Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Immigrant Organizations Denounce New Citizenship Test

The Jordan commission's report emphasized "effective Americanization of new immigrants, that is the cultivation of a shared commitment to the American values of liberty, democracy and equal opportunity," including policies to "help newcomers learn to speak, read and write English effectively."

The new citizenship test will be administered to all applicants for naturalization nationwide starting in January 2008. However, beginning this winter, at least 5,000 people in 10 cities will take part in a voluntary testing program featuring the new questions.

The number of potential questions will be narrowed from 125 to 100 during the pilot program. To pass, an immigrant must correctly answer six of 10 questions asked.

But more than 220 immigrant organizations, led by the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights, have signed a letter to USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez denouncing the new test, which they worry will make it harder for "poorer legal immigrants with less English and less education" to win U.S. citizenship.

"Already immigrants must pass a citizenship test that many native-born Americans could not pass," say groups that include the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Forum, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the United Farm Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Read the entire article in the Washington Times.

Personally I could care less what the National Council of La Raza thinks. This is a racist organization with dreams of conquest via immigration. I'm not too impressed by labor unions either.

Yes, I'm sure the test is difficult. And why shouldn't it be? It's not a trivial thing to forsake the land of your birth and ask to become a citizen of another country. Immigrants to any country that ask to be accepted as citizens of that country should be serious about their intentions, and they should demonstrate it.

Even so, it's not like we're requiring that they be "A" students. We're actually holding them to a lower standard than John Kerry holds President Bush. We're asking that they achieve a 60 percent score. 60% doesn't even rate a "D" grade in school. Even John Kerry did better than that in college.

These immigrant organizations complain that the test is so difficult that many native-born Americans couldn't pass it. That's too bad. It's not a reason to condemn the test. Instead it's a reason to condemn the education system in America. The fact that our schools are turning out mush-minded graduates that haven't got a clue what citizenship means is a travesty.

It shows that the education "establishment" in this country has its priorities screwed up. It's more important to the NEA to teach kids how to put condoms on vegetables and to ensure that little girls know how to have abortions than it is to teach American History, or the foundational principles on which our country is built.

It's more important that children in our schools be protected from any possible exposure to Christianity than it is to teach them what the Constitution says, or what the Declaration of Independence says. It's more important that schoolchildren be taught how to be Muslims in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" than it is to teach children to understand that current events in the world are about more than "Why Mommy is a Democrat".

It shouldn't serve as an excuse for relaxing the standards we hold foreigners that aspire to citizenship in our country to. If a person immigrates to a country with the intention of becoming a citizen of that country, I think it's reasonable that they be expected to learn the history of the country, the country's laws and to assimilate into the country's culture. Why else should they be granted citizenship?

When we give an immigrant a chance to become a citizen, we are offering them the chance to become one of us. We are granting them a rare and special privilege. Every immigrant that I know that has taken the test and become a citizen knows deep in their heart what it means to be a citizen of the United States, and they're proud of it! Rightfully so!

If the citizenship test is hard, that's the price that immigrants must pay to become citizens of our country. If "many Americans" can't pass the same test, it's an indictment of our public schools, not an indication that it's "too hard".

Being an American citizen is a blessing, and a wonderful privilege. Some of us, by the grace of God have been given it as a birthright, and it's a terrible shame that so many of them don't appreciate it. I thank God that I was taught what it means to be an American. And I thank God that many, many immigrants to this country also know what it means and are willing to work to earn that wonderful privilege.

Anyone that would cheapen that is beneath my contempt. That includes the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the National Council of La Raza, the National Immigration Forum, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the United Farm Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

To every naturalized citizen of the United States that has worked hard to attain that goal I have two things to say: Congratulations, and Welcome Home!

'tools of human spirit'

123Beta has found an interesting video from 1993. It's fairly short, but the things that were cool about the Internet then are still cool today!

Go check it out!

Off to Jail With You, Before You Say More...

Gateway Pundit highlights a Washington Times Report about Jack Abramoff, and quotes from an ABC News Blog, The Blotter:

Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to "dozens of members of Congress and staff," including what Abramoff has reportedly described as "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

...

But the prosecutors' easy access to Abramoff has now ended.

After granting several delays, the federal judge in Florida, who sentenced Abramoff to six years for fraud in a casino boat gambling scheme, has ordered him to report to prison tomorrow.

How convenient. Back in January Sen. Reid's spokesman said  "These kinds of wild and baseless rumors smack of desperation and is simply a desperate attempt by Republicans to drag Democrats into a scandal they own lock, stock and barrel." Now, as soon as the information starts to include Democrat's it's "Go Directly To Jail. Do Not Pass Go..."

I wonder if Sen. Reid is one of the "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators"?

The only poll that matters...

 From Iowa Voice comes this interesting post:

What ever happened to losing and then graciously accepting defeat? Oh, that's right....Algore killed that notion in his botched attempt at the Presidency in 2000. Well, we have another Democrat who's threatening to go to court because, dammit, all of those people who didn't vote for him are idiots!

Clint Curtis, Democratic Party Candidate for Florida's 24th Congressional District, announced that he will not concede defeat in his race to unseat Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record) "until every vote is actually counted." He is considering mounting a legal challenge to the election results.

"In this election, the results did not match the Zogby pre- election poll, our internal VoteNow2006.net polling, or our exit polling," Curtis said. "These anomalies need to be investigated and cleared up, not just in my race but for every district where the count just doesn't add up." Curtis says he has informed the Supervisor of Elections office in all four counties in FL-24 that he is considering a challenge.

Curtis continued, "The right to vote and to have that vote counted accurately is the very foundation of our democracy, and I owe it to the voters in my district and the state of Florida to continue to push for accurate, honest elections.

He's relying on POLLS? bwa-hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Excuse me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes.

Has anyone else noticed that it's usually the party of the trial lawyers that challenges elections in the courts? Before the election we were hearing about how the Democrats were prepared to go to court to challenge the elections, alleging voter fraud, machine irregularities, and even voter intimidation.  Democrats were saying that they would challenge any results they didn't like, all the while downplaying allegations of fraud from their own supporters, such as ACORN.

After the election did the Republicans go to court to challenge results they didn't like? Oh no, they didn't do that. Yes, there were some irregularities, but, on the whole, the Republicans faced up to the fact that the voters had spoken.

Do you remember after the 2004 elections the reports of psychiatrists and psychologists in Florida having group therapy sessions for Democrats that were suffering from Post Election Stress Trauma? After the 2006 mid-term elections I don't think we heard too much about that, although I do recall reading one article about how Republicans could do with some grief counseling. By and large though, I don't recall the need for group therapy for Republicans.

I have news for Clint Curtis. The only political poll that matters is the one held by the elections office on election day. You know the poll I'm talking about. It's called the general election.

Zogby's pre-election polls aren't binding on the public. Your internal VoteNow2006.net polling isn't binding on the public either, and it's more than likely an unscientific poll based on voluntary participation rather than a true poll.

Exit polling isn't binding on the public either. Go ahead and challenge though. Go ahead and make yourself the laughing stock of the country, because you can't accept that non-binding polls disagreed with the election results. Go ahead and prove to the world that when it comes to accepting election defeat Democrats react like spoiled children.

Let's face it Clint, you lost by four percentage points, or somewhere on the order of 30,000 to 40,000 votes.

Even Washington's King County can't make up for a shortfall of votes that large.

Update: The actual margin of victory for Tom Feeney was 33,889 votes. Tom Feeney had 123,570 votes, or 57.9% of the vote. Clint Curtis had 89,681 votes, or 42.1% of the vote.

This isn't the first time Clint Curtis has been involved in an election challenge. He testified before congress about election fraud in Ohio in 2004. He also claimed to have worked on an election fraud demo for Tom Feeney back in 2000 while working for Yang Enterprises. The trouble is, his fellow employees at the time deny that it ever took place.

There's an extensive article quite favorable to Clint Curtis on Wikipedia. Interestingly enough, the article sites Clint Curtis's own works, and several blogs as authorities. Blogger Brad Friedman's blog is cited four times. The article is categorized in NPOV Disputes and Articles with unsourced statements.

It seems to me that Clint Curtis is suffering from delusions of adequacy. He may just be trying to perpetrate his own fraud on Florida voters.

Abortion and the Death of the West

Conservative Beach Girl has a great posting on the travesty that we euphemistically call "a woman's right to choose."

The Liberal Left - and I do not include all people who call themselves Democrats or liberals in this but refer to a very select minority within the larger spectrum of "liberals" - it seems desires nothing more than the "death of our unborn" in the name of the religion of "a woman's right to choose."
Since 1973 when the black-robed, somewhat morally challenged, court decided that the Constitution had mystically hidden passages giving American women the right to kill their unborn children, over 43,ooo,ooo babies in America alone have been sacrificed on the altar of Secularism and a "woman's right to choose". The number surpasses the entire population of the state of Texas. Staggering, is it not? At the very least, the issue is a state's issue, not a federal one. How arrogant and insufferable! Can't the federal government and court just leave us alone? Back to, back to...

Go, go now and read this. It's important.

How Accurate Is Wikipedia?

Apparently not very accurate...

Professor David Cadden was correcting student papers recently when he noticed a puzzling reference to the United States fighting Spain in World War I.

The problem: The two countries never tangled during the first world war. Spain was neutral.

...

"Students now almost exclusively get their information on the Internet, and you see Wikipedia popping out. They've totally forgotten there is a thing called a library where there are things called books," Cadden said.

...

Some teachers and professors ban their students from Wikipedia, while others actively urge their students to become Wikipedians.

...

"I think anyone using Wikipedia has to be skeptical about the content, but people should be skeptical about all the content they read," said Alexander Halavais, a professor of interactive communications at Quinnipiac University.

Read more at Technology News

In my experience, Wikipedia isn't very accurate, and the editors are biased. The open source nature of Wikipedia makes it subject to manipulation by unscrupulous individuals, and a potential source of malware.

Even Larry Sanger, a co-founder of the site thinks it's too open to abuse and errors. Take everything you read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt, and verify the citations are truthful before you rely on it.

Darcy Burner Concedes

Darcy Burner has conceded to Dave Reichert. It's amazing that she got this far on her lack of credentials and inflated resume.

In winning his second close race, Reichert returns to a Congress now dominated by Democrats. He had been chairman of the House subcommittee on emergency preparedness, and said Monday he hoped to return as its ranking Republican.

Reichert also said wins such as his, amid strong victories for Democrats across the country, showed that the GOP should heed the voices of centrist Republicans.

"It's time for Republicans to recognize that they haven't been listening very good, and we need to listen," Reichert told the AP. "I think it's an opportunity for us who come from these districts that have a diverse constituency to have a louder voice."

Source: Wash. GOP Rep. Reichert Re-Elected - Forbes.com via Sound Politics.

Personally I disagree with Rep. Reichert. It's not the voices of centrists that they need to heed. That will only move the country further to the left. In today's world you either hold the line for conservative values or you gradually, but continually slide leftward.

Today's centrists are yesterdays leftists. Now, with the left nominally in power in congress, today's leftists will be tomorrow's centrists.

Even so, I congratulate Rep. Reichert on a hard fought win. And I'm thankful that at least one of the people I voted for won. He's a far, far better Representative for me than Darcy Burner could ever be.