A Tuscon school district is under the microscope by the AZ state Department of Public Education. The district has "Raza Studies" classes (La Raza?) that the DPE wants to make sure is in compliance with H.B. 2281, a bill that "prohibits a school district or charter school from including courses or classes that either promote the overthrow of the United States government or promote resentment toward a race or class of people."
The state has asked for a video of the course but the district has told the them that they will not comply.
The state had asked Tucson, in view of a new state law that takes effect at the end of this year that bans promoting to students "the overthrow of the United States government" and other issues, to record its "Raza" classes this fall to document what is being taught.
No, said Tucson officials.
So the state, which starting Jan. 1 can withhold 10 percent of the district's state funding, confirmed it would cite that refusal when the dispute comes up for judicial review.
When the funds are withheld, said a state letter to the district, "You will have the right to appeal to an administrative law judge. If you agree to this videotape, it will be helpful evidence to the administrative law judge. If you refuse, we will offer that refusal as evidence to the administrative law judge that the school district has deliberately hidden facts that would show that the district is in non-compliance with H.B. 2281."
The new law was adopted this year by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer. But it largely has been overshadowed by the international furor over the state's plan to make illegal under state law what already is illegal under federal law – being in the state without permission.
The MGM Ironman is a "one of a kind" match and has been since its actualization in 1999. Mike Gibson developed an idea for the type of match that he wanted to shoot. It is long, intense, and you shoot till you drop! Mike frequently says, "this match isn't for weenies or crybabies".
I'd like to participate in this at some point, but it'll take me a while to get geared up.
This one has a lot of people ticked off on both sides of the issue. Proposition 8 was passed and the California state Constitution was amended to define state-recognized marriages as being between a man and a woman. That was challenged, in a court presided by a completely unbiased judge (who happened to be in a same-sex relationship), and the amendment was ruled unconstitutional. Then, in a "dare you to challenge the ruling" moment, he goes a step further:
And, just yesterday, Walker’s refusal to stay his judgment pending appeal, the latest step in his gamesmanship to try to deprive Prop 8 proponents of their appeal rights and to avoid effective appellate review of his shenanigans.
Walker’s course of conduct would be sufficient cause for national scandal in any case. That it comes in a case that aims to radically remake the central social institution of American society makes it utterly intolerable.
I can’t imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case.
This releated article goes over the truth and fiction behind the controversy. It is worth reading. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Although federal law prohibits it, U.S. taxpayers have financed an unprecedented number of costly propaganda and public relations initiatives pushing Obama Administration policies.
Details of the violations are laid out in a new report (Analysis of the First Year of the Obama Administration: Public Records and Propaganda Initiatives) issued this week by a House panel that oversees all facets of government, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It reveals that, under one-party rule, the White House used the Obama campaign machinery to tout the president’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives.
In nearly a dozen cases the administration abused taxpayer resources and/or violated federal law that prohibits using public funds to promote partisan propaganda, according to the probe. For instance the administration spent millions of dollars to buy road signs touting progress under the economic stimulus law and coordinated taxpayer-funded art to promote Obama’s legislative priorities in the first few months of his presidency.
Isn't this interesting! Andy Staples explains that the USA Today coaches poll, which usually matches the AP for the #1 pick, has been wrong for the last 5 years. Alabama is slated to win this season, but Boise State fills in the second spot.
Recent history also suggests that we won't have to look far down the list to find the national champs. In the past six years, the lowest the eventual BCS champ has been ranked is No. 8 (Florida, in 2006, by the coaches, with the candlestick, in the study). In fact, 2006 is the only year since 2004 that the eventual BCS champ didn't start in the top five of both polls.
This is why Boise State -- No. 5 in the coaches' poll and probably the same or higher in the AP -- has a real chance to play for the national title if the Broncos go undefeated. Boise State found the loophole in the BCS; as long as you start the season ranked high enough, it doesn't really matter who you play as long as you play one or two decent games and go undefeated. For lovers of underdogs and proponents of playoffs, this is a beautiful thing. Anything that exposes the BCS for the popularity contest it is works for me.
#2 Boise State Broncos
Key returnees: QB Kellen Moore, WR Titus Young, WR Austin Pettis, CB Brandyn Thompson, DE Ryan Winterswyk, S Jeron Johnson
First game: Sept. 6 vs. Virginia Tech (Landover, Md.) Here's a prediction I know will come true: Most of the complaints I'll receive about this poll will point to this particular slot. The power-conference apologists will whine that Boise State would lose three games if it had to slog through a tough conference slate. Maybe, but those people always fail to realize that if Boise State played in the Big 12 or Pac-10, it would have Big 12 or Pac-10 players instead of the collection of two- and three-star recruits that Coach Chris Petersen and his staff have turned into stars. The argument falls flat after that. This isn't an excuse for Boise State -- just an answer to a silly argument. I'm not grading on a curve here. I ranked Boise State No. 2 because I believe that the Broncos -- on a neutral field -- would beat the teams ranked below them and lose to Alabama. Now, if you want us to stop talking about Boise State and stop ranking the Broncos so high, there is an easy solution. When your favorite power-conference program plays the Broncos, it better beat them. Virginia Tech gets the next shot on Labor Day.
All the hubbub surrounding the President's comments, and subsequent backpeddling, regarding the mosque in New York have caught the attention of many, including Chuck Norris. At WND, he posts part 1 on this topic.
Unlike any other time in U.S. history, our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are in jeopardy. As if recently passed "hate-crime" laws and a politically correct culture weren't bad enough, now our president is using international pressure and possibly law to establish a prohibition against insulting Islam or Muslims.
Let me remind us how we got here.
Speaking for most founders in his day, John Jay, America's first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington himself, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Two hundred years later, President Obama has already denied America's rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
Then there was Cairo in June 2009, when President Obama vowed to establish "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world … I also know civilization's debt to Islam. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. … And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed."
He goes on to say, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
That last line is really one of the most unique U.S. presidential religious passions and missions stated to date: "And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Another big question is: What did the president mean when he said, "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't"? It makes no sense at all to refer to a partnership between a country and religion – America and Islam. Why not say partnership between America and Muslim nations or a partnership between Americans and Muslims or even a partnership between Christianity and Islam? That comment is very strange to me and has a much deeper meaning.
