Common Cores Minority Report

The school year may be over for most American students, but parents must remain as vigilant as ever when it comes to protecting their children’s privacy. Look no further than the shocking, invasive conduct of the Polk County, Fla., educational district last week. It’s a surveillance-state sign of the times.

Two days before their Memorial Day weekend break, kids from at least three different public schools — Bethune Academy (K-5), Davenport School of the Arts (K-5, middle and high school), and Daniel Jenkins Academy (6-12) — were subjected to iris scans without their parents’ knowledge or consent. The scans are essentially optical fingerprints, which the school intended to collect to create a database of biometric information for school bus security.

One mother took to Facebook to decry the outrageous breach after her son informed her of the unauthorized imaging. She posted a face-saving letter from Polk County Senior Director of Support Services Rob Davis notifying families only after the high-definition eye scans had been conducted.

The mom, April Serrano of Kissimmee, Fla., recounted: “I have been in touch with the principal at my son’s school this morning regarding the iris scans. She verified everything my son told me. … She said that she was following instructions from the Polk County School Board (PCSB), and that she knew very little, if anything, about this before it occurred. She just did as she was told.”

Continue Reading

‘Sharia’ for Western Consumption

The latest issue of the Islamic Horizons magazine of the Islamic Society of North America, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, has an article with an interesting message: The U.S could learn from Islamic law if it weren’t for the “Islamophobes” bashing Sharia.

The theme of the article is that “Islamophobes” are twisting the meaning of Sharia, and it is up to Muslim-Americans to set the record straight. In a game of semantics reminiscent of the campaign to get the media to stop using the word “Islamist” and the “My Jihad” campaign, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is now turning to the words “Sharia” and “fiqh.”

The article argues that critics are actually talking about siyasa, or Islamic administration. Sharia is “divine” and fiqh is Islamic legal rulings. Yet what the article doesn’t explain is that Siyasa is fiqh and fiqh is part of Sharia.

Once readers are told that these are threeCover of the May/June 2013 Issue of Islamic Horizons MagazineCover of the May/June 2013 Issue of Islamic Horizons Magazine separate things, they are open to their redefining. Most importantly, fiqh is framed as a system of jurisprudence superior to the West. This fits into the theme of ISNA’s parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, that Islam is not just a faith but an alternative civilization.

Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Brotherhood, once said, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

Continue Reading

Common Core – The Obamacare of Education

 by: the Common Constitutionalist

Common Core – it sends shivers down the spines of freedom loving individuals. It is the Obamacare of education with its national standards and testing and its one-size-fits-all government model.

While the implementation of the Common Core curriculum is new, the passion for and the idea of national education has been burning in the hearts of progressives for more than a century.

Many people blame George W. Bush for Common Core. After all Common Core is just the natural extension of Bush’s “No Child Left behind”, resulting in the progression to Obama’s “Race to the Top”.

“Race to the Top” was simply a bribe offered to cash poor states during the recession to entice them into accepting the Common Core curriculum. Just imagine the federal government saying to the states: “You may have this pile of money to help your state through these tough times.” “Great”, reply the states. “What do we have to do?” “Oh, not much”, say the feds. “Just accept these national education standards and teach exactly what we dictate with no possibility of change or adjustment to the curriculum. That’s all.” “Oh, is that all? We’ll take the cash and worry about the ramifications later”, say the states.

As I stated, Common Core is just the natural progression of an ever-intrusive federal government that has been advancing the idea of a national school system devoid of local control.

Each progressive administration, dating as far back as reconstruction, has moved the ball forward. Whether a little or a lot, the ball moved forward.

Before Bush’s “No Child Left behind” there was Bill Clinton, who in 1994 secured passage of the “Improving American Schools Act” and the “Goals 2000 Educate America Act”. Notice all the lovely flowery names for these laws? They picked these names so that no politician can vote against them. It’s quite dishonest.

Prior to Clinton there was kinder, gentler George HW Bush and his Charlottesville Education Summit in 1989. What came out of the summit were eight, typically liberal, pie-in-the-sky, feel-good, unachievable talking points dressed up as goals. Among these were gems such as “All children will start school ready to learn”, “Every adult American will be literate” and “the high school graduation rate will be at least 90%”. I won’t even waste my time commenting for I’m sure you’ve drawn the same conclusion. Absurd!

As one would expect of Ronald Reagan, although he supported education, he felt it better left to the states. But even in the Reagan Administration the “Improving America’s Schools Act” was passed in 1983.

Jimmy Carter, being the leftist he was and still is, did not feel the same about local control. We all know to thank Yimmy for his signature on October 17, 1979; the creation of the Department of Education. Ugh!

Before Carter there was Nixon. His 1970 “Special Message to Congress on Education Reform” simply threw money at the supposed problem. He did however discover a new human right. It was the right to read. Madison must’ve forgotten that amendment when crafting the Constitution.

Then there was Lyndon Johnson  – modern-day father of the ruination of the United States. Johnson’s “Great Society” debacle was an umbrella vision. Under that large umbrella were handouts for job training programs, housing programs, healthcare, poverty programs and of course education. Everything the federal government shouldn’t be involved in.

He chose to sell his idea of “Education Reform” as part of his “War on Poverty” because “poor kids can learn too”. This cause gave rise to ESEA, Johnson’s “Elementary and Secondary Education Act”. He claimed it was to break the “cycle of poverty” and as is always the case, throwing money at the education problem via a government “investment” will solve things.

In a conversation with VP Hubert Humphrey, Johnson told Humphrey: “Don’t ever argue with me. I’ll go a hundred million or 1 billion on health or education. I don’t argue about that anymore than I argue about [First Lady] Lady Bird buying flour. I’ll spend the God damned money. I may cut back on some tanks.”

As we’ve experienced over these many decades, massive federal government spending solves every problem and that was a lot of money then.

I originally intended to take this all the way back to Woodrow Wilson but frankly it’s depressing to think what has happened just since the 1960s and I think you get the point. Common Core is not the beginning but it may be the end of proper education in this country if it is not stopped.

Hispanic Janitors Claim Discrimination

 

Let’s say I was planning a trip to Germany. Once I arrived, I was so enamored by the country that I made plans to live there. Following the difficult immigration process, I move everything across the ocean to Germany, find a place to live in a great part of town, and settle in. However, after a few months, my savings have dried up. I have run out of money and I need a job. I go to interview after interview; finally landing a job at a local restaurant as a busser. During my time at work, I come across a sign that reads “Gefahr, heiß!” Unfortunately, I don’t speak a lick of German, and I don’t understand that “Gefahr, heiß!” means “Danger, Hot!” I wind up with a pretty bad burn, so I sue the restaurant.

Does that seem fair? Obviously not. Do you think a judge would even deign to hear my case in court? I’d hope not, because it was my fault for moving to Germany without bothering to learn the language of the country. A similar case is moving forward in Colorado as I write this article.

Continue Reading

Are We Fat or Hungry?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

The other day I heard a commercial as I was listening to the radio. It’s aired quite often, so I didn’t pay much mind to it. The ad pertained to obesity. Something about the large percentage of children that are overweight.

It’s an epidemic, they say. “They”, being the so-called experts. Experts like, say… Michael Bloomberg or Moochelle Obama.

Well, I had heard public service announcements like these thousands of times. They are always the same. They don’t ask for anyone to donate time or money to the cause; they just seek to “inform” us morons that our children are all whales.

Here’s the kicker. About an hour later, on the same radio station, I heard another “public service” ad. No, it wasn’t another announcement of how fat our children are. This one was on childhood hunger.

It explained that too many children are going to bed hungry. Evidently, it too is an epidemic.

Okay, I thought, what the heck! I literally laughed out loud at hearing it.

My next thought was of the management at the radio station and how they must not monitor the stuff. Why would they? I’m sure these PSA’s help pay the bills.

Now, I can’t be the only one that hears these ads and sees the irony. It’s comedy gold.

So which one is it? Are our kids big fat Gila monsters or are they starving little waifs like Oliver twist? “Please, sir, may I have some more?” (The previous statement has more impact when said with an English accent. Just a tip.)

Is it possible that these two epidemics are occurring simultaneously? Like we see in films depicting medieval England  – where the Royals are behind the gates gorging themselves and the serf class are dying in the streets, eating dirt sandwiches, without the bread.

I decided to go online and watch a few ads and read some reports on both hunger and obesity in America. A few of the hunger ads are as follows:

One report claims that one in five in the U.S. is struggling with hunger. Of course the ads focused on “the children”. Another claimed that: “when a government and a model focuses on the well-being of its people, obviously it’s children would be a priority, but unfortunately the United States is not a country with that kind of model.”

George Snufullupigus of ABC news reported that one in six Americans and one in four children start their day not knowing if they will have the food they need.

A feeding America ad, with the help of some Hollywood stars, asked if someone could tell the hungry where their next meal would come from?

Okay, I get it. There’s hunger in America and its epidemic.

But at the same time other experts are telling us that obesity is becoming the number one health problem in America. And of course, as with the hungry, it’s all about “the children”.

Michelle Obama claims obesity is one of the most serious threats to a child’s future. She also claims it is an epidemic. (yeah, it’s a distant number two to her husband’s policies.)

One study estimated that adolescents visit fast food restaurants approximately twice a week.

The Children’s Defense Fund claims that nearly one in three children in America are overweight or obese.

Okay, enough is enough. So I ask again, which is it? There is no way that one in four children can be hungry and one in three are big fatties.

Maybe it’s that the children are so fat they are just always hungry. Or maybe it’s that both these highly exaggerated and exploitive claims are a crock.

As it is with most of  lefty causes, these ads and reports are intended to do but one thing. That is to guilt people into charging the government to further control our behavior.

 

Harry Reid’s Omnibus Background Check Bill

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

After reading about the gang of 16 turncoat Republicans that voted with the dems to allow Harry Reid’s gun bill to move forward, I made a call.

I telephoned my Senator, Kelly Ayotte’s office in Washington to vent my spleen. I spoke with one of her lackeys, and she explained that the senator has always been pro-second amendment. I asked the lackey if the pro-gun Sen. actually read the very lengthy bill she voted to allow to proceed? The lackey had no answer. She just kept repeating how Sen. Ayotte was pro-second amendment. I told her that her answer, to me, assumed the senator had not and that I will report it that way. The lackey was none too happy with me. Frankly, at this point, I don’t really care.

At this very moment (writing this article), I am staring at page after page after excruciating page of Senate bill S – 649.

The name of the bill is: S – 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013.

How could anyone be against safe communities and schools? They might as well call it the “Don’t Shoot Grandma Act.” After all, who would vote to shoot grandma?

It doesn’t take long to question the sincerity of the bill. It starts in the very first sentence: “To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.”

See anything a little creepy about the preamble? You too, eh? I see two problems. The first is relatively minor, the second, seriously major.

First: there is no way to ensure full registration. It’s a crock, but it sounds great and isn’t that really the most important thing? It doesn’t matter whether it actually happens as long as they care enough to wish it to be so. It is tailored directly to the low information citizen.

Second: this is the scary part: “… And for other purposes”. Yikes! What does that mean? Answer: anything they want it to – after it is signed into law.

This bill, like so many others, is purposely written to go on forever. Here is the link to read it for yourself, assuming you are as masochistic as I: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text.

Here’s a little interesting factoid to ponder that directly relates to this bill.

In 2007 Delaware passed a law making it a minimum class A misdemeanor to spank a child under the age of 18. Coincidentally, uncle Joe Biden’s son Beau was one of the people who pushed the law. Small world, isn’t it?

So Delaware passed a law. So what? Well, here is so what.

Bill S – 649, Section 111: … Proposed Grants, b) Use of Grants, (1) In General, (E) “supply accurate and timely court orders and records of misdemeanor crimes…”

Putting it together? Any parent in Delaware convicted of spanking their child (don’t laugh, it’s the law) will not be able to legally own a firearm and I’m sure that’s not the only example.

Not only is the bill written, at times in the vaguest terms possible, but also it continually cites other laws  – causing one to either research every cited law or throw their hands up in frustration.

This is where we are headed folks. I have now finished reading the entire bill and I’ll tell you, it would take Justice Scalia and 20 researchers several weeks to interpret. No lie! That means there is no Senator that will fully understand what they are voting for. Just like Obamacare.

Oh, and by the way, it never did reveal what the “other purposes” were.

Liberals Want To Control Your Words—And Opinions

from: Mark Steyn (my second favorite Rush fill-in host)

 

He who controls the language shapes the debate: In the same week the  Associated Press announced that it would no longer describe illegal immigrants  as “illegal immigrants,” the star columnist of The New York Times fretted that  the Supreme Court seemed to have misplaced the style book on another fashionable  minority. “I am worried,” wrote Maureen Dowd, “about how the justices can  properly debate same-sex marriage when some don’t even seem to realize that most  Americans use the word ‘gay’ now instead of ‘homosexual.'” She quoted her friend  Max Mutchnick, creator of “Will & Grace”:

“Scalia uses the word ‘homosexual’ the way George Wallace used the word  ‘Negro.’ There’s a tone to it. It’s humiliating and hurtful. I don’t think I’m  being overly sensitive, merely vigilant.”

For younger readers, George Wallace was a powerful segregationist Democrat.  Whoa, don’t be overly sensitive. There’s no “tone” to my use of the word  “Democrat”; I don’t mean to be humiliating and hurtful: it’s just what, in  pre-sensitive times, we used to call a “fact.” Likewise, I didn’t detect any  “tone” in the way Justice Scalia used the word “homosexual”. He may have thought  this was an appropriately neutral term, judiciously poised midway between “gay”  and “Godless sodomite.” Who knows? He’s supposed to be a judge, and a certain  inscrutability used to be part of what we regarded as a judicial temperament. By  comparison, back in 1986, the year Scalia joined the Supreme Court, the Chief  Justice Warren Burger declared “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to  commit homosexual sodomy”. I don’t want to be overly sensitive, but I think even  I, if I rewound the cassette often enough, might be able to detect a certain  tone to that.

Continue Reading

Climate Changers

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The following are excerpts from an article in the British publication, The Economist, written Nov. 2008. That’s just 5 years ago. I know in seems a lot longer considering our current state of affairs in this country:

The Economist “The most important year for climate change since 2001, when the Kyoto protocol (which set targets for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions) was agreed, will be 2009… The first period of the protocol runs out in 2012. The deal to replace it is supposed to be done at the United Nations’ Climate Change conference in Copenhagen…”

 “No deal means that mankind gives up on trying to save the planet.”

 

Wow, really? Is the planet in that much danger? It must be. These men of science wouldn’t overstate a problem, or create one, just to score political points and extract money from us?

It continues:

 “The rich world (especially America) needs to commit itself to legally enforceable carbon-emissions reductions… The rich world, which has been responsible for most emissions so far and recognises that it needs to pay up… The Clean Development Mechanism, which was set up under Kyoto to allow rich countries to buy carbon credits from poor countries that have cut their emission, does that already, but is probably not robust enough to do the job on the scale needed.”

 kyoto protocol

I was shocked, and I’m sure you as well, to see America singled out. I was also surprised to read that carbon credit purchasing isn’t solving the problem. Huh.

They seemed to be quite pleased at the arrival of “The One”:

 “What happens in Washington is most important. Progress on climate change is much likelier under the new administration than the old, for the new one is committed to introducing mandatory federal carbon-emissions cuts through a cap-and-trade scheme…”

 

So what’s the big deal? That was old news. Nothing has changed. The eco-weenies will never change, you say. No matter what happens they will never change their tune on climate change or man-caused global warming.

Well, not so fast. It seems that actual science may be catching up to the hysteria. I know, dare to dream, but in a March 30 article in the very same publication, the folks at The Economist seem to report honestly of the un-changing climate:

 “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar… And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

 

This must have killed Hansen to even utter these words, for he is dishonest climate change whore, and that’s being kind.

Continuing:

 “Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise… If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.”

 Climate Graph

“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.”

 

No, of course not. The only deluded people have been us man-caused climate change deniers. And it’s funny that they are always surprised when nothing happens. Kind of exactly as we’ve been predicting for years.

The article continues:

 “…an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.”

 

Ruh Ro Reorge. The earth is cleaning itself?! The profound significance could be that as nothing continues to happen, it’s already getting harder to keep beating that same old world apocalypse drum.

The rest of the article is rather long and boring with explanations of new climate modelling, sprinkled with a lot of what-ifs, in an attempt to further the global warming cause.

Although we on the reasonable side of this argument can be slightly heartened by this quasi-admission, this battle is far from over. These folks will not go down without a fight. They have far too much to lose.

We may, in the long run, win this war against the climate weenies, and heh, as the world economy crumbles and we all go the way of Cyprus, no one will worry about man-made climate change.