Maryland Public School Students "Forced" to Convert to Islam

[From article]
The Thomas More Law Center, which is a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed (1/27/16) a federal lawsuit on behalf of former Marine, John Kevin Wood, and his wife, Melissa, who refused to allow their teenage daughter to be subjected to Islamic “indoctrination and propaganda” in her high school World History class. The lawsuit was filed against the Charles County Public Schools, the Board of Education, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of La Plata High School located in La Plata, Maryland.
The Woods’ daughter was forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes. The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” For non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam. Moreover, the second part of the statement, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” signifies the person has accepted Muhammad as their spiritual leader. The teenager was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam.
[. . .]
But the real problem in high school education is the presumption that students should be educated (indoctrinated?) by being given the Board of Education version of the most accurate distilled truth -- that students can’t handle controversy. How about being given the pros and cons of claims made about culture and history. Fine. Present the claim that Islam is the religion of peace. But then give the arguments pro and con. The idea that a fair-minded committee should feed the students the final distilled version of the truth is a recipe for indoctrination, not education.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/islamic_instruction_in_our_public_schools.html

February 1, 2016
Islamic ‘Instruction’ in our Public Schools
By Richard Butrick

Kansas Secretary Of State Obtains Prosecution Powers For Voter Fraud

Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch may seek to have Kobach prosecuted for voter suppression. That would be in interesting case to watch. 

[From article]
One problem is that it’s “unnecessary and redundant” to give the Secretary of State’s Office this power, as the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association’s testimony put it. The other is that where local prosecutors view showing criminal intent as necessary in such prosecutions, Kobach may not. And especially given the aggressive partisanship he has exhibited as the state’s top election official, it’s fair to wonder whether he’d be nonpartisan in picking and choosing voters to prosecute.
As the League of Women Voters of Kansas has observed, the new law also makes it a nonperson felony to “knowingly” vote or attempt to vote without being qualified “in any election district when not a lawfully registered voter in such election district.”
About 30,000 Kansans are on the list of people who’ve tried to register to vote but haven’t yet complied with the Kobach-pushed law requiring proof of citizenship to complete their registrations. And it’s not hard to imagine some of them, confused about their status, showing up to vote and finding themselves in Kobach’s net.
As Carole Neal, a Wichitan and co-president of the League of Women Voters of Kansas, said in May: “It is possible that those Kansans, as well as those who mistakenly show up at the wrong polling place, could now be prosecuted for the felony of ‘knowingly’ attempting to vote without proper registration.”
[. . .]
In a year in which the Legislature and governor have had so much trouble handling their most fundamental responsibility – passing a balanced state budget – the Kobach bill stands out as optional lawmaking that may make matters worse.
For the editorial board, Rhonda Holman

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article23695309.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article23695309.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article23695309.html
Editorial
JUNE 10, 2015
Brace yourself for Kobach

Lawless Washington DC Bureaucracies

Sir William Blackstone

[From article]
Everything you really need to know about the Constitution (and that’s barely an exaggeration) -- why it is structured the way it is, what led to it, its purposes -- is found in pages 2 – 12 of the March 9 concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in the Dept of Transportation v Assn of American Railroads case. Although it received little media attention, Justice Thomas has provided us a masterpiece of constitutional thinking, explaining why “administrative law” -- the practice of delegating to bureaucrats the making and enforcement of rules with the force of law – is so profoundly unconstitutional.
[. . .]
The Constitution corrected several flaws of the English system including limiting the authority of the legislative branch by placing the Constitution – this written law of the land – over all three branches of government.
[. . .]
Professor Philip Hamburger and his brilliant book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Justice Thomas shows America is back to the problems that the Constitution was written to prohibit by writing a mini-treatise on the Constitution itself.
[. . .]
William Blackstone…. defined a tyrannical government as one in which “the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men,” for “wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty.”
[. . .]
vintage Justice Thomas -- plainly written, and just plain brilliant.
We have overseen and sanctioned the growth of an administrative system that concentrates the power to make laws and the power to enforce them in the hands of a vast and unaccountable administrative apparatus that finds no comfortable home in our constitutional structure. The end result may be trains that run on time (although I doubt it), but the cost is to our Constitution and the individual liberty it protects.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html

March 20, 2015
A little-noted masterpiece of constitutional scholarship by Justice Thomas
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Rights and Claims For Liberals

[From article]
the concept "rights" is overused in the same way the concept "love" is overused. Just as the predator "loves" its prey, people feel a right to the things they intensely want, have worked for, paid for, been given, or even stolen.
[. . .]
All claims need a spot where a mental string is attached. And if you follow along that string -- it may be short or long -- the string always ends in a man with a weapon. Without enforcement, a claim to possessions is worthless and creates chaos. This is the part that my left-wing friends will not accept. They want to believe that claims are secured by law itself, or upheld by the relationship between the parties to the claim, anything but the reality, which is that somewhere, someone must be prepared to enforce the claim, or it is worthless.
[. . .]
Getting back to my left-wing friends, they are following in an atheist tradition founded by Karl Marx and fulfilled in the presidency of Barack Obama. In this tradition, God-given rights are at worst a hoax and at best, irrelevant, and politics are only about competing materialist claims.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/thinking_about_rights_and_claims.html

September 15, 2013
Thinking about Rights and Claims
By Deborah C. Tyler

Misguided Liberals Want More Unenforced Laws

Dr. Epstein says, "I pick up the discarded bottles and cans that mar this urban experience and are a jarring note in an otherwise pleasing and stimulating setting. [. . .] I’ve managed to pick up more than 1,500 bottles in the last three years of walking around Cambridge. This is a rather distressing commentary on our littering society."

Is he speaking officially for the Charles River Conservancy, as a physician, or both? Wanting to extend the "bottle bill" to all containers he admits only 20 percent of bottles are now recycled. Another law would lower the percentage recycled. In Cambridge relaxed rectitude is acceptable and encouraged. If littering laws are unenforced what good is another law? Instead of raising awareness of the littering problem, this caring professional wants another law which will not solve the problem. Obama wants to give everybody everything. Obama refuses to address the base actions of politicians and their enablers, the corrupt members of the nation who exploit laws at the expense of the taxpayer and the law abiding citizens. This is one more example of that.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/letters/x1328940877/Guest-commentary-Bottle-bill-crucial-for-our-future

Guest commentary: Bottle bill crucial for our future
By Dr. Michael F. Epstein
Cambridge Chronicle
Posted Feb 16, 2010 @ 10:31 AM
Last update Feb 16, 2010 @ 11:52 AM

Right to Housing

Right to Housing

Rachel Bratt says, "Without a guaranteed right to housing in
the United States, thousands of households are struggling to find and keep
housing they can afford." ( Rachel G. Bratt, "Americans deserve a right to housing,"
Boston Globe, March 13, 2007)
The New Jersey Constitution states a right to be housed. Yet there are lots
of persons without homes in New Jersey. Having a right is one thing. Being able
to enforce the right, or to redress the violation of a right is another matter.
There must be a way to force compliance, not just stating a right. Knowing
how the Americans with Disabilities Act works shows that paper rights are
meaningless.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA


Americans deserve a right to housing
Boston Globe
By Rachel G. Bratt
March 13, 2007

RECENTLY, THREE stories about housing were in the news. Although they may seem
unconnected, they are closely linked and we need to pay attention to the
messages they convey.

First, both the French prime minister and president announced support for a
legal right to housing .

Following the lead set by Scotland, France would elevate housing as a social
right, on a par with education. Despite calls for a right to housing in the
United States, notably by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944 as part of what he
called a Second Bill of Rights, this country has only articulated a national
housing goal: "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American
family."

But this rhetoric has not translated into a commitment to action.

In the absence of the political will to supply consistent and sufficient public
resources, federal, state, and local governments have taken an indirect route by
providing incentives to the private for-profit sector as an enticement for them
to enter the realm of "affordable" housing. This brings us to the second story.

Since 1969 Massachusetts has articulated the need for all cities and towns to
have at least 10 percent of their housing stock dedicated to affordable housing.
In communities that are short of this goal, Chapter 40B allows developers to
petition to over ride local zoning if at least 20 to 25 percent of the units are
reserved for affordable occupancy.

Since the enactment of 40B, more than 47,000 homeownership and rental units have
been created; about half of this housing is affordable to households earning 80
percent of area median income or less. In recent years, 40B has been responsible
for 30 percent of housing production in the state and 80 percent of housing for
low- and moderate-income households in suburban communities.

In addition, the majority of 40B housing is good to look at, blends in well with
its surroundings, and is an important community asset.

There have been many critics of 40B even though these developments are typically
constructed with little or no public funds. Affordability is typically attained
by the market rate units cross-subsidizing those reserved for the less affluent
households. Most recently, a report released by the inspector general disclosed
that a number of developers of 40B housing had realized inappropriate profits.
Of course, in market-rate housing, developers have no limit on their profits.
Under 40B, however, any profit in excess of 20 percent of total development
costs must be returned to the towns for affordable housing purposes.

The inspector general's review of five 40B homeownership developments found that
three exceeded the 20 percent profit limitation and that two did not. However,
in each case the developers are disputing these findings, arguing that the
inspector general is retroactively applying new rules to these older
developments and that they therefore do not owe money to the towns.

Whether or not the inspector general's analysis will prevail, there is a much
larger story, which brings us to the third news item: Decent affordable housing
is a great concern all across Massachusetts. The Donahue Institute at the
University of Massachusetts recently released the results of a survey indicating
that about two-thirds of Massachusetts residents rated the cost of housing as a
significant concern, up from less than half the population just a year earlier.
Also alarming is that nearly 36 percent of those surveyed indicated that they or
members of their immediate family "have seriously considered moving out of
Massachusetts because of the cost of housing."

This story brings us back to the first. Without a guaranteed right to housing in
the United States, thousands of households are struggling to find and keep
housing they can afford.

In the absence of sufficiently well-funded public programs that provide
long-term assistance, we will continue to grapple with how to squeeze housing
out of inadequate funding. Despite inappropriate profits, we need to exercise
restraint about condemning a proven strategy for producing decent affordable
housing.

A well-funded, multifaceted federal right to housing program would enable us to
meet needs of residents of this state and across the country. Chapter 40B is
only part of this complex agenda; Massachusetts could be a leader in
articulating the goal of a right to housing for all residents -- and then
delivering on this promise.

Rachel G. Bratt is professor and chairwoman of the Department of Urban and
Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University, and a fellow at the Joint
Center for Housing Studies , Harvard University.