First Amendment Exemption

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
I could easily have posted this thread in any number of forums, but I choose the Education forum because the education industry has the most money, and the most political clout, being used to implement coerced charity in today’s American. The fact that the education industry has no constitutional authority to be in education to begin with is the one thing teachers dare not teach.

Teachers’ unions manipulating the federal government to punish homeschoolers is clearly an attempt to force every child to attend public school for basic Socialist indoctrination. A case in Montana goes to the ideology of every priesthood:


Officials with the Pacific Legal Foundation who were unsuccessful in convincing Montana bureaucrats to voluntarily drop the discriminatory regulation now have gone to federal court seeking an order that the rule be canceled.​

On Tuesday, PLF officials announced they have filed a lawsuit against the Montana Department of Revenue for its rule that a newly created Scholarship Tax Credit program excludes Christian and other faith-based schools.

Scholarship sued for dissing Christian academies
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/29/2015 @ 10:47 pm

Scholarship sued for dissing Christian academies

In short, America’s Socialist priesthood is doing everything priesthoods do in every society —— discriminate against every other religion. Communist governments do it. Muslim clerics do it with a vengeance in Muslim countries. Christians did it throughout Europe’s long bloody history, Buddhists do it. Jews do it. Hindus do it. Abusing the faithful practicing an opposing religions is the nature of the beast.

It appears that America’s Socialist priesthood take with one hand and give with the other:


Mosque Linked To Muslim Brotherhood Has Received Millions In Federal Grants
Chuck Ross
11:27 PM 12/28/2015

Mosque Linked To Muslim Brotherhood Has Received Millions In Federal Grants

Question: Does anybody in Congress uphold their oath of office?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.​

Perhaps elected officials never heard of the First Amendment. Teachers certainly never heard about it. Or perhaps the First Amendment does not apply to charity hustlers.

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

I would dearly love to know how many people are required to assemble and redress their grievance against the XVI Amendment? That is the amendment that overrides the First Amendment in order to enrich charity hustling parasites.

Or perhaps complete ignorance of what America is the reason they always give tax dollars to organized religions for “good causes.”

NOTE: Democrats recently latched on a political theme that tells us “That is not what America is.” Or “That is not the kind of country we want.” (We meaning I.)

Democrats have variations on the theme, but it always boils down to ‘Americans are begging to live in a theocracy governed by Socialist priests.’

Parenthetically, Donald Trumps says he is going to make America great again. No matter which Republican becomes the next president he has his work cut out for him if he is serious. It is not going to be easy to wean the charity industry from tax dollars. Teachers will fight to the death to protect their spot at the public trough.

Let me close with a few quotations. I’ll begin with one that has more meaning today than it did in 1794:


In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. James Madison
(French refugees were not coming here to kill Americans; so imagine what Madison et al. would say about Muslim combatants coming here as refugees for the sole purpose of killing Americans.)

Democrats who tell us what this country is might tell us exactly when the political philosophy that made America great became a theocracy governed by parasite priests.


NOTE: I took the liberty of adding the word [coerced] where I thought appropriate:

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX

Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX

[coerced] Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. James Madison

XXXXX


If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. James Madison

XXXXX

With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. James Madison

XXXXX

When the people find they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. Benjamin Franklin

XXXXX

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. Benjamin Franklin

XXXXX

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. Alexis de Tocqueville

XXXXX

When more of the people’s sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and the expense of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government. Grover Cleveland

XXXXX

I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for [coerced] public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded. Franklin Pierce

XXXXX

In a free republic a great government is the product of a great people. They will look to themselves rather than government for success. The destiny, the greatness of America lies around the hearthstone. . . . Look well to the hearthstone; therein all hope for America lies. Calvin Coolidge
 
NOTE: Democrats recently latched on a political theme that tells us “That is not what America is.” Or “That is not the kind of country we want.” (We meaning I.)
What a fabulous article —— beyond this brief excerpt:

I am tired of being told by Barack Obama on the one hand, and Bill O’Reilly on the other, what my American values are or ought to be. I can work those out for myself.​

December 30, 2015
It Has Come to This
By E.M. Cadwaladr

Articles: It Has Come to This
 
As I’ve watched the Democratic Party presidential debates, I’ve found myself wondering when the tough questions are going to be asked.​

Campaign question for Hillary, Bernie, et al.
Posted By Joseph Farah On 12/30/2015 @ 7:57 pm

Campaign question for Hillary, Bernie, et al.

Nobody in the media is going to ask Democrats anything that might upset the media’s balance of power.

Frankly, asking anyone in the party of liars questions about issues is a waste of time. Rather than ask Democrats media questions, I would hire actors to play America’s most famous Founding Fathers —— then have them debate all of the top Democrats. My actors would be confined to answering in the words of the Founders, while Democrats can say anything they want to say about the form of government they are trying to impose on the country. The quotations I listed in the OP barely scratch the surface of a mountain of answers that can be used to demolish Democrat horseshit.

Try to visualize the words of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson et al. debating the current president, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat.


I’d love to hear Harry Reid debate a “voluntary income tax” against the words of Jefferson and Madison!



The high point of the debate would be Bernie Sanders telling Jefferson and Madison that Socialism is not about tax dollar greed:

195824_5_.jpg
http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2015-12/195824_5_.jpg
 
“The fact that the education industry has no constitutional authority to be in education to begin with is the one thing teachers dare not teach.”

It's not 'taught' because the notion is idiocy, as is the thread premise.

“Teachers’ unions manipulating the federal government to punish homeschoolers is clearly an attempt to force every child to attend public school for basic Socialist indoctrination.”

The only thing clear is that this is a ridiculous lie, devoid of fact or merit, the product of delusional tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
 
I would hire actors to play America’s most famous Founding Fathers —— then have them debate all of the top Democrats.
I am not going to get actors in a debate playing America’s founders. I’ll settle for this:

Screen%20Shot%202015-12-29%20at%204.22.43%20PM.png
http://cdn.spectator.org/styles/art...ot 2015-12-29 at 4.22.43 PM.png?itok=T_GcE4be

Today the Founders would cry out against treating “equality” as a deity to be tended and enlarged by the high priests of government. In this coming debate, in which those touting bigger government are sure to dominate, candidates shouldn’t be spared a fair and honest retort: Just what in Jefferson’s name are you talking about?!

Equality Babble
We know we’re “equal,” more or less, but on whose terms? Big Government’s?
By William Murchison – 12.30.15

Equality Babble
 
“The fact that the education industry has no constitutional authority to be in education to begin with is the one thing teachers dare not teach.”

It's not 'taught' because the notion is idiocy, as is the thread premise.

Teachers’ unions manipulating the federal government to punish homeschoolers is clearly an attempt to force every child to attend public school for basic Socialist indoctrination.”

The only thing clear is that this is a ridiculous lie, devoid of fact or merit, the product of delusional tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

How are homeschoolers being punished by the federal government? I have not heard that before.
 
How are homeschoolers being punished by the federal government? I have not heard that before.
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: Here’s one example:

The U.S. Department of Justice has revealed in a court filing it agrees with the philosophy of the German government that bureaucrats can punish homeschooling parents.​

Note that the DOJ cites the International Court (non-existent International law):

The DOJ also cited international court rulings, noting: "The European Court of Human Rights has held that parents could not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of the parents' convictions, because the child has an independent right to education."​

Make no mistake about schoolhouse door type rulings. It is not about the three R’s. Every ruling that gives the government more control over children is designed to strengthen the drive towards global government. Congress knows the agenda, the education industry actively implements the agenda, and Democrat judges rule for it; so this is hardly confined to Europe:

Such rulings in Europe have been used to argue that it is the state that makes decisions about education for children, not parents.

DOJ: Governments can punish homeschoolers
Posted By Bob Unruh On 07/02/2013 @ 9:15 pm

DOJ: Governments can punish homeschoolers

Fields v. Palmdale School District

Ninth Circuit Decision Denies Parents' Rights​

Parents and politicians alike were shocked when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Nov. 2 that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."​

NUMBER 239
THE NEWSPAPER OF EDUCATION RIGHTS
DECEMBER 2005

Ninth Circuit Decision Denies Parents' Rights

Socialists do everything incrementally. Forcing Socialism’s ideology on every child is a major objective. Democrats see it as a major defeat if just one child escapes the indoctrination. Basically, analyze where the government really wants to go whenever they attack a freedom no matter how small the group under attack happens to be.

p.s. Thanks for the opportunity to post this reminder one more time:


As former U.S. circuit court judge and legal scholar Robert Bork pointed out in his book "Coercing Virtue," "International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy."​
 
How are homeschoolers being punished by the federal government? I have not heard that before.
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: Here’s one example:

The U.S. Department of Justice has revealed in a court filing it agrees with the philosophy of the German government that bureaucrats can punish homeschooling parents.​

Note that the DOJ cites the International Court (non-existent International law):

The DOJ also cited international court rulings, noting: "The European Court of Human Rights has held that parents could not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of the parents' convictions, because the child has an independent right to education."​

Make no mistake about schoolhouse door type rulings. It is not about the three R’s. Every ruling that gives the government more control over children is designed to strengthen the drive towards global government. Congress knows the agenda, the education industry actively implements the agenda, and Democrat judges rule for it; so this is hardly confined to Europe:

Such rulings in Europe have been used to argue that it is the state that makes decisions about education for children, not parents.

DOJ: Governments can punish homeschoolers
Posted By Bob Unruh On 07/02/2013 @ 9:15 pm

DOJ: Governments can punish homeschoolers

Fields v. Palmdale School District

Ninth Circuit Decision Denies Parents' Rights​

Parents and politicians alike were shocked when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Nov. 2 that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."​

NUMBER 239
THE NEWSPAPER OF EDUCATION RIGHTS
DECEMBER 2005

Ninth Circuit Decision Denies Parents' Rights

Socialists do everything incrementally. Forcing Socialism’s ideology on every child is a major objective. Democrats see it as a major defeat if just one child escapes the indoctrination. Basically, analyze where the government really wants to go whenever they attack a freedom no matter how small the group under attack happens to be.

p.s. Thanks for the opportunity to post this reminder one more time:


As former U.S. circuit court judge and legal scholar Robert Bork pointed out in his book "Coercing Virtue," "International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy."​

So, why didn't you just say that you could not answer the question, because all you did is post unrelated BS?

The references you have deal with home schooling in Germany and a survey in public schools. Now, how about sticking to the topic?
 
The references you have deal with home schooling in Germany and a survey in public schools. Now, how about sticking to the topic?
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: I answered the topic to my satisfaction not yours. If you do not like the reply stop reading my messages altogether.

Be forewarned. If you insist on asking clever questions you will get more of the same from me. Naturally, you can always do your own research so you do not have to ask questions at all.
 
The references you have deal with home schooling in Germany and a survey in public schools. Now, how about sticking to the topic?
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: I answered the topic to my satisfaction not yours. If you do not like the reply stop reading my messages altogether.

Be forewarned. If you insist on asking clever questions you will get more of the same from me. Naturally, you can always do your own research so you do not have to ask questions at all.

OK. if you really want to appear as a partisan jackass, so be it!
 
Teachers’ unions manipulating the federal government to punish homeschoolers is clearly an attempt to force every child to attend public school for basic Socialist indoctrination. A case in Montana goes to the ideology of every priesthood:

Officials with the Pacific Legal Foundation who were unsuccessful in convincing Montana bureaucrats to voluntarily drop the discriminatory regulation now have gone to federal court seeking an order that the rule be canceled.​

On Tuesday, PLF officials announced they have filed a lawsuit against the Montana Department of Revenue for its rule that a newly created Scholarship Tax Credit program excludes Christian and other faith-based schools.

Scholarship sued for dissing Christian academies
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/29/2015 @ 10:47 pm

Scholarship sued for dissing Christian academies

You realize that in the example you provide, it is in fact the Religionist scum who are using the Federal government to coerce the state of Montana to cater to their absurd demands, right?
 
I would hire actors to play America’s most famous Founding Fathers —— then have them debate all of the top Democrats.
I am not going to get actors in a debate playing America’s founders. I’ll settle for this:

Screen%20Shot%202015-12-29%20at%204.22.43%20PM.png
http://cdn.spectator.org/styles/article_page/s3/Screen Shot 2015-12-29 at 4.22.43 PM.png?itok=T_GcE4be

Today the Founders would cry out against treating “equality” as a deity to be tended and enlarged by the high priests of government. In this coming debate, in which those touting bigger government are sure to dominate, candidates shouldn’t be spared a fair and honest retort: Just what in Jefferson’s name are you talking about?!

Equality Babble
We know we’re “equal,” more or less, but on whose terms? Big Government’s?
By William Murchison – 12.30.15

Equality Babble

tsk, tsk, tsk. worse than mere ignorance is conviction of anti-truth.

"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort..."
-- James Madison; 'Parties' (1792)

"Among the objects of the Constitution of this Commonwealth, Liberty and Equality stand in aconspicuous light. It is the first article in our Declaration of rights, "all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights." In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator:--They are imprinted by the finger of God on the heart of man. Thou shall do no injury to thy neighbour, is the voice of nature and reason, and it is confirmed by written revelation. In the state of nature, every man hath an equal right by honest means to acquire property, and to enjoy it; in general, to pursue his own happiness, and none can consistently controul or interrupt him in the pursuit. But, so turbulent are the passions of some, and so selfish the feelings of others, that in such a state, there being no social compact, the weak cannot always be protected from the violence of the strong, nor the honest and unsuspecting from the arts and intrigues of the selfish and cunning. Hence it is easy to conceive, that men, naturally formed for society, were inclined to enter into mutual compact for the better security of their natural rights. In this state of society, the unalienable rights of nature are held sacred:--And each member is intitled to an equal share of all the social rights. No man can of right become possessed of a greater share: If any one usurps it, he so far becomes a tyrant; and when he can obtain sufficient strength, the people will feel the rod of a tyrant."
-- Samuel Adams, to the legislature of Massachusetts (January 17, 1794)

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen [in Ireland and Scotland], I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar'd to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- Thomas Jefferson; Letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)
 
I often said that predicting the outcome of any Supreme Court case involving tax dollars, and/or Wall Street’s income, is as easy as pie. No Supreme Court will ever rule to reduce or eliminate the federal government’s revenues.

I’d like to add that no Supreme Court will ever rule to reduce or eliminate the education industry’s income, OR POLITICAL CLOUT.

George Will tells us:


On Monday, oral arguments at the court will indicate whether it is ready to undo 39 years of damage to the First Amendment rights of millions of government employees.​

As near as I can tell, it is about protecting the education industry and nothing more:

In a 1977 decision that bolstered public-sector unionism, the court affirmed the constitutionality of a Michigan law requiring public-school teachers who are not dues-paying union members to pay “agency” or “fair-share” fees. These supposedly fund the unions’ costs in collective bargaining for contracts that cover members and nonmembers alike. Today, public employees in 23 states are covered by such laws. Only 6.6 percent of private-sector employees are unionized, compared with 35.7 percent of government workers.

XXXXX

Never in its 225 years has the First Amendment been under so varied and sustained attacks. In academia, it is increasingly considered a dispensable impediment to superior claims of social justice. In the U.S. Senate, 54 Democrats voted to amend it in order to empower the political class to regulate campaign speech about the political class. So, on Monday it would be exhilarating to hear evidence that the court is prepared to correct its contribution to the practice of subordinating First Amendment protections to supposedly superior considerations.

Will the Supreme Court Correct Government’s Encroachment on the First Amendment?
by George Will January 9, 2016 8:00 PM

Will the Supreme Court Correct Government’s Encroachment on the First Amendment?, by George Will, National Review

Frankly, I cannot see how any case about the education industry cannot include coerced charity along with all of the rest of the harm the education industry is responsible for.
 
What a jumble of misconceptions, mis-directed anger, and irrelevant nonsense!

The FEDERAL Government is precluded from taking a direct role in education by the Tenth Amendment. But the STATES are free to do whatever they think is necessary or appropriate, provided what they are doing is consistent with the state constitutions, and does not violate any of the rights enumerated or recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

Collective bargaining in the public sector (e.g., teachers' unions) is a cancer in Government generally, and is made worse by the political activities of the Unions.

The states have a vested interest in ensuring that the education provided by private schools (including religious-affiliated private schools) and by "home-schoolers" is at least comparable to the "free" education that the states themselves provide. To the extent that teachers' unions have education in mind, they also have a legitimate interest in assisting the states in monitoring the efficaciousness of private and home schooling.

Today's Supreme Court case has to do with public school teachers (and government employees generally) being compelled to pay union dues to support political (and other) activities with which they disagree. The First Amendment question is whether they can be compelled to participate in "speech" against their will.

None of this has any relation to indoctrination of students.
 
“The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.”​

Feds: Schools must violate 1st Amendment
Posted By Bob Unruh On 04/30/2016 @ 6:57 pm

Feds: Schools must violate 1st Amendment

Need I say more?
The fact that the education industry has no constitutional authority to be in education to begin with is the one thing teachers dare not teach.
I’d like to add that no Supreme Court will ever rule to reduce or eliminate the education industry’s income, OR POLITICAL CLOUT.
 
How are homeschoolers being punished by the federal government? I have not heard that before.
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: Here’s one example:

The U.S. Department of Justice has revealed in a court filing it agrees with the philosophy of the German government that bureaucrats can punish homeschooling parents.​

Note that the DOJ cites the International Court (non-existent International law):

The DOJ also cited international court rulings, noting: "The European Court of Human Rights has held that parents could not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of the parents' convictions, because the child has an independent right to education."​

Make no mistake about schoolhouse door type rulings. It is not about the three R’s. Every ruling that gives the government more control over children is designed to strengthen the drive towards global government. Congress knows the agenda, the education industry actively implements the agenda, and Democrat judges rule for it; so this is hardly confined to Europe:

Such rulings in Europe have been used to argue that it is the state that makes decisions about education for children, not parents.

DOJ: Governments can punish homeschoolers
Posted By Bob Unruh On 07/02/2013 @ 9:15 pm

DOJ: Governments can punish homeschoolers

Fields v. Palmdale School District

Ninth Circuit Decision Denies Parents' Rights​

Parents and politicians alike were shocked when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Nov. 2 that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."​

NUMBER 239
THE NEWSPAPER OF EDUCATION RIGHTS
DECEMBER 2005

Ninth Circuit Decision Denies Parents' Rights

Socialists do everything incrementally. Forcing Socialism’s ideology on every child is a major objective. Democrats see it as a major defeat if just one child escapes the indoctrination. Basically, analyze where the government really wants to go whenever they attack a freedom no matter how small the group under attack happens to be.

p.s. Thanks for the opportunity to post this reminder one more time:


As former U.S. circuit court judge and legal scholar Robert Bork pointed out in his book "Coercing Virtue," "International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy."​

Why did you post all of this meaningless fluff when you just could have admitted that your post was lie? Last time I checked, this is not Europe!
 
The references you have deal with home schooling in Germany and a survey in public schools. Now, how about sticking to the topic?
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: I answered the topic to my satisfaction not yours. If you do not like the reply stop reading my messages altogether.

Be forewarned. If you insist on asking clever questions you will get more of the same from me. Naturally, you can always do your own research so you do not have to ask questions at all.

I don't need to research it. I have a degree in it!
 
Why did you post all of this meaningless fluff when you just could have admitted that your post was lie?
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: You would not know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Education industry parasites like you can only justify feeding at the public trough by calling everything a lie when it exposes you. And if you are so committed to the truth explain why the federal government is in education at all.
Last time I checked, this is not Europe!
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: Notify the DoJ.
The DOJ also cited international court rulings, noting: "The European Court of Human Rights has held that parents could not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of the parents' convictions, because the child has an independent right to education."
I don't need to research it. I have a degree in it!
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: I am betting that taxpayers paid for your degree. If I am correct that gives every one of them the Right to tell you know where you can shove your degree. If I am wrong you can still shove it where the sun never shines.
 
Why did you post all of this meaningless fluff when you just could have admitted that your post was lie?
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: You would not know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Education industry parasites like you can only justify feeding at the public trough by calling everything a lie when it exposes you. And if you are so committed to the truth explain why the federal government is in education at all.
Last time I checked, this is not Europe!
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: Notify the DoJ.
The DOJ also cited international court rulings, noting: "The European Court of Human Rights has held that parents could not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of the parents' convictions, because the child has an independent right to education."
I don't need to research it. I have a degree in it!
To Admiral Rockwell Tory: I am betting that taxpayers paid for your degree. If I am correct that gives every one of them the Right to tell you know where you can shove your degree. If I am wrong you can still shove it where the sun never shines.

If you were anything other than a blowhard, you would know that the Department of Justice does not make court rulings.

I happened to have paid for my degree with my GI Bill benefits from serving my country.

I suggest spending a little time learning what the Department of Justice does.
 
If you were anything other than a blowhard, you would know that the Department of Justice does not make court rulings.
To Admiral Rockwell: Where did I say that it did?

Reading comprehension was obviously neglected in your education. Clearly you learned by rote. That is dangerous when you went to school stupid and finished unchanged.


The U.S. Department of Justice has revealed in a court filing it agrees with the philosophy of the German government that bureaucrats can punish homeschooling parents.

Note that the DOJ cites the International Court (non-existent International law):​

The DOJ also cited international court rulings, noting: "The European Court of Human Rights has held that parents could not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of the parents' convictions, because the child has an independent right to education."​

XXXXX

“The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.”​

Feds: Schools must violate 1st Amendment
Posted By Bob Unruh On 04/30/2016 @ 6:57 pm

Feds: Schools must violate 1st Amendment
 

Forum List

Back
Top