Remember when the Democrat party made sense? Me neither! But I do remember when at least I didn’t question whose side they were on! I despised that worn out alcoholic Tip O’Neill but I never questioned whether he was a patriot. The current batch of Democrats make it impossible to view them any other way except domestic enemies of the United States.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The teacher that insists on politically correct thought from their students or approves of trendy immorality is not really a teacher but a state sponsored propagandist or an irresponsible parent. If the teacher has a classroom of students without “receptive minds,” the function they are performing is not “education.” It is called “daycare,” which seems to be enough for a high percentage of students and their parents.
How does all of that lead up to the issue of teacher pay? Well, the successful home school teacher doesn’t get paid, yet their students perform very well on standardized tests and in life. Private school teachers, such as in Christian schools, are paid but a pittance — with few if any benefits — compared to the current levels of government school teachers; however, it is an easy thing to make a case that their students excel in national testing and in life. Sunday school teachers don’t get paid and the students who learn for the love of it don’t get paid — yet become some of the most accomplished individuals we know.
So when we talk about teacher pay, we are not talking about education.
Via Kenneth, Crystal Coast Tea Party Patriots
“O glorious flag, O righteous cause,
O glorious struggle to be free,
O glorious sleeper, thou hast proved,
A soldier fit to follow Lee.”
Currently referred to and pending in the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate of the North Carolina legislature are four bills – S 610, S 634, S 637, and S 680, all four of which are sponsored by North Carolina State Senator David Rouzer and call upon the Congress of the United States to convene a constitutional convention (Con-Con) for the purposes of adding a balanced budget amendment (BBA); repeal federal laws and regulations (Repeal Amendment); that all laws passed by Congress must also equally apply to members of Congress; and, lastly, to "preserve the energy security of the country by increasing domestic hydrocarbon production by directing the federal government to open up all federal onshore and offshore lands for energy exploration and production if geological survey data indicates the possible presence of economically recoverable hydrocarbon resources."
However noble these proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution may be in their attempts to restore fiscal restraint by requiring a balanced budget, repealing needless or harmful federal laws and regulations, stop Congress from exempting itself from its own laws, and ending the nation’s dependency on foreign oil by opening all federal onshore and offshore lands for drilling, the calling of a general Article V convention is not the proper route that should be taken to make or propose such amendments to the Constitution.
The last time that such a convention was convened was in Philadelphia in 1787 when General George Washington, James Madison, and the various delegates from the thirteen United States assembled to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation -- the law of the land at the time.
Although called to strengthen and centralize the national government, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation rather than replace them. We were lucky then, seeing as the convention resulted in such an excellent Constitution. We were also fortunate to have had enlightened statesmen and drafters, such as James Madison, who understood the Lockean virtues and principles of individual liberty and limited government. Looking back, who among us today comes close to exemplifying the virtues of our Founding Fathers?
The answer is too few and far between, if any at all. The proposal for a second Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) promoted by so-called conservatives, would likely result in a runaway convention in which extremist or revolutionary elements could highjack the convention and alter the Constitution to include harmful amendments, such as “second generation” or “positive” socialist rights while curtailing our nation’s traditional negative rights that protect our liberties from the government.
What we need is not for the States to revise the Constitution, but rather to restore and enforce it as our Founding Fathers originally intended (for more information, click here for a free PDF article download).
Although pending in the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate, we should not risk the passage of a Con-Con call no matter how appealing it may be. You now have the ability to help stop North Carolina from calling upon Congress to authorize such a convention. Contact your State Senator now and urge him or her to oppose the passage of S 610, S 634, S 637, and S 680, and if they do come to a vote on the floor to vote NAY on these bills.
From Your Friends at The John Birch Society
Terry Lakin, the ex-Army surgeon jailed for disobeying orders and refusing to deploy in order to force President Obama to prove he is a citizen and legitimately holding office, was released from Fort Leavenworth, Kan., on May 13.
The career officer's court-martial at Fort Meade, Md., briefly became the focal point of the so-called "birther" movement in December. During his court-martial, Lakin told the judge he regretted disobeying orders and hoped he would be able to continue to serve.
He pleaded guilty to disobeying orders and was also found guilty of missing movement -- the flight that would have sent him on deployment to Afghanistan. He was sentenced to six months in prison, loss of all pay and benefits and dismissed from the Army. He was released a month early.
When contacted at his home in Maryland on May 17, he referred Military.com to the Terry Lakin Action Fund, a website set up to aid his legal defense and provide for his family. The website continues to argue Lakin's case for questioning Obama's legitimacy.
Many Southerners like Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia saw no reason for secession after Lincoln's election, and rightfully labeled the purely sectional Republican party as disunionist and an enemy of the Constitution. He properly reasoned that if Andrew Jackson could coerce South Carolina for nullification, why not coerce the guilty Northern States who nullified the federal fugitive slave law? As in the last paragraph below, Hill's reasoning lost any resonance as Southerner's realized that there was no compromise or dialogue with the Jacobin Republicans, and a constitutional republic without the North was the only answer.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
That The Union Not Be Abandoned To Its Enemies:
"On the fifteenth of November (1860), following (Howell) Cobb, (Robert) Toombs and (Alexander) Stephens, Hill appeared before the Assembly and made an eloquent argument against immediate secession or any precipitate action. The speech is primarily a closely reasoned appeal for moderation and a plea that passion and prejudices be discarded in the face of the imminent crisis.
"What are our grievances?" asks Hill; and then he proceeds to enumerate them, outlining the discriminatory policies and propaganda of the Republican party and laying special emphasis on the nugatory action of various free-State legislatures, affecting the fugitive slave laws. Hill represents the Republican party as the really disunionist party, and quotes from various abolitionists who damn the Union and Constitution because they permit slavery. The grievances, then, are plain, and agreed of all Southern men.
Moreover, Hill believes the redress of grievances is not so hopeless a prospect in the immediate future. But suppose, for the sake of argument, redress of grievances within the Union is impossible, surely it is worth the effort; and all are agreed...that if such redress fails, then secession must come. But what are the remedies then, which are proposed within the Union. First, the demand must be made by all the Southern States that the laws protecting slavery and requiring the rendering up of fugitive slaves must be enforced. The demand can be made as an ultimatum if need be. If necessary, let the federal government enact a force bill against any recalcitrant Northern State refusing obedience, as was done against South Carolina in 1833. Let the wrangling about slavery cease, and the entire machinery of government, if necessary, be put behind the enforcement of existing laws.
And Lincoln must come to this view. His only strength is in the law; he is bound by oath to carry out the law. A Southern president had once coerced a Southern State; now let a Northern president coerce a Northern State, if it comes to that. Hill insists that such a resolute attitude has never been taken by the Southern States, and he pleads that the Union not be abandoned to its enemies without making this effort to save it....He asks: "Is this Union good? If so, why should we surrender its blessings because Massachusetts violates the laws of that Union? Drive Massachusetts to the duties of the Constitution or from its benefits....Let us defend the Union against its enemies---not abandon it to them.
On December 6, (Howell) Cobb, in an address to the people of Georgia announcing his resignation from Buchanan's cabinet, averred that : "the Union formed by our fathers, which was one of equality, justice and fraternity would be supplanted on the 4th of March by a Union of sectionalism and hatred---the one worthy of the support and devotion of free men, the other only possible at the cost of Southern honor, safety and independence."
This was followed up on December 23 by Toombs telegram to the Savannah Morning News, after the failure of the Crittenden Compromise: "I will tell you upon the faith of a true man that all further looking to the North for your constitutional rights in the Union ought to be abandoned. It is fraught with nothing but ruin to yourself and posterity."
(Benjamin H. Hill, Secession and Reconstruction, Haywood J. Pearce, Jr., University of Chicago Press, 1928, pp 43-45)
That The Union Not Be Abandoned To Its Enemies
“Kemp Battle gave as clear an analysis as anyone of the situation in North Carolina after the firing on Fort Sumter. He, like [Zebulon] Vance, had been “a violent Union man” before Lincoln’s call for troops. He felt Lincoln’s election was a misfortune, theoretically at least, but other elections would come and with them perhaps fair legislation for the South. He did think the Lincoln administration was wanting in a conciliatory attitude and “should not have declared war against the seceding States, which the call for 75,000 troops amounted to.”
He recalled that President Jackson had refused to use troops to enforce a Supreme Court decision, and the wisdom of his moderation had later been established. When Lincoln issued his call for volunteers, the North Carolina unionists, who had hoped for a cordial hand from the Washington administration, felt ignored and snubbed.
With Northern troops coming down, they had to stand with their own people. Battle explained it thus: “It is better to go out together, even if we are whipped back together. If we do not go with the South we shall certainly have civil war at home. That will be much worse than fighting the North.”
(Zeb Vance, Champion of Personal Freedom, pp. 104-105)
North Carolina Unionists Abandoned by Lincoln
"God created the Earth, Mauser drew the property lines."
-- Topbanana, a member at the FALFiles Forums
Boy, aren't the unions going to be thrilled.......
-- Topbanana, a member at the FALFiles Forums
Boy, aren't the unions going to be thrilled.......