Illegal Immigrants, Innocent Victims, Politics and Immigration Enforcement

Let me begin this post by saying that all illegal immigrants are not bad people. This being said, they are in the U.S. illegally. They have broken our immigration laws. No ifs, ands or buts about it. To say otherwise demonstrates one’s ignorance of the law as written.

Molly Tibbitt’s, Kate Steinle and multiple other deaths (homicides or otherwise), essentially goes back to enforcing immigration laws. The fact that some people are even making this a political issue quite frankly is disconcerting because it should not. Enforcing the law is not politics. Its common sense. Maybe the lack of common sense is the malady plaguing our elected Public Servants who choose to ignore immigration statutes.

Is it not just common sense that those who shouldn’t be here, should not be here? Especially those who are criminals. All of this easily could have been prevented if our immigration laws were enforced. What liberal would argue against that? It stands to reason, if a liberal, politician or otherwise has or were to argue against enforcement of immigration laws, they are somewhat morally culpable in American Citizens dying at the hands of illegal Immigrants.

Feminism Through a Paterfamilias’s Conservative's Lens

Based on what I have heard, seen and read I present the following thoughts: I am a male and desire for females to be treated commensurate to their male counterparts. I share the same belief as some others that today’s feminism has lost its real quintessence due to the mushrooming corruption and or exploitation of this equality movement that resulted in its portrayal of all things masculine being corrupt and, dare I say threatening.

Did not the intent of the feminist’s movement include an aim or desired result of seeking establishment of educational and professional opportunities for woman that are equal to such opportunities as for men? Upon achievement, that desired goal makes the feminist movement a noble socio-political endeavor that for the most part is in the process of being realized.

Considering current events, I ask a question. Has the feminist train gone off the track? It appears third wave feminism, latest of three suffrage movements has been so widely accepted in society that it has made feminism irrelevant. Is it not so beyond the bounds of possibility that, radical or ultra-left feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions? Furthermore, does not liberal or radical feminism call for a revolutionary reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contents? This includes opposing the sexual objectification of women and challenging the very notion of gender roles. Today’s liberal feminists have now defined feminism as a “combination of man-hating and victimization.” “Look out and beware, ” it’s the patriarchy ogre rearing its ominous head and sexual assault culture! You "cease your patronizing!" “Don’t you dare hold the door for me!” Stop saying, “Not all men!” “You just sit there in silence thinking about how you’ve oppressed women.”

Does not liberal feminism falsely make women think they could have it all if those dreadful men weren’t getting in their way and it makes many a man unsure of what reaction they’ll get from women when they behave like men? Forget about the old “Women should be women and men should be men” way of life. Has today’s liberal feminism become more about women being men and the men being chastened?  

Tides of Tyranny: Time for Public Education to Cease Aborting Zip Co...

Tides of Tyranny: Time for Public Education to Cease Aborting Zip Co...: The Education Secretary wanted to cut funding for the department of Education by approximately five percent, but Congress in their not t...

Time for Public Education to Cease Aborting Zip Code Children

The Education Secretary wanted to cut funding for the department of Education by approximately five percent, but Congress in their not too infinite wisdom, instead increased its funding by several billion. Secretary Devos wanted to ramp-up school voucher funding magnet and charter school programs. Again, Congress in their not too infinite wisdom denied her request to increase school voucher magnet school and charter school programs. The Education Secretary wanted to cut after-school and grant programs for low-income students and redirect the money to school vouchers. This point begs a question. Is it the school's job to provide after-school programs that do little to educate a community’s children and prepare them for the future workforce? If so, test results and dropout rates indicate abject failure on the part of too many public-school systems.

I question the prudence of increasing public education funding, while failing to increase financial resources for school vouchers for magnet and charter schools. Do we really need millions of dollars in subsidies for initiatives to reduce school violence, increase mental health services, and support separate grant programs for counseling, crisis management, and violence prevention? 

Here's a novel idea our Legislative Representatives, Educrats, School Board members, NEA leaders and membership should think long and hard about. Why not consider the future economic welfare and job prospects of students trapped in underperforming schools that fail to meet their basic educational needs? Why not end a system that forces students into schools based on their zip code or family income? Is this fair to those kids who happen to live in impoverished areas? Is it fair to use ghetto children as political pawns? Furthermore, are not ghetto children part of a community in which a minority group lives? Like our Congress, our public education system, as it currently stands is limping through the motions if not already fractured. What Congress is doing is limiting choices for students by acquiescing to those politically motivated organizations; primarily, NEA and its membership, education text publishers, liberal mouth pieces and an ignorant (not to be confused with stupid) constituent base. 

The government should not penalize zip code children by forcing them to attend substandard secondary education schools. To do so is tantamount to deprecating, disparaging and vilifying a segment of a community's citizenry.  

    

Tides of Tyranny: Post-Secondary Education Institutions will Sink or...

Tides of Tyranny: Post-Secondary Education Institutions will Sink or...: Five decades ago LBJ signed the Higher Education Act into law. President Obama reauthorized it while in office. Even prior to Obama’s re...

Post-Secondary Education Institutions will Sink or Swim with Future Legislation

Five decades ago LBJ signed the Higher Education Act into law. President Obama reauthorized it while in office. Even prior to Obama’s reauthorization the turning wheel did squeak. Over the years, the law, which converges with nearly every aspect of higher education, has turned into a special interest windfall. It buffers traditional post-secondary institutions of higher learning from marketplace competition, weaves a serpentine network of student aid options, packs pork, and in the Obama administration served as a ruse or better yet, a con for the Department of Education to formulate politically charged mandatory requirements.  

Now House Democrats are in the process of introducing a bill to make college tuition-free by minimizing debt and simplifying financial aid procedures. Sounds fine, does it not? Who would oppose free college tuition? Then again, Democrats are always peddling something for free. Word to the wise: nothing that comes out of the Swamp is free. The bill itself is known as the Aim Higher Act. Does not the “Aim Higher” title sound too good to be true? Remember the old adage? “If it’s too good to be true, it’s probably not.”

The nuts and bolts of the Aim Higher Act is a serious and comprehensive proposal to give every student the opportunity to earn a debt-free degree or credential, so states Democrat Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), ranking member on the house Committee on Education and the Workforce. Furthermore, in a statement released to the press he acknowledged that “there are expensive proposals within the Aim Higher Act, such as those to move toward free college models." There’s that word again; ‘Free!’ When will the public realize, not all that glitters is gold? I emphasize, ‘nothing is free.’ The taxpayers will bare the burden of funds dispersed by politicians, regardless of party affiliation.

The progressive proponents of the bill continue to demonstrate a lack of monetary and fiscal intelligence, much less wisdom. In theory, the bill will provide immediate and continuing relief to students and parents struggling with the cost of college. In theory, it puts a greater emphasis on helping students graduate with a quality degree that leads to a rewarding career, and it cracks down on predatory for-profit colleges that peddle costly, low-quality degrees at the expense of students and taxpayers.

The above mentioned  propose legislation has more than a few holes or question marks. Its ambiguity is transparent. Does it not lack definition? What constitutes or defines a quality degree? What makes a for-profit post-secondary institution any more predatory than a state operated post-secondary institution of higher learning? I contend that more education debt is amassed by students attending State Universities than “for-profit” Private schools. Do the simple math. The proof is in the numbers.

Are there alternatives on the legislative table? The GOP bill is a counter effort that seeks to reduce taxpayer funding directed toward higher learning by cutting some student aid initiatives. As I understand the proposed bill, it also suggests that schools adjust their curriculum to meet employers’ needs. The GOP bill gives hope….by meeting employers immediate needs, whereby expeditious or p. d. q. (pretty damn quick) employment opportunities become an attainable goal. The reality is threefold. First, debt remuneration by borrower; Second, it limits taxpayers footing a portion of a student loan default or paying its entirety; Finally, federal student loans are allocated IAW alignment of college curriculum to present and future societal occupational specific skills as dictated by economic researched trends. Makes perfect economic sense to me.