[NPR.ORG] A federal appeals court has ruled that a Texas voter ID law has a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and it has ordered a lower court to devise a remedy before the November elections.
A district court had found not only that the law discriminated, but that it was intentionally designed to do so. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saw some flaws in that conclusion and instructed the lower court to reconsider that element of the case and rule again -- preferably after Election Day.
The judges also ruled that the law is not a poll tax and declined to consider whether the law puts an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.
The Texas voter ID law requires voters to present an approved ID card before voting. It has been controversial ever since it was passed in 2011.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
First it was Canadians voting in Wisconsin, now its grandmothers in Texas. I'm beginning to think maybe the IRS should manage federal identity cards. No job, no taxes, no vote.
#2
Any non-U.S. citizen or anyone not registered, holding duel citizenship, deceased, in jail or prison, medially incapacitated, on a drip, judged mentally impaired, judged to be intoxicated or high on drugs, in default on student loans, previously convicted of a felony, or too stupid and indolent to NOT have an official form of ID should not be voting under any circumstance.
Anyone carrying a pet or musical instrument, men wearing Man-buns, white men wearing dreadlocks, lobe expanders, ankle jewelry (as depicted above), or extremely slim slacks will be moved to the rear of the line and must provide multiple forms of ID, make no greeting or utterance, and provide evidence of recent use of hand sanitizer.
#3
Wonder how far I'd get trying to vote in Mexico?
Posted by: Unelet Protector of the Sith2424 ||
07/21/2016 5:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And such federal ruling discriminate against majority voters by allowing unqualified individuals the power of the vote. It suppresses the vote of the majority. In a real republic, the most valuable thing is the vote and should be protected against any and all abuses. In any other form of governance, its all merely ritual for rubes.
If I have to show TSA an ID to get on a plane, then you better damn well have an ID to vote.
#5
Texas should try the judges for treason against the state of Texas and impose the death penalty. Voter fraud is treason or an act of war for non-citizens. The penalty for it should be summary execution for non-citizens and a prompt trial and execution for the guilty for citizens.
[CITY-JOURNAL.ORG] Any hopes that the nation’s first black president could uplift the nation’s black underclass went up in smoke Sunday when Barack Obama If you like your coverage you can keep it... doubled down on his blaming of America’s police for the recent cop massacres that amount, as Heather Mac Donald rightly says, to a war on cops.
I argued two decades ago in The Dream and the Nightmare that changes in elite culture during the 1960s had a catastrophic effect on the most disadvantaged Americans in ghetto neighborhoods. That decade’s sexual revolution removed the stigma from out-of-wedlock pregnancy. An kaboom of inner-city illegitimacy ensued, with between 70 and 90 percent of black children born to single mothers, depending on the city. The elite’s youthful interest in drug taking petered out, but in the ghetto, tolerance of drug taking resulted in a deadly crack cocaine epidemic. Elite culture’s wholly praiseworthy political push for black civil rights ended in a destructive turn, with intellectuals arguing that punishing black crime, as one bestseller’s title had it, was "blaming the victim." In other words, centuries of slavery and Jim Crow, giving way to lingering racial discrimination, made young black men justifiably angry and rebellious, and their anger, along with the barriers the larger society placed between them and gainful employment, resulted in criminal behavior that was understandable and almost justifiable. So by the early 1990s, murders in New York, for example--mostly by young black men killing other blacks--were occurring on average every four hours, every day.
The same spirit of elite racial contrition made generous welfare payments, with virtually no questions asked, seem like appropriate reparations for the long mistreatment of African Americans. In this way, government ended up enabling the spread of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which the culture had legitimated. But those fatherless welfare families proved far from ideal for raising successful, law-abiding children. What came to be called the cycle of poverty--single parenthood, school dropout, drug use, crime, non-work, welfare dependency--went into overdrive.
This was a cultural problem, a problem of beliefs, worldview, values, and attitudes. Elite culture had defined the ghetto underclass as victims and validated self-destructive attitudes and behavior. Ultimately, that inner-city culture took on its own inventive life, with rap music dismissing women as mere sexual objects, glorifying drugs and the conspicuous consumption that drug dealing could finance, celebrating gangsta behavior, and rejecting all authority. The anthem for this impulse, so to speak, was N.W.A.’s 1988 track "Fuck tha Police."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In a criminal culture a criminal will hate the police. So will his relatives and friends. So we can dispense with the "commonality" between NWA and anti-cop BHA. I call this Thug Community, when someone is one or two degrees away from a criminal and law enforcement is always the bad guy. Unfortunatly, this community has increased substantially under BHA. To what end? He stokes a criminal hate of Blue to destroy the second amendment. Now we see the fruits of his labors. Open AR carry by BLM. Targeted police attacks. the equation is simple. If you have enough bad guys/wackos killing cops with guns, especially a prticular type of gun, cops will militarize and both they and the community must turn against the second amendment. Not because they are bad guys, but because it's human nature. So the Adversary pits the sheepdog against the Bubba Effect. In case no one noticiced, BHM does not plan for now but the future. Just look at Obamacare, not designed to fix healthcare now, but crash it and force the people's position. He simply plants the seed, we must foresee the weed and pluck it.
#1
“Black Americans have a chance right now collectively to say to the Democrats: ‘Hey, if you don’t give us criminal justice reform, we’ll give the country to Donald Trump.' That’ll send the Democrats into a frenzy. Black lives will matter then, I guarantee you."
I would love to see this happen. The dhimocrats would completely shit themselves.
[WASHINGTONTIMES] In the end it was all about Ted Cruz.
Delivering an un-vetted speech before the GOP convention Wednesday night, Ted Cruz -- as is always his custom -- carefully calculated just how to do it so it would benefit himself the most. And it backfired.
He uttered the name of his party’s nominee -- the man who invited him to speak -- just once, only to congratulate him on the nomination. Quite pointedly, the Texas Senator refused to endorse Donald Trump.
As if to punctuate his own bitter whining over losing, Cruz actually told conventioneers that New York is different from Iowa, reviving the major theme of his losing campaign against Trump. And reminding folks that, yes, he won the Iowa caucuses and for a very brief moment was the Republican frontrunner.
As he wound up his non-endorsement speech, the convention hall began to get restless. Delegates began to realize that the rude political has-been was actually going to withhold an endorsement.
In an eruption, they thrust to their feet and shouted at Cruz. They booed him and pounded into him, "Trump! Trump! Trump!"
It would have been humiliating for the Texas Senator if he had been listening. Instead, he remained laser focused on a speech he hoped would set him up for another presidential run in 2020. This, of course, would be banking on the deep hope that Donald Trump loses in November. And Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as the Smartest Woman in the World and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another John C. Calhoun ... wins.
This is a man whose arrogance and ego knows no bounds.
"I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation," Cruz said snidely, as the rowdy crowd of New Yorkers at his feet reproved Cruz for his blatant non-endorsement of the Republican nominee for president.
How could he not? With the Supreme Court in the balance, how could Ted Cruz not swallow hard and endorse the only man who can stop Hillary Clinton from choosing two and possibly five Supreme Court replacements?
This is a man who loves himself and his political career so much more than his country.
And it was not just the New York delegation booing him. It was delegates around the arena, standing up, shouting him down and waving him off the stage.
"Don’t stay home," Cruz said weakly.
"Vote your conscience," he said, as if to highlight that Donald Trump is not a professional politician. It was a signal to the party establishment that they should not vote for Trump if they don’t love him.
As Mr. Trump did during the primary, he will have to win this general election without help of professional incumbent politicians like Ted Cruz. And Ted Cruz will go down with the sinking GOP ship U.S.S. Bush.
Good riddance.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 10:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Cruz last night gave proof that a man can be a brilliant orator, a skilled Constitutional scholar, a genuine conservative thinker, and still be a self-absorbed, petulant, jackass whose need to piss on the leg of an opponent outweighs his loyalty to the future of the nation itself. Had he been really in noble opposition, he would have avoided speaking to the convention, but his face belied that claim, he could not hide his delight. You showed me last night you are a sh*thead Ted!
#4
So he didn't endorse Trump, but said to "Vote your conscience". Trump knew it was coming and co-ordinated a counter on the floor. Which is FINE.
M. B. Dougherty had a great line in The Week:
When you become outraged at a man who encourages you to abide by your conscience, it means your conscience has already condemned you.
This will blow over in a week or so, Cruz will sit out the election, and if this is enough to sink Trump then he wasn't going to win anyway.
Personally I'm more concerned about the reaction's on the floor, and how people were attempting to move and get to Heidi Cruz. She had to be escorted out for her own safety, and that is just.... wrong.
Posted by: Charles ||
07/21/2016 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
think Cruz is positioning himself for 2020. He probably believes Trump will be a disaster, either a) losing to Clinton or b) winning and doing a miserable job. Then he'll be remembered as the one to dis Trump to his face on the official GOP stage.
Sorry. There is just something irksome about the guy. He has that smarmy smile and that smug, nasal voice. If all I could do is read what he says in the newspaper I might think he was OK. But he's not.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/21/2016 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I don't know who the hell you are jackass, but in p0erson you might find cause to regret that kind of insult!
#9
Please tone it down, #3 Thing. Let's not turn Rantburg into a lefty-worthy insult-scream-fest.
Posted by: Barbara ||
07/21/2016 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#10
#7: Are you saying that you're objection to Cruz is his physical attributes? Because that sounds... bad.
Posted by: Charles ||
07/21/2016 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"I don't know who the hell you are jackass, but in p0erson you might find cause to regret that kind of insult!"
But Ted's gotta Shut Up And Take It from the guy who danced around implying that his Dad helped kill Kennedy. And I have to pretend this guy sucking up to Erdogan (who's still got Incirlik surrounded) is a good candidate.
Brutus and Cassius are both honorable men, excellent candidates, and the Party Nominees.
#14
Read the speech. Then tell me EXACTLY what you find offensive. It was a great speech.
First he congratulated Trump on his victory. Right up front. He told the party that it must unite. Clearly. He specifically told the party it must turn out in November and urged people to not stay at home. He told the voters to vote their conscience - I do not see the problem with that because anyone with a conscience clearly cannot vote for Hillary. And lastly, Cruz told the voters to stand up for those who stand up for the constitution. Given I and others have taken an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution, I see no problem with that statement either.
I don't see anything wrong with it. Remember Reagan gave a speech but did not endorse in 1976 so there is precedent.
And on a personal level, it would have been a lie had Cruz endorsed the man who slurred his wife, lied about his dad and basically called him a liar the entire campaign. Remember, Cruz did not beg to speak, Trump and the GOP asked him to do so, and they knew he was not going to endorse well ahead of time. So why all the rage?
#15
FYI, the stuff you see flooding the press about this backfiring? Its the establishment trying to bury Cruz. The elites have their guy, Donald Trump, and are angry that Cruz would embarrass them on national TV. This was highlighting the establishment and elites sellout and lack of principles by Cruz sticking to his principles and refusing to bend his knee in obedience to the party. Cruz maintained his values, values that I share. The GOP, Trump and Trump supporters I cannot say the same for.
If Trump's people had not whipped the crowd into booing, and simply sat there and golf-clapped or simply refused to applaud, this would have been forgotten. Instead they booed, and physically went after Cruz's wife. As usual, Trump and his followers screwed this up by making it personal.
#16
I don't think they should have given him that prime talking slot and his non-endorsement won't help him in 2020. Who's going to suck it up and support him then?
#19
In context, USA been spreading democracy/nation building for the last 20+ years.
(a) Did it work? Anywhere?
(b) Democracy begins at home.
And that Trump said is classical Jacksonianism. And, IMO - looking from the outside at the forrest, non from inside at the trees, it's long past time USA returned to its roots.
#20
For the last eight years Obama has fucked up stuff in the name of democracy and in the name of Modern Health Care. Would you stop using naprelan because he says he's for modern health care? Is anything going to get better if we let Erdogan (for instance) fuck over the Kurds and steal another election?
#22
You mean the guy who got Gaddafi to turn over on the AQ Khan network, thus making Stuxnet possible? I remember a lot of the shitty things you said about him and how you thought Obama and Hillary were better than him in 2009... but go ahead, make your case for Erdogan this week.
#23
Are you saying that you're objection to Cruz is his physical attributes? Because that sounds... bad.
Uh, yeah. I said I was sorry. But it's like a limp, clammy handshake. It kinda tells you something about the man. And like OldSpook says, if I read the speech I don't find anything wrong with it. But I didn't read it, I watched it on TV, and that makes a difference.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/21/2016 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#24
And I remember getting sinktrapped once for a lot less than Thing said.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/21/2016 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#26
And besides that, I don't give a rat's ass about Kurds or Turks or Syrians or anybody else in that cat box except that I would kick the Turks out of NATO promptly after getting everybody and everything out of Turkey including Incirlik. I don't care. Let the Russians deal with them.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/21/2016 17:11 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Briliant move by Cruz. Trump will win in November The convention will be forgotten. Except for the Ted Cruz speech. Ted used Trumps controversial play book. He never said do not vote for the Republican choice which Ctuz supporters will come out and do. He just made it clear he will not kiss the ring on Trumps fist for personal reasons and to Trumps credit he approved the speech before it was given.
This will be an interesting relationship to watch.
Posted by: Unelet Protector of the Sith2424 ||
07/21/2016 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#28
I don't think the orchestrated boos were classy. Kind of petty in and of themselves.
#30
Demand Mr. Trump sign a pledge to back the winner of the race, then do exactly to opposite when he wins. Sorry folks, your heroes have feet of clay. Vote your conscience, screw integrity. So many Trunk are like so many Donks, my power first, democracy and integrity last.
The man couldn't pull it off just in the Party, he wasn't going to win in November. You'd have your Barry Goldwater moment, but Hillary would appoint at least the next two SCOTUS justices.
#31
Trump’s former GOP rival, who like the rest of the field signed a pledge during the primaries to support the party’s nominee, said that agreement was “abdicated” when the brash real estate mogul mocked his wife, Heidi, and suggested that his father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
“That pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi that I’m going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say, ‘Thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father,‘” Cruz said.
#32
Like Spook, the speech was fine, but despite the offer by Trump (whom I find the worst candidate my party has selected in my lifetime) Cruz intended to damage Trump on the national stage, giving significant aid to the most dangerous and corrupt candidate the democrats have even proposed, and that is saying something. Cruz wanted revenge and knew it would damage Trump. I'm fine with that, but not at that venue. That puts revenge above the future of the nation. If he cannot keep his word, at least shut up at this crucial moment. As for the insult. When someone makes it offensively personal, I doubt you would tolerate that. I will not.
[WASHINGTONTIMES] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell launched an all-out assault on presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as America's Blond Eminence and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another Edward Everett ... late Tuesday and said the only way to repeal Obamacare ... aka the Affordable Care Act, an ineptly designed and worse executed piece of legislation designed to bring 17 percent of the U.S. economy under the direct control of the government. The previous iteration, known as Hillarycare, was laughed out of Washington. This stinker was passed on a party-line vote without being read... , realign the Supreme Court and defund Planned Parenthood ...has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. It is sometimes described as the gynecololgical wing of the Democratic party. is to elect Donald Trump, even as members of his own caucus steer clear of the nominating festivities.
Mr. McConnell brushed aside a cascade of boos from the convention hall and doled out a bit of payback for years of political jockeying with Mrs. Clinton and her famous husband, starting with their attempts to unseat him in Kentucky.
"I’ve had my differences with Barack Obama I am the change that you seek... , but l will give him credit for this. At least he was up front about his plans to move America to the far left," the Kentucky Republican told the convention hall. "Not Hillary. She lied about her emails. She lied about her server. She lied about Benghazi. She even lied about sniper fire."
Mr. McConnell eventually pivoted the man of the hour, Mr. Trump.
The mogul has tussled with senators like Mark Kirk of Illinois and Jeff Flake ...Republican junior senator from Arizona, elected in 2012. Prior to that he was a U.S. Representative for twelve years... of Arizona, who’ve declined to endorse him, and the majority leader largely avoids questions about the nominee on Capitol Hill, though he admits that Mr. Trump won the election "fair and square."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
After she's gone it would no doubt be prudent to discontinue the use of that photo. But until then.....
#2
McConnell reminds me of the song, "Vicar of Bray," where the Vicar adjusts his allegiance as the winds blow different directions. Here are the verses:
In good King Charles's golden days,
When Loyalty no harm meant;
A Zealous High-Church man I was,1
And so I gain'd Preferment.2
Unto my Flock I daily Preach'd,
Kings are by God appointed,
And Damn'd are those who dare resist,
Or touch the Lord's Anointed. And this is law, I will maintain
Unto my Dying Day, Sir.
That whatsoever King may reign,
I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir!
When Royal James possest the crown,
And popery grew in fashion;
The Penal Law I shouted down,
And read the Declaration:
The Church of Rome I found would fit
Full well my Constitution,
And I had been a Jesuit,
But for the Revolution.
And this is Law, &c.
When William our Deliverer came,
To heal the Nation's Grievance,
I turn'd the Cat in Pan again,
And swore to him Allegiance:
Old Principles I did revoke,
Set conscience at a distance,
Passive Obedience is a Joke,
A Jest is non-resistance.
And this is Law, &c.
When Royal Anne became our Queen,
Then Church of England's Glory,
Another face of things was seen,
And I became a Tory:
Occasional Conformists base
I Damn'd, and Moderation,
And thought the Church in danger was,
From such Prevarication.
And this is Law, &c.
When George in Pudding time11 came o'er,
And Moderate Men looked big, Sir,
My Principles I chang'd once more,
And so became a Whig, Sir.
And thus Preferment I procur'd,
From our Faith's great Defender
And almost every day abjur'd
The Pope, and the Pretender.
And this is Law, &c.
The Illustrious House of Hanover,
And Protestant succession,
To these I lustily will swear,
Whilst they can keep possession:
For in my Faith, and Loyalty,
I never once will faulter,
But George, my lawful king shall be,
Except the Times shou'd alter.
And this is Law, &c.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/21/2016 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
By now McConnell must be used to the boos, at least when talking to Republicans.
L.A. Times showing it's red stripe. [LATIMES] Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational. Something so dangerous that it put the lives of Americans and the security of the country at stake. (Trump’s former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Marco Rubio, said the United States could not trust "the nuclear codes" to an "erratic individual.") Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t?
Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business...or a dictatorship. It does not work, however, in a liberal democracy.
In that case, our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it.
They might well choose the former.
"I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign," retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as head of the CIA and the National Security Agency under President George W. Bush, said in response to Trump’s autocratic ruminations. Asked by TV host Bill Maher
...whose eponymous show brings in 1.76 million viewers for HBO, all of whom fancy themselves intellectuals...
what would happen if Trump told American soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, as he has promised to do, Hayden replied, "If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act." I can imagine absolutely no situation in which the U.S. military would be involved in a coup. Nor have I seen any instance where Trump as expressed any disrespect for the military. Should President Trump propose something stoopid off the top of his head, the idea would be discussed and dismissed in a staff meeting. The Donald isn't Captain Zero. No one on his staff is going to pronounce him "ready to rule from day one." It's virtually impossible to stage a coup in this country. Not only would the military not obey such orders, but we have hundreds of TV stations, thousands of radio stations, the internet, Twitter, social media, and cell phones. Notice how quickly Yippie spoke to his supporters in Turkey using FaceTime? That times a thousand here. Plus we have an evenly divided country of 315 million people. Stage a coup and you're guaranteed to cheese off half of them at a minimum.
A coup simply is not possible. Succession, however...
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's virtually impossible to stage a coup in this country.
#2
Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational.
"Defend the Borders" sorta thing? Or, "No way, I'm approving a budget for sex change operations in the military!"? Or, "Win the f*cking war already! I'm sending my consigliori over."?
#6
Concur on the impossibility of a coup. All states have a National Guard that will not follow the Active Force lead even if they did attempt. I am not sure a coup leader could get the Active Duty folks to set aside their school schedules and carefully crafted career ambitions for any such coup nonsense anyaways...further, it would have to be scheduled around the upcoming 4 day weekends and day on day off Christmas schedule. Now if the AC could contract a coup attempt out, perhaps.
#7
"Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational."
Yeah, I see a member or two of the Joint Chiefs pointing out how stupid, illegal or irrational such a command is and then if pushed stepping down which would publicly leave egg all over the Commander-in-Chiefs face. Unlikely it would even get that far even with the super-political military brass we now have.
[WASHINGTONEXAMINER] Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson hinted Wednesday that former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush might be considering an endorsement.
"I can't say that we haven't had conversations," Johnson said in a Wednesday afternoon conversation on CNN from Cleveland, kept in touch with the world by Obamaphone, ...was ruled by a Democrat machine from 1942 through 1971. After the river caught fire during the administration of Carl Stokes they tried a Republican, then went back to being Democrats when the party hacked up Dennis Kucinich ... . "But no push on the conversations."
Johnson said he has also had conversations with 2012 GOP nominee Willard Mitt Romney ...former governor of Massachussetts, the Publican nominee for president in 2012. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney has a record as a successful businessman, heading Bain Capital, and he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from the midst of bribery and mismanagement scandals.... When asked who initiated the conversations, Johnson replied, "Not me." When asked if the former Florida governor has called him, Johnson added quickly, "I don't want to -- I want to protect the innocent."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
Thing is, the "Libertarian" candidates don't believe in liberty outside of pot. They've otherwise been approving everything Hillary says.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/21/2016 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Remember when they all wanted Trump to sign a pledge to support the party candidate, so everyone signed. Just as the campaign has exposed so many that have little or no regard for democracy, it has also shown few with integrity as they now expose themselves as just another ego and power tripper.
#8
I generally like Gary Johnson but I don't see how a Jeb Bush endorsement helps anybody. it'll just draw attention to the fact that Jeb swore to support the Republican nominee and he's every so slightly better than those douchebags jumping on the Hillary train.
[BREITBART] The official 2016 platform of the Republican Party asserts that since the Constitution gives the federal government “no role in education,” it should not join with “centralizing forces” that have attempted to reform education and have subsequently done “immense damage.” Those of us who went to school before the Department of Education was inaugurated often wonder at the steady decline in our schools since then.
The platform affirms the primary role of parents as educators in a child’s life, and supports a constitutional amendment to protect the right of parents to direct their children’s education from the overreach of federal and state governments and from potential international intruders such as the United Nations. It also upholds “parent-driven accountability at every stage of schooling,” and recognizes the value of local control of education.
We reject a one- size-fits-all approach to education and support a broad range of choices for parents and children at the state and local level,” states the GOP platform. “We likewise repeat our long-standing opposition to the imposition of national standards and assessments, encourage the parents and educators who are implementing alternatives to Common Core, and congratulate the states which have successfully repealed it.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/21/2016 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
My God - you mean someone's actually read the Constitution?
Now let's live by it.
Posted by: Barbara ||
07/21/2016 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nonsense. The Tenth Amendment has been dead since the Depression. The Supreme Court ruled that even if you grew wheat on your own farm, for your own use, it was still covered by interstate commerce regulations.
The can justify the Feds handling education because the kids could move to another state when they grow up. Or something.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/21/2016 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
Folks say you're known by the company you keep. So this little revelation tells you just about everything you need to know about the Democrats and Hillary Clinton.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit who reports Mike Brown's mother has been invited to speak at the Democrat National Convention in the city of brotherly love next week.
They have indignation to maintain. The truth doesn't matter.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2016 7:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
As Democrat outrages go, this is right up there; still, I don't think it quite rises to the level of their 2004 convention, when they gave an honored place to the loathsome Michael Moore.
It ought to be a fun week here in Philthadelphia next week, what with practically every leftist scumbag in the country running around protesting something or other. A real freak show.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/21/2016 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I forgot you were there, Dave D. First hand triage reports?
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2016 20:56 Comments ||
Top||
[Yahoo] If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.
Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election.
#1
Oh my heavenly daze - yet another reason to vote for 'the best qualified individual since Bill Clinton'.
Scare tactics. Fire the useless political appointees, who want to move to somewhere else, anyway. Let the rest expire in place.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/21/2016 7:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If George W. had done this he would have had a much easier time as President and would not have had to put up with all of the "leaks" and innuendo from Langley and Foggy Bottom
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
07/21/2016 7:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Clean house should be the rule, not the exception. He might have been a chauvinistic jerk, but Charles DeGaulle got it right when he said "The cemeteries are filled with indispensable men..."
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/21/2016 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
He might have been a chauvinistic jerk
Give the old general a break. He was just your everyday, garden variety Frenchman.
#6
It should be very easy to fire anyone in Washington and they should expect to be cut lose at any infraction. What we have now is an abomination where lifetime bureaucrats feel unconstrained by the law.
Of course a lot of the loudmouths said they'd quit (which they won't but which would make life a bit easier for everyone if they did).
[Chicago Tribune] A Cook County judge on Wednesday tossed from the fall ballot a constitutional amendment to take away the General Assembly's power to draw legislative district boundaries, dealing a loss to Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and a win to Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan.
The ruling marked the second time in three years that the Independent Maps group suffered a major legal setback in attempting to ask voters whether the state should remove much of the politics from redistricting. The stumbling block was the same as last time, with a judge finding the proposal did not fit a narrow legal window for a petition-driven initiative to change the Illinois Constitution.
Independent Maps chairman Dennis FitzSimons vowed to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court in the hopes the question could still appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. Both FitzSimons' coalition and the People's Map group that filed the lawsuit anticipated that's where the case would end up anyway.
Madigan opposed the referendum, suggesting it would hurt protections on ensuring minority representation. The speaker has maintained his hold at the Capitol for more than three decades in part because he's had the power to draw the boundaries of legislative districts, and a longtime Madigan ally was the attorney for People's Map.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Cook County Judges?
Madigan owns them all
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/21/2016 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Any non-U.S. citizen or anyone not registered, holding duel citizenship, deceased, in jail or prison, medially incapacitated, on a drip, judged mentally impaired, judged to be intoxicated or high on drugs, in default on student loans, previously convicted of a felony, or too stupid and indolent to NOT have an official form of ID should not be voting under any circumstance.
[CITY-JOURNAL.ORG] Any hopes that the nation’s first black president could uplift the nation’s black underclass went up in smoke Sunday when 
Hillary Clinton
[LATIMES] Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational. Something so dangerous that it put the lives of Americans and the security of the country at stake. (Trump’s former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Marco Rubio, said the United States could not trust "the nuclear codes" to an "erratic individual.") Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t?
[WASHINGTONEXAMINER] Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson hinted Wednesday that former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush might be considering an endorsement.
[BREITBART] The official 2016 platform of the Republican Party asserts that since the Constitution gives the federal government “no role in education,” it should not join with “centralizing forces” that have attempted to reform education and have subsequently done “immense damage.”
Folks say you're known by the company you keep. So this little revelation tells you just about everything you need to know about the Democrats and Hillary Clinton.
[Chicago Tribune] A Cook County judge on Wednesday tossed from the fall ballot a constitutional amendment to take away the General Assembly's power to draw legislative district boundaries, dealing a loss to Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and a win to Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan.
