It has this neat clause that states that powers (education is a power) that are not mentioned are relegated to either the states or to the person. Don't be disingenuous.
Ohh that home schooling
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
Good Luck
New member
With the exception of fascist CA, "permission" is not required for home schooling - just notification. The sates may operate the public school system, but that does not give them authority over parents.
Child abuse is a significant concern. But why is it liberals use their "concerns" over various social problems to pass ever more totalitarian laws? The only "freedoms" today's liberal is concerned about are those that give them more orgasms. All else is to be regulated, licensed, and or forbidden by government.
Child abuse is a significant concern. But why is it liberals use their "concerns" over various social problems to pass ever more totalitarian laws? The only "freedoms" today's liberal is concerned about are those that give them more orgasms. All else is to be regulated, licensed, and or forbidden by government.
uscitizen
Villified User
In KY children are required to attend school of some type by law.
Parents can actually go to jail. I never checked into home schooling here becuase I am not a religio nut or think I am smarter than professional teachers.
A good red state.
Good Luck
New member
The operating phrase is "of some type". Home schooling meets the requirement. Just as a parent can simply notify (no forms, no "permission" to ask) that they are sending their child to a private school, so they may also simply notify the appropriate school district that they intend to home school. Still no permission is required.
CA is the only state, (so far) to first place limits on homeschooling requiring state permission, and now disallow it entirely. And fascist dems love it.
What do you want to bet other traditional "blue" states will be the next to follow, while traditional red states continue to recognize the fact that parental authority is paramount over state authority unless/until abuse is proven.
That is what the democratic party has become about, and why I found myself arguing more and more against new democratic policies until I got kicked out. Modern dems will take ANY excuse they can find to instill ever more intrusive government on the people, all in the name of "safety for the children" or "equality for (whomever)". Democrats/liberals are no longer the party/philosophy of liberty. It's all about government control to keep us "safe".
They want to control firearms ownership to keep you "safe" from people who have no intent to harm you. (so much for the 2nd amendment)
They want to control media, JUST IN CASE a media outlet is being "biased". Control expression of religion - keep it locked behind closed doors and out of anything that can be claimed to be public. (so much for the First Amendment)
Frankly, the only reason they complain about FISA and the Patriot Act is it was initiated by republicans. But watch Obama and the coming democratic congrtess expand both, while their vacuum skulled minions cheer them on. (So much for the 4th)
They have already all but negated the 9th and 10th.
Control everything JUST IN CASE one tenth of a percent of the population uses their freedom to do harm. In 40 years they have gone from the party of liberty, to whom I dedicated much of my spare time and efforts, to the party of totalitarian control.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the democratic party became one of totalitarian control during FDR. The new deal is what they called it.
Good Luck
New member
Civil rights among others. There was a time when the democratic party (discounting the dixie-crats, who were functionally their own party....) was, genuinely, about equality, about liberty.
That is no longer true. The civil rights movement has been taken over by the keep-them-voting-democratic movement. Give us just enough to make us dependent, and then build the fear that we'll lose what we've gained if the democrats aren't their to keep us in their clever little traps.
But they don't truly care any more about advancing the causes of liberty. They take on high profile causes such as the gay rights movement to make a showing of being on the side of liberty while painting republicans to be on the side of totalitarianism. But when one looks closely, there are far more examples of liberal democrats pushing for more government control, more intrusive government programs and more invasive government policies than they can possibly counter with a list of policies on the side of liberty.
Of note (one of many) is the fact that even with a democratic majority in both houses, the FISA bill was modified to include more government authority in defiance of constitutional protections - just as Bushco wanted. Why is that, unlesss the democratic party is not TRULY against FISA and the like, except that it was a republican idea. Sorry, but democrats can no longer (at least to a thinking person) blame the republicans for pushing it through against their best efforts. Even Obama voted for it after promising to fight it all the way. I'll bet he is inwardly grinning like the cat that ate the canary, anticipating how HE is going to use that authority.
Doesn't that make you wonder about his other promises, such as keeping his tax increases to income levels above 250K? What excuses will he find to claim taxing us all at greater rates - except the extreme lower income levels who already pay no taxes?
And of course, the democrats are literally drooling in anticipation of pushing through economic regulations by the bucket full after successfully lying to the public about lack of regulation being the cause of the melt down while denying that CRA and other federal mandated regulations played a part. How they seem to forget that one: heavy economic regulations during an economic slump have always, in the past, made the slump worse; and two, many of the "open capitalism" laws and free trade treaties now being railed against by democrats as "proof open capitalism does not work" were instigated under - and promoted by - democratic administrations.
But facts do not matter. All that matters is the democratic party is going to get their chance to add any damned regulation they want. Have fun, assholes. Because when it keeps going down the drain ever faster ala 1931/1977, we unfortunately don't have anyone in the wings to pull us back like we had the last times. But then we will finally have what dems have always wanted: every one will be on the same economic level under a bloated, do-exactly-as-we-say-and-we'll-take-care-of-you totalitarian government. That we'll all be third-world poor (except the PTBs in government) and without any means left of defending ourselves against unreasonable search, seizure and arrest is beside the point.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It also has a neat clause that states that the government may lay and collect taxes for "the general welfare". Don't be disingenuous. States HAVE NO RIGHTS.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yeah like the freedom to beat your child etc.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yep that was decided by the civil war.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Homeschooling should definitely be banned. If you even care about our future or our freedoms at all, the last thing you want to do is leave our children to people like this:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyxR00t5Vmw"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]
Our children deserves better. America deserves better.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyxR00t5Vmw"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]
Our children deserves better. America deserves better.
"General Welfare" is not education and is not a power.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It is a power. It's the power to lay and collect taxes to promote the general welfare of the American people, something Libertarians oppose.
Good Luck
New member
You could see it that way, but let's examine what is used to "keep-them-voting" for whichever party. The republicans use the threat of certain liberties being curtailed, to include 2nd amendment rights. But ARE they, in truth, "scare" tactics? Seems to me a recently sunsetted law, written by and supported by democrats, was emplaced and did, in fact, curtail 2nd amendment rights. Likewise, the democrats have been caught supporting gun control laws and outright bans which have (finally) been recognized by SCOTUS as being unconstitutional. Pointing out what the opposing party has already done in the past, and pointing out their candidate has a voting history of supporting the very laws that encroach on 2nd amendment rights does not fall under the definition of "scare tactics".
Now other issues, such as freedom of religion, the rhetoric of the republican party is, indeed, mostly scare tactic. (though there have been some VERY questionable actions on the part of democrats recently....)
OTOH, what is it democrats scare their "keep them voting for us" block? Why, it is the threat that voting republican will threaten the existence of the government programs democrats set up to trap them in. "Oh, the republicans want to subjugate you again" type approach. THAT does meet the definition of scare tactic, since republicans were in power for 6 years and somehow the program money kept flowing. So, unlike 2nd amendment rights, the democrats do not have any actual history on which to base their accusations. In fact it is a scare tactic in it's own realm of vile deception.
That is a huge difference. The tactics used by democrats to keep their voting blocks is founded on socio-economic traps the democrats themselves set up to lure the people in, and then use the scare of taking those programs away if they don't keep democrats in power. (most of them would be better off in the long run if they'd get out of the "help" programs set up by the government anyway. But that is a truth democrats don't want them to realize.)
The scare tactics of republicans is based on performance history - some of it exaggerated, some of it not - of the democrats on issues where they differ significantly.
Good Luck
New member
The states have lots of rights. Some of them are enumerated in the Constitution. The rest are reserved by the 10th amendment, which states if a power is NOT enumerated to the federal government, then it is reserved for the states or for the people. The federal government has the authority to tax for the purpose of general welfare. That does not enumerate, nor in any way imply the authority to usurp state authority in matters not otherwise enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government.
The federal government understands this in a way you obviously do not. Because when it comes to usurping state authority, the feds ALWAYS resort to economic black mail. "Follow this federal mandate or lose federal funding".
These days - on fact ever since FDR's New Deal - it takes a strong and stubborn state governor to keep state rights where they belong. Montana has been fortunate to have several of that type of governor. (maybe because Montanans insist that be one of the requisit traits of our governors....)
SmarterthanYou
rebel
can you point that out in the libertarian philosophy? I'm sure I've not seen that particular goal of the libertarian party. I do believe i've seen the democrat platform misconstrue that clause to read 'provide general welfare' instead of promote.
Good Luck
New member
Provide general welfare my ass. Its provide just enough to get the general public dependent on them to justify continual expansion of said programs. (not to mention making sure they have a dependable voting block to keep them in power...)can you point that out in the libertarian philosophy? I'm sure I've not seen that particular goal of the libertarian party. I do believe i've seen the democrat platform misconstrue that clause to read 'provide general welfare' instead of promote.