Home

Montana says No Way to RealID

Leave a comment

ID The congress in Montana unanimously voted against RealID. Here’s their governor telling NPR that they will not listen to any of the DHS’s unconstitutional “hair-brained” schemes about national security, but “thanks for playing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=87991791&m=87991768

Take note of the empty threat by Homeland Security at the end of the broadcast.

(Originally posted by Dave Henning at Freedom’s Phoenix.)

Barb

Glenn Beck…Limbaugh’s “mini-me”

2 Comments

I started watching Glenn Beck when he accidentally produced an intelligent program once, on CNN.  I thought then, “I don’t agree with his take on this, but at least he seems to have done some real thinking of his own.”   I can appreciate a difference of opinion when it is rational and reasonable and I’m always looking for views different than my own that may shed new light on an issue, maybe something I hadn’t considered or known about.

I couldn’t tell you now what that broadcast was about as I have had to relegate Beck to the same bottom of the barrel category that is populated by the likes of Coulter, O’Reilly and other noxious gasbags like Limbaugh.

It would appear that Beck has now been designated as Limbaugh’s “mini-me”.  Taking a play from Limbaugh’s misogynistic handbook, Beck made the assertion that only “ugly” women are progressives.  This is a take-off on Limbaugh’s comparable assertions some years ago.

What I find hysterical here, is that both Limbaugh and Beck are extraordinarily un-attractive men.  Apparently, using their rational, only “ugly” men are right-wing, Republican Christians. 

His comments, which I believe occurred on his radio show about the 6th of March, 2008 (you couldn’t actually say those things on TV with a camera pointing at your doughy, pudgy face without hearing the laughter from coast to coast) were followed by comments that these “ugly” women would get a another chance once they were in heaven.  Hmmmm.

Beck’s comments are nothing new for the right wing extremists who believe that God loves a bigot.  This faction of the “moral” right wing has no problem in stooping to new lows in bigotry, discrimination and vulgarity.  This same faction holds as its icons the foul mouthed and stupendously unattractive Anne (Andy) Coulter; the compulsive sexual harasser of women and purveyor of misinformation, Bill O’Reilly, and the pill popping junkie, woman hating, Limbaugh.

All three men (four if you include Coulter) have realized they are becoming irrelevant.  American’s, for the most part have realized that what these people have to offer is….nothing. 

Beck’s reliance on promoting himself as a Christian while making such spectacularly un-godly and unfounded remarks is wearing thin.  Having had little credibility to begin with, Beck’s remarks take him to new lows.  But, I would imagine that he has plenty of company down there…..the bottom of the barrel is populated by others like him who say the most unbelievably crass and vulgar things and those who feel that unless they are hating someone, somewhere……their life just has no value. 

Far from being the rational and educated reporter/journalist/broadcaster or whatever I thought he was, it turns out that Beck is just a smaller version of Limbaugh: nothing of value to contribute, nothing of importance to say, and nothing worth listening to.  Unfortunately for all of us….someone gave him a mike.  Talk about ugly…….maybe you’ll get your chance when you get to heaven Glenn.

Marti Oakley

California Declares War on Homeschoolers

2 Comments

Homeschoolers are threatened with legal action and the confiscation of their children by the state if they do not comply with California’s educational policy. Is this really for the good of the children and to make sure they are getting a good education?

Justice H. Walter Croskey stated:  

A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.

In other words, a primary purpose of the educational system is to disseminate state-sponsored propaganda.

According to an article by Bob Egelko and Jill Tucker titled

Homeschoolers’ setback sends shock waves through state

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Either send your child to public school for the proper indoctrination, or pay for a state-credentialed tutor who has been licensed in the proper methods of indoctrination to state policies, or be criminally prosecuted.

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. “Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply,” Croskey said.

The appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. “With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect,” Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute said.

The term “educational neglect” lends one to believe that this ruling is concerned with the actual educational quality that students may or may not receive from non-credentialed parents. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, said her organization’s chief concern was not the quality of the children’s education, but their “being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety.”

The state could care less about the quality of education. The main thrust is to have children “in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety” and to receive proper indoctrination “in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

In California, the state has effectively taken over the rights of parents to “protect” and “educate” their children. Children are the property of the state as soon as the mother gives birth. The state assumes responsibility for their protection, care, and guidance. If parents do not comply with the state’s mandate, they no longer have the privilege of housing their own children, and are discarded as unfit caretakers of the state’s property.

Copyright 2008, Barbara H. Peterson

Reference:

Homeschoolers’ setback sends shock waves through state. Retrieved from:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=031002&From=News

“California…parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey

1 Comment

Social Engineering Homeschoolers are threatened with legal action and the confiscation of their children by the state if they do not comply with its educational policy. But is this for the good of the children and to make sure they are getting a good education? Justice H. Walter Croskey stated:  

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

In other words, the primary purpose of the educational system is to disseminate state-sponsored propaganda, not to educate our children.

Here is the entire article:

Homeschoolers’ setback sends shock waves through state

Friday, March 7, 2008

(03-07) 04:00 PST LOS ANGELESA California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.“At first, there was a sense of, ‘No way,’ ” said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. “Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation.”The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California’s compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child’s grade level.

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. “Parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling under the provisions of these laws.”

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,” the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Union pleased with ruling

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state’s largest teachers union.

“We’re happy,” said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. “We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting.”

A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell issued a statement saying he supports “parental choice when it comes to homeschooling.”

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. “With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect,” Dacus said.

Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools.

Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she’s ready for a fight.

Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree.

“I’m kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep,” she said. “I’m ready. I have damn good arguments.”

She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs.

The ruling, Schwarzer said, “stinks.”

Began as child welfare case

The Long family legal battle didn’t start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case.

A juvenile court judge looking into one child’s complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home.

The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution “was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children’s right to a legal education.”

The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools – a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said.

Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students – whether in class or through independent study.

Ruling will apply statewide

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state.

“California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home,” he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs’ two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

“They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor,” she said. “If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers.”

Heimov said her organization’s chief concern was not the quality of the children’s education, but their “being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety.”

Online resources

The ruling: To view the ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal, go to links.sfgate.com/ZCQR.

E-mail the writers at begelko@sfchronicle.com and jtucker@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

%d bloggers like this: