Where is the outrage? April 15, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, culture, Government, Media , 4commentsNotice the press has been quiet as a church mouse protecting one of its own (again) from exposure on this story.
“Bill Maher went on a tirade against Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church, only days before the Pope’s visit to the U.S.. He stated that the Pope “used to be a Nazi” and compared him to a cult leader. He then went on to call the Church a “child-abusing religious cult” and “the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.” “And that’s the Church’s attitude: ‘We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.
In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God’s infallible wingman here on Earth, lock away the kids. Which is why I’d like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That’s right, the Pope is coming to America this week and ladies, he’s single!”
Pope Benedict didn’t “used to be a Nazi.” In fact, as the New York Times itself reported after the Pope’s election in 2005, Pope Benedict’s father was anti-Nazi, and “Joseph Ratzinger [the Pope’s birth name] huddled with his father and older brother around a radio and listened to Allied radio broadcasts,” an act that if they were caught doing, they would have been sent to a concentration camp.
f you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If have a billion, they call you ‘Pope.’ It’s like, if you can’t pay your mortgage, you’re a deadbeat. But if you can’t pay a million mortgages, you’re BearStearns and we bail you out. And that is who the Catholic Church is: the BearStearns of organized pedophilia – too big, too fat. When the current pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul’s Dick Cheney, he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the Statute of Limitations ran out. And that’s the Church’s attitude: ‘We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,’ which is fine, far be it from me to criticize religion. But just remember one thing: if the Pope was — instead of a religious figure — merely the CEO of a nationwide chain of day care centers, where thousands of employees had been caught molesting kids and then covering it up, he’d be arrested faster than you can say ‘who wants to touch Mr. Wiggle?’
Maher grossly misrepresented the contents of the 2001 letter then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the bishops. He did not tell them to “keep the sex abuse of minors of State of Limitations ran out.” The letter clarified that the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had jurisdiction according to the Church’s law (canon law) to try clerics concerning abuses of the sacraments, and also, as the letter put it, a “delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue [thou shall not commit adultery] with a minor below the age of 18 years.” (Quote excerpted)
I am NOT Catholic and I have a different view of the Pope than Catholics. But I take a look at all the people who have lost jobs this past year making statements about people that were considered tasteless or non-professional and then I see this by Maher and not a peep, not a call for his job? That is unbalanced.
Here is the link until the video is transcoded.
Also see CNS’s article here
bitter April 15, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, culture, Government , add a comment
Help wanted April 15, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , add a commentI’m looking for reliable statistics to draw a parallel in between the alleged lost jobs this year, the number of baby boomers retiring and the unemployment rate.
I became suspicious when I first saw the first job reports for this year and saw lost jobs and no change in the unemployment rate. Knowing this is when the baby boomers are starting to retire, I am wondering if the statistics are being manipulated to appear to be what in fact they’re not.
Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to provide.
Can the democratic primary voter be trusted? April 14, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government , add a commentIt is both a fair and a logical question to ask, isn’t it? It seems the leadership doesn’t think they should be.
It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy. Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
Before 1972, party boss’s such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx wielded inordinate power. But after the 68 convention disaster, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.
Sen. George McGovern, running on an anti-war platform, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.
So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.
Kathy Gill of Newsvine.com shares that:
In 1980, Kennedy (MA) challenged incumbent Democratic president Jimmy Carter (GA). The convention battle was nasty, as the Kennedy camp tried to convince Carter’s delegates to ignore “Rule 11 (H) that bound delegates to support the candidate in whose name they were elected.” The rule was subsequently changed — and this is still the 2008 language: “Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (emphasis added)
Elected Democrats — especially those in the House of Representatives — were concerned about the selection process. Congressman Gillis Long, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus told the Hunt Commission:
We in the House, as the last vestige of Democratic Control at the national level, believe we have a special responsibility to develop new innovative approaches that respond to our Party’s constituencies.
Gov. Hunt (NC) was one of those who felt party leaders should be allowed to exercise independent judgment:
An equally important step would be to permit a substantial number of party leader and elected official delegates to be selected without requiring a prior declaration of preference. We would then return a measure of decision-making power and discretion to the organized party and increase the incentive it has to offer elected officials for serious involvement. (emphasis added)
Who opposed the super-delegate system? Feminists, because they believed super-delegates would be inordinately white and male,and supporters of Kennedy, because the super-delegate system would favor Vice President Mondale.
Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (NY) brokered the compromise: she cut the number of super-delegates in half and “left selection of the Congressional delegates in the hands of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses.” Today, the congressional caucuses do not select all the super-delegates, but all are (or were) elected Democratic officials. In the 2008 contest, there are 3,253 delegates and (about) 796 super-delegates; 2,026 delegates are needed to win.
This is exactly the type of election (or selection) that the super delegate system was designed for. Senator Obama slid through the better part of the primary season as a media darling and the relatively unknown Senator oratory skills and likeability/charisma was a breathe of fresh air from the nasty name calling mud slinging of past campaigns. In reality the campaigns of both parties this year have been the least vitriolic of any that I can remember.
But this campaign has been more of a persona contest than about issues. Hillary has been a polarizing figure, one you really like or really don’t like; very few neutrals. But the thing democrats are not openly talking about is electability. Democrats privately see Obama as a repeat of the 1972 and 1984 defeats and this is the type of situation they established a super delegate system for.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, tried telling superdelegates how they are expected to vote. “The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”
Pelosi had some of her strong arm tactics come home to roost and was quickly reminded, “This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier (link) It really hasnt been a good month for Nancy in foreign matters either (link).
Ok, so super delegates can be a corrective, It is a shadow and type of the electoral college. Now, If your district voted for Obama they will vote for Obama in the convention, right? A definative maybe.
According to the Democratic National Committee, “during candidate right of review, presidential contenders may approve a specific number of delegate candidates in order to ensure they are bona fide supporters.” Essentially, this means presidential contenders don’t want any covert agents on their slate.
There also seems to be confusion surrounding the obligation of delegates to actually vote for their pledged candidate. According to the Democratic National Committee, technically, they don’t have to.
“A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
The party’s rules ask delegates to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” Basically, those delegates may be pledged, but they’re not legally bound to him.
If I was Hillary I would fight until the final ballot because the system is stacked in her favor. The tide is turning now that Obama is being vetted and the super delegate system may be used as designed. What will it do to the democratic party? Wait until Denver and find out. I doubt Dean can contain the candidates. If I was Hillary I would tell Howard to take a hike, wouldn’t you? Especially since super delegates will decide it anyway.
Do SOMETHING ! April 11, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , 3comments
With all the complaints about the windfall profits that oil companies are making and the recent congressional hearings of the oil companies executives in Washington, we must ask ourselves……
1.Who makes more per gallon of gasoline, the oil companies or the United States government?
2. How much per gallon after expenses (profit) does the oil company make on average?
3. How much per gallon of gasoline does the US Government charge you?
4. How much revenue does the US Government make on taxing the remaining profits of the oil companies?
5. If the oil company makes 10% profit, PRE-TAX, and is asked to make less profit per gallon to bring the cost of gas down, should the United States Government in an act of good faith reduce their fee on gas per gallon to be no more than the oil company profit or tax the evil oil companies more for their ALLEGED windfall profits ?
Been Gored lately? April 8, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , add a commentAlgoreism
The lack of critical journalism today still amazes me. But it is becoming harder to believe that people will no longer allow reasonable debate about theories and conjecture. And the aiding and abetting of it by once respected news investigative sources like Sixty Minutes is even more troubling.
I heard Al Gore was going to be on Sixty Minutes so I wanted to see if he was really going to be asked any tough questions in the interview. It is was premised that there were those who did not agree with his theory of climate change, he basically shrugged them off as people who also believe the moon landing was staged and were “flat earthers”. And now Al Gore has spoken-agree with me or else you will be discredited.
This is the same thing that happens with people who challenge Darwin’s theory with any other theory. Ben Stein is promoting Expelled which is to open April 18th that highlights the anti-intellectualism embraced by the current scientific community with forced acceptance of theories that still remain disputed.
Lynn Wolley writes:
“The earth has a fever! Global warming is unequivocal! The world’s scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice! The discussion is over!”
Such demagoguery deserves a name. Let’s call it “Algoreism” after the High Priest of climate change and Nobel Prize laureate Al Gore. Gore has made it his life’s work to scare the hell out of the peoples of the world en route to what is rapidly turning into a neo-socialistic global movement.
Algoreism is based first and foremost of the principle of the Big Lie. That is, if you tell a lie often enough, it transmogrifies into truth. The bigger the lie, the better. And to push the lie forward, you make every attempt to cut off reasonable debate.
In the case of Global Warming, Algoreism has led to two rather incredible scenarios. First, we’re seeing the elite proponents of the movement advocating a return to the horse-and-buggy days for the masses – while they, the rich and powerful, continue to live their jet-setting lives through the purchase of carbon credits. This is mind-numbing hypocrisy.”
In no time in my life since high school have I seen such acceptance of principles without questioning. In a era of relativism , where there are no alleged truths, one must swallow theories that can not be proven and can not believe other theories or do more research, because we have reached the conclusion wanted. Has the public school curriculum suppressed critical thought to eliminate questioning educational theory? Isn’t this the exact false charge they placed against Christians?
Well fortunately, there are still those who do not think Al Gore is god or a scientist, but a man with a political agenda who owns
If you’re one of the flat-earth masses, remember that under the principles of Algoreism, you may not challenge any of these statements. The consensus has been reached. The die is cast.
If you’re still subject to independent thought, you may be interested to know that there are some pretty amazing developments in the field of climate change. The BBC reports that global temperatures will dip slightly this year due to the effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific. In fact, says the BBC, if La Nina continues into the summer, as expected, global temperatures will not have not risen since 1998.
Investor’s Business Daily reports on studies from the Danish Meteorological Institute showing that global temperatures closely track solar cycles. These scientists are more concerned that the earth may be cooling. These revelations hearken back to the famous article in TIME Magazine of June 24, 1974 in which the magazine warned that “…weather aberrations…may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
From the Sydney Morning Herald comes a report that one of the world’s foremost scientists in the field of meteorology is calling Al Gore’s theories “ridiculous.” Dr. William Gray told a packed auditorium at the University of North Carolina that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth. “We’re brainwashing our children,” he said.
And to bust the scientific consensus myth altogether, Lawrence Solomon’s new book “The Deniers” shines the light on many famous scientists who are not in lockstep. We’re talking people like Prof. Hendrik Tennekes, director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, and Dr. Antonino Zichichi, the man who discovered nuclear antimatter.
These are scientists possessed of incredible intellects. And yet, Algoreism holds that they should be treated as pariahs. We already HAVE a consensus; we do not need any more research, studies or opinion. Under Algoreism, the discussion is therefore ended and the time has come to start confiscating anything that contributes to the “reality” of Global Warming.
Say goodbye to your SUV, your pickup, your lawnmower, your gas grill – just about anything that makes life worth living. Prepare for $10 per gallon gasoline – if you can get it at all. In fact, under the tenants of Algoreism, everything will cost more and there will be less of it. But you shouldn’t worry because the earth’s fever will go away and government will take care of you. The government will give you what you need and the old pleasures of life will soon be forgotten.
Now don’t forget, it is yours to sacrifice, not the elites. NO, they have to use energy at higher rates than anyone , because say like in Al Gore’s situation; because he is Al Gore. Oh, and what is in it for big Al? Deborah Barnes reports in The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
Gore’s Circle of Business
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases — but isn’t a provider of — carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.
CCX has about 80 members that are self-confessed emitters of greenhouse gases. They have voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their emissions by the year 2010 to a level 6% below their emissions in 2000. CCX members include Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Motorola, Waste Management and a smattering of other companies, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities and a number of universities. Presumably the members “purchase” carbon offsets on the CCX trading exchange. This means they make contributions to or investments in groups or firms that provide forms of “alternative,” “renewable” and “clean” energy.
CCX also has “participant members” that develop the carbon-offset projects. They have names like Carbon Farmers and Eco-Nomics Incorporated. Still, other participant member groups facilitate, finance and market carbon-offset projects to “sequester, destroy or displace” greenhouse gases. CCX aspires to be the New York Stock Exchange of carbon-emissions trading.
Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.
GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.
Like CCX, the ECX has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a futures market in carbon trading. What’s in it for the companies? They will benefit either by investing in carbon credits or by receiving subsidies for doing so.
Front and Center
Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters — and that’s almost everyone — to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.
We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.
Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore’s carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange.
The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide “carbon-advisory services.” Winrock has received government grants from the EPA, USAID and the Departments of Labor, State and Commerce, as well as from the Nature Conservancy (whose chairman used to be Henry Paulson). Winrock argues that cap-and-trade carbon trading is the best way to prevent a climate change crisis. But consider this: When a non-profit group takes money from oil companies and advocates drilling for oil as a solution to energy shortages, it is certain to be attacked as a tool of Big Oil. So far, the groups linked to Al Gore have avoided similar scrutiny.
Then there’s the World Resources Institute (WRI). It was the first nongovernmental group to join CCX as an associate member (a designation for virtuous groups whose greenhouse-gas emissions are negligible). Many of its donors are CCX members or otherwise support carbon exchanges, including the Shell Foundation, Whole Foods Market, the Nature Conservancy, American Forest and Paper Association, and the Pew Center for Climate Change, as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.
Connect the Dots
In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.
A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate “green” initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out “bad” CO2 emissions released by a company’s activities.
In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore’s firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?
A website affiliated with An Inconvenient Truth invites concerned citizens to personally fight global warming by offsetting their “carbon footprint.” The ways to do that include changing over to fluorescent light bulbs and turning down your thermostat at home. But the website also urges Americans to offset their personal CO2 emissions by “buying” carbon offsets from a native-American-owned company called Native Energy. Native Energy promotes “renewable” wind energy by buying and selling carbon-emission credits and futures for wind turbine projects on Indian reservations.
What the website doesn’t mention is that that the founder of Native Energy, energy industry veteran Tom Boucher, also founded a marketing company called Green Mountain Energy, a CCX associate partner that describes itself as “the nation’s leading retail provider of cleaner energy and carbon-offset solutions. Green Mountain offers residential, business, institutional and governmental customers an easy way to purchase cleaner, affordable electricity products, as well as the opportunity to offset their carbon footprint.” In other words, Green Mountain sells advisory services to energy users, alerting them to opportunities to contribute to or invest in groups like Native Energy.
So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.
Gore’s Non-profit Agitators
In 2006 Al Gore established his own global-warming non-profit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, a 501(3)(c) charitable organization. The group favors more stringent environmental policy regulations on the private sector and especially wants cap-and-trade legislation so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits.
The alliance CEO is Cathy Zoi, a former environmental advisor to President Bill Clinton. Gore is chairman of the board, which also includes environmental activist Theodore Roosevelt IV, Clinton EPA Director Carol Browner, the President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and Reagan-era EPA Director Lee Thomas. Gore has reportedly given the alliance $250,000 and has said he will donate his share of the profits from An Inconvenient Truth to the group. “
Hat tip to Steve at Mezzanineview for the following,
“Quite a few people have a hard time getting their brain around Global Warming™. I admit that it took me a time to grasp the facts of it, as opposed to the dribs-and-drabs sound bites we get from an essentially ignorant media. In my darker moments I smell a media conspiracy but that’s another subject altogether.
But this next bit is important. The National Center for Policy Analysis has produced a very simple to understand Global Warming Primer. Go here: [Link]. The primer is based on a review of currently available scientific data.
I suggest that anybody who is even minutely interested in GW to peruse it. It is simple to understand (using graphs and charts) and the facts are unimpeachable. I found pages 5-8 interesting with page 8 being the payoff.
Obviously, this primer was compiled before the recent research that is signaling that we are now entering a cooling period (reduced sun activity) that could end-up being quite cold. More on that later.”
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
Creating a market
Insurance is an example of a government mandated forced market. If one drives a car, they must have auto insurance, if one finances a home they must have homeowners insurance. The best way to start a whole new market is for the government to mandate it. And who better than a professional politican who has the connections and knows how the system works?
As Ms Barnes concludes,
“The President is unwilling to call for mandatory nationwide emissions rules and instead favors voluntary carbon-emission cuts in the private sector. This is deeply frustrating to all the brokers, wheeler-dealers and interest groups that want to jump on the cap-and-trade bandwagon. There are billions of dollars to be made in trading emissions credits. But first the federal government must force everyone to play the game.
As for Al Gore, the former Vice President brings emotional fervor to his carbon crusade. He travels the country displaying charts and graphs, quoting scientific experts and appealing to philosophers and religious leaders to save the planet from global warming. But he says nothing about his business partners who yearn to trade on the emerging carbon market. And the media pay no attention to the companies offering “carbon advisory services” that will profit from federal carbon emission controls.”
When in doubt, follow the money. Algoreism…no thank you.
Homeschool Ruling Vacated; Court Will Reconsider April 8, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, culture, Government , add a comment|
In doing some promised follow-up, I just went to the Pacific Justice Institute and there was this notice posted. Special Bulletin: Homeschool Ruling Vacated; Court Will Reconsider |
||
| Pacific Justice Institute has just received word that the court ruling which declared most forms of homeschooling unlawful in California has been vacated. This means the Rachel L. decision, which has sparked a nationwide uproar, will not go into effect as it is currently written. The Second District Court of Appeal has instead decided to re-hear the case, with a new round of briefings due in late April. It would likely take the court several additional months to schedule oral argument and issue another decision.Today’s announcement by the court that it will re-hear the case reinforces PJI’s position that homeschooling families should continue their current programs without fear of governmental interference. PJI will be actively involved in the upcoming briefs and will continue to post updates and special bulletins on this vital issue.Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has decided to re-hear the Rachel L. case, and we are hopeful that the fundamental rights of these parents, our clients Sunland Christian School, and the tens of thousands of homeschooling families in California will be honored. Homeschooling parents should be treated as heroes - not hunted down or harassed by their own government.”
Online Petition to Governor Schwarzenegger http://www.petitionstoday.org/ ______________________
_________________________ I posted the vacated appeal here In re RACHEL L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. JONATHAN L. et al, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. B192878 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE 160 Cal. App. 4th 624; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 292 |
||
No right to educate your own child? April 7, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, culture, Government , add a commentI should not be stunned, yet I am. I should not be shocked, but I am. The article below by John Stossel is quoted in full . Hopefully the case will be on Lexis shortly.
I will reiterate what I said to some homeschoolers earlier–If there is ever a case for civil disobedience that could be effectively applied, this is it. If 166,000 cases demanded a jury trial on their case in California, it would overload the system. Use the math to your advantage. If you do not fight for your rights you will lose them.
By JOHN STOSSEL
“THE CAT is finally out of the bag. A California appellate court, ruling that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children, pinned its decision on this ominous quotation from a 47-year-old case, “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”
There you have it; a primary purpose of government schools is to train schoolchildren “in loyalty to the state.” Somehow that protects “the public welfare” more than allowing parents to homeschool their children, even though homeschooled kids routinely outperform government-schooled kids academically. In 2006, homeschooled students had an average ACT composite score of 22.4. The national average was 21.1
Justice H. Walter Croskey said, “California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.” If that is the law in California, then Charles Dickens’s Mr. Bumble is right: “the law is a ass, a idiot.”
The California Constitution says, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.”
That doesn’t appear to rule out homeschooling, unless you read it as a grant of absolute power to politicians.
Admittedly, the education code is vague. It requires children to attend public school or a private school (where certified teachers are not required). But they can also be taught by state-credentialed tutors. Homeschooling is not directly addressed. There’s disagreement over what that means. The court and the teachers’ union claim homeschooling is illegal unless the teaching parent has state credentials.
Homeschooling parents, many of whom have declared their homes private schools, say what they do is legal. Up till now that’s been fine with the California Department of Education. And California reportedly has 166,000 homeschoolers.
Nationwide, the National Center for Education Statistics says that in 2003 (the latest year for which it has a number), almost 1.1 million children were being homeschooled. The numbers keep increasing, so clearly homeschooling parents think their kids get something better at home than they would from public schools.
The Los Angeles Times isn’t sure where the state law stands. “If no such right (to homeschool) exists, as a court ruled, the Legislature should make it an option,” the newspaper’s editorial board said. The editorial wondered why parents who teach one or two children at home need credentials, while private-school teachers in classes full of kids don’t.
The danger in having the legislature clarify the law is that the legislature is controlled by politicians sympathetic to the teachers’ union, which despises homeschooling. “(H)ome-schoolers fear that any attempt to protect home-schooling would end up outlawing it,” writes Orange County Register columnist Steven Greenhut.
It reminds me of what New York Judge Gideon Tucker said in the 19th Century, “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
This particular case is muddied by suspicions of child abuse, but as the Times said, the court improperly “used a single example of possible child abuse to throw the book at tens of thousands of home schoolers.”
I think the state court is looking at the state Constitution upside down. The court finds no constitutional right to homeschool one’s children. But in a free country, people are free to do anything not expressly prohibited by law. If the Constitution is silent about homeschooling, then the right is reserved to the people. That’s how the Framers of the U.S. Constitution said things are supposed to work.
Last week, the appellate court surprised everyone by agreeing to rehear the case.
On top of that, state Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell says he thinks homeschooling is legal and favors choice in education.
That’s reasonable news. But why is education the business of government?
It’s taken for granted that the state is every child’s ultimate parent, but there’s no justification for that in a free society. Parents may not be perfect — some are pretty bad — but a cold, faceless bureaucracy is no better.
Let’s hope the court gets it right in June.”
John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ “20/20″ and the author of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.”
Should candidates release their income tax returns? April 4, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government , add a commentWhat are your feelings concerning the candidates being asked to release their federal income tax returns? Do you think it’s good precedent?
I’m not convinced that this it is. I have seen too many incidents since 9/11 of “if you don’t have anything to hide than what are you worried about?” Is it me, or has the right to one’s privacy just seem to be eroding? Someone would fall asleep if they were snooping me and my communications, the easiest thing they could do is read my blogs for something racy, but with nothing to hide, it is the right to privacy.
Concerning income tax, on one hand, it does show the sources of their income, how much they donate to charity, and![[Image]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/it_taxes-104006292005183453.gif){kind=small}
what their final percentage of income tax ratio is. Personally, I believe it is overly invasive into the candidates spouse’s income and may even discourage investments that would yield good tax advantages for fear of impropriety. I believe our process already discourages qualified people from running from office
Below you’ll find the candidates federal income tax returns as supplied by the candidates. HAT-TIP to the Wall Street Journal.for the charts below.
CLINTONS’ TAX RETURNS
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007
OBAMAS’ TAX RETURNS
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006
WASHINGTON WIRE
• The Write $tuff for the Clintons
• The Clintons’ Yucaipa Millions
Speeches that inspire you April 4, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a commentI had just finished reading a post about Dr, KIng’s infamous speech when I started to reflect on a speech that had impacted me.
In 1981 we were invited up to see my sister-in-laws husband graduate from West Point. Upon arriving for the graduation we saw there was Secret Service there and that peoples bags were being searched. It was because the President of the United States was giving the commencement speech.
You have to remember the climate in 1981 also. Being newly married , and first level management, the 18% mortgage interest rate was making home-ownership seem like a thing of the past and unemployment was up, so employment security was down. We were in a post-Viet Nam era, the military had been downsized and the hostages had just been released from Iran, the Soviet Union was still a threat and they were uncertain times.
I was shocked when I found these videos on You Tube.