May 18, 2011 || World News

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Re: Despite all the ass-kissing, Muslims still dislike Obama

Despite all the ass-kissing, jews and xians still dislike Obama

how can anyone trust a man who prays with xians, jews and muzzies?

On May 18, 12:31 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> Despite all
> the ass-kissing, Muslims still dislike
> Obama<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/despite-all-the-ass-kis...>
> *Scotty Starnes
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| May 18,
> 2011 at 11:45 AM | Tags:
> Indonesia <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=indonesia>,
> Jordan<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=jordan>,
> Muslims <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=muslims>, Pew
> Poll<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=pew-poll>,
> President Obama <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=president-obama>,
> Turkey <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=turkey>,
> US<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=us>| Categories: Political
> Issues <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?cat=35145> | URL:http://wp.me/pvnFC-5gR
>
> All that ass-kissing and appeasement to the Muslim world and nothing to show
> for it. Looks like another Obama policy failure.
>
> FromBreitbart.com<http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.476064a6abfc51e0845ef12e7...>
>
> *The image of the United States
> <http://topics.breitbart.com/United+States/>has soured in Muslim
> nations <http://topics.breitbart.com/Muslim+nations/> in the past year, says
> a poll released two days before President Barack
> Obama<http://topics.breitbart.com/Obama/> is
> due to deliver a speech on the pro-democracy revolts sweeping the Arab
> world.*
>
> Only in Indonesia, <http://topics.breitbart.com/indonesia/> the world's most
> populous Muslim nation <http://topics.breitbart.com/Muslim+nation/> where
> Obama <http://topics.breitbart.com/Obama/> spent part of his childhood, does
> a majority have a favorable view of the United
> States,<http://topics.breitbart.com/United+States/>says the poll by
> the Pew
> Research Center. <http://topics.breitbart.com/Pew+Research+Center/>
>
> But even the number of Indonesians with a favorable view of the United
> States <http://topics.breitbart.com/United+States/>was down by five
> percentage points from 59 percent in 2010.
>
> *The Pew survey found that the US president remains unpopular in most Muslim
> nations, <http://topics.breitbart.com/Muslim+nations/>and most disapprove of
> the way he has handled calls for political change roiling the Arab world*.
>
> Even in the United States' key allies of Jordan and
> Turkey,<http://topics.breitbart.com/Turkey/>views of the United
> States <http://topics.breitbart.com/United+States/> soured in the past year.
>
> The percentage of Jordanians who regard the United
> States<http://topics.breitbart.com/United+States/>in a favorable light
> fell by eight points since 2010 to just 13 percent this
> year, and in Turkey, <http://topics.breitbart.com/Turkey/> just 10 percent
> of people had a positive opinion about the United
> States,<http://topics.breitbart.com/United+States/>down
> from 17 percent in 2010.
>
> A mere 12 percent of Turks said they had confidence in
> Obama,<http://topics.breitbart.com/Obama/>a drop of 11 points from
> 2010. In Jordan, confidence in
> Obama <http://topics.breitbart.com/Obama/>rose in the past year, but only by
> two percentage points, to 28 percent approval.
>
> Pakistanis' views of the United
> States<http://topics.breitbart.com/United+States/>were also less
> positive this year compared to last, falling from 17 percent
> in 2010 to 11 percent.
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/despite-all-the-ass-kis...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/scottystarnes.wordpress.co...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/20265/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2...>
>
> [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
> by Email <http://support.wordpress.com/post-by-email/> feature.
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Republicans’ primary choice: The Constitution or the money

no issue better reveals one of the growing divisions in the Republican
Party than education policy

President Obama has continued to expand federal control of education.

a one-size federal curriculum hardly fits our nation s diverse
educational needs
----
giving the feds the ability to fund certain states more because of
their diverse needs is wrong.
it's very similar to when states funded black areas of towns and
counties less and it ended up in the courts.

here's why nationalizing the education system is wrong:
- I have the right to educate my child better than you do yours
- Our private schools should not be forced to educate your poor
minority students and still be expected to pay taxes into your lousy
public school system
- trying to educate students equally is futile

remember ... equal rights and equality are two different things
those who work and study harder are not equal to those who don't

On May 18, 12:28 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> So you don't want to discuss the words, concepts and ideas presented here (education and federal involvement) ... opting instead to spew your usual meaningless fallacy?
> <sigh>
> Regard$,
> --MJ"Just in Case You Are Taking the Republicans Seriously . . . like, when they say we need to repeal Obamacare because it is socialism. Remember that Social Security, Medicare, and public education are three of the greatest socialist schemes on the planet. When Republicans say that they too need to be eliminated because they are socialism then we can begin to take them seriously." -- Laurence VanceOn Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:Republicans primary choice: The Constitution or the moneyGOP risks its small-government ID by backing federal funds for schoolsBy David DavenportThe Washington Times6:53 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2011Perhaps no issue better reveals one of the growing divisions in theRepublican Partythan education policy. It wasn t that long ago - 1996, in fact - that the party platform called for the elimination of theU.S. Department of Educationin favor of a smaller federal government and greater power for states. But in the past decade, beginning with PresidentGeorge W. Bushs No Child Left Behind Act in 2001,Republicans have seemed to be challenging Democratsto see who can win the misguided race to federalize education.How did Republicans come to this place? In part, Republicans fell victim to the age-old notion that in a crisis, the federal government must come to the rescue. With America s test scores lagging behind in international comparisons, U.S. policymakers increasingly saw kindergarten-through-12th-grade education in crisis. As governor of Texas,Mr. Bushhad some success with regimens of testing and accountability, so he brought his team and ideas with him to Washington. The argument was that we could identify failing schools through national testing and thereby address the problem. Like poverty, drugs, illiteracy and other crises that led to federal initiatives, our underperforming schools moved Washington onto a war footing.PresidentObamahas continued to expand federal control of education. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks testing can identify not only failing schools, but also failing teachers, and his value added approach seeks to tie test scores to the performance of individual teachers and, ultimately, to their salaries and job security. Because the federal government still has no constitutional authority to intervene directly in local schools, instead the feds bribe - sorry, incentivize - cash-strapped states and school districts to adopt their tests and reforms through their Race to the Top grant programs. Only Texas has declined to participate on the ground of state and local control.As if this weren t enough, it was announced recently that concrete steps are under way in Washington to develop a new national curriculum. TheDepartment of Educationis funding the development of national guidelines, teaching materials, tests and curricula, which have received some early expressions of support from people on both sides of the political aisle. Others, including this author, have signed a counterstatement pointing out that a one-size federal curriculum hardly fits our nation s diverse educational needs or our system of federalism.Republican reformers believe in their federalized approach because it enables them to make education more businesslike. By setting clear standards and testing all students, they are turning education away from process and toward outcomes. In addition, they are shifting the debate away from the argument for more money, which has been the constant refrain of teachers unions, to one about effectiveness. Still, this debate and the resulting testing and accountability regimes could and should be carried out at the state level, not in Washington.At the deepest level, federalizing education suggests that many Republicans have given up on smaller government and state control in favor of using government to produce their own desired outcomes - an oxymoronic big-government conservatism. We can only hope that in the 2012 primaries, Republicans will rediscover the constitutional view that education, which is not a power delegated to the federal government, is best handled at the state and local levels.David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former president of Pepperdine University.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/republicans-primary-choice-the-constitution-or-the/--Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"
> X-Attachment-Id: f_gnuj50sc0

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Newt Gingrich Glitter Bombed [VIDEO]

Geesh, talk about attempting to glorify stupid....(Was that LilMarxistMoonbatTommyTomTomForNews?)

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/newt-gingrich-glitter-bombed

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Republicans’ primary choice: The Constitution or the money

Uhm......Michael?

You are the one who cut and paste an article, without comment. I merely followed up as accurately as David Davenport did.

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:28 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

So you don't want to discuss the words, concepts and ideas presented here (education and federal involvement) ... opting instead to spew your usual meaningless fallacy?
<sigh>

Regard$,
--MJ

"Just in Case You Are Taking the Republicans Seriously . . . like, when they say we need to repeal Obamacare because it is socialism. Remember that Social Security, Medicare, and public education are three of the greatest socialist schemes on the planet. When Republicans say that they too need to be eliminated because they are socialism then we can begin to take them seriously." -- Laurence Vance

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Republicans' primary choice: The Constitution or the money

GOP risks its small-government ID by backing federal funds for schools

By David Davenport

The Washington Times

6:53 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2011

Perhaps no issue better reveals one of the growing divisions in the Republican Party than education policy. It wasn't that long ago - 1996, in fact - that the party platform called for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in favor of a smaller federal government and greater power for states. But in the past decade, beginning with President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Republicans have seemed to be challenging Democrats to see who can win the misguided race to federalize education.

How did Republicans come to this place? In part, Republicans fell victim to the age-old notion that in a crisis, the federal government must come to the rescue. With America's test scores lagging behind in international comparisons, U.S. policymakers increasingly saw kindergarten-through-12th-grade education in crisis. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush had some success with regimens of testing and accountability, so he brought his team and ideas with him to Washington. The argument was that we could identify failing schools through national testing and thereby address the problem. Like poverty, drugs, illiteracy and other crises that led to federal initiatives, our underperforming schools moved Washington onto a war footing.

President Obama has continued to expand federal control of education. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks testing can identify not only failing schools, but also failing teachers, and his "value added" approach seeks to tie test scores to the performance of individual teachers and, ultimately, to their salaries and job security. Because the federal government still has no constitutional authority to intervene directly in local schools, instead the feds bribe - sorry, incentivize - cash-strapped states and school districts to adopt their tests and reforms through their Race to the Top grant programs. Only Texas has declined to participate on the ground of state and local control.

As if this weren't enough, it was announced recently that concrete steps are under way in Washington to develop a new national curriculum. The Department of Education is funding the development of national guidelines, teaching materials, tests and curricula, which have received some early expressions of support from people on both sides of the political aisle. Others, including this author, have signed a counterstatement pointing out that a one-size federal curriculum hardly fits our nation's diverse educational needs or our system of federalism.

Republican reformers believe in their federalized approach because it enables them to make education more businesslike. By setting clear standards and testing all students, they are turning education away from process and toward outcomes. In addition, they are shifting the debate away from the argument for more money, which has been the constant refrain of teachers unions, to one about effectiveness. Still, this debate and the resulting testing and accountability regimes could and should be carried out at the state level, not in Washington.

At the deepest level, federalizing education suggests that many Republicans have given up on smaller government and state control in favor of using government to produce their own desired outcomes - an oxymoronic big-government conservatism. We can only hope that in the 2012 primaries, Republicans will rediscover the constitutional view that education, which is not a power delegated to the federal government, is best handled at the state and local levels.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former president of Pepperdine University.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/republicans-primary-choice-the-constitution-or-the/

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_gnuj50sc0

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Things Obama has killed...

Scotty Starnes | May 18, 2011 at 11:04 AM | Tags: economy, health care, jobs, Osama Bin Laden, President Obama, U.S. dollar | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5gN

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Re: Marijuana or the 4th Amendment…You Choose

That would make those who blindly trust taxeaters -- both costumed and not -- what ... Pollyannas? delusional?
Why such a problem with reality?

Regard$,
--MJ

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like
fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment
should it be left to irresponsible action. -- George Washington

At 11:12 AM 5/18/2011, you wrote:

Cops are a threat to the Constitution and liberty
---
ok, the next time you need help call a pothead

those who promote distrust of the police or government are generally
referred to as anarchists

Despite all the ass-kissing, Muslims still dislike Obama

Scotty Starnes | May 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM | Tags: Indonesia, Jordan, Muslims, Pew Poll, President Obama, Turkey, US | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5gR

All that ass-kissing and appeasement to the Muslim world and nothing to show for it. Looks like another Obama policy failure.

FromBreitbart.com

The image of the United States has soured in Muslim nations in the past year, says a poll released two days before President Barack Obama is due to deliver a speech on the pro-democracy revolts sweeping the Arab world.

Only in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation where Obama spent part of his childhood, does a majority have a favorable view of the United States, says the poll by the Pew Research Center.

But even the number of Indonesians with a favorable view of the United Stateswas down by five percentage points from 59 percent in 2010.

The Pew survey found that the US president remains unpopular in most Muslim nations,and most disapprove of the way he has handled calls for political change roiling the Arab world.

Even in the United States' key allies of Jordan and Turkey, views of the United States soured in the past year.

The percentage of Jordanians who regard the United States in a favorable light fell by eight points since 2010 to just 13 percent this year, and in Turkey, just 10 percent of people had a positive opinion about the United States,down from 17 percent in 2010.

A mere 12 percent of Turks said they had confidence in Obama, a drop of 11 points from 2010. In Jordan, confidence in Obamarose in the past year, but only by two percentage points, to 28 percent approval.

Pakistanis' views of the United States were also less positive this year compared to last, falling from 17 percent in 2010 to 11 percent.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Re: Republicans’ primary choice: The Constitution or the money

So you don't want to discuss the words, concepts and ideas presented here (education and federal involvement) ... opting instead to spew your usual meaningless fallacy?
<sigh>

Regard$,
--MJ

"Just in Case You Are Taking the Republicans Seriously . . . like, when they say we need to repeal Obamacare because it is socialism. Remember that Social Security, Medicare, and public education are three of the greatest socialist schemes on the planet. When Republicans say that they too need to be eliminated because they are socialism then we can begin to take them seriously." -- Laurence Vance

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Republicans' primary choice: The Constitution or the money

GOP risks its small-government ID by backing federal funds for schools

By David Davenport

The Washington Times

6:53 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2011

Perhaps no issue better reveals one of the growing divisions in the Republican Party than education policy. It wasn't that long ago - 1996, in fact - that the party platform called for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in favor of a smaller federal government and greater power for states. But in the past decade, beginning with President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Republicans have seemed to be challenging Democrats to see who can win the misguided race to federalize education.

How did Republicans come to this place? In part, Republicans fell victim to the age-old notion that in a crisis, the federal government must come to the rescue. With America's test scores lagging behind in international comparisons, U.S. policymakers increasingly saw kindergarten-through-12th-grade education in crisis. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush had some success with regimens of testing and accountability, so he brought his team and ideas with him to Washington. The argument was that we could identify failing schools through national testing and thereby address the problem. Like poverty, drugs, illiteracy and other crises that led to federal initiatives, our underperforming schools moved Washington onto a war footing.

President Obama has continued to expand federal control of education. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks testing can identify not only failing schools, but also failing teachers, and his "value added" approach seeks to tie test scores to the performance of individual teachers and, ultimately, to their salaries and job security. Because the federal government still has no constitutional authority to intervene directly in local schools, instead the feds bribe - sorry, incentivize - cash-strapped states and school districts to adopt their tests and reforms through their Race to the Top grant programs. Only Texas has declined to participate on the ground of state and local control.

As if this weren't enough, it was announced recently that concrete steps are under way in Washington to develop a new national curriculum. The Department of Education is funding the development of national guidelines, teaching materials, tests and curricula, which have received some early expressions of support from people on both sides of the political aisle. Others, including this author, have signed a counterstatement pointing out that a one-size federal curriculum hardly fits our nation's diverse educational needs or our system of federalism.

Republican reformers believe in their federalized approach because it enables them to make education more businesslike. By setting clear standards and testing all students, they are turning education away from process and toward outcomes. In addition, they are shifting the debate away from the argument for more money, which has been the constant refrain of teachers unions, to one about effectiveness. Still, this debate and the resulting testing and accountability regimes could and should be carried out at the state level, not in Washington.

At the deepest level, federalizing education suggests that many Republicans have given up on smaller government and state control in favor of using government to produce their own desired outcomes - an oxymoronic big-government conservatism. We can only hope that in the 2012 primaries, Republicans will rediscover the constitutional view that education, which is not a power delegated to the federal government, is best handled at the state and local levels.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former president of Pepperdine University.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/republicans-primary-choice-the-constitution-or-the/

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="DemocraticMoonbats.jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_gnuj50sc0

Newt Gingrich Glitter Bombed [VIDEO]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/newt-gingrich-glitter-bombed

Re: Republicans’ primary choice: The Constitution or the money

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Republicans' primary choice: The Constitution or the money
GOP risks its small-government ID by backing federal funds for schools
By David Davenport
The Washington Times
6:53 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2011

Perhaps no issue better reveals one of the growing divisions in the Republican Party than education policy. It wasn't that long ago - 1996, in fact - that the party platform called for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in favor of a smaller federal government and greater power for states. But in the past decade, beginning with President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Republicans have seemed to be challenging Democrats to see who can win the misguided race to federalize education.

How did Republicans come to this place? In part, Republicans fell victim to the age-old notion that in a crisis, the federal government must come to the rescue. With America's test scores lagging behind in international comparisons, U.S. policymakers increasingly saw kindergarten-through-12th-grade education in crisis. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush had some success with regimens of testing and accountability, so he brought his team and ideas with him to Washington. The argument was that we could identify failing schools through national testing and thereby address the problem. Like poverty, drugs, illiteracy and other crises that led to federal initiatives, our underperforming schools moved Washington onto a war footing.

President Obama has continued to expand federal control of education. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks testing can identify not only failing schools, but also failing teachers, and his "value added" approach seeks to tie test scores to the performance of individual teachers and, ultimately, to their salaries and job security. Because the federal government still has no constitutional authority to intervene directly in local schools, instead the feds bribe - sorry, incentivize - cash-strapped states and school districts to adopt their tests and reforms through their Race to the Top grant programs. Only Texas has declined to participate on the ground of state and local control.

As if this weren't enough, it was announced recently that concrete steps are under way in Washington to develop a new national curriculum. The Department of Education is funding the development of national guidelines, teaching materials, tests and curricula, which have received some early expressions of support from people on both sides of the political aisle. Others, including this author, have signed a counterstatement pointing out that a one-size federal curriculum hardly fits our nation's diverse educational needs or our system of federalism.

Republican reformers believe in their federalized approach because it enables them to make education more businesslike. By setting clear standards and testing all students, they are turning education away from process and toward outcomes. In addition, they are shifting the debate away from the argument for more money, which has been the constant refrain of teachers unions, to one about effectiveness. Still, this debate and the resulting testing and accountability regimes could and should be carried out at the state level, not in Washington.

At the deepest level, federalizing education suggests that many Republicans have given up on smaller government and state control in favor of using government to produce their own desired outcomes - an oxymoronic big-government conservatism. We can only hope that in the 2012 primaries, Republicans will rediscover the constitutional view that education, which is not a power delegated to the federal government, is best handled at the state and local levels.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former president of Pepperdine University.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/republicans-primary-choice-the-constitution-or-the/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Marijuana or the 4th Amendment…You Choose

Same in Florida; the smell of marijuana does not constitute the ability to search one's home. I have not read this case, Kentucky v. King, and I admit that the writer "Christopher" has some semi-valid points, but this is a bit extreme......

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:

VERY interesting, as the Massachusetts high court just ruled that the
smell of weed coming from your car when stopped by the police, isn't
even justification to tell the driver to exit the vehicle!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Republicans’ primary choice: The Constitution or the money

Republicans' primary choice: The Constitution or the money
GOP risks its small-government ID by backing federal funds for schools
By David Davenport
The Washington Times
6:53 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2011

Perhaps no issue better reveals one of the growing divisions in the Republican Party than education policy. It wasn't that long ago - 1996, in fact - that the party platform called for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in favor of a smaller federal government and greater power for states. But in the past decade, beginning with President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Republicans have seemed to be challenging Democrats to see who can win the misguided race to federalize education.

How did Republicans come to this place? In part, Republicans fell victim to the age-old notion that in a crisis, the federal government must come to the rescue. With America's test scores lagging behind in international comparisons, U.S. policymakers increasingly saw kindergarten-through-12th-grade education in crisis. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush had some success with regimens of testing and accountability, so he brought his team and ideas with him to Washington. The argument was that we could identify failing schools through national testing and thereby address the problem. Like poverty, drugs, illiteracy and other crises that led to federal initiatives, our underperforming schools moved Washington onto a war footing.

President Obama has continued to expand federal control of education. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks testing can identify not only failing schools, but also failing teachers, and his "value added" approach seeks to tie test scores to the performance of individual teachers and, ultimately, to their salaries and job security. Because the federal government still has no constitutional authority to intervene directly in local schools, instead the feds bribe - sorry, incentivize - cash-strapped states and school districts to adopt their tests and reforms through their Race to the Top grant programs. Only Texas has declined to participate on the ground of state and local control.

As if this weren't enough, it was announced recently that concrete steps are under way in Washington to develop a new national curriculum. The Department of Education is funding the development of national guidelines, teaching materials, tests and curricula, which have received some early expressions of support from people on both sides of the political aisle. Others, including this author, have signed a counterstatement pointing out that a one-size federal curriculum hardly fits our nation's diverse educational needs or our system of federalism.

Republican reformers believe in their federalized approach because it enables them to make education more businesslike. By setting clear standards and testing all students, they are turning education away from process and toward outcomes. In addition, they are shifting the debate away from the argument for more money, which has been the constant refrain of teachers unions, to one about effectiveness. Still, this debate and the resulting testing and accountability regimes could and should be carried out at the state level, not in Washington.

At the deepest level, federalizing education suggests that many Republicans have given up on smaller government and state control in favor of using government to produce their own desired outcomes - an oxymoronic big-government conservatism. We can only hope that in the 2012 primaries, Republicans will rediscover the constitutional view that education, which is not a power delegated to the federal government, is best handled at the state and local levels.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former president of Pepperdine University.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/republicans-primary-choice-the-constitution-or-the/

'Tax cut' rhetoric doesn't cut it

'Tax cut' rhetoric doesn't cut it
By: Thomas Sowell
12/07/10 9:05 PM

Let's face it, politics is largely the art of deception, and political rhetoric is largely the art of misstating issues. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending how long unemployment benefits will be provided, or instead to give "tax cuts to the rich."

First of all, nobody's taxes -- whether rich or poor -- is going to be cut in this lame duck session of Congress. The only real issue is whether our current tax rates will go up in January, whether for everybody or nobody or somewhere in between.

The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up. So the next time you hear some politician or media talking head say "tax cuts for the rich," that will just tell you whether they are serious about facts or just addicted to talking points.

Not only are the so-called "tax cuts" not really tax cuts, most of the people called "rich" are not really rich. Rich means having a lot of wealth.

But income taxes don't touch wealth. No wonder some billionaires are saying it's OK to raise income taxes. They would still be billionaires if taxes took 100 percent of their current income.

What those who are arguing against "tax cuts for the rich" are promoting is raising the tax rates on families making $250,000 a year and up. A husband and wife making $125,000 a year each are not rich. If they have a kid going to one of the many colleges charging $30,000 a year (in after-tax money) for tuition alone, they are not likely to feel anywhere close to being rich.

Many people earning an annual income of $125,000 a year do so only after years of earning a lot less than that before eventually working their way up to that level. For politicians to step in at that point and confiscate what they have invested years of working to achieve is a little much.

It also takes a lot of brass to talk about taxing "millionaires and billionaires" when most of the people whose taxes the liberals want to raise are neither. Why is so much deception necessary if your case is good?

Those who own their own small businesses have usually reached their peak earnings many years after having started their business, and often operating with very low income, or even operating at a loss, when their businesses first got started.

Again, having politicians step in with an extra tax at that point, when later incomes compensate earlier sacrifices, is sheer brass -- especially when real millionaires and billionaires have their wealth safely stowed in tax shelters.

Another fashionable political and media deception is making a parallel between giving money to the unemployed versus giving money to "the rich."

When you refrain from raising someone's taxes, you are not "giving" them anything. Even if you were actually cutting their tax rate -- which is out of the question today -- you would still not be "giving" them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of what they have earned.

Is the government doing any of us a big favor by not taking even more of what we have worked for? Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that the government is "giving" us something by not taxing it away?

With unemployment compensation, however, you are in fact giving someone something. "Extending unemployment benefits" always sounds good politically -- especially if you do not ask the basic question: "For how long should they be extended?" A year? Two years? No limit?

Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed.

If I were fired tomorrow, should I be able to live off the government until such time as I find another job that is exactly the same, making the same or higher pay? What if I am offered another job that uses some of the same skills but doesn't pay quite as much? Should I be allowed to keep on living off the government?

With the government making it more expensive for employers to hire workers, and at the same time subsidizing unemployed workers longer and longer, you can have as much unemployment as you are willing to pay for, for as long as you are willing to pay for it.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/thomas-sowell-tax-cut-rhetoric-doesnt-cut-it

Re: Newt Gingrich in Iowa: "You are an embarrassment to the Republican party"

Gingrich Apologizes to Paul Ryan for 'Right-Wing Social Engineering' Criticism

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/gingrich-apologizes-paul-ryan-right-wing-social-engineering-criticism/#ixzz1MizAJ7GM

May 17, 2011

FOX News Reporting

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich apologized to Rep. Paul Ryan on Tuesday after panning Ryan's Medicare plan as "right-wing social engineering."

Gingrich and Ryan traded emails and spoke on the phone, a call that "went really well," Gingrich's spokesman Rick Tyler told Fox News.

The former House speaker also held two conference calls with Tea Party leaders, one on Monday night and one Tuesday morning, to explain what he meant by his comments Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Politico reported. "We've tried to correct the record and admit it could have been done better," Tyler told Politico. "We move on."

Gingrich went "On the Record" with Greta van Susteren Tuesday night to respond to criticism over his comments.

"I want to set a precedent for new kinds of presidential campaigns," he told van Susteren. "I made a mistake and I called Paul Ryan today, who's a very close personal friend, and I said that."

Presidential hopeful blasts Ryan budget

Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, argued Monday that his proposal is not "radical," as Gingrich alleged in the interview over the weekend. And he questioned why Gingrich was choosing to align himself with Democratic critics of the GOP budget proposal.

"With allies like that, who needs the left?" Ryan quipped, during an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show.

Ryan was in Chicago on Monday to defend his budget outline, which calls for phasing out direct Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals in favor of a system of subsidized private insurance for seniors. Republican leaders in Congress generally have supported the plan, though a handful have indicated it is just a starting point for negotiations. But Gingrich, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" just days after announcing his presidential campaign, launched a broadside on the program Sunday.

"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate," he said when asked about Ryan's proposal.

Gingrich called for a "national conversation" on Medicare but described Ryan's proposed overhaul as "too big a jump."

Ryan took issue with Gingrich's characterization.

"What we're simply saying is don't give the power to a bureaucrat to ration care," Ryan said. "Hardly is that social engineering and radical. What's radical is kicking the can down the road, not doing anything to fix this problem and watching the whole system implode on itself."

Ryan reiterated that his proposal would leave benefits untouched for Americans 55 and older, while giving younger workers a choice of "guaranteed coverage options," offering more government aid to those who are poor, sick or both.

Such a proposal, though, is estimated to cost seniors more out of pocket over the long run, leading to charges from Democrats that the Republican budget is unfairly placing the burden for reducing the deficit on the backs of seniors.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said last week that the proposal would undermine America's social contract, though she told CNBC on Monday that Medicare is "on the table" in ongoing budget talks.

Florida: Saudi student faces hate crime after spitting on people in Walmart

One year in jail for every person he spit on plus 1000 hours community picking up dog poop.

Florida: Saudi student faces hate crime after spitting on people in Walmart

creeping | May 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM | Tags: Creeping Sharia, Florida, islam, Jihad, law, Legal, Life, Media, Muslim, News, Politics, Random, Religion, Sharia, travel | Categories: Alerts, Creeping Sharia, Florida, Legal, Media, News, Politics, Religion, Sharia | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-8BL

"Americans are pushing us around." If only Obama had the marbles to push the Saudi's around. At least then we'd have lower oil prices. via Saudi Arabian Nuha Mohammed Al-Doaifi faces hate crime after spitting on people in Florida Walmart. A Saudi Arabian national faces hate crimes charges after allegedly spitting on several people at [...]

Warrants Let Agents Enter Homes Without Owner Knowing

Warrants Let Agents Enter Homes Without Owner Knowing
http://www.koat.com/r/27922147/detail.html#ixzz1MdoLic15

Delayed-Notice Search Warrants Increasing

"These search warrants don’t involve knocking on doors or any type of warning at all. Delayed-notice search warrants, or "sneak-and-peek" warrants, allow federal agents to enter your home without telling you they’ve been there until months later."

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"The great object is that every man be armed; everyone who is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

Congress Proposes Bill to Allow Worldwide War ... Including INSIDE the U.S.

Congress Proposes Bill to Allow Worldwide War ... Including INSIDE the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/3ee4gjx

"A couple of minutes past midnight, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to strike Sec. 1034 — the new authorization for worldwide war provision — from the NDAA. Visibly angry that such a large sweeping provision had not yet had any public hearing whatsoever, he vigorously characterized it as a very broad declaration of war.

"Rep. Garamendi was very concerned by the limitless geographic boundaries of the provision. Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists."

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

Man Who Clashed With Cops Over Legal Gun Was Also Armed With Audio Recorder

Man Who Clashed With Cops Over Legal Gun Was Also Armed With Audio Recorder
Posted: 05/17/2011 5:38 AM
By DAVID GAMBACORTA
gambacd@phillynews.com 215-854-5994

MARK FIORINO'S story has three elements that tend to get people worked up - gun rights, Philly police and YouTube.

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip."Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

The cops, department officials later admitted, were wrong. They didn't know that a person who has a license to carry a firearm can openly carry it in the city.

But the story doesn't end there. How could it?

After Fiorino posted his recordings on YouTube, they went viral. Members of pro-firearms forums on the Web took a particular interest in the incident.

The Police Department heard about the YouTube clips. A new investigation was launched, and last month the District Attorney's Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to cooperate with police.

Fiorino said he plans to sue the city whenever his criminal case is resolved.

Police spokesman Lt. Ray Evers said the department believes that Fiorino wanted to get into a confrontation with cops, that he wanted to see them lose their cool so he later could file a lawsuit.

Or, as one cop was overheard saying on the YouTube recording: "He set us the f--- up, that's what the f--- he did."
Terrified to be powerless

Fiorino, an IT worker who lives in Montgomery County, grew up in Feltonville.

A handful of his friends fell victim to random crimes over the years - a mugging here, a beatdown there, the kind of stuff that happens all the time in a big city.

It was enough to make him think about being able to protect himself if he ever ran into trouble. "It would be terrifying to me to be powerless," he said.

So, about a year ago, Fiorino said, he got a firearms license and began openly carrying his .40-caliber Glock.

"I did research for quite a few years leading up to making a decision to carry," he said. "I was ready to take on the responsibility."

His gun went with him everywhere - to the store, you name it.

After he began carrying, Fiorino said, he was stopped a handful of times by cops in Montgomery County and other parts of the state. The encounters were civil and quick, he said, and usually ended when an officer checked out his firearms license.

He also had encounters with Philadelphia cops last year near the Philadelphia Museum of Art and on South Street.

"Both times they told me what I was doing was illegal," he said. "They patted me down and said, 'We don't care what you consent to.'

"The second time, they did an official confiscation, and it took me five months to get back my gun."

It could be argued that Fiorino should have stopped openly carrying his gun because it invited police scrutiny. But that argument couldn't be more wrong, said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org.

Pierce, of Minnesota, said his website offers information on gun rights "from a legal perspective, a public-policy perspective, not from a 'my cold, dead fingers' viewpoint."

"According to the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions, open carry is Mark's right," he said.

"To say he has to give up that right in order to stop being persecuted by the state, well, that doesn't sound like the America we want to live in."

Pennsylvania allows citizens to openly carry firearms across the state, but with a simple caveat: A person who carries a weapon openly in Philadelphia also must be in possession of a firearms license.

Fiorino said he was following the law on Feb. 13, when he decided to take a walk to AutoZone while he was in the Northeast, visiting his mom.

It was a nice day, warm enough for him to head out without a jacket, leaving his holstered Glock fully exposed.

Fiorino's firearms license was in his shirt pocket, he said, along with his driver's license.

Oh, and a digital recorder.

'Get down on your knees'

Fiorino was on Frankford near Placid Street when Sgt. Dougherty spotted him from his police cruiser, stopped and called out to him.

An unnerving back-and-forth started to unfold like a bizarre routine. Dougherty would bark an order, and Fiorino would make an alternative suggestion.

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.

"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.

"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.

"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"

"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"

"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.

It went on like that for a little while, until other officers responded to Dougherty's calls for backup.

Fiorino was forced to the ground and shouted at as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to openly carry his weapon.

"You f------ come here looking for f------ problems? Where do you live?" yelled one officer.

"I'm sorry, gentlemen," Fiorino said. "If I'm under arrest, I have nothing left to say."

"F------ a------, shut the f--- up!" the cop hollered.

The cops discovered his recorder as they searched his pockets, and unleashed another string of expletives.

Fiorino said he sat handcuffed in a police wagon while the officers made numerous phone calls to supervisors, trying to find out if they could lock him up.

When they learned that they were in the wrong, they let him go.

That might have been the end of the thing, too, if it hadn't been for the recordings.

'He did it intentionally'

The weeks passed, but Fiorino couldn't stop thinking about what had happened to him on Frankford Avenue.

"They treated me like a criminal," he said.

"The organization that's supposed to be the embodiment of the law didn't even know some of the most important laws at the street level."

He decided to put the recordings on YouTube.

"I wanted people to know this is an example of what can happen if you exercise your rights and freedom in Philadelphia," he said.

Fiorino said he didn't lay a trap for the cops. He regularly carries a recorder with him in case he ever has to use his gun and then offer proof of what transpired, he said.

"I'm not trying to set anyone up," he said.

"It was a setup. He's done this kind of thing before," said Evers, the police spokesman, referring to Fiorino's encounters with authorities. "He did it intentionally, and he audiotaped it."

Evers said the department decided to take a second look at the case after learning about the recordings.

Any number of things could have gone wrong during Fiorino's confrontation with Dougherty, Evers said.

For one thing, Evers said, Fiorino could have been shot. Cops who raced to the scene could have gotten into a car accident or injured pedestrians.

Ultimately, the D.A.'s Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. He's scheduled for trial in July.

Fiorino's attorney, Joseph Valvo, said the move to file criminal charges against Fiorino was retaliation for his posting the recordings on YouTube.

"They're embarrassed and using creative theories to come up with charges," he said.

Up to speed

If there is a positive to Fiorino's saga, it is this: The Police Department is trying to make sure none of its officers are ever again caught not knowing basic gun laws.

"Our officers weren't up to speed [because] we never really addressed it," said Lt. Francis Healy, the department's lawyer.

"In the last several weeks, we've done a lot of training and put out a lot of information about what is allowed and what's not allowed. Right now, our officers are better-versed on the subject matter."

Healy said he emphasized the importance of officers being polite and professional if they have to stop a person who is legally carrying a firearm.

"You can use caution, but you don't need to curse them up and down and put a gun in their face," he said.

At City Hall on Saturday, about 30 gun owners staged a protest of Fiorino's recent arrest.

The protesters and cops got along fine.

"These aren't bad people," Healy said.

Philadelphia Police Violate Rights Of Open Carrier At Gunpoint (Audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University