BluegrassBulletin.com

Re-Writing History In Texas Textbooks

In case you didn't know it, most of the textbooks in the nation are based upon what Texas wants them to say.

No matter where you live, if your children go to public schools, the textbooks they use were very possibly written under Texas influence.

Texas originally acquired its power over the nation’s textbook supply because it paid 100 percent of the cost of all public school textbooks, as long as the books in question came from a very short list of board-approved options.

As a market, the state was so big and influential that national publishers tended to gear their books toward whatever it wanted. [NYBooks.com]

Well, hold your seats Moms and Dads, and liberty loving constitutionalists across the nation, guess what Texas is doing to the Second Amendment.

The authors of United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination have taken it upon themselves to change the Constitution of the United States. The high school textbook contains a summary of each Amendment that alters the initial intent in which they were created.

The textbook notes the Second Amendment as, "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

The actual Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Guyer High School and numerous others have assigned the book for an "Advanced Placement History" course. By assigning anti-factual literature, the only advanced placement the school has ensured for their students is in the world of biased academia. [Breitbart]

It's hard to unlearn things, which is why it is so important to keep an eye on what we are teaching in the first place.

The Problem Isn't Republicans, It's The Hated View Of Republicans

EDITORIAL RANT

I was once asked by a news paper editor if I was a Republican, or a TEA partier.  I told him that I prefer to avoid labels because they are over-broad.  I am who I am, think what I want and try to have good reason for what I think always willing to be persuaded, if possible, where I am wrong.

As Emerson once said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would emphasize the word "foolish" in that quote as I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in being consistently wise.

I know many people who are registered to vote under different banners who think very much alike on many issues.  The Republicans certainly have no special claim to the "right to life" issue, the "right to bear arms" issue, the right to be free from intrusive government regulations issue or many other issues that are of real concern to people regardless of their party registration.

But listen to the haters and you would think that all Republicans are evil.  Such thinking is over broad, over inclusive and born of a little mind.

Dea Riley, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor with the late Gatewood Galbraith recently posted this to her Facebook page:

Come on Dea.  Do you really think that all persons in the Republican Party openly embrace exclusion, elitism and social categorization?  That we are all radical fascists seeking to impose a specific ideology/theology on everyone, embracing intrusion into individual rights?  That certainly doesn't define me, and neither does it define or describe many of the republicans I know. That is an insult.

But you are in good company.  MSNBC which has turned out to be the great hater of all things republican made up out of thin air a claim that "conservatives" hate bi-racial families. 

My God!  First of all there was no "conservative" backlash last year which the facts prove and which caused MSNBC to amend it's tweet to remove the word "conservative".  But that doesn't cure the problem.

The far left, the liberals in the democratic party and yes, even some of the TEA party liberals who are hiding out under the banner of "constitutional conservatives" hate republicans so much that they refuse to see that we are all individuals, with individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

As a republican I still believe in individual freedom, and that is because like our founders I believe that my life is a gift from God and that I am endowed by Him with inalienable rights.

As a republican I still believe that when a government fears the people there is hope for liberty, but when the people fear the government we have tyranny.

As a republican lawyer I defend the constitution every day, which on some days means that I defend the rights of people to do things, and say things with which I might personally disagree, but they have the right to do and say them.

And as a republican I have no compelling desire to see that we control people through a particular theology.  I am a Christian and my faith teaches me that I am to love my neighbor, introduce them to God when the chance arises, but recognize that they operate with free will and their choices are their own.  Do I want everybody to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Quaker or a Mormon or a Pentecostal?  Of course not.  As a Christian I would like everyone to know and accept Christ and I think the best way to do that is to live what I believe to the best of my ability and introduce them to each other.

But as an American, who believes that people should be free from government dictates as to whether and how they worship, I do oppose the goal of radical Islam to force the world to capitulate to their twisted worship of a pedophile prophet or be killed or enslaved.

And likewise I oppose any effort, by any person or group of persons to enslave people under any ideology, including the disgusting political game that addicts people to government hand outs, destroying their sense of self worth, de-incentivizing them to reach their full potential and thus enslaving them to the masters who they eventually think are the only ones who can provide for them.

The problem in this nation isn't republicans, it's the irrational, unsupportable, off the chart hatred OF republicans.  And THAT my friends is not an accident. 

Hating republicans is not the natural consequence of an honest study of history.  It is not the result of deductive reasoning.  Hating republicans is the cold and calculated strategy of those who wish to fundamentally transform America into the kind of nation our founders and thousands upon thousands of our best and brightest ever since have fought to prevent.

It is unfair to say that all democrats are far left liberals.  It is unfair to say that all republicans are cracker-assed racists.

We are all Americans.  We all have the right to want and pursue different paths to happiness.  But hatred of others is destructive.

You may assign to me a desire to run things by my theology, but only on this one point.  In my view, hatred has no place in America.  I would prefer that we love each other, and all people, as we love ourselves. 

If that was our guiding principle, I believe everything else would fall into place.

Government Cartoon Training Children To Submit

When the communists in the 50's vowed to take over America without firing a shot they focused on indoctrinating the next generations with propaganda via the schools and universities.  The technique has now re-educated our nation into being very much more accepting of socialism and other government controls.

The same techniques are now being used to make children more compliant with government intrusions into their personal privacy and away from the concepts embodied in the Fourth Amendment and the remainder of the Bill of Rights.  Here is just one example of how kids are being taught to think.  Removing distrust of government and teaching submission to government are the lessons of this cartoon.

 

Does Rand Paul's Support Come From The "Hate America" Crowd?

Representative Peter King of New York had this to say about Rand Paul:

The New York Republican accused Rand Paul of “lies” and “misperception” :

“So Rand Paul does not know what he’s talking about. And, Rand Paul is really spreading fear among the American people. And, he also today, I understand on the show, he was also was comparing General Clapper to Snowden. To me, he’s either totally uninformed or he’s part of that hate America crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s. In any event, he doesn’t deserve to be in the United States senate for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies to be honest with you.“ [Gateway Pundit]

What he was referring to was a comment by  Rand on the  Sunday shows discussing his lawsuit against the NSA over illegal snooping.  In some of those comments he had this to say:

"I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison; I think that's inappropriate, I think that's why he fled, is that's what he faced," Paul, a possible 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said on ABC's "This Week." "Do I think it's OK to leak secrets and give up national security [information] that endangers lives? I don't think that's OK, either. But I think the courts are now saying he revealed something the government was doing that was illegal."

Paul, who's pushing a class-action suit against the National Security Agency over its data collection tactics, has said that Snowden and Clapper should "share a prison cell," charging that Clapper lied to Congress.

"It is a grand tradition," he said. "Part of that tradition is, you pay the consequences. If you break the law because your conscience says you have to, you stand trial." [POLITICO]

So the question I have for readers today is this: Does some part of Rand Paul's support come from the "hate America" crowd that Congressman King mentioned?

Let's take a look.

Clearly there is a portion of the Obama support group that one could argue hates many things about America.  Dinesh D'Souza has made the argument that Obama is out for revenge over what his father hated which is "colonialism", the kind of attitude he attributed to the United States participation in "raping" third world countries of their riches to make Americans rich.

In addition Obama has aligned himself with radicals and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who clearly hate many things about America.

So, is Rand Paul courting those folks?  I think not, but on the other hand he might find some support among the less militant among the remaining sixties liberals who like his stance on personal freedom and pot and the kind of things Richie Havens and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were singing about.

But who among the GOP crowd might be pegged as part of the modern day "hate America" crowd?  Well, that depends upon which America you are talking about.

The "big business" America which has become the controlling interest in most legislation and regulations over the past thirty years has its share of supporters.  They don't hate America.

But the small business, ultra conservative TEA party crowd does have its share of "hate America" folks.  At least they seem to hate the incumbent elected officials who they view as ruining America.  They see America headed in the wrong direction.  And some of them even hate many of the institutions of America such as party politics, checks and balances and the orderly interpretation of the Constitution through the court system.

Some of the more militant among this last bunch seethe with contempt for the "mainstream", which of course is the American mainstream and tend to lean very far toward the very liberal philosophies of Libertarianism and even anarchy.  They hate that America won't let them steer the ship of state, are angry about it and do in fact pose some threat to our national security.

And then out there on the real fringes are those who are systematically plotting against America, the true enemies of our way of life, whether driven by religious extremism or a desire to consume our resources even if it means war.  They are the ones who stir up civil unrest, engage in acts of terrorism to disrupt society and take advantage of every opportunity to destroy America because they truly, to their core, hate us.

Obviously Rand Paul is not courting the support of any of the fringe or the near fringe.  But, and I say this with obvious respect for Senator Paul, the razor's edge he walks in order to build his own constituency on his way to a 2016 run for the White House is a topic of frequent discussion in the media.  Clearly any divergence from the hard line of the TEA party gets him nailed by its members.  Any time he leans toward a more moderate position his TEA party friends try to pull him back.  And then he goes and tries to win them over again by standing firm on issue after issue of greatest concern with them, like his lawsuit against the NSA.

I'd like you to weigh in on this, but in my humble opinion, Rand Paul does in fact get some of his support from those who hate the way America has been run, who hate the excesses of our government and hate the fact that they seem to be fighting the very people they entrusted with the reins of power.  Is this what Peter King was referring to?

Those of us who have been standing up for civil liberty, freedom from government overreach, demanding accountability and honesty from our elected officials for as long as I have don't consider ourselves as hating America, but rather loving all that is good about America and hating that those are the very, most precious things about the America we love which we seem to be losing.

Rand has the chance to stand very tall in this fight, but he needs to be very careful not to give in to the other forces at work on the fringes and in the shadows.  The closer he becomes with what can be labeled "extreme" positions the more frequently he will have to face accusations like those of Peter King and though his TEA party friends might rush to his defense he will have to work that much harder, and spend that much more money to discredit people like King than he needs to.

Developing A Community Appreciation For SWAT Teams

As our local police departments are becoming more military-like there is always the risk that the community will object.  So there must be ways to make everybody appreciate the skills, tools and methods of local SWAT teams.  Here's how one community did it.

 

Newest Executive Order: Black Students Exempted From School Discipline?

This might be spin, but look at what the Examiner is reporting:

On July 26th Obama signed an executive order titled the "African American Education Initiative." The order essentially gives a green light for black students to misbehave in public schools. In two places, Obama's executive order calls on schools to reduce the number disciplinary actions taken against blacks students. The order specifically calls on schools too "not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools."

To comply, public schools would have to engage in a racial quota system of discipline. The executive order will create a new Federal bureaucracy to pressure school systems to comply with the president's demands. The executive order makes no mention of any effort to get black students to improve behavior.

There is a reason why blacks are more likely to be disciplined in school. Black students are more likely to misbehave. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there is a huge crime rate disparity between blacks and other racial groups.

Based on those disparities, one should expect that there would be a disparity in frequency of bad behavior between black and white school students in the public schools.

The DOJ reports that the homicide rate in the black community is nine times greater than in the white community. Between 1976 and 2005, the DOJ reported that blacks averaged 13 percent of the population, but accounted for 59 percent of felony homicide charges and 53 percent of non-felony manslaughter charges. It also might come as no surprise that 93-95 percent of black homicides victims are killed by a black perpetrator. Most of the rest are killed by a Latino perpetrator.

In reality, blacks are already less likely to be suspended for bad behavior than whites. Often, white teachers and administrators are afraid to discipline black students for fear of being called “racists.” Even some black school officials are afraid of being labeled a “sell-out” by black students.

The executive order also states that black students "lack equal access" to education. This statement, by the White House, is outrageous and easily disproved. Across the nation, majority black public schools routinely receive more funding per pupil than majority white public schools.

Do you see an effort to ratchet up racial tensions coming from somewhere?  What might be the goal of the people behind such an effort?  We've discussed this before.

Obama Says No Court Can Rule On What He Does

In another shocking display of the arrogance of power the Obama justice department is arguing in its defense to a case brought against it that the President's actions and those of his administration are exempt from judicial review challenging whether the President acted within the boundaries of the Constitution.

What makes this case so important is that it was filed on behalf of the estate of a 16-year-old American citizen who was killed by an American drone strike, along with other victims,  in Yemen in 2011.  Recently the United States Department of Justice presented a defense that is quite striking. 

“Another thing you should know is the specific defense the government is mounting in this case. As the New York Times reported, the Obama administration’s Deputy Attorney General Brian Hauck first declared that courts have no right to oversee executive-branch decisions to extrajudicially assassinate Americans. He also insisted that the White House already provides adequate due process for those it kills, prompting federal judge Rosemary Collyer to point out that “the executive is not an effective check on the executive.” The fact that the judge needed to issue such a reminder speaks volumes about an administration utterly unconcerned with constitutional governance.

In defending the administration, Hauck asserted that such suits should not be permitted because they “don’t want these counterterrorism officials distracted by the threat of litigation.” [Turley]

What the administration is saying is that they are exempt from all checks and balances.  That question, however, was decided over 200 years ago in the case of Marbury vs. Madison which established the right of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of executive branch decisions.  It is directly as a result of that case that the Supreme Court has the power it does.

If the Obama administration continues to advance this argument all the way to the Supreme Court it would in essence be requesting the Supremes to cede all of its power, and directly impact the binding effect of two centuries of court decisions.

I'll keep an eye on this and continue to update you.  However, in the meantime, you need to keep an eye on Obama.  Evidence that he believes the Constitution is not binding on him is mounting every day.

Related articles

The Most Important Court Case You May Never Have Heard Of

Does Ignoring The Constitution Invalidate Obama's Oath And Thus His Right To Hold Office?

I can't really say what it is that has prevented Congress from taking real action against Obama's trampling of the Constitution, but it is now very clear that he has no intention of abiding by his oath, which raises in my mind the question whether he should be permitted to continue to serve.

Here is how Constitutional Law professor and former applellate judge Michael McConnell sees it:

President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II's use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that "the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal."

To make sure that American presidents could not resurrect a similar prerogative, the Framers of the Constitution made the faithful enforcement of the law a constitutional duty.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has suspended the operation of statutes by executive decree, but it is the most barefaced.

Republican opponents of ObamaCare might say that the suspension of the employer mandate is such good policy that there's no need to worry about constitutionality. But if the president can dispense with laws, and parts of laws, when he disagrees with them, the implications for constitutional government are dire. [Wall Street Journal]

There is truly a matter of constitutional significance in standing by and permitting Obama to avoid the duty imposed by his oath of office.  It sets a dangerous precedent.  Congress should act swiftly to stop this abuse or the future of our republic could forever be changed by their inaction.

More On The Militarization Of Police

This from the Wall Street Journal:

Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.

Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe's emperors and monarchs.

What would it take to dial back such excessive police measures? The obvious place to start would be ending the federal grants that encourage police forces to acquire gear that is more appropriate for the battlefield. Beyond that, it is crucial to change the culture of militarization in American law enforcement.

Sausage Making At The Kentucky Bar Convention

It's that time again for the Kentucky Supreme Court to stand before the membership of the Bar Association and invite comments from the practitioners regarding changes to the rules of court that get no other public airing before acquiring the force of law in the Commonwealth.

Unlike the legislative branch where "the people" have input, what happens here could perhaps be described as "sausage making", a process which rarely involves the ultimate consumer.

While the process is open to lawyer comments only the very few who pay attention ever address the topics from the floor. Some rules affect substantial rights such as the rights of voters to ask questions of candidates in judicial elections while others deal with matters of less public concern like correcting paragraph references.

It's the opening session. Stay tuned. Nothing less than "Preserving Justice" is at stake this week.

Posted from my I-Pad with Blogsy