Rekjalhew

July 31, 2007

The NEA, Doing All it Can to Make Your Children Consider Being Homosexuals

by @ 7:49 pm. Filed under Education, Unions Destroying America

This report comes courtesy of the American Family Association. They are using it as a political move to promote voucher programs. I think they should also encourage parents to flood public school boards across the nation with demands that pro-homosexual efforts NOT be promoted by their school system.

NEA begins massive drive to promote homosexuality in public schools

Is it time for a school voucher program?

Without allowing members to vote on the matter, the executive committee of the National Education Association (NEA) decided to advance aggressively the homosexual agenda. The decision was made at the association?s annual meeting in Philadelphia.

* First, the committee voted to put the weight of the NEA behind an effort to pass federal hate crimes legislation, a measure that would greatly expand federal power and lead to the silencing of moral opposition.
* Second, the executive committee voted to boost the NEA?s Web site to ?include all resources? devoted to homosexual causes.
* The third resolution urged NEA members to push to make sexual orientation training a requirement for earning a license to teach.

They continued their financial support of homosexual groups. Click here for report from OneNewsNow.com. Click here for the report of the NEA Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Caucus.

It matters little to the NEA that Johnny may be unable to read and write, as long as he learns to support same-sex marriage.

Take Action

Given the opportunity, would you favor giving a voucher to students, allowing them to choose the school of their choice? Because the voucher would be given directly to the student, there would be no violation of the church and state issue.

The bottom line is, if your highly paid school system superintendents and the ELECTED school boards heard a response from YOU, like Congress did over their efforts to promote amnesty for illegal aliens, those school systems would REJECT the efforts of the NEA (National Education Association) on their own.

I’m all for vouchers and all for you being able to get as much money for your child to attend a private school as is spent in the public school system for your child. However, right now not enough private schools exists to even accommodate all parents who would WANT to send their kids to another school if not for the current financial burden. So getting a good system of educational competition going will take time, even if you were given money for 100% of private school expenses right now. You’ve got to keep the public schools in check as best you can, for the sake of others and society in general, even if you can get your own kids out.

Just like other political offices, everywhere I’ve lived school board members are ELECTED to their position by VOTERS. Now instead of always looking to see what the Federal government will do about something, it’s time to look at the boxes near the end of your ballot and let school board members know you’re watching them. They pick the superintendents, that set the tone for entire school systems.

You’ve let state and federal government know you endorse one man and one woman. Now it’s time to let your local public education leaders hear it.

Mark 10:6-9 (New King James Version)

6) But from the beginning of the creation, God ?made them male and female.?

7) ?For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

8) and the two shall become one flesh?; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9) Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.?

Tell them to keep heathen values out of your school system.

December 17, 2006

Lou Dobbs Hammers a Union Vice President About How His Union Uses Member Dues to Protect Illegals.

by @ 10:01 pm. Filed under Illegal Aliens, Unions Destroying America

I’ve continually tried to show how Unions work against workers rather than for them. I’m sure you’ve all heard about the government’s show piece raid of Swift & Company. We know it was a show piece raid, because this administration has been weak on enforcement and the company was alerted prior to the raid of when it would occur. The company even tried to fight it in court. Who knows how many illegals got away because the Feds gave advance warning. Well since the raid, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union has been crying on behalf of the illegals!!! Using all the typical Liberal rhetoric you would expect from anyone trying to defend illegals. Crying about race and even claiming illegals are “American workers” :roll: .

Lou Dobbs spoke with Marc Lauritsen, the Union’s International VP. And Lou gave Mr. Lauritsen a well deserved verbal smack down! You should check out this video, because Lou lays a smack down that exposes the union for the bogus fraud that it really is.



Lou Dobbs layeth the smacketh down on a union nut.

I’m not with all the talk about “Dobbs for President”, but on this issue Dobbs knows how to hit the ball out of the park.

You can get the full transcript from CNN.com here.

May 22, 2006

Why Senate Republicans Won’t Stop Illegal Immigration and Favor Amnesty

by @ 12:01 am. Filed under Business, Illegal Aliens, Nuts on Parade, Unions Destroying America

The bottom line is that Senators and political parties feel they need more money to run a state-wide campaign, than US House members who run in smaller districts. So Senators and parties cater more to big business, because big business has big money to help fund their campaigns. Big business, labor unions and big religious players like leaders in the Catholic church are all for illegal immigration, amnesty and anything else that will boost their numbers. For big business it’s all about getting cheap labor. For labor unions it’s all about growing the size of their union base. For big religious players in the Catholic church, it’s all about allowing as many supporters of the Catholic church in as possible.

Redstate.com has all the pertinent details. Those details come from this Investor’s Business Daily article, that requires a subscription to read. (They do offer a free trial.) I did find another copy of the article on the Americans for Legal Immigration message board. That thread also has a CNN transcript with other details.

This is why the House had a bill in HR 4437, that mirrored the views of Americans overall. But we saw the effort to honestly end illegal immigration shot down in the US Senate, because GOP leaders and Republican Senators cut a back-room deal. The side that wanted to stand up against illegal immigration in the Senate was told to stand down by those who favor illegal immigration and amnesty programs.


At their winter meeting in Washington, D.C., RNC members approved a pro-Bush plan resolution by Texas committeeman Bill Crocker. That forced the withdrawal of a resolution against the plan proposed by Arizona committeeman Randy Pullen.

GOP leaders, including Vice President Dick Cheney, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, lobbied hard for the Crocker resolution and against the efforts of immigration critics.

The Crocker resolution is the McCain-Kennedy bill.

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT – Aired January 20, 2006 – 18:00 ET


SYLVESTER: The Republican leadership succeeded beating back Pullen’s attempt to split from the White House. Even though the public vote was not close, behind closed doors there is a deeper conflict between pro-business Republicans and anti-illegal immigration Republicans.

DAN STEIN, FAIR: It’s tearing the Republican Party apart, because if the president and Karl Rove insist on jamming a big guest worker program through Congress, I predict it’s going to cost Republicans the majority.

SYLVESTER: At the RNC committee level, there was a more vigorous debate. Pullen says that was the big fight that he lost.

PULLEN: You know, it’s the old saying, sometimes you’re the bug and sometimes you’re the windshield. Well, this time, I was the bug.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER:
RNC chair Ken Mehlman says the debate process was a fair one, but Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, who has been very outspoken against the guest worker program, responded, saying, “The RNC’s failure to pass a get-tough border security resolution shows the extent to which the White House will use strong-arm tactics to secure an amnesty.” And Representatives Tancredo expects that there will be one heck of a fight when immigration reform is debated in the Senate — Lou.

DOBBS: It also shows that the absolute obedience of the Republican National Committee to corporate interests and those for open borders and not border security, and for the continued ignorance and indifference to immigration laws will continue. And the peril that puts the House of Representatives in, it will be — it’s generally speculated significant come November.

Now don’t go thinking the Democrats would act any differently. While Republicans are stereotyped as cutting deals like this, Democrats do the exact same thing! This is why you must vote based on what a candidate is about and not their party affiliation.

Hat tip reader rightonpeachtree.

Me and rightonpeachtree have been discussing how to address big business’ influence over Senators. We both like the idea of term limits, but how would you ever get that approved? Nice idea, hard to get it done, but we’ve got to push for it.

I have also thought of another means of ensuring US Senators work in the best interests of the state they represent, instead of some big money interest group. I think Alan Keyes may have had a point when he mentioned that our means of selecting a Senator may not be best. Maybe we should consider going back to the way the founders intended that be done?

From: US Constitution Article 1, Section 3

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Once upon a time in America, each state’s legislature voted for US Senators. So there was no statewide vote by the people. Which meant senatorial candidates did not need to run big money campaigns across an entire state. State legislatures had to answer to the people if they picked a bad Senator.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed that.

From: Ammendment XVII

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

But before the 17th Amendment, there were similar issues.

FindLaw.com Annotations: U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment (emphasis added)

The ratification of this Amendment was the outcome of increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators. As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests.

So even if the 17 Amendment went away, big business would still know how to influence the Senate. Not to mention taking an even stronger hand in state legislatures. So term limits seem like the best available option.

Also before the 17 Amendment, there were other terrible issues.


Very shortly after ratification it was established that if a person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a Senator, his right to vote for such an officer was not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen but had its foundation in the Constitution of the United States. Consistent with this view, federal courts declared that when local party authorities, acting pursuant to regulations prescribed by a party’s state executive committee, refused to permit an African American, on account of his race, to vote in a primary to select candidates for the office of U.S. Senator, they deprived him of a right secured to him by the Constitution and laws, in violation of this Amendment.

But in the absence of the 17th Amendment, I feel that the same argument could have been made using Article. I, Section 2 of the Constitution. Which contains in part the following:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

OK, so the short version is that parties and Senators are bought and paid for. Let’s press for term limits and pray for the best. In the mean time, vote the bums out that support illegal immigration and amnesty. Vote for candidates that really do express your views regardless of party and regardless of fear tactics used, to try and keep voting for people based on party affiliation.

March 9, 2006

Dubai Ports World to Give Up US Port Management After Recommendation From Senator Bill Frist

by @ 5:13 pm. Filed under Questionable Items, Unions Destroying America

Realizing that there was not enough support in Congress and that it could hurt his party in the November elections, Senator Bill Frist asked Dubai Ports World to give up it’s stake in US port management. The United Arab Emirates owned company has agreed to do so. They will transfer operations to a US based company. They only wish to do the transfer in an orderly fashion, that will not cause them financial damage. I think this is a good thing. At first Senator Frist was trying to stop efforts to totally block the deal while the 45 day review process was taking place. But he realized that pressure to end the deal was too great.

Dubai Company to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports Deal

WASHINGTON ? A United Arab Emirates-owned company said Thursday it would give up its management stake in a controversial ports deal that has taken Washington by storm and has caused massive upheaval in the president’s own party.

The Thursday announcement came just hours after Republican leaders warned President Bush that the House and Senate appeared ready to block Dubai Ports World from taking over some terminal operations at six U.S. ports.

“Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity,” DP World’s chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

The company said its decision was “based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss.”

“This should make the whole issue go away,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, holding up a copy of the DP World press release that announced the U.S. ports concession.

A senior Frist aide told FOX News that the Senate majority leader and his staff informed DP World and UAE government officials Wednesday night to pull the plug on the deal. When asked what prompted this action from Frist, the aide said the House action Wednesday night created a “destabilized coalition among House and Senate GOP.”

Just one night before, GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill blocking the deal. Bush has vowed to veto any measure halting the deal.

By attaching it to a larger must-pass $91 billion spending bill, lawmakers are challenging Bush: If he follows through on his veto threat, he would also be vetoing the entire package.

It was good that Senator Frist was able to see that the US portion of this deal needed to be ended. And it was not a big part of the total deal at all.


The deal in question, however, focused primarily on lucrative Asian markets. DP World valued its rival’s American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase.

Now there are still some outstanding issues. So sorry Senator Frist, the “whole issue” is not going away. Just part of it is going away. Because we all can respect giving Dubai Ports World time to transfer operations to a US based entity. But the greater issue of foreign governments trying to manage US ports still needs to be address.


Democrats are pushing an amendment to lobbying reform legislation to ensure that no UAE-related company has any control over U.S. port operations, particularly since so few details of the latest DP World plan is known. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would not only block the Dubai deal, but also other U.S. ports deal with any company wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan from 1996-2001.

I don’t support “Chucky” Schumer, but I do support his bill in this regard. And I wish an effort to transition all US port management away from foreign governments would begin. (That at the very least, with the optimal solution being that all ports are managed by entities within the USA.)

Now that the UAE owned company is willing to transfer operations to a US based entity, there is the issue of that US based entity being profitable! The demands of Unions helped push US companies out of the port management business. It is time to allow US companies to profitably manage our ports and that starts by getting rid of the Unions. Something “Chucky” Schumer is against. But it will look pretty bad if no US company is capable or willing to pick up management of these ports, given they might not be able to do it and be profitable. It’s time for US ports to be upgraded with the latest technology and salaries of workers to be adjusted if needed. That will only happen when the Unions at our ports are done away with.

February 27, 2006

Other Foreign Nations Managing Port Terminals

by @ 12:00 am. Filed under Terrorism and War, Unions Destroying America

It is good that Americans now desire that their ports are working with management companies that do not have questionable ties to terrorism. Dubai Ports World would be in familiar company when you look at other government run companies that are managing port terminals in the USA.

For example in Hampton Roads, Virginia there is a who’s-who of suspect nations managing terminals at the port in that town.

Foreign companies abound at Hampton Roads ports (emphasis added)


Besides Maersk, they include Mediterranean Shipping Co., a Swiss-Italian firm; Evergreen Marine Corp. of Taiwan.; China Ocean Shipping Co., the state-owned carrier of the People’s Republic of China; United Arab Shipping Co.; and the National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia.

This is just one port in one US city. It’s similar in ports across our nation. I can’t say I feel a level of comfort in this fact and I have no desire to see the number increase.

Of course if it was not for UNIONS more US companies would be better able to manage our sea ports. In the interest of one of America’s most risky points of entry being managed within this nation, it would make sense to disband all port Unions and initiate an effort to have US ports fully managed from within this nation. It has been mentioned that Liberal Democrats suggested that US ports should be managed by groups local to the area the port is in. Similar to how US airports are managed. Honestly I totally agree with the suggestion. All points of entry into a given area should be managed by entities within that town. It would be nice if a private business in each area could do this work, but if no private company can and it must be handled via that area’s local government (using taxpayer dollars) that would be fine with me too. Even if multiple ports were run by a private company within the USA that is based outside of the ports’ town, that would be fine as well. Yes Homeland Security does a good bit of the security at ports and terminal operators do some as well, but American points of entry should be fully managed by America.

Hopefully the current uproar will start a drive towards the goal of port management being run within the USA. This will require getting rid of Unions and hopefully Americans will realize that as well. People are asking “why can’t an American company run our ports?”… Because of the Unions, that’s why. In the interest of America being able to fully manage our sea ports the Unions should be disbanded. Some effort towards the USA managing all entry into the USA needs to be made, or America will continue to be more compromised as a nation.

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

50 queries. 0.430 seconds