Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Feminists Get Obama to Sue Pennsylvania

The following message by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum indicates the absurdity we have reached as a nation in our attempts to avoid "discrimination".  You may want to either laugh or cry over this article. Be my guest for either!

A slightly lower pass rate for women on a physical fitness test has prompted the Obama administration to sue the Pennsylvania State Police. This lawsuit is obviously demanded by the feminists, since their ideology is that, if women cannot do as well as men on a fitness test for a job, that must be caused by discrimination and use of the test must stop.

The Pennsylvania police fitness test resulted in 94 percent of the men passing and 71 percent of females passing. The feminists want Pennsylvania to ignore the fact that the job of a state trooper can require real physical strength and endurance beyond the capabilities of many women and difficult and dangerous physical challenges, such as having to pull a victim out of a car that is on fire.

Last year, a Pennsylvania state trooper helped catch a suspect escaping in a tractor trailer by hanging onto the truck cabin's grab bar with one hand while it continued to drive down the highway. The suspect then crashed the truck and had to be pursued on foot as he fled into the woods, and it's obvious that a man's physical skills were very useful.

Feminists cannot admit that men might be more suitable for certain jobs than some women, and vice-versa with respect to jobs more suitable for women. The fact that a few more men passed the Pennsylvania police fitness test than women did is simply unacceptable to feminist ideology.

The big majority of applicants -- both men and women -- were able to prove adequate fitness, but the Obama Administration sued Pennsylvania for not passing women at the same rate as men. The lawsuit misuses Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was never meant to impose employment quotas, to demand that Pennsylvania fork over back pay with interest to women who did not pass the fitness test, and this lawsuit also insists that Pennsylvania stop using these tests in the future.

Pennsylvania police commissioner Frank Noonan responded forcefully by saying, "We will not be bullied into changing or lowering our standards by the Department of Justice or anyone else." He also noted that reducing the fitness standards would insult the many women and men who passed the test and now work on the police force.

One woman who recently passed the fitness test observed that "it's totally insulting that anybody is claiming that it's too hard for women." She felt that the "the standards are set very low" and she feels "they should be higher."

Commissioner Noonan pointed out that the public would also be harmed by relaxing or eliminating the fitness test. Moreover, a woman who is placed on the job as a state trooper despite being unfit may be putting her own life at risk, if a suspect overpowered her due to her lack of strength or quickness.

More than 4,600 workers are in the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) today after many of them presumably passed this fitness test. But the Obama lawsuit is demanding that the test must no longer be used because there might have been 45 additional women on the workforce if this test had not been implemented.

If 94% of men can pass the physical fitness test to be a state trooper, I would say the test is too easy. Suppose you needed the help of the state police: would you want your distress call to be answered by a man who was only as fit as 94% of his fellow men?

Surely the state police should be more selective than that, but the PSP apparently decided to make its test even easier. Since 2009, an incredible 98% of men passed the test each year -- but the women's pass rate edged up only from 71% to 72%, making the male-female gap slightly wider than before.

Therein lies the paradox of diversity: making the test easier does not reduce the gap between groups. No one has yet devised a physical fitness test on which women as a group perform as well -- or even 80% as well -- as men. The only way to eliminate that gap is to eliminate testing altogether.

The administration official who initiated this lawsuit accusing Pennsylvania of discrimination, Jocelyn Samuels, has the title of "Acting" Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, which means she wields the awesome power of that office without having been confirmed by the Senate. An unconfirmed, perhaps unconfirmable, bureaucrat should not be allowed to disrupt such an important state agency, based on such a flimsy pretext and outrageous theory, but that's where we are in the waning days of the Obama administration.

Pamela's new Ebook, "Promises of the Constitution:"  http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407776265&sr=8-1&keywords=ebook+promises+of+the+constitution 

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Our Broken Immigration System is a Travesty

Marguerite has lived the immigration process and her story spotlights the travesty taking place on our southern border.

Marguerite married Robert, her American sweetheart, in her native Canada. When their son was 5 months old, they left Canada for Robert’s new job in Idaho. Leaving behind her five children from a previous marriage, Marguerite and Robert tried to cross into the U.S. at Montana’s Sweetgrass crossing. Robert and the baby were allowed entry, but Marguerite was not; she was not a U.S. citizen. She and her nursing baby returned to Canada while Robert pressed on to Idaho and contacted the regional director of Homeland Security, who granted Marguerite a humanitarian parole. She was allowed to enter the U.S. for 12 months, providing she start the immigration process immediately and agree to not get a job, go to school or accept any social services. She was told that if, for any reason, she left the U.S. during the application process she would forfeit her previous efforts toward citizenship and start the process over again.
Two frustrating years followed during which Marguerite spent more than $2,000 in application fees attached to endless forms and documents that were mailed to California, New Hampshire and Missouri. The New Hampshire office insisted on original copies of her personal documents but refused to return them. They wanted her passport, as well. It had expired and she could not apply for a new one without the documents they held. With the intervention of a compassionate immigration officer, her documents were finally returned. Despite a current TB test and robust health, she was required to take two more TB tests before officials would process her paperwork.
Marguerite finally obtained legal status after two years and citizenship two and half years after that. She had gone years without seeing her children in Canada. After the web of wasted time and money and the bureaucracy she had endured, she learned that her initial humanitarian parole could have given her citizenship in six months. No one had told her. As she waited, she watched illegals working in local businesses in her community; she knew their illegal status through a neighbor who helped some of them apply for legal residence.
One particular incident frames Marguerite’s memory. She and Robert visited their local bank where Marguerite’s bank transaction was refused because she lacked citizenship. A line of individuals they knew were illegal moved unimpeded to process their transactions at another teller’s window. In his frustration, Robert asked why they could bank and his wife could not. He was told they had received special work numbers because they were from the southern border; Marguerite had come from the north.
Despite the inequities and injustice, Marguerite loves the United States and has made the deliberate decision to adopt its laws and customs and show her respect through loyalty. She says she will continue to be an exemplary, upstanding citizen of the United States.
The contrast provided in Marguerite’s story illuminates the madness taking place on our southern borders, where illegal entry has become the norm. Border agents express deep frustration at their inability to control the illegal flood crossing our southern border. Once in the country, illegals get jobs, go to school, and receive free medical care and social services.
According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, they also fleece billions in child tax credits with the Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers our government issues them. They pass through the border with little resistance, though few willingly go south. Little attempt is made to restrict those who bring in diseases that could become epidemic in the U.S. Border agents report that criminals, violent gang members and terrorists from countries around the world are crossing our southern border into the country, as well. The flood of illegals is gradually filtering north from the border. It will eventually reach Utah.
Illegals with no vested membership in the nation voted in droves in the last election, mainly for the political party that has condoned their illegal status. Eric Holder, our chief law enforcement officer, sues states such as Texas and Ohio that enforce their laws to check voter IDs, which defies rational explanation. Neither major political party appears capable of any action other than to accelerate this process to buy votes in the next election. The United States is being invaded on our southern border and the federal government is unmoved by the assault. This is insanity. It is rogue federalism: unequal and unfair enforcement with disregard for the rule of law by our nation’s own officials.
Can our republic survive this invasion? Where and when will it stop? When enough of us wake up to what is happening and act; when states unite to demand that the federal government abide by its own laws. Any delay multiplies the crisis. It’s time. Let’s roll.

Pamela's new Ebook, "Promises of the Constitution:"  http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407776265&sr=8-1&keywords=ebook+promises+of+the+constitution 

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Theory of Climate Change a Scare Tactic with Ulterior Motives

Hans Christian Anderson’s fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes has a modern application. You will remember that charlatans convinced the king that their nothings were really fine apparel. As the king paraded the boulevard before his subjects, only one little boy had the temerity to ask, “Mommy, why is the emperor nude?”http://library.sc.edu/spcoll/kidlit/andersen/opt/empernew82-cvr.jpg

Enter climate change, the new name for global-cooling-become-global warming-become-we’re all-going-to-die political agenda that aims to restrict our property use. The problem: It’s all theory. Listen to experts on the deception: Former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” (Note: That would be her definition of justice and equality — the redistribution of wealth.) Green Peace Co-founder Paul Watson says, "It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Nobody can prove that the planet is disintegrating, that man’s use of fossil fuels is the reason, or that taking away your SUV will save it. Proof would require gold standard scientific research of massive proportions done over centuries, and solid results would also be centuries away — an impossibility. Today’s facts and figures are conjecture; guesstimates based on short-term events.
For evidence, turn to the oldest history book in existence: The Bible. Christians and non-Christians alike recognize it as the major, sometimes only, source of information about ancient civilizations. Werner Keller’s 1955 "The Bible as History" correlates Bible data with archaeological evidence to confirm the Bible’s authenticity. Reject the religious doctrine if you insist, but the historical record is sound.
Consider one calamity in the Bible: famines. Just twelve chapters in, famine strikes Abraham’s family, then son Isaac suffers famine and still later great-grandson Joseph presides over a seven-year famine in Egypt. Famine brought want during the lifetimes of Ruth and Naomi, King David, the prophet Elijah, and Jeremiah, who faced it more than once. Climate chaos that kills the food supply is serious, and the climate conditions that produce it appear natural for the planet.
If modern fossil fuels, corporate greed and First World selfishness are producing climate change to doom earth, how do we explain the famines, pestilence and floods — remember Noah — that have occurred since the planet accepted population? Nowhere in Genesis does Abraham’s family drive gas-guzzling SUVs into Hebron (though they may have dealt with methane-producing camel flatulence). Bricks made by the Israelites didn’t come from pollution-belching factories, and the writer of Exodus never alludes to the 3,000,000 refugees, who wandered for 40 years in the desert, upsetting the desert’s carbon footprint. Yet ancient peoples all had climate chaos.
Why buy into whimsical climate change? Science loves a good theory, and this is a dilly. Everybody’s doing it; say it often enough and most everyone buys in. There’s big money and government control in the issue.It doesn’t stack up, however, for anyone that reads history or scripture. David M. Barker, in his well-documented Science and Religion: Reconciling the Conflicts reveals that at the root of every Bible-conflicting piece of science lies an unproven, unprovable theory. Assumptions are that earth has always followed the slow, gradual process we observe today. That’s one serious, improbable assumption, yet without it every theory falls apart. Add climate change to the list; it is unproven theory.
We should protect the environment. Order and cleanliness are traits of intelligent, responsible people who don’t dump chemicals in the water, spew them into the air or bury them in the soil. Laws from elected representatives at the state, county and community level — the people on site — are best. Laws should require corporations and citizens to clean up after themselves and should be uniformly and fairly enforced. The environment is not among the 26 constitutional powers granted to the federal government, and is, therefore, not a federal matter. The Environmental Protection Agency is illegitimate; it has proven unfair in its enforcement, and is socialistic by nature. Its regulations demand uniformity when each situation requires a custom fit. Federal enforcement is generally less effective, less efficient, more expensive and mandatory, which prevents communities from doing their own, better quality work. Our goals for cleanliness, however, should not begin with the belief that those in Third World countries starve because Americans own five bedroom homes.
The little boy who asked “Mommy, why is the Emperor nude?” might well ask: “Why do we believe in climate change?” As a final thought, for those searching reasons for climate calamities worldwide, the Bible offers two options. First, nothing: It gives no reason, inferring that these things are natural for the planet. Second, the Bible tells us calamities come because of God’s punishment for wrongdoing. Take your pick.

Pamela's new Ebook, "Promises of the Constitution:"  http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407776265&sr=8-1&keywords=ebook+promises+of+the+constitution

Monday, August 11, 2014

Bibles For Congress

Recently Representative Stephen Palazzo, Louisiana, gave every member of Congress a Bible. Concerned about the lack of morality and ethics in Congress, which could account for the current dismal approval ratings of Congress—only 12% strongly approve while 30% strongly disapprove—he took matters into his own hands. His accompanying letter stated that “the best advice comes through meditating on God’s word” and he offered the Bible to “help guide you in your decision-making”.
The Gutenberg Bible, first printed book.

Bravo, congressman! I’ll bet the secular humanist progressives, who don’t believe in God, or believe in a comfortable God who requires nothing, loved it!  Yeah, right!

It took his staff several days to deliver the Bibles, donated by his constituent, retired Biloxi businessman J.B. Atchison, who thought they could “read God’s word and abide by His commandments”.

As you could expect, there’s been a storm of dissent “Oh no, we can’t do that—we believe in separation of church and state!” More truthfully stated, they believe in no church in state. Humanists force the two—the source of morality and laws that require morality—into isolation.

An example: in Colorado in 2005, the death sentence given Robert Harlan for his murder of a cocktail waitress was thrown out after it became known that jurors consulted the Bible to reach a verdict. Three of the five justices said the Bible was an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority”.

We should all be so lucky—jurors who consult the Bible for help! And incidentally, you know there is no such thing as separation of church and state—that’s an invention of the left after lifting a phrase from Thomas Jefferson’s letter in 1803 to Baptists in Connecticut.. The Constitution says the federal government has no say in anything to do with religion, pro or con. We can have all the religion we want, so long as we do not require a state-sponsored religion.

Last Sunday I sat next to an elderly Tongan sister in my congregation’s adult Sunday School class. After the lesson, she leaned close and related that she had sent the scriptures to President Obama, along with a personal letter. She has come to love American history since leaving her native Tonga, and is sure the president just doesn’t understand how much God loves America. She thinks he will read, believe and perhaps join our congregation after his presidency. She hopes he might even become a missionary.
The 1861 Lincoln Inaugural Bible against the backdrop of the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress

I laughed—a lot! As we sat side by side ten minutes later, still chuckling together, though for different reasons I’m sure, I felt gladness that she could so innocently believe. I couldn’t join her childlike belief, however!

The communications director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Rob Boston, predictably stated the group’s position about the bibles for Congress: “While it (the Bible) may provide spiritual solace for a lot of people, it was never intended to be a governance document.” How little he knows! The Bible contains the Law of Moses—God’s civil law.

The Founders loved the Bible and it was a major source of input for the Constitution. The concept of three branches of government comes partly from Isaiah 33:22: “The Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King: He will save us.” When the first American English language Bible was printed in America in 1792, Congress recommended it to the inhabitants of the United States.

I long for the word of God to be important in our country again! Meanwhile, I live by the words in the scriptures. They bring me peace.

Link for Newly Released E-book:  http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407776265&sr=8-1&keywords=ebook+promises+of+the+constitution

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Mormon Women and the Priesthood: Gratitude for Things that Don’t Change

In a world of changing morals and standards, I’m grateful for things that don’t change. While technology explodes, standards tremble, morals fail and families fall apart, some things remain constant to give us stability.
As a teenager, none of the kids I grouped with had abortions, were homosexuals or lived with their boyfriends, and I really doubt they were sleeping together. There were surely some in our high school who did, but it wasn’t normal or obvious. Good morals were expected. Even the generation gap hadn’t yet arrived.

Things changed for my youngest brothers. When I had several small children I first heard about drug abuse from my mom, who told me one of my brother’s friends was involved. I remember asking, “What are drugs?”

It’s been downhill from there. One of my friends now has a son who has decided he’s a girl and his “boyfriend” is a girl who has decided she’s a boy. Her parents—make that ”his” parents—think its great. Talk about confusion….

It’s been unsettling to see churches change their standards. Abortion, chosen childlessness, homosexuality, abstinence—they have become relative in many congregations.

I’ve been proud of my church in this morally deficient world. I’m an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; the Mormons. We’ve been in the news lately because of Kate Kelly, who has demanded the church allow women to hold the priesthood and has been subsequently excommunicated. The Brethren, those who direct the church under inspiration from God, say no to demands to change the priesthood. They say God sets the standard and they have no authority to alter it. I’m glad.

Some say Mormons discriminate against women, but in a lifetime of activity I haven’t seen it. I see differences, not discrimination. If different discriminates, don’t blame us in the church.  God gave two great privileges to His children: to men He gave the right to hold the priesthood—the authority to act for Him, and to women He gave the ability to create physical bodies. The two assignments work in tandem to strengthen families and create moral individuals to populate a moral world. Of the two assignments, I’ll take creating an original, living, breathing human body any time. In fact, I’m a little bewildered at why the malcontents don’t focus on what men can’t do, rather than what women can’t hold.

Plenty of religions are changing their doctrine because of social pressure. We don’t. We change meeting schedules and missionary ages, but not doctrine. Our doctrine comes from God, and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles teach and enforce it. Kate Kelly can rail all she wants, but God is not known to back down before the demands of a self-centered woman. If she believes the doctrine, why is she challenging it? If she doesn’t, why does excommunication matter? If, however, her goal is simply to rabble-rouse, let the media give her 15 minutes in the spotlight.

Kelly relates that the excommunication has hurt her family. Why, then, has she done this? Why tell God how to operate His church rather than following the path of discipleship? The hurt comes from her, not to her.

Whatever. I’m grateful that our doctrine is steady in the face of society’s self-centered gales. The Word of God is an anchor in the storm, not the storm, itself, making me grateful for things that don’t change.

Monday, August 4, 2014

The Road to Common Core: One Way or the Highway

Opposition continues to build toward Common Core, the behemoth, pseudo state education program tucked quietly into the federal government’s hip pocket. People are waking up, and big names in the freedom movement have joined the charge.

On July 22, at the Provo Towne Center’s Cinemark 16 Theater, Glenn Beck presented “We will Not Conform,” his effort to relegate this program to the federal funeral pyre. Joining him were Michelle Malkin, journalist and author, David Barton of WallBuilders, and Dana Loesch of The Blaze Network, along with parents, former school administrators, legislators and organizers from all sides of the political spectrum who are deeply invested in junking this program.
The Provo event, one of 700 simultaneously held nationwide, was well-attended. Conducted in a live interactive format, viewers participated by texting answers to polls taken during the show and tweeting questions and comments. One impression took center stage: This issue needs to be thoroughly vetted by parents. If investigations match accusations, your children could be wrestling with an octopus.
Controversy rages over Common Core. In an age where things are not always as they seem, parental vigilance stands between help and harm for kids. Two adamant opinions currently argue over which is the help and which is the harm in education. We all want what’s best for our kids, so parents of every political persuasion consistently donate time, attention and effort to give their children the best shot at life. We make them priority No. 1.
Many objections were raised to Common Core at Tuesday’s event and every attendee likely concocted his own Molotov cocktail on the topic. The lack of local control is a huge concern. Once the veneer of state origination is stripped away and federal funding is exposed, the idea of local control becomes a charade. Parents lose what little influence they’ve got left in their children’s education under Common Core, and anything that takes control from parents hurts their kids.
Another major theme is that this program is untested. Unbelievably, the radically new procedures in Common Core are being implemented nationwide without any data to show that they work — that they help students, improve education, produce genuine learning and cause no harm. This is like drafting plans for a novel new automobile and taking it into production without building a prototype to see if the darned thing even runs. Some educators have a high school crush on the Core, but they have only hollow hopes — promises of anticipated benefits, not evidence of proven results.
This is absurd. Our children are not experimental animals. We heard the same Utopian rhetoric from No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, both of which bombed.
Further, Common Core was developed by business gurus, not educators. Why is your child’s education in a tycoon’s business model? Could your children become profit pawns, made possible by the data collection on personality profiles and preferences that partners with the Core?
Some credit the involvement of these tycoons to unselfish, altruistic motives, but some people still believe in the Easter Bunny. Our children are not for sale.
The saddest objection to Common Core came from six parents and their children, ranging from grades 3 through 9, who explained Common Core’s One Way or the Highway approach to problem solving.
With many ways to solve a math problem, for instance, only the one method taught by Common Core gets you a correct score on the test. That one method is not simple or easy; rather the math taught is long, convoluted and nonsensical. Use any other method and you fail, even with the correct answer.
This is absurd. There’s no learning to think here, just a demand to follow the leader. Why?
Parents told of kindergartners taking 80 minute computer tests and high school tests hours long. They talked of children whose self-esteem was shredded, of children who begged to not go to school. High schoolers told of boring technical texts as reading assignments rather than the age old classics that develop moral character. Activists reported test failures ranging as high as 50 percent; not surprising when you learn that the business tycoons behind Common Core also sell the tests and double their money for each child that fails and must be re-tested.
There are too many rotten apples in this barrel. Parents must investigate carefully and then talk to each other, to teachers and to state legislators about this pivotal issue. Grandparents can help.
Resistance is likely, but Common Core is still stoppable at the state level. The future of children and education is at stake. The following websites can help you: www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com, www.truthinamericaneducation.com, www.FreedomWorks.org. “We Will Not Conform” will play again at the same theater on July 29. It would be wise for you to be there.

Link for E-book "Promises of the Constitution" :   http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407171371&sr=8-1&keywords=promises+of+the+constitution