Another Win For The Supreme Court

Does anyone remember this gem from 1975:

This is a kid-oriented explanation of how laws are supposed to be passed in America. Unfortunately, many of our laws are currently being passed by unelected bureaucrats in government agencies. These bureaucrats are not held accountable by the people because they never have to run for office. Well, on Thursday the Supreme Court took a small step to bring America back to the lawmaking procedure established by our Founding Fathers.

Red State posted an article on Thursday reporting the decision.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court sharply curtailed the power of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court sided with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

The Court found that Congress had not authorized the EPA to induce a shift toward cleaner energy sources.

“Congress did not grant EPA…the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” the majority wrote.
The ruling was spurred by an appeal to a decision last year that struck down a Trump-era power plant rule.

In appealing that decision, West Virginia asked the court to consider whether the EPA has the authority to try to push the entire system away from coal and reshape the country’s electric grid.

The article notes:

Justice Kagan in her dissent acted as though it was the Court’s responsibility to address climate change, rather than interpret the law and the Constitution.

Maybe she needs to go back and reread the Constitution.

If the Biden administration wants to change the source of America’s energy, they need to ask Congress to pass a bill to do that. Elected officials need to be held accountable for the laws they make. Bureaucrats are not elected and cannot be held accountable. That is why our laws are supposed to be made by Congress and not by bureaucrats.

Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud

On Wednesday, Breitbart reported the following:

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) argued that the Senate gun legislation “paves the way in the future to look at” other gun control provisions.

Host Anderson Cooper asked, “Well, there [are] probably a lot of people who wanted this to — obviously, you said you wanted this to go farther in terms of gun safety or gun control. What do you say to those who say that this doesn’t go far enough and that this may make it harder to try to get further changes in the future?”

Klobuchar responded, “We have worked on this for decades. And after Parkland, I sat across from Donald Trump at the White House, along with a number of senators, he said he was going to do something about background checks. I still have the piece of paper, eight times, nine times, he said it…nothing happened. After Sandy Hook, nothing happened. And when you talk to the families who have been working on this for so long, they understand how difficult this has been, how disappointing this has been. So, to start with something that’s going to save lives, even if a particular provision wouldn’t have saved their own babies’ lives, that is an act of love and generosity of spirit that you hear from the families of those that have lost loved ones. That’s why we’re moving ahead. And I think it actually paves the way in the future to look at some of these other provisions. But if you do nothing and you just go home, then we’ve got nothing. And that’s why it’s so important to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis.”

The current bill is unconstitutional. It contains red flag laws which allow the government to seize property without giving the property owner due process. Red flag laws have the potential of creating the same kind of mass hysteria that fueled the Salem Witch Trials. They could also be easily misused by citizens or the government to disarm people they did not like or who disagreed with government policies. Any Republican who votes for this bill should be voted out of office.

Rewriting The Constitution

On Wednesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article citing a recent quote by President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden opened his remarks announcing a police reform executive order by remembering the victims of the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting and calling on the Senate to confirm his nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

“To state the obvious: I’m sick and tired of what’s going on,” Biden said. He said the Senate could help ensure existing federal gun laws are enforced by confirming Steve Dettelbach as ATF director. Biden’s previous nominee, David Chipman, was withdrawn last year amid Senate opposition.

…But the president also argued the Second Amendment had limits, saying “you couldn’t own a cannon” when it was ratified and that there were gun control measures that could be passed that would address the violence without infringing on constitutional rights.

“The Second Amendment’s not absolute,” he said.

Well, not so fast. The Second Amendment is part of The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because some of the original thirteen colonies refused to sign on to the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was added (North Carolina was one of those colonies). The Bill of Rights was added to limit the power of government and protect the rights of Americans. The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms to Americans–it prevents the government from taking away that right. Any executive order or law that limits the rights of Americans to bear arms or that creates a gun registry is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment does absolutely affirm the rights of Americans to bear arms.

Has it occurred to President Biden that the gun wasn’t the problem–a very disturbed young man who wanted to kill children was the problem. If he had not had a gun, he would have found another way. The Boston Marathon bombers used a pressure cooker. The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airplanes. The weapon is not the problem–the person holding it is.

Taking Down The Guardrails

As much as I have at times hated the Senate filibuster, I have come to regard it as a necessary evil. When the Senate is split between the two parties, the filibuster forces negotiations. Sometimes that does not end well–the pork flows–but other times a worthwhile compromise is reached or a radical piece of legislation is avoided. The filibuster does have some basic validity. However, there are those who would like to move it out of the way in order to pass a law that is obviously unconstitutional.

On January 3rd, One America News reported the following:

The U.S. Senate will vote this month on whether to change its rules to make it easier to pass a bill protecting voting rights, top Democrat Chuck Schumer said on Monday, days before the anniversary of the deadly Jan. 6 attack the Capitol building.

Schumer said the narrowly Democratic-controlled chamber needed to consider a change to its filibuster https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-is-us-senate-filibuster-why-is-everyone-talking-about-it-2021-10-06 rule after a wave of Republican-led states last year passed new restrictions on voting, inspired by Republican former President Donald Trump’s false claims that his 2020 election defeat was the result of widespread fraud.

“Much like the violent insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol nearly one year ago, Republican officials in states across the country have seized on the former president’s Big Lie about widespread voter fraud to enact anti-democratic legislation,” Schumer said in a letter to Democratic senators on Monday. “We can and must take strong action to stop this anti-democratic march.”

First of all, voter id requirements do not restrict voting. In America, 99.9 percent of Americans have some form of photo identification, and photo identification is violable free in states where it is required. This is not a voting rights bill–this is a protect-the-Democrat-majority bill.

Article I Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

SECTION. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at
any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as
to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and
such Meeting shall be [on the first Monday in December,]*
unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

The voting rights bill will protect voter fraud. I will be the end of our two-party system as mail in ballots will be universally used to create a Democrat majority whether it actually exists or not. This is a bad bill that needs to be stopped.

Sharia Law In America

There are many aspects of Sharia Law that are different from American Constitutional law. One of the more obvious is the conflict between the concept of free speech and the penalty for blasphemy. On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about a bill that was recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives that will move America in the direction of Sharia Law.

Congress.gov (you have to go to the site and put in the bill number as the specific link expires) describes HR 5665 as follows:

Passed House (12/14/2021)

Combating International Islamophobia Act

This bill establishes within the Department of State the Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia and addresses related issues.

The office shall monitor and combat acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement in foreign countries. The bill establishes the position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia, who shall head the office.

The bill also requires certain existing annual reports to Congress about human rights and religious freedom in foreign countries to include information about Islamophobia, such as information about (1) acts of physical violence or harassment of Muslim people, (2) instances of propaganda in government and nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote hatred or incite violence against Muslim people, and (3) actions taken by a country’s government to respond to such acts. The office shall coordinate and assist in preparing these portions of the reports.

No funds made available pursuant to the bill may be used to promote or endorse a boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement ideology (i.e., economic measures against Israel or Israel-related individuals or organizations) or used to promote or endorse a Muslim ban.

It is no surprise that the bill is sponsored by Ilhan Omar.

The American Thinker reports:

The actual text of the bill not only seeks to eradicate blasphemy against Islam around the world – and solely against Islam at that – but even requires the federal government to reorganize some portions of the State Department along the lines of an Islamic religious institution which will be responsible for interpreting the Quran.  For example, the text of the bill mandates that “[t]he Secretary of State shall establish within the Department of State an Office” and the “purpose” of the office is described as “[m]onitoring and combating acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur in foreign countries.”  That is, the State Department is required to create an office that is a cross between George Orwell’s Big Brother and the Taliban.

The word ‘combat’ in the text of the law is problematic but fits in perfectly with the concept of waging violent jihad against the countries deemed to have committed blasphemy against Islam.  Almost every dictionary defines the word primarily as an action pertaining to war.  While the internet firm Google’s dictionary defines ‘combat’ as “fighting between armed forces,” Cambridge Dictionary defines the word as “a fight, especially during a war.”  According to Collins Dictionary, “combat is fighting that takes place in a war.”  This is no hyperbole as the State Department has a long history of supporting Islamic terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.  Former Assistant Secretary of State, Robin Raphel, ran her office as though it were an outpost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and she lost her security clearance when she was investigated for counterintelligence activities.  Little wonder then that Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, used the term “Rogue State Department” and President Donald Trump described the State Department as the “Deep State Department.

This law is not consistent with our Constitution.

What Constitution?

The President takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately we currently have a President that routinely ignores the Constitution.

On September 20th, The Daily Wire reported:

The Biden administration is using a legal tactic to continue denying COVID-19 relief to farmers based on the color of their skin, even after multiple courts ruled the practice was unconstitutional.

Braden Boucek, director of litigation at the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which is representing one of the white farmers who filed a lawsuit, wrote at The Federalist that the administration is still discriminating against white farmers, and the injunctions issued in Florida, Tennessee, and Wisconsin are now moot.

“After taking an uninterrupted string of losses in defending the program’s racial preferences, the government has changed tactics. It has argued that it is wasteful and unfair to force it, the United States of America represented by the Department of Justice (the world’s largest law office), to have to defend its unconstitutional program in multiple places at one time. Just remember this the next time you need an extension on your taxes,” Boucek wrote. “Largely, this change in tactics has worked. In case after case, courts have stayed their cases. Those nationwide injunctions you may have read about? They are pretty much now moot or dissolved outright. The government staved off a much-needed reckoning.”

The program in question, which was supposed to provide COVID relief to those affected by the pandemic, was made available only to nonwhite applicants, who would have their loans fully forgiven and receive an additional 20% of the loan as a bonus.

There is one case, however, where a judge rejected the government’s request to stay – in Tennessee. As Boucek explained, farmer Rob Holman filed a lawsuit after learning he was ineligible for funds because he is white, even though his farm was hit hard by the pandemic. Boucek noted that the “government doesn’t get to complain about being overwhelmed by pro bono law firms, then put Holman’s case on the shelf for years while it chooses where and how it would like to litigate.”

The article concludes:

According to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by civil rights attorney Hans Bader, it appears the Biden administration knew the program’s racial preferences were unconstitutional. Bader reported:

In a June 2 email, Lawrence Lucas of Justice for Black Farmers Group closes by noting, ‘Please remember it was the Biden/Harris transition team that you headed up that told us that debt relief for Black farmers was ‘unconstitutional.’” That’s a reference to when Vilsack was managing the Agriculture Department’s transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration.

The email can be found at this link. It was released on August 18, in response to a lawsuit against the Agriculture Department by the Bader Family Foundation. It sued the Agriculture Department for failing to respond to a FOIA request from it and Liberty Unyielding.

A President who ignores the Constitution deserves to be impeached. However, with the current make-up of Congress that is highly unlikely.

When Tyrants Gain Power

Just for the record, Dr. Anthony Fauci is not an elected official. He does not have the power to make laws. Americans need to remember this when he speaks. However, Americans also need to remember that there are those in Washington with the power to make laws who believe everything Dr. Fauci says.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about a recent statement by Dr. Fauci.

The article reports:

I’m more worried about what is happening behind the scenes in the non-COVID universe while everyone is distracted by the purposeful weaponization of the healthcare institutions.  It’s the other thing, the unseen activity, that is most troublesome when the leftists are this entrenched on a singular narrative.

In this clip from Anthony Fauci on ABC This Week Sunday [Rumble Link], the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, claims that individual rights no longer exist during the era of COVID-19.  When you consider the mindset of the far-left, his opinion on communal rights -vs- individual rights is right in line with the collectivist perspective.  These people are dangerous.

This is what Dr. Fauci said:

The fact is, if you get infected, even if you are without symptoms, you very well may infect another person who may be vulnerable … So in essence, you are encroaching on their individual rights.”

The article notes:

It appears from the visible evidence, the Delta variant of COVID-19 may well be more transmissible; perhaps even more transmissible due to increased shedding from people who are vaccinated carriers of the virus. However, the death rate is lower than the traditional flu.

Unfortunately a lot of the reactions to the coronavirus have turned our Constitutional freedoms upside down. There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution that allows the government to shut down a private business or control the mask-wearing of the patrons who enter that business. These matters cannot even be decided by local governments unless there is a visible public nuisance. The rights of American citizens and business owners are theoretically protected by the U.S. Constitution. Unless we begin to elect representatives at all levels of government who understand that principle, we are in danger of losing those rights.

Will The Tenth Amendment Stand?

The American Spectator posted an article today about the recently passed coronavirus relief bill.

The article reports:

Well, that didn’t take long. The first major bill passed by the new Democratic congressional majority and signed into law by our new president on March 11 had already provoked a constitutional challenge by March 17. The attorney general of Ohio filed suit against the Biden administration last Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) unconstitutionally and coercively limits the right of states to manage their internal fiscal policies: “This suit challenges an unconstitutional provision in the American Rescue Plan Act — a provision that allows the federal government to commandeer state taxing authority.”

If the use of “commandeer” in this context seems vaguely familiar, it’s probably a vestigial memory of the Obama administration’s failed attempt to exert equally questionable control over state budgets using the mandatory Medicaid provision of Obamacare. Fortunately, in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that such coercion is unconstitutional. Ohio’s ARPA challenge involves a provision whereby $195.3 billion in fiscal recovery aid will be distributed among the states and the District of Columbia. Beyond its effect on the federal budget deficit, this doesn’t seem particularly pernicious. The real problem arises from the restrictions the provision imposes on the power of the states to reduce taxes:

A State or territory shall not use the funds provided under this section or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such State or territory resulting from a change in law, regulation or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.

This constitutionally dubious language was inserted into the legislation by the Democrats at the last minute, the New York Times reports, for the express purpose of interfering with the ability of the states to make changes in their tax codes. It is a deliberate and insolent attack by the federal government on state sovereignty and the doctrine of federalism. As Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost puts it in his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, “The Tax Mandate thus gives the States a choice: they can have either the badly needed federal funds or their sovereign authority to set state tax policy. But they cannot have both. In our current economic crisis, that is no choice at all. It is a metaphorical ‘gun to the head.’ ”

The coronavirus relief bill actually punishes fiscally responsible states and rewards fiscally irresponsible states, so it is no surprise that the law would actually limit the ability of states to improve their economies by lowering taxes. In the world envisioned by the current Democrat party, we would all pay more taxes and government would have more control over our lives. Never in the history of America have Americans been given government guidelines as to their activities in their own backyards on Independence Day. I fear that this is only the beginning of the power grab by those currently in control of Washington.

Further Dividing Americans With The Covid Relief Bill

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about some of the items in the Covid Relief Bill.

The article reports:

Polls show most Americans support the federal COVID-19 relief bill. But if they knew what’s in it, they might feel differently. The bill is an affront to the American ideal of equal treatment under law — and a slap in the face for people who want everyone helped fairly.   

Section 1005 of the bill offers “socially disadvantaged” farm owners total debt forgiveness of up to hundreds of thousands of no-strings dollars per farmer. But white men needn’t apply. The bill’s definition of “socially disadvantaged,” drawn from elsewhere in federal law, limits aid to racial groups who faced historic discrimination.

Newly elected Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who proposed the measure, says it will make up for years of discrimination. Sorry, senator, but this is discrimination.

Discrimination likewise mars the bill’s aid to restaurants. It grants restaurant owners up to $5 million per facility to offset losses caused by lockdowns. That’s a lifeline for restaurants barely hanging on.

Here’s the hitch: Only women, veterans and owners of “socially and economically disadvantaged” concerns (again, defined racially elsewhere in federal law) may apply during the program’s first three weeks. Most white males go to the back of the line, even if their needs are more pressing.  

These items in the bill need to be challenged in court–our Constitution states that we are equal under the law (a principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment). This bill creates a situation where some people are more equal than others.

The article continues:

The bill looks more like reparations than COVID relief. It says farm aid is “for the purposes of addressing the longstanding and widespread discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers.” Truth is, farmers have been struggling for a decade, and more than half lose money year after year. Minority-owned farms are generally less indebted than those owned by whites, though diminished access to credit may be part of the reason. White and minority farmers alike need debt relief.

Sen. Chuck Schumer crisscrossed the Empire State last weekend, bragging about his role in the relief bill and claiming credit for the $25 billion in aid to restaurants. He warned that 54 percent of New York restaurant owners won’t be able to survive the next six months without help. “They’re needed, because they’re one of the biggest employers in every community in New York, whether it’s urban, suburban . . . or rural.”

That’s the point, Senator. Instead of dwelling on racial or gender equity, the relief bill should focus on ensuring economic survival. All will benefit.

The article concludes:

As Congress debates the relief bill, Republicans should protest the racist giveaways. They’ve hardly been mentioned, and the public is unaware. More are on the way: Warnock and four other Democrats, including New York’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, introduced a bill on Feb. 5 to give 32 million acres of farmland to black farmers over the next 10 years. None to whites. Reparations without the label. What’s next?

Racism won’t cure past racism. And it won’t unite the nation.

Voters need to wake up before the 2022 elections and remove the people who support this sort of legal inequality. This bill and those like it will only divide America.

 

 

A College That Has Chosen To Follow The Law

Yesterday The Daily Signal reported the following:

The Citadel, the public military college in Charleston, South Carolina, has announced it will require all cadets to complete a class on the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents beginning in the 2020-21 academic year.

The article notes that South Carolina has a law requiring teaching of the Constitution and other founding documents that has been in place for 96 years.

The article reports:

The Citadel’s decision to comply with the law is in stark contrast to most other colleges in South Carolina that have flouted and balked at the law.

For example, the University of South Carolina—the state’s largest public college—called the law “archaic” and refused to comply with it. The university said a required class on the Constitution is too financially burdensome—yet somehow manages to finance classes on the history of the devil and Tailgating 101.

Instead of complying with the law’s mandate of a yearlong class, the University of South Carolina said it hands out pocket Constitutions on Constitution Day. The university has not said whether a student can pass Tailgating 101 by being handed a hot dog at a football game.

Similarly, Clemson University—the state’s second-largest public college—pretends to comply with the law by requiring students to watch a one-hour video about the Constitution as a single module within its freshman diversity class. Clemson claims the video is a sufficient equivalent to the law’s mandate of a yearlong class.

Concerned about the “optics” of breaking state law, Clemson has sent taxpayer-funded lobbyists to the state Legislature to “kill” the requirement to teach the Constitution.

Has it occurred to any of the esteemed college presidents who choose not to follow the law that one of the reasons for the lack of appreciation for the freedoms we enjoy as Americans might be the lack of knowledge of the Constitution and the the founding documents of America? Has it occurred to any of the esteemed college presidents that their students have no idea of the price the signers of the Declaration of Independence paid for their signatures on that document?

I am the daughter of a Clemson graduate who attended the school when it was a military college. When my father graduated, he was shipped to Europe as part of the D-Day landing. That is the heritage of Clemson. They need to remember that heritage and teach what their graduates fought for.

The Supreme Court Gets It Right

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs. The court ruled that that families have a right to seek the best educational opportunities for their children, by preventing states from blocking the participation of religiously affiliated schools in state school choice programs. The decision was the usual 5-4 split–only this time the five were in favor of not discriminating against religious schools.

The article reports:

Tuesday’s decision in Espinoza removed the largest state constitutional obstacle by holding that so-called Blaine Amendments cannot be used to deny choice to parents.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states no longer may prevent parents from choosing religious schools if they are participating in a school choice program.

“A state need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools simply because they are religious,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court in Espinoza.

This decision struck a blow to the notoriously anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment in Montana’s Constitution that sanctioned explicit discrimination against religious schools in funding. Montana’s discrimination hurt families who have a wide variety of values and preferences when it comes to their children’s education.

As the Supreme Court had previously noted, Blaine Amendments have an “ignoble” history. The amendments are named after Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine, who in 1875 sought a federal constitutional prohibition of aid to “sectarian” schools.

The article concludes:

In Mitchell v. Helms, Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments: “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza took us one step closer to achieving that goal.

Now is the time for states to cast aside these 19th-century rules rooted in prejudice that unfairly punish religious families, students, and schools. The Constitution requires states to provide a level playing field for religious and secular education.

The legal impediment to school choice programs is now gone, and it’s up to state legislatures to move forward advancing education choice.

The court made it clear that policymakers across the country now have the power to enact robust school choice programs. They should do just that.

If the education establishment wants American children in public schools, they have a responsibility to make public schools better. Until then, parents who want their children educated will seek out voucher programs that will allow them to send their children to schools that teach the basics–not get bogged down by the social justice trend of the day.

This Is Frightening

The coronavirus is scary. It is a silent plague that has caused many deaths in America. Unfortunately in many areas of the country it has also caused the death of compliance to the U.S. Constitution. On Sunday The Western Journal posted an article illustrating the latest constitutional victim of the coronavirus.

The article reports:

Churches in Kansas City, Missouri, that reopen for in-person services are required to make a list of everyone who attends, according to new city rules that were denounced by Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

“In-person religious gatherings (including weddings and funerals) may resume, subject to the 10/10/10 rule (if held inside) or limited to 50 people outside, provided social distancing precautions are followed and event organizers maintain records of all attendees, according to the city’s website.

The article cites Mat Stayer’s reaction:

Staver, a religious rights advocate, erupted at the new rules in a post on Liberty Counsel’s website.

“I am running out of adjectives to describe how completely insane the tyrannical abuses launched by state governors and local officials against pastors and churches are becoming. It is as if these leaders never bothered to so much as glance at the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. They seem to be governing from some make-believe, dystopian viewpoint,” he wrote.

“The Germans did this very thing to Jews – collecting the names and locations of all known synagogue attendees – in the early days of the Nazi regime,” he wrote.

“Never in our wildest dreams could we have imagined Nazi-like measures designed to surveil, track and spy upon what was once a FREE American people. Yet that is exactly what Kansas City’s misguided government officials are now demanding,” he said.

Is the city also keeping  list of people who go to WalMart or Lowe’s? This is totally unconstitutional and needs to be immediately challenged legally.

Congress Shall Make No Law…

Townhall posted an article today calling attention to one aspect of the response to the coronavirus that needs to be looked at closely.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The headline of the Townhall article states, “If ‘Congress Shall Make No Law…’ Why Can Governors?” That is a very good question. I realize that the coronavirus is real and that it is a threat to certain groups of our population. But it is not a threat to everyone. There are people who could easily continue to go about their business without negatively impacting anyone, yet that has not been allowed to happen. If my Facebook feed is accurate, many small businesses have been shut down while the big box stores have been allowed to remain open. Assuming small business owners can practice social distancing in their stores, that makes no sense (unless there is an ulterior motive).

The article at Townhall notes:

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That’s unambiguous. Not “pretty unambiguous,” just unambiguous. Full stop. Yet governors across the country are ignoring or suspending almost every one of those rights enumerated at the top of the Bill of Rights, with little to no pushback from the press, which just happens to be the only part of the first two amendments not under assault.

It’s actually not under assault — it’s gone — suspended indefinitely in the name of “the common good.” Governors have declared coronavirus emergencies and wiped clean the rights our nation was founded for the purpose of putting those rights beyond the reach of government.

These suspensions were not done by vote; they were done with the stroke of a pen. Constitutionally, they can’t be done by either. There is no provision of the Constitution allowing for the waiving of rights under any condition, but most legislatures are content to sit back and watch this all proceed without their fingerprints anywhere near it.

Governors made a point of canceling Easter services, even at drive-in churches set up in parking lots. “You’re not allowed to leave your home,” they declared. The irony of placing innocent Americans under house arrest while releasing prisoners in the name of “compassion” was lost on journalists too busy expressing indignation that people might want to worship even in the face of a pandemic.

The article concludes:

Now they’re taking to the halls of capitals, to the streets. Police are being ordered to put down offenders demanding their liberty back. Many police departments are refusing, but an alarming number of them are complying. It was impossible just two months ago for the answer to the jailhouse question of, “What are you in for?” to be answered with, “I went to the beach,” yet this is the reality under many Democrat Governors.

We will wrestle our freedoms back and soon. When we do, it’s important to remember not only who took them and why, but who tried not to give them back. From Maine to Michigan, from Illinois to California, they were progressive Democrats. They didn’t see coronavirus as a tragedy. They saw it as an opportunity. As Hillary Clinton said last week, “this would be a terrible crisis to waste.”

This is the Democrats’ nature: they know better than you do what you need, they are better than you are, smarter than you. Coronavirus just allowed a peek into their minds. Individuals are irrelevant to the left, as are your rights. The Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, by any means available, not the restraint on their power it was written to be. Remember that come November…or you soon won’t be allowed to say it.

Our freedom is in danger. We need to wake up quickly.

When Life Gives You Lemons…

I think we all admire people who are able to turn a difficult situation into something enjoyable. The good news story of the week illustrates that principle.

Yesterday Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line Blog that illustrates one aspect of the coronavirus lock-down that most of us had not considered.

The article reports:

But no, by far the the best stand-up-and-cheer-for-‘Murica story this week is “Team Allegedly Sets New ‘Cannonball Run’ Record on Empty Highways During Coronavirus Lockdown.” Now that’s making the best of the bad situation, American-style! Me, I’m getting three weeks to the gallon on my car right now, and so admire and envy the lust for speed on the open road.

But it sets me to wondering whether the American economy will put the pedal to the metal when the lockdown ends, such that we’ll experience an economic Cannonball Run. We’re in uncharted territory, but unfortunately I wouldn’t bet big on a big boom coming out the other side.

Let’s consider one tiny bit of microeconomic data, and one bit of lagging macroeconomic data, that ought to make us worry. The microeconomic data is my own monthly credit card statement. For the first time in my life, I’m looking forward to getting my monthly credit card statement later this month. I’ve been too busy to check online, but I expect I’ll have a credit balance for the first time ever, on account of all the plane fights and hotel rooms I’ve had canceled and refunded over the last month, on top of the restaurant meals I’m not having and other retail purchases. I’m not even buying many books at the moment, since Amazon and other online sellers are delaying book shipments in favor of more urgent items (though for me, what could be more urgent than another book?).

Unfortunately the article ends on a discouraging note:

The point is, even if 80 percent of the pre-crisis economy comes back by mid-summer, you’re still looking at a major recession, if not a near depression. Mauldin, by the way, has been predicting for the last couple years that a recession would see the federal budget deficit soar to $2 trillion. Now that would be regarded as “the good old days.” This year’s federal budget deficit is more likely to be over $4 trillion. And that may be optimistic.

I am hoping he is wrong. What we may see is a slingshot effect–people who have been holding on to their money because of uncertainty may feel comfortable spending some of what they have been holding on to. There will also be the desire to get out of the house–go anywhere! The American economy is consumer driven. If the consumers come out of hiding when the lock-down ends, I believe the economy will recover by the fall. I am also hopeful that various areas of the economy will begin to open up in the very near future. A lot of what has gone on under this pandemic is illegal under the U.S. Constitution. The thing I fear more than an economic downturn is the precedents that are being set that may pave the way for limiting the God-given rights of Americans.

Losing Our Constitutional Rights One At A Time

As we celebrate Resurrection Day tomorrow, most of us won’t be gathered in our churches to celebrate. In some places we won’t even be able to do celebrations reminiscent of drive-in movies where we gather in our cars and listen to the sermon on our car radios (with the windows up even). That is an unnecessary restriction that some states have imposed and that the citizens of those states are tolerating. We really need to rethink this.

Meanwhile, The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that Governor Northam of Virginia has signed several pieces of gun control legislation into law.

The article reports:

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed several pieces of gun control legislation into law, including mandating background checks on every gun sale, ordering reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and reinstating the state’s former one-handgun-purchase-a-month policy.

…Following Virginia Democrats’ takeover of both chambers of the state legislature in the 2019 elections, the party put forth a slew of gun control measures to be considered in the 2020 legislative session.

The signing of the slate of bills comes nearly three months following the rally of over 20,000 gun rights activists in the Virginia Capitol to protest the legislation. The gun laws will go into effect on July 1.

The article mentions two of the laws that did not pass:

Two major gun control bills, the assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limits, were proposed and debated while Virginia lawmakers were in session but, ultimately, failed to pass both chambers of the state legislature. However, supporters of the bills have advocated to bring them back in the next session.

Northam also proposed amendments to legislation currently being debated in the Virginia state legislature’s upper and lower chambers.

Senate Bill 35 and House Bill 421 would enable municipalities to regulate firearms in public buildings, parks, recreation centers, and during permitted events. Senate Bill 479 and House Bill 1,004 would bar individuals subject to protective orders from possessing firearms, require them to turn over their firearms within 24 hours, and would require them to certify to the court that the weapons were turned in.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That right was put in there to protect Americans from an overreaching government.–not to make sure they could go hunting. We are at the point where government overreach is here. Hopefully the laws signed by the Governor will be overturned by the Supreme Court, but the laws like this need to be stopped long before they get to the Supreme Court. I am hopeful that the people of Virginia will embrace their history and remove this Governor from office in the next election.

If You Embrace Diversity, Understand What That Diversity Entails

If you embrace diversity, does that mean that you are willing to sit down to dinner with cannibals? Does embracing diversity mean that you are willing to encourage people who want to replace our system of government with a repressive system of government? These are questions that those who champion diversity need to answer.

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about a recent decision made by the City Council of Patterson, New Jersey.

The article reports:

The next Democratic debate isn’t in Paterson, New Jersey, but it should be: that unlikely city is blazing new trails in multiculturalism and diversity. On Wednesday, the City Council voted unanimously (with two members not voting) to grant preliminary approval to the Islamic call to prayer being broadcast over loudspeakers in the city. This followed the swearing-in earlier this month, on the Qur’an, of course, of Paterson’s new police chief, Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora, the first Muslim police chief in an American city.

Celebrate diversity, right? Sure. The problem is that it is by no means certain that this diversity will celebrate us. The Paterson noise ordinance says: “The city shall permit ‘Adhan’, call to prayer’, ‘church bells’ and other reasonable means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for duration not to exceed five minutes.”

The article continues:

So the Islamic call to prayer is just like church bells. Sure, and informed, devout Muslims are just Methodists with hats and beards. Reality, however, is not so rosy. The Islamic call to prayer, now to be sounded three times a day in Paterson, New Jersey (there are five daily prayers, but two of them fall outside the 6AM-10PM parameters of the ordinance), declares:

Allah is greater (Allahu akbar, four times)

I testify that there is no God but Allah (Ashhadu anna la ila ill Allah) (twice)

I testify that Mohammed is Allah’s Prophet (Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah) (twice)

Come to prayer (Hayya alas salah, twice)

Come to success (Hayya alal falah, twice)

Allah is greater (Allahu akbar) (twice)

There is no God but Allah (La ilah ill Allah) (once)

Besides being screamed out by Islamic jihad terrorists all over the world (9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta said it “strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”), “Allahu akbar” is a clear demonstration of supremacism. It is often mistranslated in the Western media as “God is great,” but its actual meaning is “Allah is greater,” meaning Allah Is Greater Than Your God or Government. It is an aggressive declaration that Allah and Islam are dominant over every other form of government, religion, law, or ethic, which is why Islamic jihadists in the midst of killing infidels so often shout it.

You may consider allowing the Muslim call to prayer a salute to diversity, but as you read the contents of that call to prayer, you realize that there is not a reciprocal desire for diversity. A Muslim who takes his oath of office on the Qur’an is making a statement that he values the principles in the Qur’an. Those principles regard the laws in the Qur’an as overruling the U.S. Constitution. There is no freedom of religion in the Qur’an. Non-Muslims, or infidels as they are called, do not have equal rights and in many cases are murdered for their faith.

Electing a Muslim as a police chief is a risk. This city needs to be watched to make sure the celebration of diversity is reciprocal.

Why The Bill Of Rights Is Important

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The free exercise of religion will be under scrutiny in the Supreme Court this session.

Yesterday CBN News reported:

The US Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on an important religious liberty concern. On Wednesday, the high court announced it will take up two cases which could decide if religious institutions have the right to pick who teaches their religion. Or if the government gets to have the final say.

Both cases will be rolled into one case for a hearing this spring at the court. Both involve California Catholic schools that each dismissed fifth-grade teachers the schools felt were performing their jobs poorly.

These teachers were deeply involved in the religious education of their students. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned lower court rulings and decided neither teacher was so involved in religious teaching that the schools should be allowed to get rid of them.

The article concludes:

Becket ( Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) Executive Director Montserrat Alvarado stated, “Parents trust Catholic schools to assist them in one of their most important duties: forming the faith of their children.   If courts can second-guess a Catholic school’s judgment about who should teach religious beliefs to fifth graders, then neither Catholics nor any other religious group can be confident in their ability to convey the faith to the next generation.”

The two cases are Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James Catholic School v. Biel. In the Morrissey-Berru case, the Ninth Circuit agreed the teacher had “significant religious responsibilities,” but decided those duties weren’t religious enough for the school to invoke its First Amendment right to control who’s teaching the faith to its students.

The cases involve something known as the ministerial exception. It represents the idea that religious groups involved in teaching their faith can only truly be free from government interference if they have full control of choosing who teaches that faith in their institutions.

Freedom is always one generation away from extinction. We need to protect all of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Campaign Promises vs. Reality

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today that Elizabeth Warren has promised to get rid of the Electoral College during her first term in office. Has anyone told her what the steps are to amend the U.S. Constitution? This is not something that can easily be accomplished in four years. The promise also shows a lack of understanding (or possibly an ulterior motive) of the Electoral College. Without the Electoral College, America would be ruled by New York, California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Before you decide whether that is good or bad, you need to look at the budgets, taxes, and cost of living in those states.

The article notes:

Democrats want to do away with the College in order to take away power in smaller states and give states with large urban populations more clout.

Democrats like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, author Marianne Williamson, and former Obama administration cabinet secretary Julian Castro want to abolish the Electoral College, while Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have voiced support for doing away with the College.

But just like a lot of other ideas from Warren — like her $52 trillion Medicare for all proposal — her plan is a non-starter. Doing away with the College would require a constitutional amendment, and that can only take place if a two-thirds supermajority in Congress passes an amendment, which is then ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Yeah, that ain’t happening. Just like so many of Warren’s other wacky plans.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution included the Electoral College to make sure that smaller states had some influence in American elections. To do away with the Electoral College would drastically change America (not for the better).

Stop The World, I Want To Get Off

Have you ever been on a roller coaster and as it climbs to the top for its descent, you wonder if this is really where you want to be. I suspect that is how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is feeling right now.

Yesterday The New York Sun posted an editorial about a recent remark by Speaker Pelosi.

The editorial notes:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion that President Trump emulate President Nixon and resign is, in our opinion, a shocking démarche unworthy of her office. And a glimpse into the predicament of the Democrats, who, though they began beating the drums for impeachment more than three years ago, still don’t seem to know what charges to lay against the president.

Mrs. Pelosi hauled out Nixon in her interview on the Columbia Broadcasting System, where Margaret Brennan asked the speaker whether the President would get, “as he says,” to “confront his accuser.” The question was met with a slippery evasion that began with Mrs. Pelosi snapping, “What do you mean confront his accuser? Confront the whistleblower?”

“Presumably, that’s what he means,” Ms. Brennan said.

“Well,” Mrs. Pelosi huffed, “I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistleblower.”

Then again, too, Mr. Trump wasn’t asking to intimidate the whistleblower. He has been pointing out that he’s being brought up for impeachment on a complaint by a person he has been, in the resulting proceedings, unable to confront. That, it seems to the President and to millions of other Americans, ourselves included, to be crosswise with the spirit of the Rights Bill.

The editorial concludes:

In the case of President Trump, though, no committee of the House, let alone the House itself, has voted out a single charge. When Ms. Brennan asked the Speaker whether “bribery” would be one of the charges, Mrs. Pelosi retorted, “I have no idea.” Then she said: “Well, there’s not even a decision made to impeach the president. This is a finding of fact, unfolding of the truth. And then a decision will be made.”

So the Speaker of the House goes on national television to suggest that President Trump resign without disclosing whether the President is likely to be impeached or what the charges would be. It’s just Democratic Party demagoguery pure and simple, and soon people are going to start asking why Mrs. Pelosi is such an all-fired hurry to run the president out of office without a trial in the Senate at all.

Speaker Pelosi wants President Trump to resign so that she and her cohorts don’t have to prove that the President did anything wrong. This statement is totally inappropriate in a representative republic. It also goes totally against the rights guaranteed to American citizens in the Bill of Rights. This kind of political railroading by politicians in power is probably part of the reason the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution. After reading her comments, I truly believe that Speaker Pelosi is in the position of a person on a roller coaster climbing to the top and wondering if she has made the right decision. Like that person, she knows that it is too late to get off now!

The Charade Continues

Byron York posted an article at The Washington Examiner today titled, “The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act.” So what is he talking about? The bill before the House of Representatives today takes the impeachment inquiry out of the hands of the Judicial Committee (where it has traditionally been) and places it in the hands of the Intelligence Committee headed by Adam Schiff.

The article reports:

The resolution gives Rep. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, far-reaching power over the Trump impeachment proceedings. Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the ultimate authority, of course, but, like a chairman of the board choosing a chief executive officer, she has picked Schiff to run the show. And in the resolution, Democrats will give him near-total control.

The first thing the resolution will do is give the impeachment investigation to the Intelligence Committee. Until now, three committees — Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs — have been conducting impeachment interviews. Going forward, Oversight and Foreign Affairs will be out of the interview picture in favor of Intelligence.

Among other things, that would mean that some Republicans who have been persistent critics of the process but who have been allowed into depositions by virtue of their membership in other participating committees — two examples are Oversight Committee members Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows — will no longer be allowed in the interview room.

“It’s totally one-sided,” Meadows told me Wednesday evening. “They can continue to do secret depositions. They have noticed depositions for John Bolton and others next week in anticipation of a positive vote Thursday. All it does is limit the committees that will be involved in the depositions.”

Any Congressman who votes for this travesty needs to be voted out of office in 2020.

The article continues:

The resolution would also give Schiff the authority to call and conduct public hearings on impeachment. Schiff will control the witnesses. Although there has been some discussion about whether Republicans will have the right to call witnesses, the resolution only gives the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Community, Rep. Devin Nunes, the right to ask Schiff to call a witness.

“To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation,” the resolution says. “Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witnesses to the investigation.” Republicans will get nothing that Schiff does not approve.

“There’s no guarantee we can call any witnesses,” said Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup, a member of the Intelligence Committee, in an interview Wednesday.

“The rules the Democrats rammed through simply confirm the absolute control Schiff has been exercising this entire time,” Nunes said. “He shouldn’t be involved in impeachment at all since none of this has any intelligence component, but Pelosi obviously thinks Nadler is incompetent.”

This process totally ignores the rights of a defendant guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. It is really sad that the political hotheads in the Democrat party have brought us to this place.

Hasn’t He Read The U.S. Constitution?

The Washington Examiner posted an article yesterday about some recent remarks by presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke.

The article reports:

Beto O’Rourke said he would use the criminal code to back up his proposal to confiscate AR-15s and other “weapons of war” from Americans.

“If we’re able to pass mandatory buybacks and I’m able to sign that into law, then I fully expect our fellow Americans to turn in their AR-15s and their AK-47s,” the former Texas congressman said in a Thursday CBS News interview when asked if his policy was “too retroactive.”

O’Rourke continued his answer by saying there would be criminal consequences if people were to “persist” in holding onto their weapons.

“For anyone who does not and is caught in possession or seen in possession of one of these weapons of war — one of these instruments of terror, that weapon will be taken from them, and they will be fined. And if they should persist in continuing to use and to buy these weapons, then there will be other consequences in the criminal code.”

The Democratic presidential contender said earlier this month that under his administration, police would “visit” AR-15 owners who did not cooperate in turning their guns in voluntarily.

“I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot potentially be used against somebody else,” O’Rourke said about the possibility that gun owners might not submit to voluntary buybacks.

It’s interesting that the candidates seem to be focused on AR-15’s. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon that fires one bullet at a time. The AR stands for ArmaLite, the original manufacturer of the weapon. It is a scary looking gun, but even if you support taking guns away from Americans, there is no reason to focus on that particular gun. It is legal to own an AK-47 as long as it was manufactured before 1986. There are also paperwork requirements involved with owning this particular gun.

However, all of the above is simply irrelevant. The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms was to protect the people from a tyrannical government–like one that wanted to forcefully take away their guns. What Beto O’Roarke is proposing is exactly what the Second Amendment was written to prevent.

Somehow The Mainstream Media Is Failing To Mention This

Don Surber posted an article today pointing out what the mainstream media seems to be missing:

The House voted 354-60 to condemn President Donald John Trump’s decision not to get involved in a dispute between Turkey and Syria. If members were Syria-ous, they would have voted to declare war. Put up or shut up.

But 2 1/2 years earlier, these chicken hawks in Washington accused President Donald John Trump of trying to start World War III in Syria.

On April 7, 2017, President Donald John Trump ordered 59 cruise missiles to wipe out the air base from which the Assad government had launched a chemical warfare attack on Khan Sheikhun. He was dining with Chairman Xi at Mar-a-Lago at the time.

USA Today accused the president of risking World War III.

Jessica Estepa, then an editor in its Washington bureau, wrote, “Is this the start of World War III? That’s what people are worried about.”

The people she cited were Magneto’s Fear, Penguin, Deplorable Winner, and other intellectual luminaries on Twitter.

Article I Section 8 and the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of Congress. Among the powers listed is, “To declare War, grand Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning  Captures on Land and Water;”

The website U.S. Constitution notes:

Q108. “Who has the power to declare war?”

A. There is a short answer and a much longer answer. The short answer is that the Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. This power is not shared with anyone, including the President.

The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President’s role as “C-in-C” is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.

This brings up the question, “If Congress is so concerned with the withdrawal of troops, why haven’t they declared war?” The answer is simply–the actions of Congress are not about Syria, the Kurds, Turkey, Russia or any other area in the middle east–they are about bashing President Trump. That has totally skewed their ability to be either consistent or rational.

The Real Cost Of Common Core

The Common Core curriculum was the brain child of the Bill Gates Foundation. When the curriculum was finally put together, there were five people on the Validation Committee that refused to sign off on the curriculum. There were two very prominent people in that group of five–R. James Milgram, professor of mathematics at Stanford University, and Sandra Stotsky, Professor emerita in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, and 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality. Both of them felt that the standards set up in Common Core would not improve the quality of education American students received. It turns out that they were right.

In November 2018, Neonnettle reported the following:

Researchers, who conducted a study into the impact of former President Obama’s Common Core State Standards on schools, declared the teaching practices to be “worst large-scale educational failure in 40 years.”

The study examined the effects of Common Core on school choice and found the Obama-era K-12 educational reform demonstrated sharp drops in academic performance.

Ted Rebarber of AccountabilityWorks co-authored the study with Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey, who previously led another study, titled “Common Core, School Choice and Rethinking Standards-Based Reform,” which was published by the Boston-based Pioneer Institute.

The pair discussed their findings at a Heritage Foundation event last week, explaining how Common Core has not only damaged public-school education but also has created obstacles for choosing schools.

The article goes on to note that since Common Core was introduced, the academic performance of students has noticeably decreased. The article noted that any school that receives federal funds is required to take certain tests mandated by Common Core. Any school that accepts vouchers is required to follow Common Core.

The article reports:

In April of 2016, only about 37 percent of U.S. 12th graders were shown to be prepared for math and reading at the college level, according to the 2015 NAEP – also known as the Nation’s Report Card.

 Additionally, results released by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) showed that on the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the U.S. has declined in performance from fifth in international ranking in 2011 to 13th in 2016 out of 58 international education systems.

The conclusion of the article provides a clue as to what is going on here:

Jennifer McCormick, the (Indiana) Republican state superintendent of public schools, has decided private schools that accept state voucher funds should not discriminate against LGBT children in admissions and other services – regardless of the school’s faith beliefs.

McCormick’s justification for her decision is based upon the Common Core “workforce development” model of education that views children as prospective laborers who can fulfill big business’s needs for inexpensive, local workers.

“If our goal as a state is to develop a well-educated workforce, and one that we want businesses to come here because we’re inclusive, we are accepting. I think part of that goes to our actions,” McCormick said.

“And when we still have schools that receive taxpayer dollars that can exclude students — that’s a problem.”

According to the report, McCormick said private schools that accept vouchers would need to have their admissions policies controlled by the state.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows federal control of education, but obviously that is the policy here. The real bottom line here is to prepare the next generation to be global citizens in order to advance the concept of global governance. I will post a detailed article on the foundation for that statement in the near future.

 

The Recent Democrat Debate

I have only one comment on the Democrat debate held this week. Beto O’Rourke stated, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, we’re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore.” The audience cheered.

Mr. O’Rourke, the Second Amendment was put in place to limit the powers of government–not the freedom of American citizens. The Bill of Rights was included in the U.S. Constitution so that the states would approve the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was an insurance policy against the rise of a tyrannical government in America similar to the one America had just fought hard to overturn. The Americans of the Revolutionary Era wanted to make sure that another tyrannical government was never allowed to rise up in America. The Bill of Rights was their protection against that.

The statement from Mr. O”Rourke is disturbing. What is even more disturbing is that the audience cheered the statement, not understanding that the suggested action was not only unconstitutional, but would be only the first step in severely limiting the freedom of Americans. The Second Amendment is what protects all of the other Amendments.