• holly 1

    from wikipedia

    The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was a two-step process for proposing and ratifying new amendments.[17]

    Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed then ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. To date, all amendments, whether ratified or not, have been proposed by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress. Over 10,000 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789; during the last several decades, between 100 and 200 have been offered in a typical congressional year. Most of these ideas never leave Congressional committee, and far fewer get proposed by the Congress for ratification.

    Alternatively, if two-thirds of the state legislatures demand one, Congress must call for a constitutional convention, which would have the power to propose amendments. As no such convention has been called, it is unclear how one would work in practice. In two instances—reapportionment in the 1960s and a balanced federal budget during the 1970s and 1980s—attempts to use this process have come extremely close to triggering a constitutional convention. The apportionment debate of the 1960s fell only one state short of the required number of states

    Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must also be ratified by three-fourths of states. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment. The 21st Amendment is the only one that employed state conventions for ratification.

    There are currently only a few proposals for amendments which have entered mainstream political debate. These include the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Balanced Budget Amendment, and the Flag Desecration Amendment. All three proposals are supported primarily by conservatives, but failed during periods of Republican control of Congress to achieve the supermajorities necessary for submission to the states. As such, none of these is likely to be proposed under the current Congress, which is controlled by the more liberal Democratic Party.

    Unlike amendments to most constitutions, amendments to the United States Constitution are appended to the body of the text without altering or removing what already exists, although nothing prevents a future amendment from doing so.


    June 15, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.

  • Holly1.

    What about the SOCCER MOM, HIGH THEM HIGH, US VS. THEM, GET YOURS, GOT MINE MENTIALITY of conservativism. Before you call me a liberal, socialist, or a progessive, I am neither of these.

    June 13, 2010 at 12:10 a.m.

  • Holly1
    You need to go back and take a civics lesson. I heard that civics is being dropped from the curriculum and your statement is a good example of that.

    You need to familiarize yourself with the separation of powers and the fact that both parties have used the commerce clause, so they wouldn't have to get ¾ ratification from the states. The electorate did not complain.

    You certainly don't know me ,so don't insinuate that I would cry foul because I didn't complain about trickle down economics,'until it actually failed. I believe in the process, let those that won the election; govern.

    You're also lacking on political history because if the republicans become the majority, they will do what they did in the past; jam things through reconciliation... I believe they have used that 22 times. Don't feel sorry for them, they have set a record on using the filibuster. You see, like baseball, there's no whining in politics... You lose at the ballot box and it is very likely you will not like the Supreme Court nominee, the economics', or the foreign policy of the opposition. I don't know where you been, that you think that you have been left out of process, just because Congress passed something you did not like. To the winner goes the spoils.

    You may not like the economic policies of FDR, but didn't he get reelected, time after time? Do you have something against the people's choice? Are you that vain, that you think everyone thinks like you..... I keep saying," I doubt that you will find a political candidate that will run on repealing,Social Security and Medicare.

    I've been hearing your point of view from the Ron Paulities for many many years and while I see your literal point of view, we will never agree because we are as different as night and day.I do enjoy reading your posts and like I said, I know where you're coming from; I just don't agree.

    It is my opinion,that reality is accepting things as they are; not as you want them to be; or go through proper channels and change them.

    June 12, 2010 at 11:43 a.m.

  • Holly1...I agree with almost everything you wrote about the governments excesses and restrictions on citizens except for the following: " No where is it allowed for the govt to tax income..."

    The Sixteenth Amendment states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    Since the amendments are as much a part of the Constitution as Article I, government's taxing of individual's income is constitutional.

    Your statement about the Constitution at the end of the post, "It was ment to be for all times not just our time" is PROFOUND. Unfortunately, I fear that it is too late for the country to return to the Constitution the Founders provided. Ron Paul is the only congress critter in Washington who advocates and supports a true Constitutional government and he can't do it by himself. Think what people could do for themselves if so much of our money didn't go to the sink hole that's the federal government.

    A poster commented a week or so ago about our loss of liberty. A left-leaning person responded by asking what he could do last week that he couldn't do today. Well, maybe not last week, but I can remember when I could pay cash for an airline ticket and not be considered a terror threat. I can remember when real cash money could be used and the banks didn't have to fill out a bunch of forms to let the government know who you were and how much cash you were obtaining and the reason for that. I can still look in my wallet at a dollar bill and see that it is "legal tender for all debts public and private." How doess that square with the government putting you on no-fly lists if you pay for a plane ticket with cash? How does that square with the government obtaining personal information if you withdraw a large sum of cash from your bank? If you don't supply the information, you can't get YOUR money.

    No, since the government has taken to itself so much power over the individal citizens, the days of personal liberty are pretty much over and won't be coming back. There is no way Congress is ever going to scale back its power over "we, the people."

    June 12, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.

  • mike my comment about progressives thinking history before 1875 is no longer relevent is right from the lips of democrats. it was stated that anything before the industrial revolution and the age of enlightenment (progressive ideas) is obsolete and no longer has merit. IMO the principles used to found this country are just as relevent today if not more so due to the abuse of power we see in all branches of govt by all parties involved. REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS have ignored the constitution and restricted many aspects of daily life with out due process as layed out in the constitution and passed laws creating massive entitlements and taxes on things never ment to be taxed. Which ever party in power can not change the law of the land to suit their needs. For example if this november the republicans were to become the majority party and used the same process the dems used to pass health care to pass anti-abortion laws restricting the right to abortion to only a few limited reasons or to eliminate welfare or other entitlements because of the costs without allowing democrats to imput anything meaningful you would be the first to scream foul. So saying the constitution is a living document is a false premise and against the very principles this country was founded on. The govt was never intended to have so much power over the states or the people.

    June 12, 2010 at 4:03 a.m.

  • the mentality that the govt owes me a living is un-american and against everything this country was founded on and stands for. No where in the constitution is it written that the govt's job is to provide a living to anyone. No where was is allowed to limit or restrict arms or gun ownership. ( HAYES ACT) No where is it allowed for the govt to tax income, behavior (sin taxes) or many other fees and charges. Show me where it's allowed to control or mandate education, health care, morality or force people to by products from private business (health insurance). show me where it's allowed to take from me to give to others against my will. show me where it's allowed for judges to legislate from the bench. Only congress has the right to legislate not the courts.

    the idea that the constitution is a living document is crazy. It was ment to be a strong and absolute document amendable by a super majority of the states not by the way being done today. Once a right or freedom is lost it is lost forever and should never be given up lightly. the idea of changing it to meet the popular whims of the time is against the very ideals that formed this nation. We should never allow changes to be made with out great deliberation and then only by the process allowed. Nowdays congress and the courts have legislated change with out meeting this required process. We need to demand that our lost rights and freedoms be restored. Each branch of govt needs to get back to doing only what is in the scope of their granted powers and stop bypassing the system of checks and balances where judges legislate from the bench , congress invents taxes out of thin air and restricts rights by decree. and the president rules by executive order. The constitution needs to be followed as originally intended so that it will continue to protect the freedoms of the past, present and future and not be twisted or perverted to what ever happens to be popular at the time. (prohibition is a good example of this) It was ment to be for all times not just our time.

    June 12, 2010 at 3:30 a.m.

  • mike and all the rest of the left of center crowd.

    If you look at all the laws we have on the books today that restrict gun ownership and invented new taxes on everything we do, earn and spend and then checked them against the constitution you would find no wording in that document that gives these powers to the govt. The federal govt has way overstepped it's charter by asserting control over education, health care, social entitlements and federal mandates to the states requiring them to bow down to the federal govt to get funding for roads and other things. Just because you left of center folks don't mind the govt userping these powers from the states and the people does not make it right. The idea of the constitution being a living document is crazy. Just because something is popular now does not make it right. By keeping the constitution strong and absolute then ,now and in the future it protects every generation from abusive laws and oppressive govt. The average middle class american now pays 60-70% of every dollar earned to the govt in some form of taxes, fees, or other methods. The system is now at a point that about 50% of the people either work for the govt or are supported by the govt and this number grows every year. Pretty soon there will be no-one left working to pay the bills. welfare as we know it today is a perverted form of programs set up during the great depression to give americans assistence for a short time until the country got back on it's feet. This was done through public WORK programs not free hand outs and provided tangable results for the monety spent ( state and national parks, hydroelectric projects, irrigation projects and other projects that benefitted all americans. Now all the workers get is a huge tax bill and nothing to show for all that money spent. The founding fathers drew ideas from many sources and cultures when they drew up and ratified the constitution. They drew from ancient greece and rome (pre-empire) from judeo-christian teachings, from the legal codes of solomon, persia and other ancient legal codes. They also included ideas from the enlightened people of the time that kyle c lists.

    June 12, 2010 at 2:51 a.m.

  • "if I die" in my comment below, oops

    June 10, 2010 at 6:13 p.m.

  • Oh, and since I am currently single and my two children are both adults, all I have paid in over the years just goes *POOF*, well except for the $255 death benefit.

    Lol, What a great racket, like a life insurance or retirement fund policy that doesn't pay off if you don't have a spouse and your heirs are adults.

    What if a life insurance or retirement fund company had that clause in their policies?

    June 10, 2010 at 5:53 p.m.

  • Didn't they move the full retirement age a few years ago?

    Myself, being born in 1958, the full retirement age is 65 years and 8 months. Not a big delay, 8 months, but I guess it might get changed again to a later date.

    June 10, 2010 at 5:47 p.m.

  • Legiion...You're so right about the money you could have if what had been taken from your pay for Social Security had been invested (by you for yourself) in good quality growth stock mutual funds. Even with the recessions, you would be so rich you would never need to worry about health care or eating well or being able to travel. The government required those payments and made a contract with you that when you retire, those (somewhat limited) funds would be available to you for as long as you live. That was the promise of the government and I intend to see that they live up to it. I'll collect every dime I can, even though it turns out to be more than I paid in, and WON'T consider it welfare or a handout. I'll consider anything I collect over the amount I paid in to be deferred INTEREST on the money the government collected from me over the decades.

    June 10, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.

  • legion357
    I think they're going to move the retirement age up in order to make Social Security solvent...You are in that age group that will be asked to sacrifice..:-)

    That might be true for you but we have about 75 million baby boomers eligible for Social Security,pretty soon...I believe the point was for those 60 years old and older.

    With today's health care cost that %1,45 Medicare payroll tax in will not pay for much.

    I took a %15 cut in order to receive my benefit at age 62 but it was well worth it, because Social Security is just supposed to be a supplemental. Unfortunately, for many it is not.

    June 10, 2010 at 5:02 p.m.

  • I don't know about Vic , CFLizzard, but my last SS statement shows I and my employers of course, have paid in roughly $ 87,000 so far.

    I still have almost 12 years to go to take early retirement @ 62 and some months. At that time I would receive app. $910 a month, it will take 7.9 years to get back what I put in, of course that figure is for 0% interest over 46 years of paying in.

    Just think if even 4%, heck 2% compound interest was factored into the equation.

    June 10, 2010 at 4:50 p.m.

  • chickenfriedlizard

    You are very astute, you have figured out that that the %1.45 paid into Medicare and the %6.2 (with a cap) can be wiped out with a triple bypass and a very long hospitalization stay. I have said it is my group (64+) that incurs 50% of our medical cost, using Medicare. The need to take out their calculators, buy a world almanac, and subtract the fixed cost of welfare vs. the budgeted and supplemental spending of defense. You can find a lot of waste in just those two expenditures.

    Entitlements must be the cut and taxes raised,as the 18 member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Commission will probably recommend.

    We're all in this together so it's time to stop this state against state, rich against poor, culture war and class warfare..... Many times you have to bring up these issues just to start the conversation on a level playing field.

    June 10, 2010 at 4:48 p.m.

  • Chickenfried,
    I will say this; there is a very small majority of folks that are left of center. I think it’s pretty well stated by the reactions to the Presidents policies, the American people just don’t care for his policies.

    On SS, I will wait until 65 to file for SS; I also stated, what every I may be entitled to, that is if there is any thing left after all of the freeloaders get there share.

    Like I said, I have no problem with student loans or grants to get ones education, I’m glade you toke advantage of those opportunities. It is a shame that other folks want do the same, I guess they would be better off being spoon feed by the government, after all most of the national debt is because of entitlements. So when do we close the door on entitlements? Because if we continue down the path that we’re on all the way to the bottom of the pit, which it will be empty. There is no way this country can survive if don’t stop all of this spending.

    June 10, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.

  • @ Victore

    Do you know the exact dollar amount you paid into SS? Because if you live to be 120, then you'll be taking handouts because you'll definitely have withdrawn more than you put in. :)

    Do you assume that since I am more left of center than you and I used government assistance in my life to help me achieve my goals that I am not as hard a worker as you? While in college, I worked part time and lived off my student loans and grants - government assistance. I also did side jobs of helping my uncle cut trees and haul scrap iron for extra cash.

    I of course, being dependent on government assistance in my youth, did not come from strong family values. My momma didn't work 2 jobs to feed my brother and me. She didn't go without so her kids could have something. She didn't stay on our butts to do good in school so that we can make something of ourselves. I'm being sarcastic. Of course she did. She instilled strong family values in her sons; the same ones I instill onto my kids. The notion that because someone accepts help when they need it rates them as not having values is absurd.

    You're right, there are people that abuse the system. However, you lay the fault of that at the feet of anyone who is left of center. This blanket indictment does not hold water with the majority of people who are left of center.

    June 10, 2010 at 4:06 p.m.

  • Chickenfried

    I’m retired, I pay my taxes, and I paid into SS and also Medicare. Medicare I will not use by my on choice, SS, what ever I’m entitled too I hope to get after all I paid for it. If you think you need the governments help, so be it, but I for one will never be afraid to sallow my pride and flip hamburgers or dig a ditch in order to put a meal on the table. I came from strong family values, you work hard to get what you need and want, live within your means. I have no problem with government assistance such as student’s loans, back in my day they were hard to get; scholarships didn’t happen it was a very poor school district, so you paid your on way. Smart A## Mike should know that he and I or in the same age group. Entitlements have gone well beyond help, it has become (I deserve it) without pay one dime into the system. SS was not designed for learning disabilities or being by- polar or any other 150 entitlements under SS. As Mike would say google it and do research.

    June 10, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.

  • @ Victore

    I posted in a previous entry that I personally used government assistance as a kid and when starting up as an adult. I'm doing all right now because the assistance gave me opportunities I otherwise didn't have. Don't assume that just because someone advocates government assistance to the downtrodden or the poor that they are not hard working individuals. The blanket indictment that those a little left of center are all for entitlements and handouts is total bull hockey. We advocate for hard work also, but also for safety nets if you fall on hard times. I assume that you 1. mailed back any stimulus checks you got from Bush and 2. once you hit retirement age, will mail your social security checks back to Uncle Sam with a big "no thank you, I don't take handouts" written across it in permanent marker.

    June 10, 2010 at 11:23 a.m.

  • Mike,

    What do you have against conservative hard working folks that have strong morals and values, which save their money work to be successful, try to give their kids a good education. What is wrong with investing in the future? What’s wrong with having physical responsibility? Why do you keep hammering us conservatives about it? I would appreciate that you get off our stinking backs about it. And that verbiage you liberals use (the have and have not) what a bunch BS, (the have not) had the same opportunities as anyone else. So get off your butts and do something by stepping up to the plate and get your hands dirty. It want be long before we will be having the same problems that Europe is having because of all the stupid entitlements, then we will have your side to thank for it.

    June 10, 2010 at 9:41 a.m.

  • Kyle.

    I love you man.

    June 10, 2010 at 1:43 a.m.

  • @sandwichh "Scared I might loose some IQ points so gotta go"

    You are quit right to worry, it seems you don't have many to lose.

    June 9, 2010 at 10:36 p.m.

  • WOW!!
    If there were ever a need to have a true Constitutional course......
    Living breathing,...Founding fathers no personal God....Declaration of Independence did not represent the country.....
    Much progressive teachings which have nothing to do with historical facts.
    Bout like listening to John Stewart or SNL for news facts.
    Scared I might loose some IQ points so gotta go.

    June 9, 2010 at 9:22 p.m.

  • chickenfriedlizard.

    I love you man. The first half of your comment rings true.

    June 9, 2010 at 7:54 p.m.

  • chickenfriedlizard

    I'll give a washout discount.:-)

    About three years ago I made a statement that I keep my politics secular and several of my conservative friends e-mailed me or posted online, saying that a sold out my Christian beliefs. I had to explain that our constitution covers everyone, including Muslims, non Christians, straight and non straight; so how can a politician represent his constituents if he/she is not inclusive. If they're representing a conservative Christian district; then by all means represent their views but we have a secular government.

    I didn't grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth, so I will not look down on a person just because they are on public assistance. I won't use my imagination solely in the negative but rather on a case by case basis. It's really not that hard to do.

    Thanks for sharing.

    June 9, 2010 at 4:22 p.m.

  • @ mike

    That old bridge might get washed away...apparently there's lots of water coming down stream from New Braunfels.

    I took full advantage of Uncle Sam's programs, namely college financial aid at a government subsidized university. My momma worked but still got WIC and reduced price school lunches when were were kids so we could eat. I got an FHA loan for my first house. And now I'm doing all right and paying back my loans. Thanks Uncle Sam!

    I know lots of white conservatives on government assistance, some women on WIC and have children on Medicaid, etc.; men on unemployment "But we worked and earned it" they all say. I always want to tell them, I don't want to pay for those white welfare queens... and get a job cracka! <-- that was a joke :)

    I honestly get tired of people trying to pass the Constitution off as the Bible. Its not perfect and neither is the Bible. There are parts of the Bible I don't agree with and think should be amended. I don't think we should take our children to the town elders to be stoned to death if they do not listen nor do I think that a woman should be put to death if her father cannot prove she was a virgin on her wedding night. And if shellfish are an abomination, then I'm going to hell because I love me some fried oysters! (Not the oil tainted ones they have out there now) Heck, you can't even get into heaven if you have a messed up ...well read about it (Deuteronomy 23:1)

    June 9, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.

  • Chickenfiredlizard.

    AMEN BROTHER AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    June 9, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.

  • chickenfriedlizard

    I know the canned answer you will get for question number one.... It's because they can lure them with welfare and other public handouts..... You see conservatives have never needed welfare, unemployment compensation, or any public assistance and every one of them have worked since age 5 on the family farm, put themselves through college working six jobs, and they are the model of success...etc,etc,etc... If you believe all that, I am still selling the old Guadalupe River bridge; if you're interested...:-)

    June 9, 2010 at 2:49 p.m.

  • @ Holly 1

    If the Republican party is the champion of those discriminated against, then why do most African Americans and Hispanics associate with the Democrats?

    If the Constitution is a perfect divine document as you claim, they why didn't women vote until 1912 and why were my ancestors considered 3/5 a man? Do you still feel the same way?

    The constitution is a living document, amended over the years to suit the changing of times. The amendment process is spelled out. Why did the founding fathers outline an amendment process if they did not intend for it to be a living document?

    June 9, 2010 at 2:33 p.m.

  • KyleC said "America has and always will be a diverse mix of cultures, languages and belief's - the Founding Fathers knew that and that's why we have such a wonderful Constitution."

    Well said, I think that is precisely what the extreme right is fighting against. They want to go back to a time when things were more black and white to them. They don't want to adhere to Supreme Court decisions, rule of law, legislation, and in some cases executive orders..... They want to go back to simpler times when all they had to say" It's in the bible; look it up.".. I can still hear my grandfather saying that. ..Back then, saying you were conservative, meant instant credibility... That no longer rings true; you now have to back your words with credible sources and research, knowing full well you can be contradicted by Google,comment history, etc.

    June 9, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.

  • @Santos "Our founding fathers, despite their differences supported “Puritan Christian beliefs”, and used those beliefs as the blueprint to engineer “American society”.

    I completely disagree with you on this.

    56% of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalian/Anglican - Church of England - arch enemies of the Puritans of old.

    There was almost 200 years between the Puritans landing on this continent and the formation of the United States of America. The America of the late 18th Century was flourishing in the Age of Enlightenment and was culturally a world apart from those early days of colonization. Try comparing today's America with the America of 1787.

    America has and always will be a diverse mix of cultures, languages and belief's - the Founding Fathers knew that and that's why we have such a wonderful Constitution.

    June 9, 2010 at 12:55 p.m.

  • Our founding fathers, despite their differences supported “Puritan Christian beliefs”, and used those beliefs as the blueprint to engineer “American society”.

    I think someone said once, “proof is 9/10ths of the law”, but who knows?

    As evidence to back up this position, what were the first schools?

    Would Harvard and Yale, be couple of them, and what did they teach?

    An argument could be made, that they taught more than a curriculum of different “sciences“, as the word was used in the day. They taught, in how those sciences were presented and possible interactions, how to interpret, or “critical thinking skills”.

    Again, “how” to interpret, not “what” to interpret.

    The issue with teachers, that we should all be concerned with is, “which”, is being applied.

    June 9, 2010 at 12:20 p.m.

  • Holly1 said

    "I ment that history before 1875 is thought to no longer be relevent in our modern society in the eyes of progressives. to which i reply that it is around this time in our history that our freedoms were starting to be eroded and to teach the people what those rights were before losing them would undermine the federal govt's grip on power

    Where did you get that from and who gave you the authority speak for progressives?

    You keep whining about losing your freedoms but you never give any specifics.... Why 1875? When did the women get the right to vote and when was the Civil Rights legislation passed?
    There's a lot of things no longer relevant in a modern society because people have moved on to the 21st century.

    From what you have written, I think your understanding of the constitution is based on a ideological point of view ,because you never submit a case law that was challenged by the Supreme Court. It's mostly your interpretation of what the founders wrote and meant.

    June 9, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.

  • @holly1 "But when combined with the declaration of independence and based on judeo-christian laws and principles as understood at that time formed the basis of and supplied the source of the freedoms outlined in the D.O.I there is no denying that this country was founded with judeo-christian beliefs at the core of it all."

    My point still stands- the Declaration of Independence did not represent the founding of the United States of America - the country we live in today. The Founding Fathers may have believed in the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster but it would be irrelevent because those beliefs were kept out of the document that was the framwork for this country. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists who actively questioned the idea of a personal god and men of the Enlightenment who used reason and critical thinking to make sound decisions for the budding nation. It was the greatest of those, Jefferson who mentored Madison (The Father of the Constitution) while he penned the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    The Founding Fathers looked not to any Judeo-Christianity for inspiration for the US Constitution but to enlightened men and works of the time and throughout history, men and works such as: John Locke, Cesare Beccari, Montesquieu, Polybius, The English Bill of Rights and The Magna Carta.

    We can talk about the fact that Christian's form the majority belief in this country and that should be taught as part of the history of the nation but the facts are there is no religion mentioned in the Constitution, this nation has a secular government and any talk of our "Christian founding" other than in a context of personal belief is disingenuous.

    June 9, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.

  • Holly1

    I really should know better because I don't usually argue with right wing social conservatives. In the first place are you saying the liberal ideology is akin to Jim Jones and the People's Temple, where actual brain washing took place? I graduated 46 years ago, where social promotion was part of the program,so your facts are wrong. I went to schools that were segregated, and I did not go to school with black children until I was in junior high. Was that conservative or liberal? Way back when, our teachers graded on a curve because the subject was too hard for those who did have a basic background in the subject. You are just taking some social conservative objections without offering any solutions and your examples are not fully researched.

    If I'm going to throw out percentages and numbers, I'm going to use numbers from a credible source, so I don't really agree or disagree with the 70% but I think math, science, English, biology, trigonometry, chemistry, are all important subjects that are taught without a political twist.

    When I mentioned education as being real important in our goal of survival, I was talking about academics and different methods of teaching our children courses that will keep us competitive, like science and math. President Obama and Secretary of Education,Arne Duncan came up with the brainstorm called 'Race to the Top'but it seems to be slowing down because of partisan politics. It is a program that rewards states who can come up with innovative reforms to boost student achievement with huge payoffs. They put four billion dollars into the program. Nationwide, education cost the taxpayers $667 billion and we're not getting our bang for the buck. Central High School in Rhode Island recently fired all their teachers because of a labor dispute, and liberal brain washed Secretary of Education,Arne Duncan said he “applauded” them for “showing courage and doing the right thing for kids.” They're coming to the table and not just relying on talking points of the past.

    June 9, 2010 at 9:58 a.m.

  • writein

    I don't see anywhere where I implied you were stupid. but in reply to my spouting glenn beck comment you made I used my knowledge of history to disprove your claim that all I was doing was parroting beck. I am not STUPID either and am willing to debate historical facts anyday with you as i think my knowledge of history is as good or better than yours.

    June 9, 2010 at 3:15 a.m.

  • kylec

    Yes your right there is no direct reference to god or christ in the constitution. But when combined with the declaration of independence and based on judeo-christian laws and principles as understood at that time formed the basis of and supplied the source of the freedoms outlined in the D.O.I there is no denying that this country was founded with judeo-christian beliefs at the core of it all.

    Because of the intolerence of the catholic church and the church of england and the power each held the founders purposely denied any religion the power to dictate any control over govt or the people.

    The founders almost to a man were christians and while seperating church and state based the rights granted the people upon christian tenents and biblical laws

    June 9, 2010 at 3:01 a.m.

  • kylec

    some of those individual beliefs were left out because they knew if included would prevent the states from agreeing to the constitution as wrote and would end in no unified republic

    Slavery was a major issue then and was intentionally left out and not addressed because the souther states would never have ratified any document that abolished slavery. The founders thought that slavery would die out and would have been right if the cotton gin had never been invented. Cotton would not have become the cash crop it did without the gin and slaves. It took both of them to allow it to become the main export it became.

    June 9, 2010 at 2:39 a.m.

  • kylec

    BY stating history is being molded into a secular progressive.......

    I ment that history before 1875 is thought to no longer be relevent in our modern society in the eyes of progressives. to which i reply that it is around this time in our history that our freedoms were starting to be eroded and to teach the people what those rights were before losing them would undermine the federal govt's grip on power. ever since we started to pass laws that have limited our freedom without following the process to amend the constitution we have become slaves to a strong federal govt that now takes away our freedom at will just by passing bills instead of amendments that pass the ratification process as outlined in the constitution It is no longer a govt of,by and for the people but has corrupted into a govt that does what ever it wants without fear of the reaction of the people.

    June 9, 2010 at 2:29 a.m.

  • My thoughts on the founding fathers intent are these.

    They believed in the seperation of church and state with the freedom to pratice any religion or no religion as each person saw fit. The church was not to have any control over govt in any form and the govt would not establish a national religion. (this did not mean religion would have no place in govt as there has always been a oath on the bible at the swearing in of govt officials. and the belief that god was the source of our rights not kings.

    They believed in a federal govt that through the voice of the people was granted powers to deal with issues that affected all of the states and ensured that laws were equally applied in all states.

    They felt that the most power was to be in the hands of the states and local govt as that was the level best able to handle the unique problems faced by each state or region of the country

    They believed in strong state militias that could be called up to support a national military if needed.

    They believed that no branch of govt was to be stronger than the other and each was to be a check and balance of the others. This was ment to prevent any abuse of the rights of the people.

    Unlike modern govt they felt the constitution was the law of the land that could only be changed or ammended by ratification of these changes by a super majority of the states.

    They saw the need for a federal military to provide for the common defense but that was also not to be deployed on home soil to oppress the people. with militias under the control of the states to prevent the federal govt from gaining to much power.

    They saw the federal govt as only dealing with interstate issues and foreign treaties and a standard system of money and standards.

    They also felt that the federal govt did not have any power that was not specifically established in the constitution and that any power not granted the federal govt in writing was held by the states and the people ultimately.

    The founding fathers would not like the amount of power that the federal govt has amassed and would see the need to remove those powers that should be the property of the states.

    June 9, 2010 at 2:10 a.m.

  • Holly1.

    I was a history major in college. I do know about history thank you. I am not stupid.

    June 9, 2010 at 1:23 a.m.

  • some aspects of spending reform and energy policy you have debated in past blogs have made sense although i do not agree with all of them. I Have seen you break from the party line a little on health care but not much. If I'm not confusing you with someone else You have agreed with me on a few points of entitlement reform and the need to invest in education and youth programs. I do have to say though there is not much we agree on.

    June 9, 2010 at 1:16 a.m.

  • @holly1 "It is being molded to fit the secular-progressive/liberal viewpoint with a dismissing of the intent of the founding fathers and the christian principles this country was founded on."

    What is your interpretation of the intent of the Founding Fathers? What Christian principles are you referring to? There is no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in the United States Constitution - not a single mention.

    Therefore you must surely be thinking of the Founding Fathers personal belief's which (aside from being quite diverse), as they so wonderfully practiced what they preached, kept them out of the document that created this country.

    Now does that fit with your interpretation of History? I will say I doubt it but therein lies the problem. Teaching history as pure fact is nigh on impossible unless you have a time machine. Bias is inherent in humans and it's a constant fight to stop historical events being skewed over time. I can assure you there 300 million people in this country with 300 million different "shades of gray" points of view on the history of this nation. Who's to say your idea of the perfect curriculum is accurate over "liberals"? You would surely be using your own biased agenda, no matter how true to history you might feel you are being.

    June 9, 2010 at 12:57 a.m.

  • Glenn beck has nothing to do with historical fact. After the civil war it was southern democrats that started the Klan and put into place the poll taxes and the jim crowe laws and fought the desegregation of the schools. The military was intergrated until a democratic president Wilson (who was a racist) mandated the formation of all black units which remained in place until President truman ordered the desegregation of the military while in office. It's just that I find it funny how the democrats always paint republicans as intolerant when they are the ones who have been intolerant throughout the latter 1800's and early 1900's

    June 9, 2010 at 12:53 a.m.

  • Holly1.

    Ok name some of my ideas or platform that you like.

    June 9, 2010 at 12:44 a.m.

  • Writein

    just because I don't agree with your viewpoints in general doesn't mean i dislike all you ideas that you have put forth. You are not the enemy and I am not a raging conservative. I tend to be independant in my thinking and would stand behind any idea or plan that I felt was a good one no matter what party put it forth. I personally find straight party voters ( sheep) of either party as being unwilling to actually learn the issues and formulate an opinion of their own. These voters are dangerous as they vote from ignorance and have no idea the harm they may do to society as a whole.

    June 9, 2010 at 12:40 a.m.

  • Holly1.

    Since you love to talk about how someone messed up history. Those Southern Dems became Republican after 1970. STOP WITH THE GLENN BECK TALKING POINTS !!!!!!!!!!!!

    June 9, 2010 at 12:40 a.m.

  • Social promotion has been around a lot longer than bush and no child left behind. That was being phased in back in the 70's and 80's.

    History has not changed just the way it is taught. It is being molded to fit the secular-progressive/liberal viewpoint with a dismissing of the intent of the founding fathers and the christian principles this country was founded on. With church and state seperate from each other and as small a federal govt as possible. They believed in the rights of the states and the people above that of the federal govt.

    My sister doesn't believe in tenure she thinks good teachers don't need it. She did not join the union where she is teaching and refuses to pay dues that will be donated to groups she doesn't support ( democrats/liberals ) that are running for office. As far as did she except Tenure I don't think she had the option to refuse it as although she did not join the union she is covered by their contract.

    Yes the USA is evolving and light needs to be shed on the dark side of or past as well as the good. But to ignore the first 50-100 years of our history and down play the constitution into a living document open to adjustment and change with-out going threw the ammendment proceedure is a perversion of that sacred document and the eroding away of the rights imparted to us in the beginning. We have had more rights taken away in the last 90 years (none by ammendment) than most realize. IMO these rights have been ILLEGALLY taken and need to be restored.

    I personally have nothing against alternative lifestyles but don't feel it's the schools place to either promote, or discourage any lifestyle or viewpoint that may be offensive to others. As I stated before teachers should instruct in a truthful unbiased form. not from their own viewpoint.

    Bringing up the jim crow laws is a case in point as it is the democrats who claim to be the party of the minorities but if one did their homework on this it was the democrats that formed the KLAN and voted the jim crow laws into being and were against desegregation of the schools and it was the republicans who passed the majority of civil rights bills but thats not what the democrats would admit. They blame republicans as being the racists.

    June 9, 2010 at 12:27 a.m.

  • Hollyin1.

    Good point. Lets see how Holly1 answers your point. Holly1 believes that the world is white and black with no grey area. To People like holly1, I am the enemy because I am not a conservative.

    June 8, 2010 at 11:40 p.m.

  • @holly1

    social promotion was a bad idea mandated by "no child left behind", a Bush folly.

    school books are radically different today than they were 30-40 years ago, so is everything around you. evolution is everywhere.

    your sister is using the system. did she reject the tenure offer?

    society is constantly evolving. do you think that jim crow laws were meant to do anything other than exclude certain persons from certain aspects of society? why not shine a bright light of truth on American history?

    i am a conservative, but i'm not afraid of letting my liberal parents teach my child about their views.

    what is the root of your belief in the abnormality of "alternative" lifestyles?

    June 8, 2010 at 11:31 p.m.

  • Writein

    OK then now back to my claim that teachers are using their positions to indoctrinate our children ( Brainwashing them ) with liberal positions on almost everything. My point is they are there to teach not preach ( there are those rare right wingers who are just as guilty ) to our children. The classroom is not the place for political indoctrination it's for imparting knowledge and skills as factually and impartially as possible. They have the same high standards as the press to be fair and balanced ( neutral ) as possible and sorry to say have become just as corrupted as the news. If the majority of teachers were right wingers instead of liberals the left would be screaming bloody murder and requesting equal time just as they are on talk radio stations dominated by the right wing talking heads. I just find it so hypocritical that the liberal teachers find nothing wrong with liberal bias in the classroom but yell foul when they can't make it on the radio without govt mandating equal time on the right wing stations ( thankfully that bill is stalled or dead in congress)

    June 8, 2010 at 11:30 p.m.

  • Holly1.

    You may think I’m dumb, but Don’t you talk to me like I am. Let me say this to you. RESPECT IS A TWO WAY STREET !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    June 8, 2010 at 10:41 p.m.

  • Writein

    What's this Robin holly about?? I have only this login name unlike others here on these blogs. And for the another time for all you blogers out there I am not FEMALE so don't feel you have to be gentle as I can take it. I do expect a little common respect from one as informed as yourself Writein so respectfully I yield the floor and await your next point of debate.

    June 8, 2010 at 10:31 p.m.

  • writein

    There are 49 other states in the USA and Just because there's a few wack job REPUBLICANS running the texas school board The fact is that by far teachers are one of the most liberal groups as a whole. Tenure is hidden in the union contract here in texas instead of out on the open like most areas. If you think this is not the case just try to get a teacher removed for anything other than that teacher being convicted of something. The Union TEA or TEU or whatever they call themselves have writen into their contracts with the ISD's in texas protections that make it very hard to get rid of a teacher. And I am sorry to say both the state and national teachers unions bleed kool-aid when they get a paper cut. Just check out the political donations they make. When the subject comes up among my friends and I about teachers promoting liberal agenda's I here all kinds of examples of class projects or activities being slanted way to the left.

    My Sister is a Teacher with a Master's Degree in Education who is a very right wing in her beliefs. She also told me of her high school and college instructors putting a very liberal spin on the subject matter. She would tell me about the debates she would get into with them where they would get rather offended and put out with her for disagreeing with there position on a issue and attempt to belittle her for her viewpoints. She even had a low grade corrected to the A- It deserved instead of the B- she received from the prof. by appealing it to the deans office as punishment for her views. Upon Review the deans office agreed and raised it to an A- and issued a letter of repremand to the prof. Now as a teacher (3 years now) we talk about how liberal most of the teachers she works with are. Plus she just made TENURE where she teaches ( 3rd grade ) public schools and how IMPOSSIBLE it now is to fire her. So I think I have a general Idea of what I'm talking about.

    June 8, 2010 at 10:05 p.m.

  • Holly1.



    June 8, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.

  • Mike I think you would agree that 70% or more of teachers at all levels including college are liberals. Thus my statement is valid. We all know that teachers are putting a liberal slant on the material being taught and also they way textbooks are being written. If you compared a history book from 30-40 years ago with one printed today you notice that history is slowly being edited to suit a progressive outlook on history. Down playing the role of the founding fathers and leaving out a lot of our early history claiming it is not relevent in our modern world. Added to this is the politically correct mentality that social promotion is OK and trophies issued for just playing the game now instead of to the winners ( wouldn't wan't our kids feelings hurt because they lost.) The teaching of elementary age kids that alternative lifestyles are just fine and totally normal!!! Grading students on a curve so failing grades by some magic trick suddenly become passing grades. The list goes on and on Mike. And YES I DO THINK THESE ARE LIBERAL BRAINWASHING.

    The 2nd ammendment was wrote as " The right to bear ARMS " not the right to bear rifles, pistols, or any specific kind of arm. The founding fathers did this so the govt could not make the owning and BEARING ( to carry upon one's person ) of any arms illegal. They allowed local militias to keep and train on cannons and every weapon that existed at that time. This simple word "ARMS" encompasses all arms that can be turned on the people by the govt. Granted no-one today owns a M1A1 TANK but in theory we are allowed to have them to protect ourselves from a tyranical and unjust govt. SO YES any law restricting the ownership and BEARING of that arm is unconstitutional and are a gross over-stepping of federal, state and local govt's powers at the cost of our freedom.

    June 8, 2010 at 5:31 p.m.

  • "Education is bad because teachers are not teaching they are brainwashing students with liberal ideas."

    Texas State Board of Education...

    Do I need to say anymore?

    June 8, 2010 at 9:44 a.m.

  • Wow Holly1, education is a brainwashing liberal idea and the second amendment was meant to be vague.

    You might want to rethink, reword, or explain.

    June 8, 2010 at 9 a.m.

  • Concealed handgun law is unconstitutional. States use it to prohibit owership of handguns. Any law that limits ownership of any type of firearms is a direct violation of the 2nd ammendment. The 2nd ammendment was ment to allow the people to defend themselves FROM THE GOVT. AN unarmed people are enslaved to an all powerful govt with no means of protecting itself from said govt. This country has slowly lost the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in a multitude of laws restricting the kinds of guns that can be owned.. The right to bear ( carry ) arms was purposely left vague to allow ownership of any weapon needed to overthrow a tyranical out of control govt.

    Education is bad because teachers are not teaching they are brainwashing students with liberal ideas. Get back to basics and do away with TENURE. Good teachers don't need it.

    June 8, 2010 at 6:04 a.m.

  • Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    June 8, 2010 at 12:54 a.m.