User Profile: fbanta

Member Since: October 01, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [6] March 10, 2015 at 2:59pm

    Standardized testing is necessary to determine if a student is performing at grade level. Most of the criteria that determine if a student is capable of performing to grade level are beyond the teacher’s reasonable responsibility: stable home life; parental encouragement/participation, etc.

    Clearly the problem is that too many students are advanced in school without successfully meeting grade requirements simply because of social promotion. This puts the onus on the teacher when it belongs on the parent. We choose to stigmatize the “unsuccessful teacher” rather than the non-achieving student.

    Two suggestions: 1. Do not advance students beyond their demonstrated command of the subject matter.
    2. Segregate students into classes by demonstrated performance so that teachers can teach at a uniform rate.

    The average college freshman today reads at the 7th grade level. Who are we trying to fool? 40% of college graduates fill jobs requiring a high school education. Who are we trying to fool?

    In reply to the contribution This is Why Teachers Are So Frustrated

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] March 10, 2015 at 2:28pm

    Article VI of the US Constitution requires that all laws and treaties conform to the requirements of the US Constitution.

    Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 clearly states: (the president) shall have the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided that 2/3 of the Senators concur.

    The president has no Constitutional authority to obligate the US except as approved by Congress.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] November 21, 2014 at 9:22am

    Geoff Potter obviously is a liar and a fool. He claims “You can’t craft every possibility into every law.” The 2nd Amendment is patently clear: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” and that covers every possibility. The problem arises when nincompoops such as Potter think they are wiser than the Founders. Stupid is as stupid does.

  • [1] October 16, 2014 at 11:12pm

    Nature’s Laws are self-policing. American Exceptionalism is the belief that all men are created equal; endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (significant examples enumerated in the Bill of Rights) that are superior to any authority delegated to man-made government created to secure those inalienable rights.

  • October 16, 2014 at 11:05pm

    I recommend the book “Original Intent-The Courts, the Constitution and Religion by David Barton. Fastidiously footnoted, it clearly expounds why the Founders believed that our Constitutional Republic, founded on the principle of Individual Liberty, could not survive without a Christian population. Contrary to your statement, the State cannot enforce morality without being totalitarian. de Tocqueville also has powerful observations in his “Democracy in America” regarding Christianity and American Exceptionalism.

  • [-1] September 18, 2014 at 9:29am

    Your ignorance of American history; the genesis of our government; and the principles on which America is Founded is staggering.

  • [3] September 18, 2014 at 9:26am

    Not according to current events.

  • [-2] September 18, 2014 at 9:25am

    The fallacy of your argument is unequivocally demonstrated by the words and acts of every Founder. They explicitly and specifically stated that the Liberty on which our Republic is founded could not survive without a population self-restrained by the principles of Christian teaching.

    One need only read the Charters of each of the 13 Colonies to understand the fundamental role of Christianity in America. The prohibition against a religious test refers to denominational differences only; as does the prohibition of establishing a State religion. The Founders did not want to replicate the influence of The Church of England on English politics.

    The Founders believed, and for the first 150 years of our Republic enforced that anyone unwilling to swear before God to serve honorably and faithfully; and to accept eternal accountability for their earthly actions; were unfit to serve the public by holding public office or serving on a jury.

    Responses (3) +
  • [5] September 18, 2014 at 9:10am

    To our Founders, anyone unwilling to commit to God to faithfully meet their promises was unfit to serve. The rationale is that Man is eternally accountable for their actions in life. If an individual rejects their eternal accountability by God; clearly they are not to be trusted to honorably fulfill their earthly responsibilities.

    For the first 150 years of our Republic, those unwilling to swear an oath to God were prohibited from holding public office or serving on juries because it was presumed that they would not be truthful.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] September 14, 2014 at 6:40pm

    Please note two very important facts: First, the Constitutions permits federal judges to hold their office only during Good Behavior. Second, each is required, as a pre-condition to being delegated any federal authority, to solemnly swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States…and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”. Failure to do so repudiates their oath and therefore all authority delegated on its promise.

    Clearly, the Constitution, not prior precedents, are the only true faith representations of judicial authorities.

    When CJ Roberts ruled that the ACA was not justified by the Commerce or the Necessary and Proper Clause his only Constitutional option was to declare the entire act un-Constitutional. The 16th Amendment does NOT permit Congress to tax us for any purpose whatever (such as refusing to buy healthcare insurance); it only permits Congress to tax Income. Roberts and all Justices in agreement with his decision necessarily have repudiated their Oath of Office; their delegated judicial authority; and must be removed from the bench.

    Since the Constitution does not recognize politics; and demands compliance to only the limited authorities enumerated therein; no judicial decisions can reflect political alternatives.

    Responses (2) +
  • June 25, 2014 at 11:03am

    The Constitution unequivocally denies government authority to deny anyone life, liberty or property without due process of law. A declaration of war extenuates that prohibition regarding combatants, and even those killed collaterally.

    If a key member of a group is guilty of waging war in a non-combat area; the procedure exists to convict in absentia. al-Awlaki was never charged with any crime. His 16 year old son, never accused on any wrong-doing was similarly killed by drone attack two weeks later while dining with his cousins in a roadside restaurant. They were simply looking for his father. Where is the justification for that murder?

  • June 25, 2014 at 10:36am

    What a stupid waste of electrons.

    In reply to the contribution Dear Conservatives, Stop Saying This

  • [1] June 24, 2014 at 1:11pm

    Silly Rabbit: education loans aren’t designed to pay for education they are intended to indebt the voter with another tool to coerce their vote. As in “vote for the other party and they’ll change the deal for payback”, etc.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    Responses (1) +
  • June 11, 2014 at 11:33am

    It’s not only OK, but should be government-funded; to massacre the un-born at a rate of 1,000,000 a year…and these nincompoops wonder why human life has no value! Guns are never the problem…the psychos are the problem; and they’ll use whatever they can to accomplish their crimes.

  • June 5, 2014 at 2:24am

    Sunstein makes a habit of leaving-out critical elements of quotations that don’t suit his outlandish positions.

    Every federal, State and local Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officer is required to take a solemn oath as a PREREQUISITE to being delegated any government authority; to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the US”. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US.

    Therefore whenever a sworn officer pontificates substantial changes to the Constitution; they necessarily repudiate their oath of office and should be removed from office.

  • [2] June 1, 2014 at 7:12am

    Seems to me we left a bunch in Benghazi; and there’s at least on in a Mexican prison…

  • June 1, 2014 at 6:59am

    Will Congress ever fulfill it’s sworn duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the US”?

  • May 20, 2014 at 8:54am

    Close the border until Tahmorressi is released and returned to the US. We have armed Mexican military violating our sovereignty on a regular basis but they aren’t imprisoned. We have thousands of square miles in border states that are officially “No Man Land” because armed Mexican traffickers are encamped to protect their smuggling routes.

    This is an outrage of the highest order!

  • [1] May 3, 2014 at 10:15am

    Has the president done a single effective act to increase jobs? The ‘Stimulus’ went to pay-back his Union political supporters. He chased the highest paying jobs in the Gulf to Brazil; he’s declared war on coal, eliminating the highest paying jobs in the Appalachians; he’s fought the XL Pipeline and delayed it’s thousands of jobs for years; he’s made food and electricity unaffordable; he gave Chrysler/Jeep to Fiat; screwed white collar Delphi employees out of their pensions; has made health care unaffordable and taken control of it from patients and doctors and given it to un-elected bureaucrats; and turned the IRS into a punitive arm of his administration. Any jobs not destroyed have been buried in thousands of new, indecipherable regulations and mandates that make American producers un-competitive in global commerce: and that is a future job-killer.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 3, 2014 at 12:54am

    So, the president is disturbed by a botched execution of a heinous animal that beat, raped, bound and shot victims before burying one of them alive because it took 43 minutes for the scumbag to die after 15 years of maneuvering since his conviction.

    Yet the president openly supports the violent dismembering of innocent living infants without a trace of ‘due process of law” over 1,000,000 times a year in the US alone.

    That is one hypocritical cur!

123 To page: Go