3rd grade civic lesson
Posted By: m on 2008-10-31
In Reply to:
Posted by Don Rasmussen of CampaignForLiberty. com on 10/30/08
Special thanks to my mom for sending this along.
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.
”
She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn’t know. The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream, and fifty percent of America reacts like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other fifty percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
GOP blanket bombs on Chicago's dem civic leaders
Right-wing rants that cite email sources are suspect at best. Google any one heading included in yesterday's post and discover links to the "common sense" of the Getting' After Left show and a barrage of right-wing blogs. Surprise, surprise.
BODY COUNT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Despite being the 3rd largest US city, Chicago's murder rate ranks 20th behind much less populous cities Baltimore MD, Newark NJ, St. Louis MO, Oakland CA, Cincinnati OH, Buffalo NY, Kansas City MO, Miami FL, Pittsburg PA, and Cleveland OH. Guess who is ranked #21 (same general category)? That would be McC's hometown of Phoenix Arizona. Chicago has experienced an overall decline in crime since the 1990s.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
You seem to be equating Iraq fatalities to murder. I agree. On that Iraq body count figure, since you are talking civilians in Chicago, it is only fair to include those folks in your first six months of 2008 figure. In 2008, the average daily violent occupation-related loss of life via suicide attacks, vehicle bombs, gunfire and executions is 27 x 182.5 days in first six months = 4,927 + you 221 = 5148. While we are at it, may as well throw out that total civilian body count in Iraq, the very most conservative documented count being 88,373, or World Trade Center x30.
"COMBAT ZONE"
Naturally, no reliable data is available on this claim, it being a subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate.
STATE PENSION FUND
Here we see the smear leap from the Chicago to the state level...an apples to oranges, smoke and mirrors maneuver the GOP attack machine thought they might slip by unattentive readers. OK. Let's go there. As recently as February of this year, we find the following: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html
Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities: McCain's red state: Arizona Budget Deficit Worst in the Country. Follow link for all the fascinating details.
http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.htm Info updated 08/05/08
For starters, state budget deficits are ranked in terms of shortfall percentages.
In the US, 29 states face budget shortfalls totaling 48 billion in 2009. Notice how similar this 29-state total is to the amount in the GOP smear that claimed a $44 BILLION dollar deficit IL pension plan funds. Arizona's shortfall percentage = 17.8%, now in second place behind the nations most populous state, California. Illinois' shortfall percentage = 6.6%, making AZ's budget deficit nearly 3 times that of IL. So, if we hold dems (and by pub logic, O) responsible for Chicago, then who, pray tell is responsible for Arizona, the political culture from which JM comes from?
COUNTY SALES TAX
To suggest that any party's local (especially municipal or county) tax schemes would be reproduced on a national level is downright ridiculous. Tax structures are entirely different and wildly varied from state to state. Speaking of states, I came across this link http://www.fairtaxation.org/facts/sales_tax_rank.php which shows the Arizona sales tax rate ranks higher (#10) at 7.8% than Illinois at 7.6%.
CHICAGO SCHOOLS WORST IN NATION
I bit hard to address this second subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate. In terms of WHAT exactly is it the worst? They are certainly not an uneducated bunch of folks:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a80Zfbu_.k4g&refer=us University of Chicago has produced 82 Nobel prize winners and 10 Nobel Prize winners in economics, more than any university in the US. The John Bates Clark Medal, bestowed every two years, recognizes the nation's most outstanding economist under 40. U of Chicago has produced more than any other US institution, 6 out of the 31 recipients. Seems like those Chicago economists are sort of, well....exceptional.
I really could go on and on about Chicago's booming economy but I am out of time here. Maybe later then.
By the way, what grade are you in?
x
Try using a better grade
of duct tape, and winding it much tighter. Helps me.
SORRY but that is a second grade word dear
nm
4th grade teacher's letter to Obama
April 17, 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500
Mr. Obama:
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America . You are responsible to the citizens of the United States ... You are not responsible to the people of any other country on Earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the people of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia . You didn't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .. How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey ... You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves.
What's the matter with you? I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves?
I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take.
Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
Sincerely,
Every real American
Hint...Stop using 6th grade name calling and people might actually take you
x
First day of 7th Grade English Class in Fort Collins, CO
My daughter is seething! On her first day of school, my granddaughter's 7th grade English teacher instructed her students to copy the following from a handwritten overhead display:
English 8/22/05
4 success keys
1. Graduate from high school.
2. Get a job - keep it, no matter how much money.
3. Never have a baby out of wedlock.
4. Get married and stay married.
Now, I obviously don't know how many students are in this English class who were born out of wedlock, but I do know of ONE: My granddaughter. Can someone tell me please what this has to do with English? I'm as furious as my daughter is, and I don't know who to contact or complain to about this. My daughter had a rather uneventful meeting with the principal regarding this, so no help is likely to come from that area.
I'd appreciate input and opinions regarding this from rational-thinking people. Thanks in advance.
Again, if we are so much safer, why did the 9/11 commission give him a failing grade?
You can't answer that either. Despite any connection between Iraq and 9/11, Bush and Co. (on fake intelligence) has stirred up an incredibly dangerous hornet's nest, yet you think everything is great. Why don't we just hand Iraq to Iran on a silver platter and just be done with it?
You should retake grade school American History.
You don't seem to remember the basic foundation of this country, and the incredible amount of faith the Founding Fathers placed in God.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"That they are endowed by their Creator..."
"With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."
"...the separate and equal status to which Nature and Nature's God entitle them..."
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."
For goodness sakes, CHURCH SERVICES were held in the House of Representatives on Sundays.
Just an FYI.
I could take a lesson from you in cut and paste perhaps....
.
Thanks for the geography lesson. nm
nm.
You could take a lesson from your last four words.
Sarah Palin has infintely more class that you exhibited.
Pub lesson on how to win friends and
This must be some sort of new maverick style of reaching across the aisle and getting that bipartisan cooperation Americans are so anxious to see again...he just left out the part about looking at his opponents down two barrels of a shotgun.
Thank you for the history lesson!
That was hilarious! Especially the girlie-man part - boy, do I know some of those liberals! =)
I don't need a history lesson
I majored in it in college. I know there's discrimination and I know there are people who will discriminate in this election - either for or against Obama. But I think it's just a shame that you think Democrats are all above this. I live in a pretty hick town in southeastern Ohio where there are MANY Democrats who are voting McCain simply because they won't vote for a black man, plain and simple. And if you think that southeastern Ohio is the only place this kind of mentallity is, you'd be wrong. Discrimination is a terrible thing, but don't think it's just a Republican thing.
We need to do a little history lesson
Israel DID create the situation. Gaza is landlocked on all it's borders by Israel. They are not allowed in and out. Dr. Ron Paul had made a comment about concentration camp state; that is accurate. They have no means to get supplies in and out. A lack of supplies doesn't meant the leaders are starving their people. Supply and demand. Simply economics. Those who can afford things get them. That wouldn't be the case if the market was allowed to flow within Gaza, but that will never happen because as of now Israel has them in a full nelson and at their mercy. Mercy isn't something Israel abounds with. Barely anything is allowed in, so the supply is small. That lack of food you talk about to feed families isn't the fault of the leaders. Demand is high, supply is low, so yes, the rich SOBs running the joint will do what rich people do -- buy what they can afford because no one else can.
Hamas was created by Israel as a counter to the PLO. Much like we go about the world creating little counter-revolutions everywhere, so does Israel in the middle east. They create groups to do their bidding, using useful idiots who might actually BE extremists or just idealistic people, then when the group deteriorates away from their original purpose, Israel doesn't like that and starts crying that they're being persecuted by everyone around them. Poor little Israel can't get a break. Always getting pushed around by the big mean Arabs. Yeah, the Arabs with AK-47s that are 50 years old. You know, the same Israel who would just assume firebomb entire neighborhoods, killing anything and everything around. Mossad is active in every country in the world in the same fashion that the CIA is. Slapping around a bee's nest only invites them to sting you to death. That's what's occuring.
Hamas has eventually become a tool of the people around and has been elected into governments. Israel doesn't like that. It's a threat to their tyranny.
Extremism exists on all sides. Not just the poor idiots that get talked into blowing themselves up. Zionism has been a blight that has existed for generations and will continue to exist as an excuse to kill millions of innocent people in the name of God.
He/she passed first lesson - lie.
NM
Thanks for the lesson on the constitution, however ...
There are TWO fundamental flaws in your premise.
1) The provision for Congress to declare War is for the purpose of STARTING a war where none exists. If "the other guy" starts one, no such declaration is needed nor appropriate. For example, if Canada invades, guess what? We're at war with Canada and Congress need not legislate to determine if this reality in fact exists. That is applicable to the present because SADDAM started a war in 1991 that was never concluded until the 2003 invasion. (There's been a Stability And Support Operation since then).
2) Congress DID declare war against Iraq. (redundantly, since as per #1 above, we already WERE at war.) There is nothing in The Constitution nor US Code that spells out specific language such declaration must utter. The fact that no resolution was passed with the words, "we declare war" or whatever you imagine it has to say, does not alter the inescapable fact they DID expressly vote to use military force against Iraq, specifically authorizing the invasion, in fact. You can claim that's not a declaration of war if you like but no honest person will join you.
The lesson I learned is that Sam has class...you are
Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT. Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
Just taking a page out of sam's lesson plan.
nm
The lesson here is...not everything people "believe" is correct! (nm)
xx
Learn to spell lesson first before you preach right
--
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot....sm
Dissent during WWII - A history lesson the right forgot.
Posted by ChrisSal on Wednesday June 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
One of the right’s favorite things to do is to compare the Iraq invasion to WWII and Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. They claim that anyone who opposes the war is an appeaser, a terrorist sympathizer, or a traitor. This rhetoric is absolutely laughable not only because it is a huge stretch, but also because Republicans have obviously forgotten their own history.
Following the rejection of the League of Nations treaty in 1919, America developed a strong isolationist foreign policy. This was, perhaps, in response to the expansionist policies put in place by Teddy Roosevelt and the abject horror experienced in WWI. The citizenry wanted nothing more to do with sending its men to fight in foreign conflicts.
However, in 1935 Italy invaded Abyssina, which provided the first real test of America’s isolationist foreign policy. Congress passed the Neutrality Act, applying a mandatory ban on the shipment of arms from the U.S. to any combatant nation. FDR vehemently opposed the bill, but signed it under intense Congressional and public pressure. Two years later, Japan invaded China starting the Sino-Japanese war. As China was our ally and public opinion was favorable, FDR found ways to circumvent the Neutrality Act and assist China. Another two years later Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and began their conquest of Europe.
In May 1940 Germany overran the low countries, which left Britain open to invasion. By the end of 1940, Britain was financially ruined and the isolationist support was beginning to rapidly erode. 1941 brought about the Lend-Lease act and a more aggressive US posture in the Atlantic. Some claim, with some validity, that FDR provoked both Germany, with the US Naval presence in the Atlantic, and Japan, with support to China and crippling embargoes, particularly the oil embargo, into war. For the purpose of this discussion, that is neither here nor there.
As it became more apparent that the US involvement in WWII was going to deepen, a group named ‘America First’ organized to put pressure on FDR to keep America out of the war. “America First” garnered the support of people from across all shades of the political spectrum, but it was the GOP, who hated FDR and everything he did, that started the ball rolling. Twelve days after Pearl Harbor, Sen. Taft (R-OH) gave a speech to the Executive Club in Chicago. He railed against US intervention into WWII and spoke on the need for dissent, particularly during wartime.
As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur. - Sen. Taft (R-OH) December 19, 1942
So, the next time a rabid right winger claims that opposition to the war is unpatriotic and treasonous, remind them that as Germany rolled through Europe, Japan rolled through the Pacific, and before the fires of Pearl Harbor were extinguished it was conservative Republicans that took the lead in opposing FDR and the American entry into WWII.
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years. Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date. What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions? The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms. What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment? I bet we would see some really mad women in this country. Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President can serve? Can we say "dictatorship?"
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
So enlighten us, I love to learn, the past 8 years were a hard lesson indeed.....nm
nm
Smoke and mirrors? It's math. Like, second grade math.
I don't understand your attack.
A little addition, a little subtraction, a tiny bit of multiplication. It's not all that hard to understand.
If you have questions, ask them. Unless you just don't want to hear the answer. In that case, I can't help you.
|
