Is this the dawning of the Age of Absolute Amoralism?
Back in April I reported on the pending legislation of SB 777, Queer eye in Kalifornia the Pro-Homosexual Bill. Gov Schwarzenegger vetoed it, but it was obvious this wasn't going away, and sure enough, Caliifornia, or as I like to call it, Super-Cali-Fagi-Listic-Espi-Ali-Docious is at it again. Ok, so it's not subtle. Neither are the homosexuals.
Incidently did you know that there are all across America lesbian gangs of criminals who are out there terrorizing Americans, and organizing 10-year old girls into their midst? Yeah, The Gay Mafia is out there with their pink Glocks, enforcing The Gay Agenda. Dykes Taking Over (DTO) are very violent and in virtually every major city in America.
They carry pink Glocks (real ones).
Ain't that just darlin'?
This is what it has come to, and worse is brewing...
Take a look at the clip below:
But back to the situation in California:
Seth Kilbourn (Equality California) is full of crap.
Pro-Homosexual Bill Advances in California
SB 777 Passes Assembly Judiciary Committee
SACRAMENTO, June 26 /Christian Newswire
The Assembly Judiciary Committee passed SB 777 (Kuehl) early this morning. SB 777 is the highly controversial bill that bans any textbooks, teaching or activities in schools from "reflecting adversely" upon or "promoting bias against" homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals and those with "gender issues".
Similar to last session's SB 1437, vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, SB 777 grants special privileges to those with perceived gender issues.
"SB 777 is an astounding assault on traditional values in California, especially for religious students," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "These types of laws-that favor someone simply because of their sexual orientation-will inevitably result in reverse discrimination against religious students."
Testifying in the hearing on behalf of CRI was legislative liaison Meredith Turney. Her testimony described the alarming policies that will ultimately be implemented by SB 777: "Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented a policy that states a boy perceiving himself to be a girl may use the girls' restroom and locker room. He may also participate in girls' sports and other female-only activities."
In response to Turney's poignant testimony on the full ramifications of SB 777, Senator Sheila Kuehl, the bill's author, resorted to misrepresenting the bill's true content. Senator Kuehl declared that the bill no longer contained the vague language "reflects adversely". However, the bill in fact still contains the nebulous terms that could be used to silence students with traditional moral beliefs.
"Proponents of this bill claim that it is necessary to end bullying. In fact, SB 777 will not end bullying, it will instead confuse students at an already confusing time in their adolescence," stated Turney. "We wholeheartedly believe that any bullying and taunting, regardless of the motivation, should be punished. The best way to deal with bullying in schools is to restore classroom discipline. Passing more laws that discriminate against religious students will not end bullying or discrimination."
"Based on the bullying CRI experienced at the hands of SB 777's sponsors, we cannot believe that the true motivation behind this bill is to end bullying," stated England. "We call on citizens all across California to contact their legislators and express their dismay that SB 777 continues to work its way through the legislature. CRI knows that the average citizen opposes the unbelievable policies this bill will enact statewide-many are simply shocked when they learn of its implications. Parents do not want their young daughters in the same restroom or locker room with a boy who 'perceives' himself as a girl.
The extremists in the legislature are pushing a radical agenda on the rest of California."
Just last month, Karen England appeared on Fox News Channel debating the sponsor of SB 777, Equality California. Immediately following the national program airing, a board member of Equality California sent menacing e-mails and videos to CRI staff, declaring that his group would "bury you" if CRI continued our efforts against SB 777.
And the bad news just keeps on coming...
X-rated 'goodie bag' enrages preteen's mom
B96 BASH | Girl given condoms, sex catalog at concert
June 29, 2007
BY KIM JANSSEN Daily Southtown
A Burbank mother expressed her outrage after Toyota Park concert sponsors handed her disabled 12-year-old daughter a goodie bag including condoms and a sex-toy catalog.
Pam Richard, 39, says she spent $167 to take her daughters Heather, 12, Crystal, 14, and Hola, 18, to the B96 Summerbash at the Bridgeview stadium Sunday.
The trip to see pop music stars including Akon, Rihanna and Hilary Duff perform was intended to be a family celebration of Crystal's eighth-grade graduation.
But the outing was soured during a pre-show performance inside the stadium grounds, Richard said.
"The dancers were handing out CDs, so I went to the front to get one for Heather," she said.
"Heather has a disability similar to Tourette's, which makes her nervous in crowds and clench her fists when she's excited, so she couldn't ask herself.
"But when I told the dancer she was disabled, he wouldn't give me one.
"I asked again, and he handed Heather a pink bag -- when I saw what was inside, I was shocked."
Inside the bag, put together by Lisle-based nightclub promotions company Mixmaster Throwdown, were two condoms, a catalog for the adult store Lovers Lane, an explicit CD titled "Vigina[sic]," "Bearly Legal" suntan lotion sachets printed with marijuana leaves and a book of gag "sex coupons" entitling the bearer to direct sex videos and other sexual favors.
"I am disgusted they would promote sex and drugs to a 12-year-old," Richard said.
I'm disgusted too, but in the present-day context, not surprising.
Ain't diversity grand? Look for lots of backlash on this one.
Time for talk radio to grab this SB 777 controversy and run. Michael Savage, you listening?
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Woman Honor Thyself, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Pursuing Holiness, Gone Hollywood, and CatSynth.com "catback" weekend, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Is this the dawning of the Age of Absolute Amoralism?
Friday, June 29, 2007
Today I have no words...except:
Support families of fallen war heroes!
Support Our Military Families
Dedication to Our Fighting Armed Forces For Our Country
Tribute to The Troops
Why do they fight for our freedom? Here are a few reasons:
Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, The Magical Rose Garden, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Woman Honor Thyself, 123beta, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Also Stix Blog
Thursday, June 28, 2007
People are becoming more isolated here in America. Federally induced methods of creating an acceptance of diversity among people isn't working, has never worked, never will work. Socially-engineered equality is bound to fail for many reasons, but one reason stands out: we tend to prefer our own kind. All the finger-pointing, cries of "racism", and political posturing by certain well-known race-baiting demagogues won't change that. The early 20th century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, known for his "definitions" of terms, defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."(Wiki). But their act
is wearing has worn thin.
Apparently, we are waking up to the fact that putting lots of ingredients into a pot, stirring it all together, and cooking it up works pretty well for stews, not so well for students and schools.
The US Supreme Court came down today on the side of sanity:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected school diversity plans that take account of students' race in two major public school districts but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances. The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it further restricts how public school systems may attain racial diversity.The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. The court's four liberal justices dissented.Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy would not go as far as the other four conservative justices, saying in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school district plans designed to achieve diversity.To the extent that Roberts' opinion can be interpreted to foreclose the use of race in any circumstance, Kennedy said, "I disagree with that reasoning." He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection. The two school systems in Thursday's decisions employ slightly different methods of taking students' race into account when determining which school they will attend. (read the rest)
In other breaking news which just about everyone on the planet will know by 6:00 PM, the Immigration Bill was defeated today in the Senate when Reid wasn't able to get the 60 votes necessary for the bill to move forward. I know Jake Jacobson has a big smile on his face about right now. Senator Edward Kennedy was seen heading for the bar - no wait, that's not really news.
Here's our President patiently explaining how the border will be protected...LOL - keep your eye on the top right quadrant.
I knew there would be a Friday Update from Jake...
Providing us with some perspective on all this diversity business is City Journal's John Leo, giving a quick preview of Robert Putnam's work-in-progress, Bowling With Our Own, with some interesting stats on the negative effects of diversity.
His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities.Read the article, it's only a few paragraphs.
QUICK UPDATE- Chuck Schumer looks like someone just stole his new bike. Heh.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Cat, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Monday, June 25, 2007
It is obvious to me that we need an alternative to the government-funded and state-sponsored system of educating our children. In previous posts (here's one) I have provided many urgent reasons for getting the children away from the UN-tainted schools. But assuming that this is an agenda that Americans are willing to fight for, what are the alternatives? This is an open-ended question, one which will need very, very care-ful examination.
I am of the opinion that the schools cannot be fixed, do not want to be fixed - therefore, we must look outside the schools for solutions, for educational goals. Private schools are a luxury, usually only available to special groups, Christian faith-based, Jewish, and maybe ones I don't even know about. It is a small percentage of families who can afford that route, excellent though it may be. It is certainly preferable to public schools. But private schools, or community-run schools are do-able, if parents are willing to to work toward that goal. [I inadvertently forgot to mention secular private schools, which also abound in the U.S. - but which are, unfortunately available only to people of means, plus a small number of children on scholarships]
I frankly admit that my efforts to date have been mainly to reach out to homeschooling parents, give encouragement, and point out reasons to stay the course. But I don't want to preach to the choir, either. Homeschoolers know more than I ever will about what is good for their children, what works, what doesn't. My job is certainly not to educate them. My reasons for supporting homeschooling as an alternative to state-run schools is purely personal: I looked into the future, and saw a horror story, see it still, unfolding in America. If we don't fight for freedom, we will lose our freedom. Our children must be able to think, reflect, discriminate, and reason their way through the maze of socialized insanity our government is creating. Minimally, I would want that for the young ones, just for their own security, their own worth as human beings.
The Dewey-based "progressive" secular humanist policies that have been carefully put in place over the last 50 years most certainly have no room for free-thinkers in their classrooms. And that's the problem. School children are being inculcated with a collectivist mentality, a socialized personality. That is unacceptable. Period. This is war, folks. And you better get that right.
Nor do I know anything about homeschooling, per se. What I have is experience teaching a wide range of subjects. My take on teaching another human being is fairly simple: know a little more than the one you are teaching. That's usually enough to get the job done. If it's not enough, then look together for a solution.
The other qualities one might possess will be taught indirectly. I don't think you can "teach" someone how to be a good, moral, law-abiding person. You can only be who you are; the good, and bad qualities will be assimilated, or not. I don't think we have any control over what goes into a person's being, but we can expose them to good impressions: good ideas, good art, good literature, good music, good friends (probably the most important). How they turn out is between them and God. Incidentally, this notion of mine was a source of unending conflict between my (teenage)self and my fundamental Southern Baptist parents. They wanted a bit more control over the ideas I held than I was willing to give. For what it's worth, I think we are all equal in the eyes of God, who loves us all. It is up to each of us to consciously find our way back to Him. We are either moving closer to that Ocean of Love, or we are moving away from it. In the realm of being, there is no standing still. Whether that is good news or bad depends on the direction you feel you are moving. Sometimes I don't know, and that's when I need to take stock.
I will continue to support homeschooling , and pass along to you what I find that seems useful. You can read more here, and here.
If you have never homeschooled before, John Holt, who was a teacher and author, can provide a broad range of reasons for doing so. To get things going I will give you some of his thoughts.
The following interview took place in Seattle where John Holt was speaking at a homeschoolers' conference:
Question: What are some of the changes and challenges you see parents going through as they have gotten involved in home schooling?
Answer: The hardest one is learning to trust their children, learning that they don't have to make learning happen. Learning that you don't have to be stimulating them all the time. Parents start teaching their kids because they feel a strong sense of responsibility but they tend to sometimes feel more responsible than they really are. The hardest thing to do is learn to back off. There are surely millions of people in this country who are pretty indifferent to what their kids do, but they're not home schooling.
Home-schoolers ask questions like, "How can I be sure I'm giving my child enough?" I have to say, just the world out there as it is has plenty of food for thought. You don't have to make your life one long field trip or turn your home into a miniature of the Smithsonian or the Metropolitan Museum.
Children are better at thinking than we are for the most part. There are certain kinds of specialized thinking that we are better at than they are, but for the most part if we look at those components of the scientific method - observation, wondering, speculating, theorizing, testing theory - point for point they do this better than most of us. People who are as good as kids at doing this are usually distinguished scientists, geniuses, prize winners, and so forth. The old saying that children go to school to learn how to learn doesn't make sense. They're better at it than we are!
An excerpt from his book:
Teach Your Own: The John Holt Book of Homeschooling (revised 2003)
We can sum up very quickly what people need to teach their own children. First of all, they have to like them, enjoy their company, their physical presence, their energy, foolishness, and passion. They have to enjoy all their questions, and enjoy equally trying to answer those questions. They have to think of their children as friends. Indeed very close friends, have to feel happier when near and miss them when they are away. They have to trust them as people, respect their fragile dignity, treat them with courtesy, take them seriously. They have to feel in their own hearts some of their children's wonder, curiosity, and excitement about the world. And they have to have enough confidence in themselves, skepticism about experts, and willingness to be different than most people, to take on themselves the responsibility for their children's learning. But that is about all the parents need. Perhaps only a minority of parents has these qualities. Certainly some have more than others. Many will gain more as they know their children better; most of the people who have been teaching their children at home say that it has made them like them more, not less. In any case, these are not qualities that can be taught or learned in school, or measured with a test, or certified with a piece of paper.
- John Holt
sweet | salty
HS Blog - Homeschool Blog
Here in the Bonny Glen
American Patriot trackbacks: The Anchoress, Joy in the Morning, Woman Honor Thyself
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rightlinx, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, The World According to Carl, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
By George F. Will, op-ed columnist
The Washington Post
Sunday, June 24, 2007
h/t Michael Savage
Speech Police, Riding High In Oakland
Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime.
At least it is in Oakland, Calif. That city's government says those words, italicized here, constitute something akin to hate speech and can be proscribed from the government's open e-mail system and employee bulletin board.
When the McCain-Feingold law empowered government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political campaign speech about government, it was predictable that the right of free speech would increasingly be sacrificed to various social objectives that free speech supposedly impedes. And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries.
That has happened in Oakland. And, predictably, the ineffable U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ratified this abridgement of First Amendment protections. Fortunately, overturning the 9th Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some African American Christian women working for Oakland's government organized the Good News Employee Association (GNEA), which they announced with a flier describing their group as "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values."
The flier was distributed after other employees' groups, including those advocating gay rights, had advertised their political views and activities on the city's e-mail system and bulletin board. When the GNEA asked for equal opportunity to communicate by that system and that board, it was denied. Furthermore, the flier they posted was taken down and destroyed by city officials, who declared it "homophobic" and disruptive.
The city government said the flier was "determined" to promote harassment based on sexual orientation. The city warned that the flier and communications like it could result in disciplinary action "up to and including termination."
Effectively, the city has proscribed any speech that even one person might say questioned the gay rights agenda and therefore created what that person felt was a "hostile" environment. This, even though gay rights advocates used the city's communication system to advertise "Happy Coming Out Day." Yet the terms "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" are considered intolerably inflammatory.
The treatment of the GNEA illustrates one technique by which America's growing ranks of self-appointed speech police expand their reach: They wait until groups they disagree with, such as the GNEA, are provoked to respond to them in public debates, then they persecute them for annoying those to whom they are responding. In Oakland, this dialectic of censorship proceeded on a reasonable premise joined to a preposterous theory.
The premise is that city officials are entitled to maintain workplace order and decorum. The theory is that government supervisors have such unbridled power of prior restraint on speech in the name of protecting order and decorum that they can nullify the First Amendment by declaring that even the mild text of the GNEA flier is inherently disruptive.
The flier supposedly violated the city regulation prohibiting "discrimination and/or harassment based on sexual orientation." The only cited disruption was one lesbian's complaint that the flier made her feel "targeted" and "excluded." So anyone has the power to be a censor just by saying someone's speech has hurt his or her feelings.
Unless the speech is "progressive." If the GNEA claimed it felt "excluded" by advocacy of the gay rights agenda, would that advocacy have been suppressed? Of course not -- although the GNEA's members could plausibly argue that the city's speech police have created a "hostile" environment against them.
A district court affirmed the city's right to impose speech regulations that are patently not content-neutral. It said the GNEA's speech interest -- the flier -- is "vanishingly small." The GNEA, in its brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, responds that some of the high court's seminal First Amendment rulings have concerned small matters, such the wearing of a T-shirt, standing on a soapbox, holding a picket sign and "other simple forms of expression."
Congress is currently trying to enact yet another "hate crime" law that would authorize enhanced punishments for crimes motivated by, among other things, sexual orientation. A coalition of African American clergy, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, opposes this, fearing it might be used "to muzzle the church." The clergy argue that in our "litigation-prone society" the legislation would result in lawsuits having "a chilling effect" on speech and religious liberty. As the Oakland case demonstrates, that, too, is predictable.
So, what's driving the PC Police this time? A concept known as internalized oppression seems to feed most thought censorship agendas. It's a Freudian psycho-babble concept which has it's roots in the modern university, and is just one more way that whites are castigated, and blamed for the African-American's failure to thrive. Internalized oppression is one of those terms which delight the Left because it's a tight, neat-sounding tool in which the self-appointed censors can taunt and cajole whites into accepting the notion "that they all embrace the concept of 'assumed collective guilt,' which is an insidiously divisive, intellectually bankrupt, and totally evil assumption." Except, in it's zeal to silence, even black, Christian groups are not immune to its poison.
Alan Charles Kors, PhD wrote a book in 1999 called,
The Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America's Campuses
I thought it might be helpful if I simply post some of the (Amazon) reviewer comments:
Alan Charles Kors (Ph.D., Harvard University) teaches European intellectual history at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is professor of history and holds the George H. Walker Endowed Term Chair.
"The Shadow University" gives a profound and hair-raising analysis of the conflict between the freedom of expression and idiotic extremes of political correctness on today's American campuses (with the latter, sadly, winning). The examples (hundreds of them) are at times absurd to the point of being comical, and at times are puzzling and horrifying, leaving me with the feeling of frustration and helplessness."
"An eye-opening narrative about how the modern university "hands students a moral agenda upon arrival, subjects them to mandatory political reeducation, sends them to sensitivity training, submerges their individuality in official group identity, intrudes upon private conscience, treats them with scandalous inequality, and, when it chooses, suspends or expels them."
"This is an excellent expose' indicting the so-called tolerant universities as the most intolerant of them all. Whatever happened to freedom of expression? You can't say that on college campuses in the US anymore."
" I was recommending the book to a friend and she asked "Who is it written for?" We thought about it for awhile. It can't be the administrators because they presumably enjoy the status quo. It can't be the students because they are just passing through the university in order to pick up a credential. It can't be the professors because they've mostly abdicated control of the university to the administrators. Most faculty see themselves either as employees of a bureaucracy vastly more powerful than themselves or as low-grade autonomous entrepreneurs only loosely connected to the university.
"In fact, there might not be anyone in the United States whose has both the power and the inclination to redress any of the wrongs outlined in the 400 pages of The Shadow University.
"That is a thought much scarier than any in the book itself."
I ordered the book through Amazon.com (used -$1.59 + $3.50 shipping).
La Shawn Barber's Corner, Stuck on Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Pundits, Webloggin Outside the Beltway, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The World According to Carl thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
A Monterey school principal today cited employee rights as the reason why a public apology would not follow a lunchroom incident Tuesday when a supervisor demanded that a Muslim student remove her Islamic head scarf.CAIR, the ACLU, and Friends of the Down-trodden Oppressed Muslims, were seen mounting their white steeds, armed with high colonic preparations for Seaside High School Principal Sydney Renwick.
Seaside High School Principal Sydney Renwick agreed to a face-to-face apology for the 13-year-old student who said she was humiliated when a lunchroom supervisor demanded she remove her hijab in front of more than 100 students.
But Renwick said a request by the Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations to have the lunchroom supervisor publicly apologize would be a violation of the employee's rights.
He cited the creation of a hostile work environment as one of those violations.
"The school understands that this is an emotional issue and that religious practice is central to this community's beliefs and value system," Renwick said. "But on the same token, we cannot violate this person's rights while we attempt to rectify the situation."
CAIR is requesting a public apology because the student was humiliated in public, according to CAIR spokeswoman Abiya Ahmed.
"A public apology is important not just for this girl, it would offer closure to the family," Ahmed said.
She said her group has offered to provide diversity training at the school to prevent what she called "ignorance" and "misunderstanding" within the community.
But Seaside already has a comprehensive diversity training program set in place, Renwick said. In recognition of the community's diverse population, the training was implemented before the school year, he said.
Renwick called Tuesday's event an isolated incident and said that it was not the intent of the employee to single out one person because of her faith.
The employee was enforcing school rules that prohibit headwear indoors, according to Renwick. The rule exists for student safety and mostly applies to inappropriate clothing such as gang-related attire.
"This was in no way an attempt to harm a student," Renwick said. "This was an extremely isolated incident. There's a zero tolerance policy (against prejudice and discrimination) at this school. Zero tolerance is understood, accepted and reinforced. When incidences do occur, they are investigated thoroughly."
Renwick said the investigation into Tuesday's incident has been completed and that he is in the process of determining disciplinary action.
Comments by: mira Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:16 pm puh hu, stop crying. This is the United States of America. American Women don't wear this stuff. You either become an American and live like an American or - GO HOME. That's it. No apology. Get over it. Comments by: kwitchyerbelliakin Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:35 pm oops did I say "Shalom" Aleichem? Oh and if you like Salaam Aleichem!
Yeah Baby! Just a thought, are you allowed to sit next to a boy? Why not?
Comments by: kwitchyerbelliakin Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:32 pm I think I shall start wearing my Yarmulke, with a nice big Star of David on it. I'll sit next to her and see how "diverse" she really is! Come on fellow Jews or anyone who wants to know about our traditions, lets wear our skullcaps with pride. I have extras for anyone who wants to wear one. And I'll wear a nice shirt with a large BLUE Star of David on it and smile at her and to CAIR! . Any devout Christians want to wear your Crosses/Crucifixes? YES! I support you as well. We need some "diversity" that shows our religious roots. Shalom Aleichem ! Comments by: anhe64 Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:40 pm The teacher is doing exactly what he/she should have been doing. Kudos to him/her.
Those jihabs are intimidating and a reminder of dark ages where women where oppressed and dark ages that Muslim fanatics try to impose on us.
That jihab is nothing more than show of force just like the gang type clothing that is banned. Next thing they are going to wear that bedspread Halloween costume with only 2 holes for your eyes that reminds me of scary ghost or grim reaper with the sickle (huh, coincidence with those suicide bombers wearing that garb as well?)
CAIR should be ashamed of them trying to intimidate the population and "re-education" techniques. And are our public schools not supposed to be religion free? May be the girl should live for a while in Iran and ask her fellow school mates there how great life is over there.
And by the way, when are we finally allowed to wear a cross in any of those Islamic countries? Churches are forbidden in Saudi Arabia. May be we should forbid Mosques financed by Saudi Arabia until we are allowed to build something over there...
Advice to Mr. Renwick: Tell CAIR and the ACLU to piss off, if he wants to maintain any dignity at all, 'cause the school lawyers will be seen crawfishin' all over the conference room, where they will undoubtedly offer up their own bums for a good reaming as well.
When are our schools ever going to learn you must stand up to these bullies?
h/t Michael Savage
Trackposted to Dr Sanity,Diary of the Mad Pigeon, 123beta, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Right Voices, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Be Not AfraidMichael Yon believes General Petraeus, if anyone, can rout Al Queda from Diyala Province. Read more of his extraordinary dispatches here.
You shall cross the barren desert, but you shall not die of thirst. You shall wander far in safety though you do not know the way. You shall speak your words in foreign lands and all will understand. You shall see the face of God and live.
Be not afraid.
I go before you always;
Come follow me, and I will give you rest.
[From a prayer card I found on a base in Anbar Province, Iraq.]
"We can dissect our Civil War, or World War II or Vietnam, but there is no way to dissect the current war. Only the residue of those prior wars remains with us today—the scars and headstones, memorial statues, history books, and national boundaries. We only dissect that which is dead. Pathologists who autopsy those wars can no longer affect the outcomes. There is little left to the corpse of a war, but the sculptors of history take the clay and give it shape and substance. But even the most masterful among the artisans—Michelangelo himself—chipping and slicing at marble from Carrara, could not breathe life into the statue of David. Twice I stood in Florence, staring up at David, clad only in his slingshot, the rock with which he would change history cupped in his hand.
"But as I write these words, the explosions—cannon fire reverberating day and night, rockets exploding on base, the rumbling and crumpling sounds of car bombs—are the very pulse of this war. This war cannot yet be dissected because it still lives—wounded, angry, thrashing on the table, but alive. We can only hack into it, diagnose it, treat it, knowing each attempt at a cure affects the pulse. Doing nothing causes tachycardia. Much of what afflicts Iraq was here before America was born. But when we elected to perform surgery on this sick land, we used hacksaws and sledgehammers, and took an already sick patient and hacked off some parts while pulverizing others.
"Our jets will drop bombs and we will use rockets. Helicopters will cover us, and medevac our wounded and killed. By the time you read this, our artillery will be firing, and our tanks moving in. And Humvees. And Strykers. And other vehicles. Our people will capture key terrain and cut off escape routes. The idea this time is not to chase Al Qaeda out, but to trap and kill them head-on, or in ambushes, or while they sleep. When they are wounded, they will be unable to go to hospitals without being captured, and so their wounds will fester and they will die painfully sometimes. It will be horrible for Al Qaeda. Horror and terrorism is what they sow, and tonight they will reap their harvest. They will get no rest. They can only fight and die, or run and try to get away. Nobody is asking for surrender, but if they surrender, they will be taken.
"We will go in on foot and fight from house to house if needed. We will shoot rockets into their hiding spaces, and our snipers will shoot them in their heads and chests. This is where all that talk of cancer and big ideas of what should be or could be done will smash head-on against the searing reality of combat.
"These words flow on the eve of a great battle, but are on hold until the attack is well underway. Nothing is certain. I am here and have been all year. We are in trouble, but we have a great general. The only one, I have long believed, who can lead the way out of this morass. Iraq is not hopeless. Iraq can stand again but first it must cast off these demons. And some of the demons must be killed.
"And while the battle rages, that prayer card will be in my pocket:"
Right Pundits has more
Trackposted to: Right Pundits, 123 Beta, Church and State, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Right Truth, and Big Dog's Weblog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
By Robert Roy Britt
Why Johnny Can't Read: Schools Favor Girls
Studies have long shown that boys in the United States and around the world do not read or write as well as girls. There are several reasons, according to the common wisdom:
— Girls mature more quickly.
— Boys are more likely to suffer dyslexia and other reading disorders.
— Race and poverty play a role.
But a new study finds that the problem cuts across socioeconomic lines and pins part of the blame on schools, whose techniques cater to the strengths of girls and leave boys utterly disinterested.
Can't read a newspaper
The research, by psychology professor Judith Kleinfeld at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, finds that nearly one-quarter of high school seniors across the United States who are sons of white, college-educated parents have woeful reading skills, ranking "below basic" on a national standardized test.
"These boys cannot read a newspaper and get the main point," Kleinfeld told LiveScience. "These boys cannot read directions for how to use equipment and follow them."
And the problem is getting worse.
The federal government's 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that 26.3 percent of high school seniors scored below basic in reading skills.
In a finer analysis of that data, Kleinfeld found that 23 percent of white sons of college-educated parents scored below basic, up from 13 percent in 1992. (Among girls with white, college-educated parents, only about 6 percent fall into the below-basic category.)
Kleinfeld presented her results last month at the White House Conference on Helping America's Youth in Indianapolis. She has not yet submitted the findings to a journal for peer .
Lack of motivation
The problem is partly developmental, Kleinfeld said.
"Girls mature more quickly than boys," she said. "They enter school with bigger vocabularies and better fine motor skills, so it's easier for them to learn to write."
And as boys enter junior high and high school, their motivation wanes.
"Many boys are disengaging from school," Kleinfeld says. "The U.S. Department of Education’s surveys of student commitment show that boys are far less likely than girls to do homework or to come to school with the supplies they need."
In an interview, one boy summed up the problem for Kleinfeld.
He said: "Why would anyone want to read novels? They aren't even true!"
What schools should learn
In separate research that Kleinfeld is also preparing for publication, she has possibly gotten to the root of the problem.
"Here's a fascinating fact," she said. "There is no literacy gap in home-schooled boys and girls." [emphasis added]
"Why? In school, teachers emphasize reading literature and talking about character and feelings," she said. "This way of teaching reading does not turn boys on. Boys prefer reading nonfiction, such as history and adventure books. When they are taught at home, parents are more likely to let them follow their interests.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Va. School's No-Contact Rule Is a Touchy Subject
By Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 18, 2007; Page B01
Fairfax County middle school student Hal Beaulieu hopped up from his lunch table one day a few months ago, sat next to his girlfriend and slipped his arm around her shoulder. That landed him a trip to the school office.If this rule seems strange to you, as it does to me - well, I think it portends the future in government schools. Why not destroy the natural response of touching? It will further tamp down any spirit likely to blossom into genuine feelings for another human being.
Among his crimes: hugging.
Kilmer Middle School seventh-grader Hal Beaulieu and his father, Henri, say the no-touching rule at Kilmer Middle School is too strict. Hal got in trouble for hugging a girl.
All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives? Banned. The rule has been conveyed to students this way: "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!!!"
School officials say the rule helps keep crowded hallways and lunchrooms safe and orderly, and ensures that all students are comfortable. But Hal, 13, and his parents think the school's hands-off approach goes too far, and they are lobbying for a change.
"I think hugging is a good thing," said Hal, a seventh-grader, a few days before the end of the school year. "I put my arm around her. It was like for 15 seconds. I didn't think it would be a big deal."
After all, the goal of government schools is to produce cookie-cutter drones who are unable to think for themselves, and government school policies will steam-roll over anyone in their delusional slavishness to the intolerant, socialistic goals of the NEA.
One of the chief criticisms of homeschooling our children has always been, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that homeschooled children will not be able to socialize with the community at large and their peers, who are being trained in government schools. Actually, the opposite appears to be closer to the truth. I believe what we are witnessing here, as it happens in Virginia - where a lot of weird things go on in the name of education and diversity - is the logical extension of "diversity", a concept antithetical to true freedom. It is my hope that Americans will one day be able to look back on such episodes in dismayed remembrance of what can happen when a totalitarian ideology is given full reign to display its stupidity.
Educator and author Carl Sterling Parnell, Ed.D says in his book:
From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: Exposing America's New Terror From Within
Watch out, America! Concerned citizens must begin a united effort to fight back against the NEA and its diabolical plot to spread socialism throughout our great democratic nation through the impressionable minds of our children.
If concerned citizens are to fight against the tyranny of the National Education Association, they must gain more insight into what the goals of the NEA are. Their documented goals are:
1. "Destroy capitalism (freedom).
2. Promote dialectical materialism.
3. Eliminate God from all thinking and loyalty.
4. Eliminate loyalty to family.
5. Create social chaos to destroy traditional American society.
6. Indoctrinate children with humanist agenda for world socialist government.
7. Assure children cannot read reason or learn history.
8. Change society in preparation for a socialist world government-global governance.
9. Increase union membership and political power.
10. Increase political Democratic Party dependence on NEA.
11. Stop school vouchers.
12. Regulate private, home schooling, and charter schools.
13. Destroy the political right."
As is evident, the "E" in the National Education Association's abbreviation does not truly mean "education." Instead, it should actually represent the word "extreme." The NEA should be considered to be a leftist, extremist organization. Each year at their summer convention the NEA proposes many resolutions that demand unbelievable requests for Americans to accept. The National Education Association is very hostile toward parents who choose to place their children in private schools or home schools. It is very vehement toward "deleterious programs," such as privatization of schools, tax credits, and vouchers. The NEA is very intolerant toward groups and people who are against one of its main objectives-the promotion of a gay-lesbian sexual orientation. This is the reason it wants diversity-based curricula to be used in many classes, such as sex education, Family-life education, and AIDS education. However, the NEA supports another new program that is even scarier than the diversity issue. Now it wants to include programs in public schools for children from birth to age eight.
Basically, the NEA wants our children in public schools in order to instill the gay-lesbian tendencies into our children's minds. Also, it would give the NEA longer to brainwash our children. What a horrendous disaster this would be. Imagine having your new-born child in public schools being watched and taught by socialists, communists, humanists, New Agers and/or teachers with deviate sexual behavior. What would your child be learning in his/her formative years? How would you react to government-mandated directives to bring your new-born child to an ungodly learning environment? God forbid that this new program gets approved!
In order to fight back, Americans must be informed, angry, and determined to take back the schools from the government, which means to do us irreparable harm through our children. I have much more information on the NEA in a previous post, which goes into a more detailed analysis on the NEA and its goals. Phyllis Schlafly, who has waged a tireless war, is another good source for exposing the NEA agenda. More books on the take-over of the educational process, going back to Rockefeller and the Leipsig connection.
When all is said and done, the socialist's policies will fail, as they have always failed. The question in my mind is: will Democracy fail, too?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson - His latest thoughts on Iraq, civilization and Mexico's immigration goals in a concise analysis are a timely reminder why Muslims see the West and Mexicans see America as the solution of their own failed cultural and political ideologies.
h/t Real Clear Politics
June 19, 2007
Hypocrisy That Undermines CivilizationBy Victor Davis Hanson
There is only a thin veneer that separates civilization from man's innate barbarity. Some 2,500 years ago the historian Thucydides once warned us about the irony of revolutionaries and insurrectionists destroying this fragile patina of culture, as if they themselves might be exempt from ever wanting it back again.
Yet no sooner, he warned, have such outsiders torn down the system of law than they are in need of it themselves when they assume power and the responsibility of governance. Even the worst terrorist apparently wants his wife and kids to be safe--and able to drink clean water when turning on the faucet. The trick apparently is to blow up the neighborhood's electric pylon while still finding enough light and power to assemble an IED device.
When the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, a number of Baathists and Sunni militant groups turned to terrorism to thwart a democratic government that would leave them as a minority without their accustomed and inordinate privilege and influence. Suicide bombing, roadside mines, and kidnapping were all welcomed tactics--along with alliances with savage al Qaeda terrorists to torture and behead innocent civilians.
But then radical Islamists in their newfound zones of control began even to butcher their erstwhile Sunni allies in horrific ways. And when they destroyed power, water, and sewer services, suddenly such nihilism seemed a bad idea. Too late--since Sunni Iraq is now a miasma of random killing, open cesspools, and abject lawlessness. Only belatedly have Sunni tribes at last come forward to join Americans and Iraqi government forces to rid Iraq of the primordial al Qaeda terrorists in their midst-- and restore the civil society that they once helped to destroy.
"The Palestinian people will never forgive the Hamas gangs for looting the home of the Palestinian people's great leader, Yasser Arafat," Palestinian authority spokesman Abdel Rahman recently exclaimed. "This crime will remain a stain of disgrace on the forehead of Hamas and its despicable gangs."
For years Fatah and Palestinian authority-sanctioned terrorists themselves have undermined civil society by torturing, murdering, and bombing innocents. It was accepted by them that the laws of civilization--due process, exemption of civilians from attacks, and the rule of law--did not apply to Yasser Arafat's government that was as corrupt as it was savage. If you ever were in need of dialysis after you blew up the local clinic and shot the doctors, you could always cross the border to the nearby Zionist entity for treatment.
But suddenly such Fatah terrorists are being out-terrorized by an even more barbaric Hamas, whose thugs have even looted the Nobel Peace Prize given Arafat. What barbarians! Where is the law?
So now the outgunned Fatah gangsters are suddenly crying about the uncivilized evils of looting, gangs, and random killings. Just as Thucydides warned about insurrectionists destroying civil society, so Fatah once erased civilization's protocols on the presumption that no one else would dare do to them what they routinely did to others. How bizarre that Arafat's followers of all people are reduced to appealing to international norms of decency and legality to avoid their utter destruction in Gaza by Hamas.
Middle Eastern and North African Muslims flock to Europe to enjoy a chance at tolerance and freedom long denied at home. But no sooner have many arrived than they slur their adopted continent as decadent, and chose instead to live by a de facto intolerant code of Sharia Law. Only in a free West do these immigrants have the opportunity of denying the free choice of association and lifestyle to their fellow Muslims. And yet if the West were to adopt their own Middle East nihilism, it would eventually itself devolve into a Libya, Syria, or Egypt. Then disenchanted, but unrepentant Muslim immigrants would desperately search for some new West that they could once again both simultaneously enjoy and destabilize.
Mexico counts on sending almost a million illegal aliens into the United States each year to ensure billions of dollars in remittance from expatriates, a sympathetic Hispanic lobbying presence in the United States, and easy exits for potential dissidents unhappy with Mexico City's failure to provide basic services for its own indigenous people.
To facilitate such massive illegal immigration, Mexican officials hector their American counterparts about our supposed illiberality in not letting millions more stream in unchecked. They have even gone so far as to publish a government comic book instructing their own citizens how to cross the American border safely--and in flagrant violation of our laws.
But Mexico has nearly the same problem with its own 600-mile southern border with Guatemala as we do with our own 1,800-mile common boundary with Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of Central and Southern Americans try to cross into Mexico, either to work as cheap laborers or to make their way eventually into the United States as competitors to illegal aliens from Mexico.
In response, Mexico's policy toward illegal immigrants on its southern border is as brutal as America's is humane. Violators are often summarily deported--if they are not first robbed by Mexican officials or beaten and killed by criminal gangs. Mexicans may lecture Americans about our purported sins in trying to secure our border, but they don't seem to care what their own government does to Guatemalans. Again, the irony arises that a government that has abandoned the rule of international law suddenly is worried that another country may be doing to it what it does to others.
What lies behind this abject hypocrisy of first undermining civilization and then demanding that it reappear in the hour of need?
Double standards depend on demanding from United States and Europe a sort of impossible perfection. When such utopianism is not--and never can be--met, cheap accusations of racism, colonialism, and imperialism follow. Such posturing is intended to con the West into feeling guilty, and, with such self-loathing, granting political concessions, relaxing immigration, or handing over more foreign aid. Left unsaid is that such critics of the West will always ignore their own hypocrisy, and, when convenient, destroy civilized norms while expecting someone else to restore them when needed.
What, then, to do? Stop feeling guilty, apologizing, and trying to rationalize barbarity. Instead insist on the same uniform standards of humane behavior from our critics that they now demand from us.
Finally, remember that there is a reason why millions flood into Europe from the Middle East and to America from Mexico--and not vice versa. There is a reason why Democrats and Republicans don't shoot each other in the streets of Washington, or why blue-state America does not mine red-state highways. And there is a reason why a Shiite mosque in Detroit is safer in the land of the Great Satan than it would be in Muslim Saudi Arabia. It's called civilization--a precious and fragile commodity that is missed even by its destroyers the minute they've done away with it.
© 2000-2007 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights ReservedTrackposted to:
UPDATE: Mayor Barletta and the town of Hazelton are off to court on Monday. The injunction (at the ACLU's filing) to stay Hazelton's ordinance against employers and landlords who cater to illegal immigrants was issued by a judge several months ago. See the latest developments on Fox News.
Monday, June 18, 2007
We live in a seemingly rudder-less world today in which it is hard to come to grips with the realities facing us. For many, it is just such a world which needs dismantling, the old power structures brought down in order for a new beginning, a new set of players to come to power. Disillusioned by their own lives, and having no core within on which they can rely, the call for a new world order seems likely to fill the void. Such a change holds an empty promise of a better life.
But such ideas did not come out of thin air. They didn't just suddenly happen. The idea of failure itself has been carefully crafted, nourished and given life by a segment of society which is indifferent to human suffering or happiness - at least others' happiness - in order to promulgate disorder. It is just such people who work to their own ends in the midst of chaos who are working to bring America to her knees. Why do they do this? Greed for money and power. These people recognize no national sovereignties, no borders, who are wealthy beyond our dreams. It's a bit like Cortez explaining to Montezuma when he said: "We suffer a disease in the heart only gold can cure ." It was ever thus. Only the players change.
Finding out how they do their mischief is like unraveling a skein of yarn. It's a long story, going back in time, which has been playing out throughout the world. And it is perhaps better to ask how, rather than why. The journey of No Apology's blog has been my way of discovering the methods in which we are being led to confusion; it has been a discovery, too, of men and women who are not fooled by political maneuvering and power grabs of the elite. As individuals, we can do little to check the rich and powerful in their quest for world dominance. But what we can do, we should do because we share a common humanity, and we are responsible for one another. I am not suggesting that we band together and ride into battle. On a small scale we can look out for each other. If we see something amiss in our schools, our towns and neighborhoods, don't look away, don't ignore the problem. Look into it, speak about it, listen to what others have to say. Get involved.
I began these few paragraphs as a lead-in to something which I find disturbing, having to do with the notion of dominance of one sex over another. I understand it is difficult to distinguish reality from imaginings, but when it comes to the education of our children, we have to really look and see what effect the educational policies are having on our young. The ones behind the scene will use anything and anyone to achieve their ends. Tearing down individuality and replacing it with a fearful need to be the same as everybody else is one of their goals. Making our children afraid of being wrong, afraid of being criticized will further their ends. So they start with the boys, using the girls as an excuse to tear them down.
Lest we lose sight of the war on men being waged by feminist judges, educators, authors of books, administrators - and their accompanying coterie of male sycophants, read these:
Exhibit A: The war on fathers
Exhibit B: How the Schools Shortchange Boys
Exhibit C: How feminized education harms boys
Exhibit D: The War Against Boys (Read the reviews at Amazon.com)
h/t to Dumb Ox Daily News for the reminder to be vigilant...
Sunday, June 17, 2007
I've already made my case against the global warm(ongers) here, and here, and here, and oh yeah, here.
Now listen to the President of the Czech Republic...
Freedom, not climate, is at risk
By Vaclav Klaus
The Financial Times
Published: June 13 2007
We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.
Is climate change just propaganda?
In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.
The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.
Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).
Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.
I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.
The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.
As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
■ Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
■ Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
■ Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
■ Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
■ Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
■ Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
■ Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.
The writer is President of the Czech Republic.
Trackposted to Stuck On Stupid, Rightlinx, The Virtuous Republic, Webloggin, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The HSLDA has just claimed victory for a Nevada homeschool bill, which on first reading does, indeed, appear to secure a rock-solid base for Nevada homeschoolers. Or does it? On second reading of S.B. 404, the provision which in SEC 5 (subsection 13 (a) and (b) states that:
This religious freedom provision in S.B. 404 states that “no regulation or policy of the state board, any school district or any other governmental entity may infringe upon a parent’s right to educate his child based upon religious preference unless it is (a) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (b) the least restrictive means furthering that compelling interest.”
For me the inclusion of this phrase this would be an obvious deal-breaker. Why? Simple. If the trend towards a New World Order continues to roll along in the hallow'd halls of Washington - and all evidence points to acquiescence to the globalist's goals of a UN mandate to roll the world up in a cloak of secretive manipulation of all sovereign nations - then the adoption of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, as it is known, will render this bill useless. Granted, the the US adoption of the CRC will probably roll over any rights to homeschool, anyway. But why go to the trouble to get a homeschool bill in Nevada passed with language which could have been crafted by the UN drones themselves?
One has to wonder why this provision was included. Klicka is hailing it as a great victory. But, I mean, we're talking about homeschooling, right? That means parents educating and bringing their children up in whatever religious atmosphere they deem suitable. How did the idea of granting homeschoolers religious freedom "unless it is essential to further a compelling governmental interest" get its nose under the tent?
No, S.B. 404 is not a religious freedom clause "victory". It's a sham, a set-up. Who do they think they're kidding? Take out the so-called "religious freedom clause" and what new homeschool freedoms, exactly, have been advanced here? I'm beginning to have my doubts about the intentions of the HSLDA, and it's supporting Website Home School Foundation. It is assuming a corporate-type structure that makes me very uncomfortable. I intend to find out who insisted on this provision, and I also intend to ask Senior Council Christopher Klicka for an explanation. Unfortunately, finding an email address for any person in the HSLDA has proved impossible as of this writing.
Victory for Homeschool Freedom Bill
After a tremendous effort by the Nevada Homeschool Network, especially Frank Schnorbus and Barbara Dragon, S.B. 404, the Homeschool Freedom Bill, has been signed into law. Joining in the effort during key periods over the past four months were Elissa Wahl, Irene Rushing, Carl Lucas, Tina Goodman, Kelley Radow and former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle (also a former homeschooler).
Home School Legal Defense Association Senior Counsel Christopher Klicka was involved in the minute-by-minute drafting process and amendments, as well as orchestrating e-lerts to Nevada HSLDA members. Finally, without the help of the many emails, phone calls, and appearances at committee hearings from homeschool parents throughout Nevada, this bill would never have become law.
Incredibly, S.B. 404 passed during just one legislative session. Many times, this type of bill, which eliminates over 50% of the current regulation, takes several sessions to actually pass. However, due to the expert guidance of the Nevada Homeschool Network, not only was the bill passed by the Senate and the Assembly, and signed by the Governor, but it was passed unanimously by the entire Senate!
S.B. 404 does several things:
- Eliminates oversight of homeschooling by the local or state public school system. It establishes a one-time (instead of annual) notification of intent to homeschool to be sent to the local school district when the child begins to homeschool. No longer do parents need to show the child’s birth certificate.
- Eliminates the requirement that homeschoolers provide “equivalent instruction to public schools.” The law recognizes parents’ rights to direct the education of their children and their full responsibility to determine how their children are being educated. It does list certain subjects that must be taught, but only as appropriate for each child’s age and skill level as determined by the parent.
- Requires the school district to accept a notice of intent that contains the name, age, gender of each child; name and address of their parents; a short educational plan, as appropriate for the age and skill level of the child at the time of filing for the first year of homeschooling.
An optional privacy statement is included on the notice of intent form if you so wish to sign it to prevent your notification from being circulated to anyone else.
The school district must give the parent a “written acknowledgement” that serves as a “Proof of Compliance” with Nevada’s compulsory school attendance law.
S.B. 404 requires the school district give notice about testing opportunities that must be available to homeschool students, such as college entrance exams and the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Exam.
One of the most amazing aspects of S.B. 404 is that it includes a religious freedom clause!
This religious freedom provision in S.B. 404 states that “no regulation or policy of the state board, any school district or any other governmental entity may infringe upon a parent’s right to educate his child based upon religious preference unless it is (a) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (b) the least restrictive means furthering that compelling interest.”
This language was crafted by Klicka in order to parallel religious freedom acts which HSLDA has helped to enact in nearly a quarter of the other states. However, this is the first time it is being used in a purely educational context. This is an important provision because it serves as a “backup” of the homeschool law. Any homeschool family who is teaching their children according to their religious convictions may invoke this clause any time a school district becomes abusive. HSLDA is particularly excited about this aspect of the new Homeschool Freedom Bill.
The term “parent” is defined to include: “parent, custodial parent, legal guardian, or other persons in this state who have control or charge of a child and the legal right to direct the education of the child.”
The Department of Education is required to develop a standard form for homeschool children to participate in programs and activities, including classes, sports, and interscholastic activities.
The Homeschool Freedom Bill will virtually end the state’s power to create regulations for homeschoolers. Now homeschoolers will have all their rights specifically delineated in the Nevada Code as enacted by the Legislature. This makes homeschool rights more permanent. (All emphasis mine)
We are thankful to God for this incredible victory in Nevada. Nevada homeschoolers will now enjoy one of the best laws in the country.
(All emphasis mine)
Pass The Torch
Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Woman Honor Thyself, DeMediacratic Nation, Wake Up America, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, The Uncooperative Blogger, The Right Nation, The Amboy Times, The Florida Masochist, Jo's Cafe, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.