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
|
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)
|
Tell them to keep heathen values out of your school system.
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” 🙄 .
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.
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.
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
|
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
|
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
|
But before the 17th Amendment, there were similar issues.
FindLaw.com Annotations: U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment (emphasis added)
|
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.
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2022 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
89 queries. 0.607 seconds