Monday, 14 July 2014

A bill, H.r. 2389, was presented in Congress in 2005

A bill, H.r. 2389, was presented in Congress in 2005 which, if instituted into law, would have stripped the Supreme Court and most elected courts of the ability to consider any legitimate difficulties to government obliging or advertising of the Pledge of Allegiance. H.r. 2389 was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2006, however fizzled after the Senate did not take up the bill. This movement is seen when all is said in done as court stripping by Congress over the Judiciary. Regardless of the possibility that a comparative bill is established, its pragmatic impact may not be clear: advocates of the bill have contended that it is a legitimate activity of Congress' energy to control the ward of the government courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, yet rivals question whether Congress has the power to keep the Supreme Court from listening to cases focused around the Bill of Rights (since revisions postdate the first content of the Constitution and may in this manner verifiably restrain the extent of Article III, Section 2). Judges and lawful experts have voiced worries that Congress can strip or expel from the legal limb the capability to figure out whether enactment is established.

Mark J. Pelavin, previous Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, questioned court stripping with respect to the Pledge of Allegiance, "Today's House appropriation of the supposed "Promise Protection Act" is a dishonorable exertion to strip our government courts of their capacity to maintain the privileges of all Americans. By uprooting the purview of elected courts, including the Supreme Court, from cases including the Pledge, this enactment sets a risky point of reference: debilitating religious freedom, trading off the indispensable arrangement of governing rules whereupon our administration was established, and giving Congress the power to strip the courts' locale on any issue it wishes. Today, the issue was the Pledge of Allegiance, yet tomorrow it could be conceptive rights, social liberties, or whatever viable central concern."

In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, a government region court in Florida decided that a 1942 state law obliging understudies to stand and present the Pledge of Allegiance damages the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.s. Constitution. As a consequence of that choice, a Florida school area was requested to pay $32,500 to a learner who picked not to say the vow and was mocked and called "unpatriotic" by an educator.

In 2009, a Montgomery County, Maryland, instructor upbraided and had school police uproot a 13-year-old young lady who declined to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. The understudy's mother, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, looked for and got an expression of remorse from the instructor, as state law and the school's learner handbook both restrict understudies from being compelled to present the Pledge.

On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit maintained the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance on account of Newdow v. In a 2–1 choice, the re-appraising court decided that the words were of a "stately and devoted nature" and did not constitute a station of religion. Judge Stephen Reinhardt contradicted, composition that "the state-regulated, educator headed every day recitation in government funded schools of the corrected 'under God' variant of the Pledge of Allegiance... damages the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."

On November 12, 2010, in an unanimous choice, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston confirmed a decision by a New Hampshire lower government court which found that the promise's reference to God does not abuse non-promising understudies' rights if learner interest in the vow is willful. An United States Supreme Court claim of this choice was denied on June 13, 2011.

All states with the exception of five (Hawaii, Iowa, Oklahoma, Vermont and Wyoming) give time for the promise to be discussed as a major aspect of the school day. Albeit 45 states explicitly give time for the promise, it is still at the carefulness of the nearby school prepare to leave and/or the individual instructor.

In September 2013, a case was brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court contending that the vow dama

Friday, 15 February 2013

Right Wing Militia Fanatic

These people are members of an underground militia which holds suspicion that The Government is going to declare martial law, seize everybody's guns, and perhaps cede national sovereignty to the United Nations to form a One World Order, or implant everyone with microchips to make it easier to track them, and start sending patriots like them to prison camps any day now — but not on their watch! Particularly unsympathetic examples will have those displaying neo-Nazi sympathies. The methods employed by the more fanatical of them may even include brazen violence and terrorism toward the government.

While the militia movement has antecedents going back decades (many militias themselves claim the "Minutemen" of The American Revolution as spiritual predecessors), most of these characters appeared during The Nineties in American media, particularly after the Ruby Ridge incident, the Waco Siege and the Oklahoma City bombing, which involved government confrontations with supposed Real Life versions of these characters. The truth about them is a bit more complicated; see the Analysis page for more.

Militias died down after the surge in patriotism that accompanied 9/11 (although some of the more radical groups contended that the whole thing was an inside job), as well as Clinton's replacement with a supposedly right-wing president, but the last couple of years have seen militia membership surge to levels not seen since The Nineties. Most of this has been attributed to a bad economy, increased "security" such as the Patriot Act over the past decade, the election of a Democratic President and anger over health care reform and immigration. 

They are seen in many different ways by different Americans, considered evil by some, but right by others. Disagreements even rage within their own number: a great many follow libertarian or traditionalist ideals, opposing the unnecessary violence and edgy attitude of the Neo-Nazis. The majority of the militias do not actually engage in terrorist activity like the media often portrays them of doing, but rather merely seek to train for trouble and keep an eye on the ever-expanding Federal government.

Thursday, 9 August 2012


Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"; according to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.
In his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Neil Postman states that "the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming....(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are 'false', but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false."

The behavior of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from the behavior of a fanatic by the fanatic's violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fan's behavior may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms. A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Red-necked Grebe

The Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) is a migratory aquatic bird that is found in the temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. Its wintering habitat is largely restricted to calm waters just beyond the waves around ocean coasts, although some birds may winter on large lakes. Grebes prefer shallow bodies of fresh water such as lakes, marshes or fish-ponds as breeding sites.

The Red-necked Grebe is a nondescript dusky-grey bird in winter. During the breeding season, it acquires the distinctive red neck plumage, black cap and contrasting pale grey face from which its name was derived. It also has an elaborate courtship display and a variety of loud mating calls. Once paired, it builds a nest from water plants on top of floating vegetation in a shallow lake or bog.

Like all grebes, the Red-necked is a good swimmer, a particularly swift diver, and responds to danger by diving rather than flying. The feet are positioned far back on the body, near the tail, which makes the bird ungainly on land. It dives for fish or picks insects off vegetation; it also swallows its own feathers, possibly to protect the digestive system. The conservation status of its two subspecies—P. g. grisegena found in Europe and western Asia, and the larger P. g. holboelii in North America and eastern Siberia—is evaluated as Least Concern, and the global population is stable or growing.