October 31, 2006

Referencing the letter of October 26, 2006 discussing the problems concerning the Dress Code at Shannon Forest Christian School, we appreciate the administration’s desire to reign in those parents of students who openly defy the published SFCS dress code. What became apparent through this letter and the accompanying survey is that a final decision to impose school uniforms for the coming school year has already been made.

While we certainly appreciate that the appearance of some of the students seems to constitute violations of the SFCS Dress Code, we do not understand why we are about to become penalized for the insubordination of other parents and students. Prior to our decision to move our children to SFCS, we were aware of the SFCS Dress Code. Since becoming part of the SFCS family, we have taken upon ourselves to ensure that our sons were in compliance with this policy as well as all other policies. This is our responsibility as parents. We think it quite reasonable to believe that the SFCS administration should possess enough authority to enforce the Dress Code as-is without needless quibbling over the definitions of words such as flip flops, sandals, modesty, etc.

We live in a bizarre society that seems to habitually debate definitions as a means to justify unacceptable behavior. Just recall Bill Clinton’s antics or remember how that South Carolina now has to vote about the definition of marriage! We believe that SFCS should not cater to those who are empowered by such ineffectual arguments.

Another area of our concern is the passive manner in which the school uniform attire is being presented. The letter of October 26 says nothing about school uniforms. The attached survey professes to seek our opinions, but on it we find no indication that our opinion of school uniform attire is desired. Indeed, we have no reason to believe that the section for additional comments (to which we now respond) is nothing more than a feigned attempt to create the illusion of collaboration.

Part of the reason we left our previous school was because of their school uniform policy. While on the surface it sounded like a good idea, the policy was a mounting burden upon us that eventually became unacceptable. We pursued enrollment at SFCS partially because our children could wear normal clothing within the stated standards.

The school uniform attire created an entirely new social competition. New ways were constantly being invented to stretch the rules, introducing immodesty into what was sold as an impregnable bastion of virtue. The number of rules as well as their complexity multiplied beyond comprehension. The dress code got so bad that acceptable underwear was being defined and the heels of girl’s shoes were being measured. Blouses and shirts would be too tight (but then who’s going to define too tight?). Skirts and trousers would be too short (but who’s to say what is too short?). Parents debated and argued, thinking that as long as their children wore the uniform attire they would be OK – Right? Wrong. The matter of enforcement was just as subjective as ever. Then of course was the ever-present exceptions granted to the children belonging to the families of the largest donors and those with the most tuition-bearing students. All this transpired while we were forced to accommodate a rapidly changing complex schedule of uniform changes and combinations.

We think that definitions should be uniform, not clothing. By our recollection, the SFCS handbook seems to be quite clear concerning dress code. After reading it, we were quite clear concerning what types of clothing were and were not acceptable. We believe that the administration should not waffle on definitions and enforce the dress code as defined.

We think that parents (such as ourselves) who have made the conscious effort to comply with all policies of SFCS (including the dress code) are now being penalized because of the lack of cooperation by other parents and by the administration’s apparent lack of will to enforce existing policy. We would like to see the burden of dress code compliance placed upon violators, not upon us. We suggest that those who continue to defy SFCS policy should be dismissed.

We appreciate the time you have expended on consideration of our thoughts. Our desire is to see the existing dress code enforced without the expensive, intrusive, and ineffective imposition of uniform attire.

Best regards,

Say Anything has some good observations about the hospital that incinerates aborted babies with the trash:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/culture_of_abortion/

This is a must read to get updated on current attitudes toward legalized murder.

We already know that politics in South Carolina are just as corrupt as elsewhere in the country - or in the world for that matter. Does anyone recall how the state went after video poker because of its alleged violation of South Carolina’s anti-gambling laws? Remember how the very second the video poker industry was shut down that we started hearing the drumbeat calls for a state lottery? The illiterate dufusses here in South Carolina swallowed the whole thing just about as easily as they swallowed the recent bogus property tax relief.

We were told that the lottery would benefit those seeking higher education in the state. Those that had no means to attend college could get a chance through lottery-funded scholarships. Sounded great and the ignorant masses voted the lottery in. That was then.

This is now. Finally a newspaper has printed what we knew would happen, know is happening, and know will happen: Tuition has soared at an uncontrolled, unjustifiable, and out-of-proportional rate since the Education Lottery began. Now, the only way to get tuition to be about the same as it is in other states is with lottery scholarships. We know that not everyone can get a lottery scholarship, so we thus understand that the net result of the Education Lottery is less education and more money flooding the coffers of the institutional and governmental big-wheels.

Once more, I am left to wonder: Am I the only one who understands that government always makes things worse?

Read the article HERE.
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6189119p-5410966c.html

From the BBC:

I guess the warnings worked so well the first time….

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6059240.stm

Read the rest of the article HERE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6059240.stm

It starts in the Oval Office with El Presidente and apparantly permeates every level.  This time it was Secretary of State Rice endorsing the sodomite lifestyle and its associated undermining American society.  The Republicrat traitors in charge came up with a sodomite openly living with another sodomite in open abomination for all to see.  This sodomite is now in charge of AIDS initiatives and they are stealing your wages and mine to support this person.

That WorldNet Daily reports this news is a good thing because you won’t see this in the Drive-By Media.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52472

WND Rice’s approving ‘gay’ remarks rankle GOP base
Secretary welcomed new AIDS ambassador’s ‘mother-in-law’
Posted: October 17, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Bush administration’s swearing-in of an openly homosexual global AIDS ambassador and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s approving remarks during the ceremony about his lifestyle are reflective of a Republican party “identity crisis,” say some family advocates in the nation’s capital.

While the party wants the support of “values voters,” it also is courting homosexuals and seems willing to appease the movement’s radical agenda, USA Today said in a feature story.

Rice and first lady Laura Bush spoke for the administration at the Oct. 10 swearing-in at the State Department where Dybul was accompanied by his male partner, Jason Claire. Rice, during her comments, referred to the presence of Claire’s mother and called her Dybul’s “mother-in-law.”

According to the State Department transcript, Rice said:

Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark’s parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason; and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that’s always important to us. Welcome.

The use of a term normally reserved for legally married heterosexual families rankled Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, who called Rice’s comments “profoundly offensive,” according to Agape Press.

The secretary’s remarks, he said, fly in the face of the Bush administration’s endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment.

“We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” said Sprigg. “But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner’s family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing.”

Read the rest of this artice:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52472

Of course, while Sanford should not have appeared before this largely despotic group of racists anywhere, he should not give them the benefit of one moment of his thought until they end their disgraceful and babyish “Economic Boycott” of the Governor’s state.

What came out though is the fear: fear and anger that Sanford has the nerve to propose higher standards in education.  Government education is a failure.  If it was worth anything, its proponents would not be concerned about competition.  Problem is, giving parents a choice in education will doom the unionized Democrat Socialist stranglehold that forces filthy, immoral, communist, politically correct indoctrination upon every child in the state.

“It still doesn’t fix the issue,” Shelton said. “Choice takes money out of the system; out of the public education system and gives it to a small set of young people and allows them to go to a private school. Which is fine. The challenge for a lot of us is taking money out of an already strapped public school system and giving it to a private school.”

The more strapped the Government School System in South Carolina becomes, the more it must make available school choice in the form of tax credits, rebates, or vouchers.  South Carolina taxpayers are paying approximately $13,000 for each student’s inadequate education every year.  This enormous sum overshadows the most of the state’s most elite private and prestiegious schools.  In other words, the NAACP favors forced inadequate education for no other reason than political points. Every child in the state could attend a high quality private school for less than what the state is now paying.  This saves the state money, while improving the lives of its young citizens.  Most parents who cannot afford private school would welcome the Governor’s plan, taking the opportunity to help their children have a brighter future.

It’s time to stop the fear-mongering and let market forces decide the fate of government education and the welfare of our youth!

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=162563

“The price of same-sex marriage is paid by the children,” said Romney during a brief but peppy speech from Boston duringa forum hosted by the Family Research Council. “The child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of parents of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father.”

We have already begun to suffer from the wealthy elite South Carolinian’s property tax relief. What a shocker all the pathetic (and typical) property owners had when they discovered that tax relief meant a tax increase for all but the most wealthy in the state!!

They are at it again. A misleading and deceptive poll question on the ballet leads the typical voter to say, “Yes!” The State, however, exposes this cherade as just one more way the state seeks to bankroll a small minority of citizens (who need no public assistance to start with) at the expense of those working families that are in most need of relief.

The standard operating procedure of South Carolina government has become tricking average taxpayers into voting to raise their own taxes. Everyone in South Carollina Government from the Governor down to the janitor should be ashamed that our representatives would resort to such lewd tactics.

Why do the representatives promote such deception and betrayal? Probably because they will benefit from it as well!

Read the article, then vote NO to more state sponsored enrichment of the wealthy. Maybe one day we can get some real people to represent us and thus act in the interests of all the people.

The tax rollback that’s mostly a hike

By HOWARD DUVALL

Guest columnist

On Nov. 7, the voters in South Carolina will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to two articles of the state constitution. These articles deal with the valuation of property for tax purposes.

The explanation for Question 4 reads this way:

“This amendment will limit increases in the value of a parcel of real property for purposes of imposing the property tax to no more than fifteen percent every five years after the current value of the property has been adjusted: (1) to reflect improvements made to the parcel; (2) to reflect a decline in the value of the parcel; and (3) to reflect the value of the parcel when ownership of the property changes as the General Assembly by law defines such changes.”

Wow, the voter will think. I have an opportunity to limit my property taxes! I had better vote “Yes” on this amendment!

Well, this may not be the deal you think it is.

Several studies warn that capping the appraised value of property at no more than 15 percent increase over five years will result in higher taxes for most taxpayers. The artificial cap causes a shift of the tax liability from rapidly increasing properties to those that do not increase so quickly in value. In plain language, from the higher-income taxpayer to the lower-income taxpayer.

The chairman of the Greenville County Council says 62 percent of the properties in the county will see an increase caused by the reassessment cap. A study by Miley and Associates completed in March 2006 shows that $7.2 billion in taxable value will be shifted in just four counties: Beaufort, Berkeley, Florence and Richland. A study on a 15 percent cap in Beaufort County says, the higher rollback millage after capped reassessment means that many property owners will see a higher tax bill than they would have after conventional reassessment.

Why do these studies show that two out of three property owners will pay more taxes under the proposed cap? Local governments are required by state law to roll back their tax rate after each reassessment so that the same revenue is received to provide services. Protecting higher-valued properties will result in a higher-than-necessary tax rate on all properties. This includes automobiles, motorcycles, pickups and other forms of personal property.

Compounding the problem, business owners and renters will be hit with a double whammy: higher property taxes and higher sales taxes without the benefit of any rollback in school taxes. This cost will be passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

So before you go to the polls on Nov. 7, think about your personal tax situation. Are you the one out of three taxpayers who will benefit from this amendment, or will you, like most South Carolina taxpayers, be left picking up the slack from the wealthy?

As if we didn’t know this already…

http://newsbusters.org/node/8221

Shays Hits Hard In Page Scandal
Invokes Chappaquiddick In Rebuking Farrell; Polls Show Issue Not Helping Democrats
October 11, 2006
By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON — When the congressional page scandal broke last month, Democrats across the country saw a chance to lambaste Republican leadership - including Diane Farrell, who called on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to step down.

But when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy came to Connecticut last week to help her campaign, Rep. Christopher Shays hit back.

“I know the speaker didn’t go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day,” said Shays, R-4th District, referring to the 1969 incident in which the Massachusetts Democrat drove a car that plunged into the water and a young campaign worker died.

“Dennis Hastert didn’t kill anybody,” he added.

Click HERE for the entire article