mara seems a bit type-cast in the series, playing a role similar to her "Horror Story" role as a somewhat naive coquettish thorn in the main character's side.
Kevin Spacey's acting is a little overdone. It is almost as though he attempts to reprise two of his previous roles into one. Those roles would be that of "David Gale" and his role from "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil". The role does spark a level of deeper intrigue such as Spacey portrayed in "The Usual Suspects".
The writers did a splendid job reworking the old BBC series of the same name. Like the BBC series did concerning corruption and political intrigue in the British Parliament, the Netflix retelling makes for a good American political thriller.
Where the two series differ is that the BBC version revolved around Britain's Conservatives and Margaret Thatcher. The Netflix version concentrates mainly on the socialist oligarchs that comprise the US's Democratic Party.
The pilot episode opens with the main character, Spacey, awaiting an important announcement. After being elected as a US Representative 11 consecutive times and backing the "right" members of his party, he feels he is due. Congressman Underwood was promised a nomination to Secretary of State by the newly elected Democratic president. However, the president decides to leave Underwood where he is: the house majority whip.
For the most part, the show is a deep exploration of Machiavellian-style political games as the main character works a complex plan for revenge in his attempt to achieve his goals for ultimate power -- an eventual run at the White House. In doing so, he has no qualms destroying people's careers and lives and manipulating members of the press (Kate Mara's "Zoe Barnes"). Underwood even uses his wife, played by Robin Wright, as a pawn in his game.
While this is a work of fiction, it is not too far of a stretch to see some of the same games being played in our current government, mostly by those oligarchy-bent socialists who call themselves the "Democratic Party". For entertainment purposes alone, though, this show creates interesting escapism for political junkies. This is to say, it does once you get past Spacey's butchering of southern accents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)