Quote of the Day

"We are a Christian people ... not because the law demands it, ... but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, ... we shall pay due regard to Christianity."  -  Congress of the United States,  January 19, 1853.

NYC Teacher Fired Over Christian Faith?

 Anita Wooten-Franci, an assistant special education teacher at PS 224, claims she was harassed and then fired over her christian faith. The school claims she was fired for allegedly grabbing a child. The teacher claims that charge was made up and that she really was fired because of her christian faith. The teacher says she was careful about her public displays of faith and prayed only when appropriate. Ms. Wooten-France led a worship group during “non-instructional hours.” Wooten-Franci claims that the school’s Principal, George Andrews, was vocal and often offensive about his dislike of her christian faith.  She says that Andrews would frequently make negative comments and that he told her, “You can’t be praying in my school.” In one instance, [the principle allegedly] criticized the disabled woman for using the elevator and told her to take the stairs. When she protested, he allegedly said, “Why don’t you just pray?” Then he laughed. That is sick if it is true. After she complained about these issues, Wooten-Francis says she was slapped with a false charge and subsequently fired. This is yet another example, if true, of the growing prejudice in this country towards Christians. If you are Muslim you can pray 5 times a day at a public institution, but if your a christian you better not even bow your head in a silent pray. If you are an atheist your rights are protected and lawsuits filed on your behalf from the ACLU, but if your a christian you can not even reference Christ in your own speech at your graduation. This is wrong, plain wrong! Our country was founded mainly by Christians, on christian principles. It was founded by some for the purpose to worship as they please. The constitution is clear on this manner "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that is it, all it says about it. There is no separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. Americans should be free to be Christians in public in any setting!

Related Posts:

Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State Part 2
The Constitution of the United States

Raise the Debt Ceiling or Default? Is that exactly True?

Am I one of the few people on the planet that sees this issue as a false either/or argument. To say either we raise the debt ceiling of default by August is a dishonest statemet to me. Why? Let me put this in tiny words so Congress, our economically challenged of the country, can understand. I will even use small numbers so Congress and others who believe this argument might can understand. I will even explain it in just six simple points.

1. Congress has passed a long list of spending desires called the budget. The total amount of money needed to pay for all their programs is, lets say $1000 (a little number). As the year goes by tax money comes in, and it becomes clear were only going to see about $700 in revenue.

2. The difference is $300...so far the entire argument is about voting to get authority to borrow the extra $300...The problem is, we already owe way to much. In fact we currently owe so much we are having trouble paying for it.

3. The left and their propaganda media outlets want to keep the issue solely on the schemes to get that extra $300...they refuse to even discuss what NOT getting the money really means. They, in a round about way, lie about it.

4. They pretend not getting the money means we cannot pay our bills and the entire financial world will collapse.

5. They refuse to note that we already have money to pay for the 70% of our DESIRED spending and that desired spending is something totally of their own creation. If we do not raise the extra money we can, dare I say, take a look at the desired/planned for spending and simply not spend the extra $300. Oh my goodness what a strange concept. That is exactly what every American household has to do!

6. The trillions  in existing debt is simple paid for with existing revenues. The new schemes and promises are what is in jeopardy. Congress has to exercise leadership. They have to set priorities and learn to say no. They have to live within their means. They have to act just like the average American household in that respect. This is not asking too much!

Note, no where above in 5 or 6,  is their default. There is just leadership, priority setting and less spending. Sounds very logical doesn't it? Maybe that is the problem. The liberals in D.C. seem to be the opposite of logical. Not spending as much as Congress desires or has promised is not default. The impact is political one, not economic one.

Related Posts:

CBO Predictions Motivation for Lawmakers?
Ryan Budget Plan Basics
S &P's Negative outlook on US Debt
America's Financial Demise?

Quote of the Day

"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."  -  Congress of the United States  March 1, 1817

Obama Shredding the Constitution over involvement in Libya?

Is President Obama shredding the Constitution over the U.S. involvement in Libya? It appears he may be doing so. This of course wont be the first time he has chosen to shred it. According to the War Powers Act, passed in 1973 and signed by the President, President Obama can deploy U.S. troops for 60 days without congressional approval after that he has to get the approval or withdraw the troops with in 30 days. He has reached that deadline without seeking or getting congressional approval. As you recall President Bush asked for and received a vote of congressional approval for his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently testified that the president has operated under the War Powers Resolution since the beginning of the Libya mission and that he will continue to do so, but if he does not get approval or withdraw in thirty days he is in violation of the constitution.

Lawmakers on both sides of the isle are not pleased with how the President is handling this. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, tells CNN he believes Obama is trying to “bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States. He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said “You could say, ‘Well, we have a good president, he’ll do the right thing.’ Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that’s why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people.”  It seems to me this President will follow what laws he chooses, and violate any that stand in the way of what he wants to do. I am almost certain he will violate the War Powers Act and get away with it like he does everything else. Congress needs to get some backbone and stand up to this man!

Related Posts:

Libyan no Fly Zone
Lybian Islamic Fighting Group
The Obama Doctrine
Pres. Sarkozy Leader of the Free World?

Quote of the Day

"Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflict's - the cradle of its infancy, and the Divine source of its claims."  Alexis de Tocquevill (1805-1859)

Herman Cain Announces Bid for Presidency

The former CEO of Godfathers Pizza Herman Cain announced his bid for the presidency at a rally in Atlanta, Georgia this past Saturday at Centennial Olympic Park. Herman Cain said “I‘m running for president of the United States and I’m not running for second.” He joins a republican presidential field that also has in it Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney and former Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, is expected to announce soon. Cain is a genuine honest leader. The main question is can he win?  The primary argument against Cain, is the fact he has no political experience, which might be a good thing. As a former corporate CEO, he KNOWS his job is to listen to his vice presidents and board members for advice and decide, as a leader, the best choice given . Also if he has epiphanies or ideas, he knows to present them to his ‘cabinet” and listen to their advice.  Then  make the right decision as A LEADER should, and not make a major policy change on the state of Israel's borders without seeking the advice of anyone! Loved the line about Obama’s teleprompter: “We need a Leader in Chief, not a reader in chief.”  It looked like Cain did his whole speech without any notes, which means he knows how to think on his own. It looked like most of the crowd at the rally were Tea Partiers, wait I thought they were all racists? With Cain as the Republican nominee at least the main stream media could not accuse his supporters of being racists, he is 100% black, Obama is only half remember? We should examine Cain on the issues before jumping on any band wagon. We should ask him some of the following questions:
1.) Are you a Progressive, and will you fight to repeal the Progressive form of Government we now have?
2.) Will you challenge the Fed, you former employer, to and audit?
3.) Are you in favor of Affirmative Action?
4.) Will you fight to return the country back to the original intent and principles of the Constitution?
5.) Will you fight for a balanced budget or is it just talk?
In the end we need to vet Herman Cain just like any other candidate. Mr. Cain is finally providing some excitement and something to talk about in the Republican field.

Quote of the Day

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."  -  Professor Louis Bounoure on March 8, 1894.  He was President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of the French National Centre of Scientific Research. His work was held at much higher esteem than Darwin's at the time.

Tennessee Senate Votes to Ban Teaching of Homosexuality

The Senate voted on Friday to limit the teaching, and materials used in the classroom of all elementary and middle schools "exclusively to age-appropriate natural human reproduction science." Republican Senate sponsor Stacey Campfield of Knoxville says "homosexuals don't naturally reproduce." Campfield said current state law is unclear on what can be taught on the subject. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Tennessee would become the first state to enact such legislation if the proposal passes. Opponents to the bill say it would be unfair to students who have same sex parents. My question to them is how is teaching actual indisputable facts about normal and natural human reproduction unfair? It would be unfair to teach made up or unverifiable "facts" to them. For example I believe it is unfair and flat out wrong to teach that same sex coupling is normal. That would be the unfair thing to do. I hope the House of Representatives in the State of Tennessee votes to ban the teaching of homosexuality next year as well, and I hope the Governor signs it right away.

Netanyahu confronts Obama about Pre 1967 Israel Borders!

President Obama's speech yesterday, about Israel which indicated a dramatic policy shift concerning Israel's borders, was a tremendous bomb of a speech. He totally miscalculated his own importance and relevance. To suggest Israel cede back territory to the Palestinians to  the pre 1967 borders is totally naive. He once again showed how ignorant in foreign policy he truly is. He gave this speech without, it is reported, even consulting his own advisers or cabinet. He had his press secretary basically lie to Israeli reporters about his speech the day before. His naivety on this issue is very dangerous for the nation of Israel. President Obama is obviously on the side of the Palestinians in this issue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's response to President Obama's speech yesterday was a sharp slap in the face of the President. Netenyahu really gave it to him in his public statements at the White House. The Prime Minister sounded like a teacher scolding an unlearned student. It must have been very hard for his Highness Obama to set there and take that talking down too, scolding, and flat out 'dissing' Netenyahu was giving him. It was quite a spectacle to behold. What a mockery of the Presidency Obama is making. A U.S. President should never be in a position where a foreign head of state has to teach him foreign policy 101 in public in front of the world. What a completely inept president!

While sitting beside the President in the Oval office Prime Minister Netenyahu said the president's call for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the Six-Day War is not tenable. "We can't go back to those indefensible lines. ... I discussed this with the president. We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. ... For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities -- the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible" Netanyahu said the two leaders still agree on the "overall direction" for peace in the region. In a 2004 letter, President Bush wrote, to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC resolutions 242, 338, United Nations Security Council.  In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949," aka the pre-1967 borders, "and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.  It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities." Before you make another big speech Mr. Obama maybe you should double check what current U.S. policy is on the issue. 

In a story out of Israel: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s associates expressed their disappointment with Barack Obama’s speech Thursday, with one aide saying that the US president is detached from regional realities. The PM’s associates told Ynet early Friday that Netanyahu, who departed to the US Thursday night, is prepared for a confrontation with President Obama on vital issues." A foriegn country calling our President "out of touch with ... reality." what a shame! They are right though.

Chicago must hire 111 Black Firefighters

Court: Chicago Must Hire 111 Black Firefighters

By Don Babwin, Associated Press – Fri May 13, 4:54 pm ET

CHICAGO – “A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the Chicago Fire Department must hire 111 African Americans who passed a firefighters entrance exam 16 years ago and pay millions of dollars to thousands more who took and passed the same test.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was the latest blow to the city, which has been on the losing end of court decisions regarding the 1995 test for years, including a 2005 ruling by a federal judge who said the test discriminated against black applicants and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that the candidates did not wait too long to sue the city.

An attorney for the black firefighter candidates said that the 111 jobs would be filled from the applicants who passed the 1995 test and their pensions would be adjusted as if they'd been firefighters since 1995. And, said Joshua Karsh, 6,000 others who also passed the test will divide "tens of millions of dollars" that would have been paid 111 firefighters from 1995 until today.

A spokeswoman for the city's law department called the decision a "partial victory" for the city because it reduced the number of African Americans the fire department must hire from 132 to 111. "Reducing the number of plaintiffs who are eligible reduces the damages," said Jenny Hoyle.

Hoyle said that the city was still calculating the damages as result of dividing the back pay of 111 firefighters among the 6,000 applicants, but that officials estimate the payout will be about $30 million.

The ruling stems from a test given in 1995 that was intended to measure an aptitude for firefighting. After the test, anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified, but officials told those who scored above that number that while they passed, they would randomly hire the top 1,800 who scored 89 or better.

Because only 11 percent of the African Americans scored 89 or better, the overwhelming number of applicants hired from that test were white.

Karsh said the test was discriminatory because there was no evidence that the applicant who scored 89 or better would be any better firefighter than another who scored a 64, and in fact in 2005 a federal judge said the test discriminated against black candidates. In her ruling the judge said the city knew the cutoff point was meaningless and would disproportionately exclude blacks from the pool of candidates most likely to be hired.

"If the city of Chicago had selected firefighters at random from all the people who passed the test it would have gotten a pool of equally capable firefighters and the pool would have been more integrated," said Karsh said. He said he did not know when the hiring might begin, but said that he expected it to start soon.

After the judge's decision, the city, which hadn't given another test since 1995 because of ongoing court challenges, gave another test in 2006. But that test was given on a pass/fail basis and that all passing applicants, and not just the top ones, were processed randomly for additional tests such as physical agility and background checks.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chicag...ghters_lawsuit
.......

Plubius - I think this is ridiculous! The city of Chicago is being told basically it must lower its standards in order to accommodate a more diverse set of applicants. The city of Chicago should be able to hire the most top qualified applicants regardless of race!

Quote of the Day

"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."  -  President Calvin Coolidge