Written on March 11th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Here’s your law abiding Democrat Hispanic Caucus
A group of Hispanic lawmakers on Thursday will tell President Barack Obama that they may not vote for healthcare reform unless changes are made to the bill’s immigration provisions.
immigration remains just as explosive an issue and carries the same potential to derail the entire healthcare endgame, a number of Democrats said.
“It’s still one of those issues that’s out there,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), the Democratic Caucus vice chairman and the only Hispanic member of House leadership.
And what is the issue (as if you couldn’t have guessed)
The Senate language would prohibit illegal immigrants’ buying healthcare coverage from the proposed health exchanges. The House-passed bill isn’t as restrictive, but it does — like the Senate bill — bar illegal immigrants from receiving federal subsidies to buy health insurance.
Hispanic Democrats say they haven’t moved from their stance that they will not vote for a healthcare bill containing the Senate’s prohibitions.
They claim that while it may be politically popular in some parts of the country to ban illegal immigrants from using their own money to buy coverage, it is not good policy. Illegal immigrants will, one way or another, need medical attention in the United States, and it would be cheaper and more humane to provide them coverage if they pay for it. Otherwise, they will seek treatments in the nation’s emergency rooms, effectively increasing medical costs.
One would think it would be also legally popular, since illegals are here in the United States, well, illegally. As in against the law, both criminally and civilly.
So, if government sponsored health insurance for illegal aliens is put back in the legislation, that should make it even more popular with the American people. And I am so darned glad that folks on the left are so concerned with following the law.
John at Verum Serum points out
So I guess this explains why, after 14 months of nothing, the President has been eager to talk about immigration reform all of a sudden.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 4th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Here we go: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets
Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.
My first thought when I caught the headline and first paragraph (above) on my iPhone news app (Fluent News) was “please, no. Do not combine anti-Darwinism with anti-AGW. Let the science or lack thereof stand on their own merits.” As I have written, and said, time and time again, one of the things I hate the most about what the climate alarmists have done is incorporating every real environmental issue with global warming. We forget the real reasons. Manatees (I’m a big donor) must be saved from climate change, not boats going too fast in areas that are restricted. Coral must be saved from AGW, not polluted waters. The Amazon must be saved from globull warming, not pollution and deforestation. So, the real issues are not addressed anymore.
That said, the reality
In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”
The bill, which has yet to be voted on, is patterned on even more aggressive efforts in other states to fuse such issues. In Louisiana, a law passed in 2008 says the state board of education may assist teachers in promoting “critical thinking” on all of those subjects.
Last year, the Texas Board of Education adopted language requiring that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming.
This is what Excitable Chucky Johnson call “stealth creationism,” and, in some small cases, he is correct, however, what exactly is wrong with teaching all sides of an issue? Not all those bills, or others, are telling or allowing teachers to teach religious tenets, or even Intelligent Design (funny how the same liberals had no problem with teaching Islam in schools, something that happened quite a bit after 9/11, as lefties tried to teach “tolerance” and “multiculturalism”). Should not kids be taught the good and bad of scientific theories? Should they not be provided with all the facts from all sides, to allow themselves to make a rational, intelligent decision on where they stand? Or, are our schools simply to be used as indoctrination centers, much as in North Korea and Hitler’s Germany?
James D. Marston, director of the Texas regional office of the Environmental Defense Fund, said he worried that, given Texas’ size and centralized approval process, its decision on textbooks could have an outsize influence on how publishers prepare science content for the national market.
“If a textbook does not give enough deference to critics of climate change — or does not say that there is real scientific debate, when in fact there is little to none — they will have a basis for turning it down,” Mr. Marston said of the Texas board. “And that is scary for what our children will learn everywhere.”
A perfect example of which side is actually anti-science. It is “scary” that children be presented with all sides of a scientific argument.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on February 28th, 2010 by adminno shouts
-By Warner Todd Huston
On February 27 the Times Online from Britain published what it hailed as amazing proof that 4th century Britain was “multicultural” and “diverse” during the Roman occupation of the island nation. This “new” revelation came from a recent scientific investigation into the burial in York of an African woman. The problem with this whole report is that it does not at all show that Britain was “multicultural” in the 4th century. The truth is the newspaper misapplied the word “multicultural” to this burial in an effort to celebrate the politically correct ideal of multiculturalism as it exists today.
There is nothing as ahistorcal as applying today’s standards and ideas to the past, but The Times falls headlong into this trap in an effort to show that the Romans were somehow just like us today in their acceptance of “multiculturalism.” The problem, of course, is that Rome did not accept other cultures in the same way that Britain’s modern, self-destructive dalliance in “multiculturalism” does.
The story of the 4th century burial is very informative and interesting, to be sure. Originally found in 1901 in Bootham, York, the grave was located in what was a Roman fortress and settlement named Eboracum, founded in AD71. The researchers found that an African woman (or one of mixed-race, they couldn’t be sure) was buried in a stone sarcophagus and laid to rest with several of her possessions proving that she was a person of wealth and station in life. The medical examination of the skeleton also seemed to show that the woman did not live a life of strenuous labor. A Latin inscription on one of her possessions indicates that she may have been a Christian, too.
It is well known that throughout the Roman Empire many African soldiers filled the ranks of the Roman legions and that some of them became officers of high rank. It is likely that this woman was the wife of one of these Roman officers of African descent.
So what does the Times and its quoted researcher make of this wealthy black woman from Britain’s 4th century society?
Archaeologists have discovered that wealthy black Africans lived in Roman Britain in one of the country’s earliest examples of multiculturalism.
….
Hella Eckardt, who carried out the study, said: “Multicultural Britain is not just a phenomenon of more modern times. Analysis of the ‘Ivory Bangle Lady’ and others like her, contradicts assumptions about the make-up of Roman-British populations as well as the view that African immigrants were of low status, male and likely to have been slaves.”
….
Dr Eckardt continued: “We’re looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected. In the case of York, the Roman population may have had more diverse origins than the city has now.
These are non sequitur assumptions and prove that neither the Times nor this foolish Dr. Hella Eckardt should be taken as informed, worthy sources of information.
Romans did not consider their conquered peoples as having cultures worth celebrating and nurturing. To be ROMAN was the goal and they did not just willy nilly accept into their own culture all the customs and practices of the lowly peoples that were taken over. Only today is there an abdication of local, western customs and practices so that immigrant’s cultural influences can prevail, this is now the case with Britain’s (and the west’s) self-hating practice of “multiculturalism.”
This rich black woman was not wealthy because she was “multicultural,” she was wealthy because she observed the Roman’s rules. She did not move to Britain to bring all her African practices with her, she did not become a woman of station in 4th century Roman Britain because she retained her multicultural identity, thumbing her nose at Roman practices.
Did the Roman Empire consist of people of many cultures? Of course. Did some of those cultures influence Roman practice and custom? Over the long term they did, most certainly. In fact, that is the history of mankind. Man’s history is a repetition of the actions of conquering a people, then living with them, followed by a taking of the best ideas and practices (as well as languages) from that conquered people and incorporating them into a new, stronger society. But this is not “multiculturalism” as now so sadly celebrated by the PC set.
Further, the history of the Roman Empire spanned many hundreds of years. Tolerance for local customs, religions, languages, and the like waxed and waned with the times and the whims of the Emperors back in Rome. So, to present 4th century Britain as multicultural in today’s terms is absurd as the climate for the other-than-Roman was not a fixed quantity.
So, for this report to announce that 4th century Britain was “multicultural” is a slap in the face to truth because the concept of multiculturalism as we now understand it simply did not exist in the 4th century. The Roman Empire was not multicultural. It was Roman. 4th century Britain was not multicultural but was ruled by Romans that were Roman despite their diverse racial makeup. They were Romans acting like Romans ruling a subjugated Celtic people. That Rome often turned a blind eye to the continued practices of their conquered peoples does not mean that Rome was “multicultural” in the same way we’d think of it today.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on February 20th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Of course, this does beg the question “what actual space program is NASA talking about?”, since the Obama mega-budget is doing away with most space related missions, and NASA is planning on paying commercial vendors to take them to space, as we have no replacement for the space shuttles (not Obama’s fault), have none in the works which would be deployable, are down to the last few missions, and the mission seems to be changing to be more about globull warming hysteria. Anyhow
NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has asked him to “find ways to reach out to dominantly Muslim countries” as the White House pushes the space agency to become a tool of international diplomacy.
“In addition to the nations that most of you usually hear about when you think about the International Space Station, we now have expanded our efforts to reach out to non-traditional partners,” said Bolden, speaking to a lecture hall of young engineering students.
Specifically, he talked about connecting with countries that do not have an established space program and helping them conduct science missions. He mentioned new opportunities with Indonesia, including an educational program that examines global climate change.
Right. Good move. Let’s reach out to countries that often tend to live in the 15th Century, and whose view of science is how to better use the technology that Western countries create in order to kill Westerners.
I mean, think about it. Iran has been attempting to build nuclear weapons since 1979, and still haven’t done it, even with all the technology that they could certainly purchase on the black market. The United States, once we put our minds to it, took a small project that had been sitting around since 1939, and, in three years, developed, built, and exploded not one, but two nuclear weapons. Muslim countries would be lucky to create a better yo yo.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on February 18th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Situating a perverted creep like Kevin Jennings as the “Safe Schools Czar” is only the first step in bringing Hopey Change to primary education. Next, our liberal rulers need to pass the proper legislation to support the indoctrination of small children with homosexual propaganda. This legislation is known as HR 4530.
The ostensible purpose is to prevent “discrimination” against homosexual children. Since most children are too young to be homosexual, the real objective must be something else — namely:
The purpose of this bill is not what is being stated, but is quite simply to mandate in public schools one acceptable viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality, using purported violence or harassment as the rationale, and the power of the feds as the hammer. … In summary, this is an attempt to promote sexual deviance and its expression and silence those who want to protect children from such corruption.
As with everything coming out of Washington lately, another goal is to weaken federalism and consolidate increasingly intrusive centralized power.
Federal governmental intrusion and sweeping new unregulated powers in what are local and state matters are proposed in this bill. Enforcement will primarily be through federal agencies, which will craft new regulations to back up this bill’s provisions with the President’s approval.
But the main point of the bill is to facilitate the brainwashing of small children with the progressive kakistocracy’s depraved sexual agenda, suppressing any speech deemed unsupportive of homosexual deviancy. As Jim Hoft puts it:
In other words, if you oppose radical sexual material detailing sex between first graders or promoting S&M but the Safe Schools Czar or some other official believes it is appropriate — tough. If you disagree with books romanticizing child rape or books with pictures of men having sex — tough. If you oppose weekend student-teacher seminars with fisting lectures and gay bar guides — tough. If government officials want to promote this in your child’s classroom then you’ll just have to get used to it.
On a tip from J. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
