Presbyterian Church USA refuses to recognize counterfeits as marriage, but doesn't punish someone who performed otherwise.  Rebecca Trounson of the Los Angeles Times reports:

The highest court of the Presbyterian Church USA has found that a California minister did not violate the church's constitution when she officiated at the [“]weddings[“] of same-sex couples in 2004 and 2005.

The decision, announced Tuesday by the church's permanent judicial commission, cleared the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr of San Rafael of misconduct and lifted an earlier ruling of censure against her by a regional church court.

So it is just fine for her to participate in a mockery of a God-initiated institution?

In the decision, the Louisville, Ky.-based panel found that the ceremonies Spahr had performed for the two lesbian couples could not be considered marriages.

Look at that.  They got something right.

Spahr, 65, who has fought for many years for full inclusion of gay and lesbian Presbyterians in the national church, said she was grateful she had been cleared of the misconduct charge but disappointed by the finding on marriage.

Funny, my church has full inclusion of gay people.  It condemns, however, using your genitals in sinful ways and does not make a mockery of marriage.

"In not seeing same-gender marriages as marriages, the commission holds to the idea that we are separate and unequal," Spahr said in a telephone interview. "And that causes me great pain."

You know, you can always find another church instead of trying to impose your antibiblical ego stroke on an unwilling group.  And two men and two women do not equal the union of a man and a woman.  Men and women are different.  A representative of each sex must be present for a marriage to exist.  Only one kind of the three couples can ever produce children or unite the sexes.

Sara Taylor, Spahr's attorney, said she and her client also were troubled by parts of the ruling.

"It's worrying that the court seems to be attempting to legislate future marriages and restrict them," Taylor said.

Oh yes, worrisome.  Worrisome for a church to follow the Bible.  So no restrictions?  The church should recognize “marriage” between a member and an unbeliever?  Between a parent and a child?  Between siblings?  Between people already married to other people?  Of one person to himself?  Or only between people who have a vocal enough lobby?

"Can you imagine if I said no to these couples, after they come to me and want me to work with them?" Spahr said.

Responsible ministers say “no” all of the time.  It’s called being faithful and discouraging sin.

She said she was now counseling six couples, three gay and three straight, and said she expected to officiate at weddings for all of them.

I wouldn’t have wanted someone to perform my wedding if they couldn’t tell the difference and had so little regard for the Word of God.

In our country, you should have the freedom to commit to each other, live together, celebrate your love, or whatever.  It is ridiculous for anyone to try to stop you through the force of government.  But there are some things in the Bible and some things in natural law that there’s just no getting around.  Holy matrimony is something between a man and a woman, and churches that still recognize that should be able to operate by that conviction.  If you want to continue being a member or person of authority in that church, you should agree to follow their rules.  Otherwise, you can leave.  Church membership and employment are voluntary, and there are many other churches out there.

Christianity is supposed to change you.  It isn't supposed to be the other way around.

Alta California’s socialist reconquistador Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is denouncing the rule of law and law enforcement, because those things interfere with Mexico’s poor living off of the taxes of Californians.  Tiffany Hsu, Los Angeles Times staff writer, reports.

Decrying what he called the federal government's "overboard meat-ax approach," California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez joined executives of American Apparel Inc. on Tuesday to condemn escalating raids on businesses to look for undocumented workers.

Ah, the Los Angeles Times' refusal to use the legally correct phrase “illegal aliens”.  Sorry, these people are not undocumented.  They have documents.  Some of them authentic, even.

Isn’t it nice that American Apparel Inc. is willing to go on record as preferring slave-wage labor?

Outside the company's pink factory in downtown Los Angeles, where a large "Legalize LA" sign hung on one building, Nuñez said stepped-up work site investigations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement were hurting the economy.

Funny – I’d say the Assembly’s love of high taxes and overregulation are hurting the economy.

American Apparel has pushed for years for an overhaul of immigration laws and has an ongoing advertising campaign on the issue.

They should no longer be able to call themselves “American”.  For subsequent quotes, I will make a correction.

Peter Schey, an attorney for [Illegal Alien] Apparel, said the company's employees, 4,000 of whom work downtown, were all legal to the best of his knowledge, although he said immigration authorities had asked the company to provide documentation on its workers.

Best of his knowledge.  Weasel words.  Why would he even know their legal status?  That isn’t his job.

In March, Los Angeles Mayor [Tony Villar] sent a letter to Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, complaining that raids on "nonexploitative" companies could push businesses out of California and asking that federal immigration enforcement policies be reworked.

Oh, that’s rich, coming from the mayor of a city that does about everything it can to scare businesses away.

Citizens and immigrants are sick of the illegal alien situation.  ICE should do more of these raids.  As I’ve said before, I think in an ideal situation, employers should be able to hire people regardless of their citizenship.  But we’re not in an ideal situation.  As long as we collect payroll taxes, as long as we have taxpayer-funded welfare and infrastructure, we need workplace enforcement.

I can’t believe this is out there for everyone to see.  I made a mistake and will learn from it.  Someone I trusted took advantage of me and exploited me.

Thanks for reading.

(This message brought to you by the same tactics used by a certain teen starlet’s publicist.)

There are a lot of people declaring that it is a shame to have Rev. Wright's long, successful career eclipsed by a few controversial quotes.  Even if I were to accept the premise, I wouldn't be able to muster much sympathy.  How many times have we seen such a thing happen to people who ran afoul of the sensitivities of "African-American leaders" and happened to be white while doing so?  How many times have we seen such a thing happen to anyone who dares to question either the goals or the tactics of homosexual activist organizations?  I seem to recall something about Larry Summers as President of Harvard and his comments about why more men than women were in high-end science and engineering positions in academia.

This is something Left repeatedly fails to understand or care about (not sure which): the means matter, not just the ends.  We live in the culture we create.  If you are intolerant, silence dissent, are hypersensitive, overreact, lose perspective, use force or playing outside the rules to reach your ends, it will be easier for other people to use the same methods to reach their ends, and fairness and forgiveness will be too far out the window to retrieve.

The leaders of the Left really truly believe there should be a different set of rules for them than everyone else.

I can’t believe this is out there for everyone to see.  I made a mistake and will learn from it.  Someone I trusted took advantage of me and exploited me.

Thanks for reading.

(This message brought to you by the same tactics used by a certain teen starlet’s publicist.)

In the news is this report on a study that claims that certain California neighborhoods are “designed for disease” because of the ratio of fast food retailers to grocers.  This is absurd, of course.  Letting market forces work decentralizes control, thereby avoiding such social engineering.  “Design” is what governments try with strict zoning, subsidies, and requiring developers who want to turn their property into something useful to include certain elements.  Someone who opens up a burger franchise is usually responding to local demand.  They are not designing anything but their own little business.

Californians face an added challenge as they battle expanding waistlines and obesity-related diseases – their address. A landmark study released today shows the state’s first direct correlation between where you live and your risk for obesity or diabetes.

Okay, but it is a stretch to make the leap that fast food business are the cause.

Generally, the closer to the ocean you get, the less obesity, particularly in females.  Also, there is less obesity in females in other affluent areas – not because of any design to keep fast food away, but because the men these women pair up with, being wealthy, have a lot of women to choose from.  They generally choose women who are not obese.  The people living in these areas can afford personal trainers.  Most of them are too busy being productive, which is how they got wealthy in the first place, instead of sitting around watching TV.

The groundbreaking study,

Oh yes, they are all groundbreaking, aren’t they?  Especially in the publicity copy.  I’m sure we also need to fund more research along these lines, too.

Designed for Disease: the Link Between Local Food Environments and Obesity and Diabetes, examines the correlation between the health of nearly 40,000 Californians and the mix of retail food outlets near their homes.

Did you ever stop to thing that maybe the fast food joints go where they are wanted?  Which came first – the demand or the supply?  Most fast food places even offer some healthy menu items.  This is the market at work.  Grocers are less likely to go where there is too much red tape, where local “community leaders” make outrageous demands on them, and where crime is going to result in losses or higher insurance or difficulty in attracting customers and employees.  And if people would rather eat fast food, why should the grocers even try?

The key finding: people living in neighborhoods crowded with fast-food and convenience stores but relatively few grocery or produce outlets are at significantly higher risk of suffering from obesity and diabetes.

So what?

“Whether we realize it or not, we are affected by the food choices around us,” said Dr. Harold Goldstein of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), one of the study’s authors.

Some people mindlessly let life wash over them, yes.  Other people exercise willpower.

“Maybe it’s time to consider adding the fast-food joints and convenience stores around every corner to the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of known environmental toxins. This study suggests that they may quite literally be making us sick.”

Oh for crying out loud.  They aren’t putting a gun to your head and shoving that Big Mac down your throat.  It's already silly enough that we have signs on all of our parking garages warning us of carcinogens.  I can just picture the signs that these people would require for the doors of these fast food joints.  Hey, how about an extra tax on fast food?  I'm sure that one is next.

California is home to 14,826 fast-food restaurants and 6,659 convenience stores. By contrast, the state has 3,853 grocery stores and 1,292 produce stands (including farmers’ markets).

This is the result of our mostly free market.  What are you going to do, restrict even further what kind of businesses can open where?  Force people to build and run grocery stores?  Open government grocery stores?  Force honest small business owners (fast food franchisees) to shut down?

This disproportionate access to less nutritious foods is, according to the study’s authors, especially alarming in light of the growing obesity and diabetes epidemics, which cost California $6 billion and $18 billion per year, respectively.

Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter.  Socialized medical insurance and care.  Obesity is expensive to “California” so something must be done about it.  What about all of the evidence that certain “sex” acts are harmful by spreading disease and causing injuries?  Can we at least prevent those from being portrayed in the public schools as okay?  At least that won’t be using force to change personal behavior.

“Clearly the obesity crisis in California can no longer be seen only as a fight over personal choices,” insists Dr. Victor Rubin of PolicyLink.

Oh, no, of course not.  This is too important to let people choose their own diet.

“Public policies drive the universe of food options from which we can choose. Families who live in communities with choices limited to high-calorie foods and beverages face substantially greater health risks. Policy makers at the state and local level can save lives by giving Californians healthier food options.”

Policy makers can “give” healthier food options?  No.  People already have those options, and it wasn’t policy makers that did it.  Farmers, factory workers, truckers, investors, lenders, business managers, and workers have provided the options.  All of them have the freedom to do so because of our military defending our Constitution.

Here’s an example of local news coverage, focusing on San Bernardino county, which is between Los Angeles county and the eastern border of California - so it is inland, far away the coast.  Robert Rogers of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports.

There are no organic food markets or even chain grocers within two miles of this neighborhood. There is a Mexican grocer a few blocks north, but many in this predominately black neighborhood admit they are reluctant to patronize it.

But they still have the option of doing so.

San Bernardino scored the worst of the state's 24 most populous counties in the Retail Food Environment Index , having nearly six times more fast food and convenience stores as grocers and produce vendors. The ratio is much higher in some minority and low-income county enclaves, researchers noted, where transportation limitations and scant local grocery outlets make eating healthy an even greater challenge.

Let’s ban the fast food places and starve the people.  How about that?  That would sure beat freedom, wouldn't it?

Wow, that's almost like "inner city" livin'!

Major theme parks have a very good safety record.  Ride manufactures depend on reputation, and face competition from others.  Theme parks are stuck in their location and depend on their clientele feeling safe enough to enjoy the manufactured thrills without utter panic.

The original Disneyland theme park operated for over 40 years, hosting hundreds of millions of visits without a serious accident or injury happening through no fault of the visitor.  Any deaths were usually from natural causes (the park does host anywhere from 15,000-70,000 people in a single day, 365 days a year) and could be investigated by the Orange County Coroner.  The place was subject to the same building codes as any other business.  Safety was drilled into their employees from day one as a top priority.

Then along came some blundering management that didn’t rise up through the ranks at the park, and their bad policies and practices, and after a shameful incident where failures resulted in a fatal accident, people pushing for more state regulation of amusement parks got the opening they needed.  It will come as no surprise to libertarian-minded folks that these added oversights didn’t prevent a second fatal accident of like fault.  Fortunately, good management was restored and there hasn’t been an accident like those since.  Redundant state oversight continues, and will forever, I’m sure.

Add to that a court ruling -  in favor of someone who was claiming injury from a ride that million of other people have ridden without a problem – determining that theme park attractions are “common carriers” like public buses and trains; that they are supposed to provide as little stress on the body as possible (despite their goal of thrilling you), and it gets to be ridiculous.

People want to be thrilled on thrill rides.  They aren't getting on them to get from point A to point B.

I’m confused, though.  The State of California operates an extensive freeway system.  Surely, like rail and bus systems (and now amusement park rides), freeways are common carriers?  Yet when there’s a fatality on a freeway, the lanes affected are usually reopened in a few hours.  Unlike the theme park attractions, modifications are not made to the freeway – no extra restraints, protections, or warnings.  No long closure.  Why isn’t Caltrans held to the same standards and procedures as Disney, Six Flags, Universal, Sea World and Knott's?

It is even more strange when you consider that unlike theme park attractions, freeways are not gated, nor is there anyone checking you to make sure you are fit to get on it – anyone can get on one.

Now, I don’t really wish to see entire sections of freeways shut down for weeks or months each time there is a serious accident.  But where is the consistency?

The mainstream media, including newsrooms, go along with this even though they have to know what is going on.  I'm not mentioning names on purpose.  It is all over the news today, so it shouldn't be hard to guess what I'm writing about.

I don't care if she's a teenager. When an over-hyped celebrity claims that an upcoming photo spread in a a major magazine, taken by a famous photographer, embarrasses her, she's just trying to get more publicity for that issue of the magazine so MORE people will see the photos and talk about her.  C'mon... How long has she been around photographers?  She would not have put herself in front of the camera looking any way she would not want people to see.

She knew exactly what she was doing.

She knows exactly what she's doing.

Props to her publicists.

Jeers to the MSM, which should cover more important things instead.

Governor Schwarzenegger is against Proposition 98.  Makes me wonder what he's planning.  It is a proposition to restore some limits on eminent domain, and also to phase out rent control.

Now, the first reaction of the Leftists is to scream about all of the old, disabled folks who rent and will be thrown out into the streets.  Makes me wonder where these people are when someone talks about the need to get rid of Prop 13, which helped to keep OWNERS like widows from being thrown out of their homes due to rising property taxes.  But getting back to Prop 98 - it explicitly preserves the rent control for existing rental situations.  It is only AFTER the current renters leave or die that the rent control goes away.

Now, I realize that there may be some desperate landlords out there who will try to get people to leave to they can raise rents and try to earn money off of their property instead of losing money on it, but housing laws favor the resident/renter so strongly in California, I can't see this being a big problem.  It would be very easy to get a civil judgment or restraint against a landlord who tried such end-runs.

Opponents of Prop 98 will be quick to point out that those who stand to gain from it support it.  Well, duh.  People are so quick to demonize someone who is providing other people a place to stay.  I don't blame landlords for supporting this.  As things are now, I would never be a landlord.  I'm sure there are other people who feel like me.  That means fewer places to rent, and higher rents.

You can read a recent article on the proposition by Dana Bartholomew of the Los Angeles Daily News here.

Trashing Christians or Christian ideals or the Bible is common in advice columns, pop music songs, television shows, and films – any medium where the author’s statement often goes unchallenged by immediate feedback to which the rest of the audience has access.  The notions presented often float into the mind of the passive observer, who often will not subject it to critical analysis.

I’ve written before about “hit and run Bible mockers”.  But I want to discuss something a little different that is in this recent edition of advice column Dear Margo.

HAPPY WITH OUR OWN BELIEFS, THANK YOU writes:

My sister-in-law is a born-again Christian and very outspoken about her beliefs.

Did you know that “born-again Christian” is a redundant term?  All Christians are born-again.  Otherwise, they’re not Christians, even if they attend church regularly.

She agitates my husband to no end when we are at family gatherings. I can't think of a wedding that we've been to in the last 10 years where she hasn't cornered us about being saved.

Sounds like she really cares about you.

We've tried to tell her that we have our own beliefs, and I usually walk away, but my husband gets very stressed and angry and gets into it with her every time.

It is your husband’s choice whether or not to get angry.  He doesn’t have to say anything to her, or really listen to what she is saying.

She even sends tracts to us in birthday cards and other letters. I am tired of having to deal with this. Any suggestions on how to handle this zealot?

Well, you could cite her own Scriptures in a respectful way.  I’m assuming she believes what the Bible teaches.  The Bible teaches not to “throw pearls before swine”.  In context, it is a reference to leaving people alone when they don’t want to hear the Gospel.  Simply move on to someone who does want to talk about it.  As described, this woman isn’t being a very good representative of Christ.  Christians are called to give a reason for the hope that is within them with gentleness and respect, not to hound people who’ve heard what you’ve had to say and don’t agree and don't want to hear anymore.

Instead of a variation of this respectful and possibly effective tactic, Dear Margo suggests a different approach.

Because your husband, however, seems unable to walk away, suggest he try a new approach when responding to his sister. Here's some early American history I read somewhere: Thomas Paine, considered by many a de facto Founding Father, ridiculed the Bible as a long fairy tale of crime and fantasy.

So Paine should be cited as a “de facto Founding Father”?  What does being an influence on the founding of the United States of America have to do with the fact that this woman is saying stuff that these people don’t want to hear?  If anything, the First Amendment says “let her talk” and “let her be free to have her faith”.

Perhaps the fellow could say that he believes the Bible to be a long fairy tale of crime and fantasy.  But that will only continue the discussion, so it is bad advice.  Of course the Bible records crime and fantasies, because people commit crimes and have fantasies.  So what?  This does nothing to negate the truth or authority of the Bible.

Thomas Jefferson took a razor to the New Testament and cut out everything he thought silly, evil or mystical.

Again, what does this have to do with anything, unless you believe that Paine and Jefferson are the ultimate authorities in what is believable, sensible, and moral?

He was left with a very short book.

Yes, I book that talks about good and evil and God is going to record a lot of evil and supernatural things.  So what?

Then your husband should try to make a case for atheism.

She didn’t write that he was an atheist.  She wrote that she wanted to end the discussions.  This advice stinks.  Too bad a lot of people are going to read it and try the next time someone cites their belief the Bible, even if it is the first time they do so.

Apoplexy guaranteed.

So she should try to get her husband to try to get a rise of her sister-in-law, thereby making the situation worse?  Something tells me that Dear Margo couldn’t pass up a jab at the Bible and so she did it even though it meant giving lousy advice.

Again, I don’t excuse a lack of social grace or politeness.  But I’ve got news for Dear Margo.  The Bible has survived attacks from people much smarter and better at making the attacks than you.  The Bible has provided good advice and guidance to people for thousands of years, and will continue to do so, should the Lord tarry, long after you are dead.  It accurately describes the human condition, God’s redemption of humankind, how to avoid or deal with the pitfalls of life (with much better constancy than you), and how to have a relationship with God.

Game over.

People in Congo are currently lynching each other over claims that sorcerers are shrinking male genitalia.

Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you no culture can be better than any other, and that it is wrong to impose Western culture on others.

Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men's pen1ses after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft.

Reports of so-called pen1s snatching are not uncommon in West Africa, where belief in traditional religions and witchcraft remains widespread, and where ritual killings to obtain blood or body parts still occur.

I'd love to see any trial.  Televise it!

Rumours of pen1s theft began circulating last week in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo's sprawling capital of some 8 million inhabitants. They quickly dominated radio call-in shows, with listeners advised to beware of fellow passengers in communal taxis wearing gold rings.

And you thought the stuff on Coast to Coast AM was hard to believe.

Purported victims, 14 of whom were also detained by police, claimed that sorcerers simply touched them to make their genitals shrink or disappear, in what some residents said was an attempt to extort cash with the promise of a cure.

I understand Bill Clinton complains that Hillary has this power.

Police arrested the accused sorcerers and their victims in an effort to avoid the sort of bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 suspected pen1s snatchers were beaten to death by angry mobs. The 27 men have since been released.

This has to be good for tourism.

"It's real. Just yesterday here, there was a man who was a victim. We saw. What was left was tiny," said 29-year-old Alain Kalala, who sells phone credits near a Kinshasa police station.

Imagine a support group for the victims of such sorcery.  Where is Loraina Bobbit?

Well, it’s Earth Day, where New Age and pagan Earth worship takes center stage, and many theists go along for the ride.  I’m all for conserving God’s creation, but I recognize that the creation is wearing out, even with the best conservation efforts.  Only a resurrection will redeem it.

I prefer to worship the Creator, and admire the creation.

Speaking of that, today’s Los Angeles Times has some letters inspired by a recent commentary by Richard Dawkins.

Ken Savage or Palm Desert chimes in:

Everyone has faith in something that is beyond science to prove.

That is true.  Even a statement such as “Science discovers all truth” is a philosophical statement outside of science itself, and this can’t be true.

Dawkins has a similar problem to those who cannot explain where a complex God came from. Where did the Big Bang come from, and what existed before?

As I understand it, one of the explanations is “nothing”.  If the entire universe could come from nothing without a cause outside itself, how can we trust any lab results?  How do we know matter/energy is not emerging in the middle of such experiments, thus skewing the results?  Another answer I've been told is "We don't know, but we know it wasn't God!"  Uh, okay.

James McDermott of Pasadena:

It is not logically contradictory to hold both that God is the author of all that exists and that the Big Bang and evolution are the ways God created and continues to create everything that exists.

This is true.  It is philosophical naturalism that can’t accept creationism, intelligent design, directed evolution, or any involvement by God.

William S. LaSor of Apple Valley, California:

Dawkins argues that "intelligent design" is not science.

It is a framework for understanding the data.

In the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed.

If anything now exists, either something is eternal, or something not eternal came from nothing.

Elaine Fleeman of Bakersfield:

How could natural selection create the first living cell? There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell, so the process had to be pure chance, a result of random atoms forming thousands of extremely complex molecules within a few micrometers of each other at the same time. It is statistically a highly improbable probable event, and it bears all the earmarks of design.

Yes, the dominant scientific elite would have us believe that all of the life on Earth is the result of a series of extremely improbable accidents, and that we are nothing more than molecules reacting to each other.  Yet, here is everyone celebrating Earth Day.  If the materialists are right – why celebrate?  Where does a moral imperative to conserve the environment come from?

In addition to regular tax money, lottery money, Indian gaming money, and bond money, the government schools still rely a lot on private money.

You know this, because you get hit up during the fundraisers all of the time.

Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, reports.

South Orange County families are being urged to donate $400 per student to save the jobs of 266 teachers in the Capistrano Unified School District.

Parents at Long Beach's Longfellow Elementary are among countless statewide who are launching fundraising foundations.

Bay Area parents launched a campaign featuring children standing in trash cans; the theme is "Public Education Is Too Valuable to Waste."

Yes, more Leftist protest laughs.

A free public school education is guaranteed by the state Constitution to every California child.

Big mistake.  It isn’t really free.

But as districts grapple with proposed state funding cuts that could cause the layoffs of thousands of teachers and inflate class sizes, parents are being asked to dig deeper into their pocketbooks to help.

"Public education is free, but an excellent public education is not free at this point," said Janet Berry, president of the Davis Schools Foundation, which recently launched the Dollar-a-Day campaign, urging citizens of the city near Sacramento to donate $365 per child, grandchild or student acquaintance.

It never ends.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget would cut about $4.8 billion in education funding this year and next.

I believe they are talking about reduction in planned increases, not real cuts.

Public school district fundraising foundations were first formed after voter approval in 1978 of Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases and dramatically reduced school finances.

Ah yes – the obligatory mention of Prop 13, which kept retirees and widows from being taxed out of their lifelong homes.

Education officials acknowledge that these fundraising groups are more successful in wealthier areas, increasing the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

That will ALWAYS be a reality.  Otherwise, what is the point of busting your hump to make something of yourself?  If everything in life is going to be the same for you and your family regardless of how much money you make, why bother to earn more?

To raise awareness, a parent who runs an ad agency created the "Step Up" campaign.

Students, teachers and coaches have perched inside trash cans around Alameda, with signs reading "Our students / teachers / coaches are too valuable to throw away."

More entertaining protests.  Interestingly, the only time children are really dumped in the trash in relation to school is when school staff takes a girl to an abortion clinic.

1.As long as schools are funded by tax money, they will have to deal with less money when the economy slows down.  We have to cut back.  So should the schools.

2.Where is all of the money going?  Certainly not to the teacher or classroom.  It is going to administration, insurance, legal fees, etc.

3.How much money is spent educating illegal aliens and their children?

4.How much money is spent on social engineering instead of teaching the basics?

Separate school and state.  Let tuition, donations, sponsorships, and fundraising fund it all.

Pot smokers lighting up on 4/20 is like a 400-pound man eating a donut.

I mean really – these dazed and confused people act as though they aren’t regularly inhaling the burning leaves anyway.

They’re like alcoholics who make a big deal about St. Patrick’s Day celebrations at local bars.