| August 2006 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
My recent post on this subject is generating a lot of interest. To recap, Gov. Schwartzennegger has just signed bill SB 1441, that ties funding to a repression of free speech in all schools, public and private:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.
The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
One of the responses to the post was sheer disbelief. From comments posted on Digg:
Inaccurate as hell. Please pass it on.
...and:
There is a bill out there, waiting for his signature. I hope this is inaccurate or it will be headed for the Supreme Court.
(A quick trip to Google news turns up numerous confirming articles.)
Another response has been well-considered. One of my favorite bloggers, Rob Port at Say Anything, has posted a discussion of the article. An excerpt:
A Violation Of The Establishment Clause?
I don't think this [links to my post] probably is.
Here is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...If these schools/religious organizations fail to condone homosexuality, etc. the state of California won't close them down, they'll simply withhold funding. These schools and religious organizations would be free to continue to exist, but they wouldn't get government funding.
In the comments, Rob adds:
The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nothing says they have to fund it.
Rob appears to agree with me in principal on the issue, but just questions whether the bill is unconstitutional:
Personally, I don't exactly like the idea of government bullying private schools and organizations in this manner, but this is the situation we have left ourselves in by becoming so dependent upon money from the government.
I agree with Rob on almost everything, and as always he's making great points here.
The argument, of course, turns on the meaning of the word "prohibit," and says, the government isn't prohibiting something by defunding it. A reasonable argument.
But I would respond that it needs to be remembered that the the subject of sexuality is only one of hundreds or thousands that is taught in schools. By legislating that all funding for the school as a whole will be removed if the school does not teach the view demanded by the state on one specific subject, the bill leverages the full financial power of the state against one single issue. The school must lose all its state funding, and all its students who receive loans from the state, or teach a view that the state demands. This overwhelming leverage may be considered prohibitive.
Now, let's turn to the freedom of speech issue, which Rob did not address, and which cannot be denied. When the subject comes up in class, schools are ordered to say something the state demands, even if the teachers themselves do not believe it, or lose state funding. This is not equivalent to saying that public schools may not say anything good about religion, as has previously been demanded under the false interpretation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. This goes far beyond that, by suppressing all discussion within a school on one side of the subject, and permitting only views approved by the state to be spoken aloud. Under this bill, the expression of a view on this subject that is not permitted by the state, will have dire consequences. And this is on a subject about which reasonable people in this country disagree. This is a massive and insupportable attack on freedom of speech, and it must not stand.
In practice, it will inevitably lead to schools being forced, not only not to say a view that contradicts that of the state, but to actively say things that the teachers do not believe. This is because, under the bill, only those supporting the state-approved view on this subject, will be able to speak their minds. All others would not be permitted to speak their minds. If they do they will meet massive, overwhelming punishment in the form of defunding by the state. Yet the subject will come up in class. It is inevitable that in practice the institutions would be forced to demand that all professors "profess" to believe as the state demands, whether they do or not. It's completely unsupportable under the freedom of speech guarantees of our Constitution.
Finally, lets turn to the so-called discrimination issue. Proponents of the bill argue that it's a matter of eliminating discrimination against homosexuals.
Here's how Randy Thomasson, President of the Campaign for Children and Families, put it in a debate yesterday carried on Fox TV:
It's a deception to say this is about quote unquote discrimination. Look who's being victimized: Christian colleges, day care centers, even after school programs. If they take a dime of state money, and we're talking about state scholarships for students, we're talking about child care vouchers for single moms, those institutions, those colleges, those schools, will no longer be able to say or uphold the standards that they support for marriage, family, and sexuality. Mr. Kors' bill is basically gonna force Christian colleges to hire men dressed up as women as professors, and this is a gigantic clash between church and state, and the religious values are being swept asunder by the gay activists' agenda. It's absolutely intolerant.
Video of Debate between Randy Thomasson and Geoffrey Kors.
The bill itself is discriminating against people based on their beliefs. It's discriminating against people based on their religion. It's discriminating against all who don't believe as the state demands. It discriminates against all who want to teach their children that being homosexual isn't appropriate for them. As an audience member shown in the above video puts it, to applause:
Well you know, I feel sexual orientation is nothing like the color of your skin, or nationality, and I get sick of it getting shoved down my throat.
So the discrimination argument is full of holes because the bill itself is discriminating against millions of people.
This bill has got to be challenged on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and establishment clause grounds.
From Ramirez:
Gov. Schwartzennegger has just signed a bill that ties funding to a repression of free speech in all schools, public and private:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.
The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
This is a violation of even the most liberal interpretation of the separation of Church and state clause, because it uses the power of the state to force religious institutions to say what the state wants them to say.
It is a violation of freedom of speech, because it not only punishes those who say something that the state doesn't want people to say -- it forces people to say what the state demands.
This bill has got to be challenged as a violation of our Constitutional right to free speech.
The Washington Times editorial:
Biased TV messages
Every time we think we have seen the worst in media bias, we come across studies like the Media Research Center's new report on the Big Three's immigration coverage. The center's director of media analysis, Tim Graham, confirms conservatives' worst fears about ABC, CBS and NBC, as they recklessly go about their efforts to depict an America that simply doesn't exist.
Mr. Graham and analysts reviewed 309 immigration stories from March 24 to May 31, or roughly the period between the first major immigration rally and passage of the Senate's amnesty bill. The report found that in contrast to the networks' universal agreement that the rallies were historic and represented a "Vietnam-era" movement, collectively they mentioned just 16 nationwide polls that "might include the opinion of the non-protesters."
Olah Chadasha, of the Greetings from the French Hill weblog, has produced this excellent video, "The Soldiers of the Israel-Hezbollah War":
DENNIS PRAGER: "...every country that calls itself "Islamic" is morally inferior to just about every country in North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, almost every Asian country, and many African countries." And he's got facts, examples, and evidence to back it up.
"The Shadow Party," the new book from David Horowitz and Richard Poe, is a New York Times bestseller.
Some of the things in this Frontpage interview on the book, with Richard Poe, are real eye-openers:
FP: So what exactly is the Shadow Party?
Poe: The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive.
The leader of these radicals is multibillionaire George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control.
FP: How does it work?
Poe: It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit.
In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates.
The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat pursestrings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him.
During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it…"
...FP: Does the Shadow Party really seek to destroy America?
Judge for yourself. In his new book The Age of Fallibility, Soros writes, "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States." He announced in 2003 that it is necessary to "puncture the bubble of American supremacy." Soros is working systematically to achieve that goal.
On the economic front, he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation. At the same time, Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass immigration into the United States, and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants. These measures alone have the potential to bankrupt the nation. However, if they fail, Soros has another program that will certainly finish the job. A long-time Soros operative named Jeffrey Sachs has been placed in charge of the United Nations Millennium Project - a global war on poverty designed to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones. Sachs is currently demanding that American taxpayers turn over $140 billion per year to his global welfare bureaucracy.
On the political front, Soros has poured massive funding into such groups as the ACLU, which uses lawsuits to hamstring the War on Terror. Soros also funds Amnesty International, whose US executive director has called for the arrest of President Bush as a war criminal. Another Soros-funded group, The Center for Constitutional Rights, has drawn up detailed articles of impeachment against the President.
FP: Why don't more Americans know that Soros is pushing these destructive policies?
Poe: The Shadow Party operates through deception. It uses the Democratic Party as camouflage. By posing as ordinary Democrats, Shadow Party candidates trick mainstream voters into supporting them. Their true agenda remains concealed. As Soros writes in The Age of Fallibility, "[T]he Democratic Party does not stand for the policies that I advocate; indeed, if it did, it could not be elected."
The fact is, Soros aspires to establish a neo-socialist order in America. In the Atlantic Monthly of February 1997, he wrote, "The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."
...FP: You and David Horowitz have also accused Soros of promoting political censorship in America.Poe: Most Americans do not realize that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was a Trojan Horse. Its stated purpose was to reform campaign finance law. Its actual effect is to regulate political speech. McCain-Feingold Act was a Shadow Party initiative. Soros and a group of leftwing foundations spent over $140 million to get it passed.
Here's how it works. McCain-Feingold authorizes federal election officials to decide who may or may not run political advertisements during election season, and what sorts of ads they may run. In September 2004, a federal judge expanded McCain-Feingold's reach by ordering the FEC to begin censoring the Internet. Blogger outrage forced the FEC to back down, but McCain-Feingold remains on the books. Sooner or later, it will be enforced, to the full extent its creators envisioned. We can thank Mr. Soros for these developments.
Read the whole thing.
Rumsfeld calls GWB critics on "moral and intellectual confusion:"
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.
It's not much of a stretch to believe that Rumsfeld's views apply to MSM, since MSM -- even though it claims to be devoted to reporting both sides of any issue without favoritism -- is broadly biased against anything GWB does. AP may be taking it this way, in light of their anything-but-non-judgmental headline for this story: "Rumsfeld Lashes Out at Bush's Critics."
Also, concerns that the GWB administration would stop using the term "Fascists" in reference to those who kill in the name of Islam, appear to be unfounded in the wake of Rumsfeld's use of that term in this speech.
The Kodak company, founded in 1881, appears to be doing well in the transition from film to digital. From a JD Power survey of customer satisfaction with digital cameras:
Within the $200-$399 segment, in which the majority of cameras are purchased, Kodak ranks highest for a third consecutive year. Kodak receives top ratings from customers in four of the six factors that determine overall satisfaction: cost, connectivity, ease of use and picture quality. Sony follows Kodak in the rankings.
It's good to see this great American brand making this transition, and continuing to succeed.
Lockheed's working on a new private jet that could fly twice the speed of sound and get from NY to LA in 2 hours.
I was listening to talk radio last week - I think it may have been Al Rantel in Los Angeles - and a guest said it was ridiculous to rebuild New Orleans, because the city's below the waterline, and will never be safe from destruction by flooding.
Well, tell that to the Dutch. Most of the people in the Netherlands live below sea level, and their storm system has kept them safe since the 1950's. Newsweek asks, "why not hire the Dutch" to rebuild the New Orleans levees?
One thing Israel achieved in the recent war with Hezbollah was this:
Nasrallah also claimed that Hizbullah would not have kidnapped the two IDF soldiers had he known that Israel's response would be so intense.
"We did not think, even one percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11...that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he said.
This is very important. Last February I posted about Victor Davis Hanson's appearance at the Wednesday Morning Club in Los Angeles, at which he discussed how a nation that wants to make war on another often tests the other to see if it is able to defend itself:
In 431 B.C., Sparta declared war on Athens. This should have been considered an unwageable war, because Sparta was a land power and Athens was a sea power -- there was no way for them to fight. The war was chronicled at the time by Thucydides, who believed that the stated reasons nations go to war are often not the true ones. Nations often go to war due to feelings of jealousy. In this case, Athens was the jewel of the time. People went to Athens for everything; no one went to Sparta.
Parallel to our time: Islamofascist talk about Iraq and Israel is irrelevant to their true reasons for killing Westerners.
Athens responded by choosing to withdraw all of its people within its walled city, and waiting for the Spartans to go away. But this didn't happen. The Spartans found that they could deny Athens the use of its own farmlands without repercussions. When Athens' allies saw this, they ceased to provide Athens with the supplies it needed.
Parallel to our time: when Al Qaeda saw that there were few or no repercussions to its attacks on the U.S. via the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, the killing of U.S. marines, etc., it saw the way clear to 9-11.
In this case Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped other Israeli soldiers, believing Israel was unable to defend itself. It just learned otherwise. Israel's response has caused Nasrallah to say publicly that he would never invade Israel in such a way again.
This is not nearly enough of an achievement for Israel, in my opinion, given that it could have demolished Hezbollah, and given the possibility that everything the U.N. is doing will merely help Hezbollah.
But it is definitely a big win for Israel.
Islamofascists forced the kidnapped FOX news reporters to say they "converted to Islam" prior to releasing them. This seems likely to wake up some number of people that the radical Islamists approve of forcing people to convert to Islam at gunpoint
Source: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
From Melanie Morgan:
So far this month, there have been fewer U.S. troops killed in Iraq than died in the month of July. July's fatality figures were lower than those of June. June's were lower than May's. And May's fatalities were lower than April's. The news is that we are WINNING!
Does this information surprise you?
It should, because the mainstream media has done everything it can to paint Operation Iraqi Freedom as a failure. The progress that is made in rebuilding Iraq on a daily basis is seldom reported.
The humanitarian efforts of U.S. troops are almost entirely ignored. Liberal journalists scoff at the daily reports by U.S. Central Command outlining our military's success in apprehending or killing terrorists and death squad leaders. These left-wing reporters seem hell-bent to rally the American public to oppose the mission in Iraq.
Update 8-27-06: The U.S. troop fatality count for August is currently one greater than for last month. In September I will update this post with the final numbers for August.
Update 9-2-06: The final U.S. troop fatality count for August was 65. Here's an updated chart:
Yet another reason why MSM won't accurately report the news from the Mid-East: terrorists like to attack reporters they don't like.
Terror leader: Fox News files 'lying reports'
Group representing al-Qaida tells WND abduction of reporters to punish America
