In Remembrance Of Common Sense

An Obituary that arrived by email from a mournful reader:

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years.

No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

• Knowing when to come in out of the rain
• Why the early bird gets the worm
• Life isn't always fair
• Maybe it was my fault.

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense really started downhill when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

He declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, and his son Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

Editors Note: Submitters name withheld by request, for fear of reprisal by Common Sense's worst enemy, the Politically Correct Police.

Read More...

Summary only...

Carrying Guns In Texas Parks

Jerry Patterson defends his pro-gun stance on carrying guns in Texas parks.

Jerry Patterson, Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office

Recent exhibitions of my Second Amendment rights have earned some harsh words from editorial writers at some of Texas’ big city newspapers, including the San Antonio Express-News.

Specifically, I’ve been criticized for acknowledging I carried a concealed handgun, as is my right, on recent visits to Big Bend National Park. A National Park Service rule prohibits carrying a loaded, concealed handgun.

“Evidently, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson was absent from school the day the Constitution was covered,” wrote the San Antonio Express-News.

While that’s an awfully cute jab, the reality is I’ve learned the Constitution over the course of a lifetime – not just one day. As a matter of fact, I’ve taken oaths to uphold and protect our Constitution – as a U.S. Marine and as a state elected official.

So let’s get past the sophmorisms and look at the facts.

The ban on loaded firearms in National Park is not a law. It is a rule. A rule enacted by unelected bureaucrats deep in the recesses of the National Park Service. There was no legislative process involved -- these bureaucrats arbitrarily terminated this Constitutional right.

Fortunately, the clearly unconstitutional National Park Service rules on possessing firearms in federal parks are changing. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne recently proposed new rules that would respect state firearm laws and the Second Amendment.

Nonetheless, some editorial boards are opposed to allowing citizens the right to self-defense. Lawabiding Texans, they say, can’t be trusted with guns and don’t need them in the park anyway because no one else can have a gun.

On a recent hike in Big Bend National Park, I found two expended 9mm shell casings, along with a discarded pack of Mexican cigarettes. The Texas Department of Public Safety ballistics lab confirmed two different weapons fired these casings. How could this be? There are no guns in Big Bend, because that’s the rule, right?

Tell that to the rafters who were ambushed and killed several years ago in an area adjacent to the Big Bend known as Colorado Canyon. Tell that to the woman whose body, suffering from blunt force trauma to the head, was found floating in five feet of water at Amistad National Recreation Area.

In 2006, the most recent year available for statistics, the National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks. That includes 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.

With the increasingly violent criminal activity along the Texas-Mexico border, carrying a firearm in remote areas along the border, including Big Bend National Park, is a choice every citizen should have.

Editorial writers at the Express-News assert the current proposal to rescind the ban on lawfully carried firearms in National Parks is a “solution in search of a problem.” But the problem is very real.

We as Americans are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms. Whether it is for hunting, personal protection or a defense against a tyrannical government, that right is unassailable and inviolate. To rescind that right when one crosses an arbitrary boundary into an 800,000-acre national park is an unconstitutional act no different than rescinding our Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.
As an elected official, I take an oath of office “to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.”

I do not regard such affirmations as mere anachronistic formalities. I guess you can just call an old-fashioned believer in the wisdom of those who penned the Bill of Rights and not much a believer in the wisdom of editorial boards.

JERRY PATTERSON was elected Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office in 2002 and again in 2006. A former Marine and Vietnam Veteran, Patterson is the author of Senate Bill 6, the Concealed Handgun Law.

Read More...

Summary only...

New Law Creates Opportunities for Student Free Speech

The following article is reprinted with permission from the Education Reporter, a publication of the Texas Association of School Boards.

The topic of religion in public schools received a great deal of attention during the recent Texas legislative session. Whenever that emotional topic is part of a public debate, we are likely to hear some people claim that courts have “kicked religion out of school.”

In fact, the expression of religious viewpoints is still very much permitted in
public schools.

Constitutional Principles

The United States Constitution protects the right of individual students to express personal religious viewpoints. School districts, however, cannot endorse religious views or establish a preference for or against religion. In the words of the United States Supreme Court, “There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

Both the constitutionally protected freedom of individuals to express their own private religious views and the prohibition on government endorsed messages for or against religion work together to offer Americans the greatest possible religious liberty. Nowhere is that powerful balance more dynamic than in our public schools, where the interests of students, parents, religious and community leaders, and school officials intersect.

The freedom of individual students to express their own religious views in private conversations and to pray alone or in groups is well established. Questions remain, however, about students’ rights to express their individual views or pray when they are speaking publicly at school-sponsored events.

New Texas Law

Hoping to clarify this point, the Texas Legislature has passed a new law about student religious expression. House Bill 3678, also called the Religious Viewpoints Anti-discrimination Act (RVAA), addresses four general areas:
freedom of religious expression, student speakers, religious expression in class assignments, and freedom of association. The RVAA takes effect with the 2007–2008 school year.

No viewpoint discrimination:

The law requires districts to treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious
viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the district treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on the same topic. This section prohibits discrimination against a student based on the student’s religious viewpoint.

Student speakers:

The law also requires districts to adopt a policy that establishes a limited public
forum for student speakers at all school events at which a student is to publicly speak. The policy must also:

• require the district to provide the forum in a manner that does not discriminate based on religious viewpoint;
• provide a method, based on neutral criteria, for the selection of student speakers at school events and graduation;
• ensure that a student speaker does not engage in obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech; and
• state that the student’s speech does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the district. The disclaimer must be provided at all graduation ceremonies and at any other event at which a student speaks for as long as necessary to dispel confusion over the district’s “nonsponsorship” of student speech.

Expression in class assignments:

The law states that students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments. Homework and other assignments must be judged by
ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the district. Districts may not penalize or reward students based on the religious content of their work.

Freedom of association:

The law states that students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, and other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities and groups. Districts must give religious groups the same access to facilities as given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination based on the religious content of the group.

Similarly, groups that meet for prayer or religious speech must be permitted to advertise or announce their meetings to the same extent as nonreligious groups. A district may disclaim sponsorship of non-curricular groups in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Required Local Policy

The law specifically requires districts to adopt a local policy establishing a limited public forum and protecting voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints. The law includes a model policy, and a district that adopts and follows this policy is deemed to be in compliance with the
other provisions of the RVAA.

The model policy provides for student speakers at football games; any other athletic events designed by the district; opening announcements and greeting for the school day; and any additional event designated by the district, such as assemblies and pep rallies.

For each of these events, the district must select a student speaker from the highest two grade levels at the school who holds one of the following positions of honor: student council officers, class officers of the highest grade level of the school, captains of the football team, and other positions of honor designated by the district. Students from these groups may volunteer for selection and are then selected randomly by drawing names. Each student selected speaks for a week, or on another schedule designated by the district.

The model policy states that the subject of the student introductions must be related to the purpose of the event, honoring the occasion, the participants, and those in attendance, bringing the audience to order, and focusing the audience on the purpose of the event. The student must stay on the subject and may not engage in obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech.

The model policy prohibits discrimination based on a secular or religious viewpoint and provides for a disclaimer of school sponsorship of the speech. The model policy contains similar provisions for speeches by sports team captains, homecoming kings and queens, and the like, and provisions relating to graduation speeches.

From the Law Books to the Campus Loudspeaker

For many, the implementation of this new law will create more, often welcome opportunities for students to express their personal views on a variety of topics, including religion. But school officials also will face challenges in implementing this new law. During the legislative session,
TASB did not oppose this bill but did express concerns about the challenges it would create in the public school environment.

What Are the Possible Challenges?

Discipline: The constitutional foundation of this new state law is that students, not the school district, will decide what to say within a limited public forum. Students may say whatever they wish, including expressing religious views and praying. If, however, the student speaker expresses a minority religious viewpoint, that speech may provoke controversy. Moreover, students are not limited to expressing religious views; they may express any viewpoint on the designated topic without fearing disciplinary consequences. The law says the district must prohibit speech that is obscene or offensively lewd, which are concepts defined in Supreme Court cases. Short of this high standard, however, student speech must be tolerated.

Discrimination: In light of this open opportunity for free speech, even offensive speech, opponents of the new law express concern that hate speech and other discriminatory speech will now have a forum in public schools.

Dollars: Finally, no matter how school officials feel about the opportunities and challenges created by this new law, trustees will not be able to ignore the bottom line. Introducing
controversial speech into the public school setting raises the possibility of legal challenges from all sides: minority-view families who feel student speeches are too one-sided; majority-view families offended by hearing a minority view; citizens who object to the law itself; and citizens
who claim the district has not gone far enough in implementing the law.

The legal and financial risks generated in this emotional environment will naturally be of concern to all school officials as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to their school districts

Read More...

Summary only...

Union Card Checks Defeat The Protection Of A Secret Ballot

As flawed as our election system is, one of the things it does right is to allow voters to cast their ballot in private.

When it comes to organizing unions, Big Labor doesn't think workers deserve that protection.

You can bet that President Obama will be called on to pay back some election favors he owes to Big Union interest very early in his first year in office.

And he has already signaled, by announcing that Hilda Solis would be his nominee for Secretary of Labor, that he intends to square his debt.

Solis has been a vocal supporter of the Card Check bill, cosmetically called the "Employee Free Choice Act", a piece of proposed legislation that union bosses are drooling to push through Congress, and onto Obama's desk. The legislation would end the practice of workers voting to unionize by secret ballot, instead forcing companies to recognize unions once a majority workers signed membership cards.

While that doesn't sound like a big change, the potential for organizers to publicly pressure or harass workers to sign cards and join unions is huge.

Being pressured in the break room at work is bad enough, but imagine sitting in a cafe after work, and having organizers harangue you for not wanting to sign up. Or maybe they caught you at the gas station, or in the grocery store. Maybe they even talk to your spouse, and attempt to get at you that way.

And the time period to apply that sort of public pressure would not be limited by a voting deadline. Organizers would simply continue to work on the hold-outs until they had a majority.

Even worse, if someone in a position of authority, say a foreman, is in favor of the union, and one his subordinates isn't, the possibility of that foreman applying far more serious pressure than embarrassment is very real. Would you swap a vote to keep your job? For many, that might be the choice the have to make.

Free choice? Hardly.

Pro business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are preparing to spend millions in opposition to the legislation. They will face an uphill battle, with Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, and a President favorable to the bill in command of a bully pulpit.

You can expect to see our new president give a lot speeches about the bill, and portray it as being good for the American worker, the middle class, baseball, hot dogs and apple pie.

He won't say it's good for Chevrolet, though. Big Business will be cast as the evil empire in the fight, and their opposition to the bill will be likened to Darth Vader warming up the death ray as he circles the rebel moon.

Opponents of the bill will largely be forced to wage a nationwide grass roots campaign designed to bring voter pressure on Democrat representatives. That means the bulk of their money and time will be spent in democratic districts, attempting to sway pro union voters with an appeal to their basic fairness.

Seasoned political operatives working for the unions realize that, and that will be the reason to push the legislation through early and quickly. The quicker they can move the bill through Congress, the less media attention it will receive. And the earlier they can get it done, the longer voters will have to forget about it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will know that as well. The pair have shown their willingness many times to shut down debate and twist a few arms, and this will be no different.

Couple that effort with a biased national press corp openly infatuated with all things Obama, and it spells disaster for the time honored fairness of the secret union ballot.

The battle will be an early test of how well Republican Senators can play the minority party game. If they can muster a cohesive, enduring filibuster, then business groups will have a shot at spotlighting the vote, and swaying enough public sentiment to stop the charge.

The last thing Obama and company want to do is give the GOP a wedge issue for the midterm 2010 elections. They well remember the Health Care debacle, and what it did to President Clinton's first term.

Business leaders have no choice but to start the local media campaigns early, and hope there are still a few reporters at the national level who are willing to explore both sides of the issue.

And if that exploration is honest, the crux of the matter is plain to see. The issue is fairness.

This legislation is about nothing more complicated than giving Big Labor an open door to bully and strong-arm workers into swelling their membership ranks, and therefore their coffers. It will do that by ripping away the simplest protection that American voters enjoy, the secret ballot.

It is an understatement to call Card Check pro union. The reality is, it's anti-worker.

It's wrong, and for the sake of workers everywhere, it needs to be stopped.

Read More...

Summary only...