Lawsuit Filed Against Texas School For Punishing Student Who Refused to Recite The Mexican Pledge of Allegiance

Because Texas had the audacity to refuse Obama’s Core Curriculum, along with the associated textbooks, they are under a major attack from the Progressive Commies who have flocked to Texas in an attempt to turn the state Blue. 

In the near future, expect to see more examples of teachers in Texas bullying students into compliance with Progressive ideals:

In one Texas School, Students have the Right to Opt-Out of Reciting the American Pledge of Allegiance . . . but Not the Mexican Pledge; Lawsuit Filed

ThomasMore.org

ANN ARBOR, MI – Just as the 2011 school year began, Brenda Brinsdon, then a 15 year-old sophomore at Achieve Early College High School (AECHS) in McAllen Texas, was thrust into the national spotlight after she refused to stand up, extend her arms straight out with palms down and recite the Mexican Pledge of Allegiance and sing the Mexican National Anthem.  Reyna Santos, the Spanish 3 teacher, required all her students to recite this allegiance to Mexico. Click here to see local news coverage.

When the time came for the students to stand up and recite the Mexican pledge, Brenda Brinsdon refused.   Brenda, born in the United States, is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an American father.  Brenda is fluent in Spanish and English and is proud of her Mexican heritage, but she is a true blooded American.  So to Brenda, the words of the pledge have a deep meaning. Her conscience and patriotism would not allow her to participate in the assignment.  She believed it was ‘un-American’ and she was exercising her constitutional right not to be forced to pledge allegiance to Mexico.  The school punished her for her refusal.

As a result, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with local Texas attorney Jerad Najvar, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Brenda and her father William Brinsdon claiming that school officials violated Brenda’s  constitutional rights. Click here to read the federal lawsuit.

Ironically, the assignment to recite the Mexican pledge was given during the school’s celebration of Freedom Week, marking the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks and also on U.S. Constitution Day.  According to the McAllen School District policy for Special Programs, social studies classes during Freedom Week were required to recite the text of the Declaration of Independence.  However, excusals from recitation are granted for students who have a conscientious objection.

The longstanding Supreme Court decision, West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, (1943), and the school district’s own policy prohibit a school from compelling students to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance.  However, the School District ignored those rules when Brenda Brinsdon refused to recite the Mexican pledge.

Brenda’s refusal was not well received by her teacher, Reyna Santos, or the school principal, Yvette Cavasos.  Both tried to coerce her to recite the Mexican pledge, saying this was just an assignment.  Brenda attempted to discuss reasons for her refusal to pledge allegiance to a country other than the United States with both Santos and Cavasos. When Brenda did not back down, she was punished.

West Point Teaches Cadets That Conservatives Are Terrorists

Of course, Obama has been given the green light to kill American “terrorists” without due process of law.

Nope.  I don’t see any problems there…  /sarcasm:

West Point Cadets Taught Patriots Are Terrorists

By Victor Thorn – American Free Press

• Influential study published by an Israeli academic at America’s top military school seeks to brainwash future military leaders into believing those who advocate small government, individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty are the enemy

At West Point where cadets are groomed into officers, a new 148-page report released on January 15 is urging enlisted men and women to be on alert for “terrorists” in the form of those who consider themselves patriots.

This study, released by the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, is entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” Its author, Professor Arie Perliger, the Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center and Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, holds membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, as well as being a former instructor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Considering his background, Perliger warns that growing legions of conservative-minded citizens across the U.S. pose a serious threat to our nation’s safety. Yet, whom precisely does Perliger deem as being affiliated with what he labels the “violent far right?”

In his own words, Perliger placed a bulls-eye on those who “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.”

Even more specifically, Perliger asserted that other so-called extremists fall into the categories of anti-federalists, fundamentalist Christians, survivalists, gun-rights advocates, libertarians, pro-lifers, and those who oppose high taxation.

Not content with simply fingering these broad-reaching factions, Perliger zeroed in on another favorite globalist target. “Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a New World Order.”

This umbrella characterization includes constitutionalists, those wary of a growing police state, and political activists such as some tea partiers. Thus, by using manipulative, emotionally-charged language intended to divide-and-conquer, Perliger equates those interested in preserving their individual freedoms with skinheads, neo-Nazis and militia members. Or, even more condescendingly, he smears conservatives as being backward, archaic and living in an era that has passed them by. In contrast, Perliger applauds liberals as future-oriented and progressive in their views.

Dr. Herbert W. Titus, a constitutional law professor and former dean of the Regent University School of Law “says it’s an attempt to link conservative thought with violence.”

[...]

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this post over at American Free Press.

Ohio Poll Worker Update: Now Suspected of Voting At Least 6 Times For Obama!

But, voter ID laws are racist, doncha’ know:

Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation

By Eric Shawn – FOX News

The Obama/Biden lawn sign remains proudly planted in front of Melowese Richardson’s Cincinnati home, three months after the presidential election.

It seems that President Obama has an especially ardent supporter in the veteran Ohio poll worker.

Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice for Obama last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well.

“Yes, I voted twice,” Richardson told WCPO-TV. “I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

“I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States,” Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.

Richardson is one of 19 people suspected of illegal voting by the Hamilton County Board of Elections in the last election.

[...]

“It appears she not only attempted to vote more than once, but was actually successful at it and having those additional votes counted,” Ohio Secretary of State John Husted, who is in charge of the state’s elections, told Fox News.

“She appears to have used her position as a poll worker to cover her tracks. That would be someone who is an official in the elections process, using that position to commit a fraud. That is especially troubling to me, as the chief elections officer of the state, because it is my responsibility to make sure the system runs effectively, that it has integrity.

[...]

 

 

Ronin’s Common Sense Solutions to Gun Control Measures

By Ronin, 14 Feb 13 With all the calls for common sense gun control measures like the recent NY ban on what idiots refer to as “assault” weapons”, “large clips” and sensible solutions like weapon registration, limits to ammo etc.  I thought I would add a little stick to stir the pot. 

The easiest way to fight back is not to play their game.  No living politician wrote the constitution and none of them can change it.  Politicians will attempt to force compliance with a variety of measures from painting those that refuse as criminals, insane, dangerous, outlaws.  They will also offer rewards and pick a few misguided cowards (those that do as they say) and parade them around in the press as heroes (after all they surrendered their guns).

Educate each other, hunters and sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners as the media refer to us are all in this together.  Unfortunately a few will drink the cool-aid, remind them once we are divided we are easily all disarmed.   We are only demanding our rights be respected; we do not all live in a gated community with armed guards.   If we are ever disarmed, immediately start making demands that police are also.  We can win without breaking laws using civil disobedience, outright resistance and refusal and only as a last resort, unlawful methods.  Face it, we or one of our kind, will instantly turn from law abiding citizen to felon overnight at that point you have very little to lose.   

So what to do?  First and foremost do the research.  Identify everyone that voted for any restriction, call them, write them or visit them.  Let them know using any method that you can that you will never again vote for them or any other member of their political party.   Let them know that you will volunteer to help anyone running against them and follow through.  I suggest you publish your list and letters on facebook or similar social media so others can join in the ban the politician party.

It may be a small number but I believe at least some politicians are hoping for a few outraged gun owners to bunker up and fight to the death.  This will add endless proof that gun owners really are a problem.  Politicians would then call for confiscation, extreme criminal penalties for non-compliance and a host of other punishments.  Call their bluff; their worst nightmare is an outraged public asking why they are targeting citizens over criminals.  The closer to an election the better, trust me they do not want drama then.  Watch the blogs and watch and spread our outrage when these idiots actually grow a set and arrest someone for not registering a weapon.  We will expose, the who, what and why, that is what we do.  You can help. 

Because I think fighting first responders is wrong when politicians are the actual problem (and we can just vote those idiots out).  We need a nonviolent solution.  This would be the easy way to defeat this problem.  Monitor the crime stats for your area and call and report someone carrying an evil assault weapon in the most gang active area you can find.  Other options could also be fun, like tossing weapons in neighborhoods near the homes of officers, they leave those shiny cars in the driveway, report them for noncompliance.  If you get caught you were turning the weapon in, as framing an officer is not exactly legal but then again neither is placing limits on our 2^nd amendment rights. I do not want to be a criminal, they have no right to make me one.

The Liberal Hatred of Guns is Really a Hatred of Individualism

Well, it’s kind of a slow news day.  That is, unless you buy into the Lame Stream Media’s spin and think a guy drinking water while giving a rebuttal to the SOTU address is somehow a major news item.  

News Flash!  Airplane lands safely at airport!  

Squirrel!!!

Anyway, while I was catching up on the news and blog posts, I came across the following article by Neal Boortz and enjoyed it so much that I thought I’d share it with you all.

Enjoy!:

Why the Liberal Hatred of Citizens With Guns?

By Neal Boortz
2/13/2013 – TownHall.com

You’re snug in your cabin in the mountains outside of Big Bear, California. Snug, but fearful. They’re searching for a killer near you. A terrifying, heavily armed former cop from Los Angeles who has gone on a killing rampage.

Suddenly you hear gunshots. You part the curtains to look outside … and there’s the man whose picture you’ve seen countless times on TV over the past few days running toward your house as he returns fire to police officers in pursuit.

Just a few weeks ago you had been considering buying an AR-15 just in case it might be needed to defend your home from predators of the two and the four-legged variety. They don’t call the place Big Bear for nothing. You couldn’t buy one, though, because private ownership of these weapons had been outlawed. That didn’t stop the killer. He was carrying one … that along with several pistols. The law didn’t seem to deter him at all. The murderer was still far enough away that you could stop him with one shot through your window, but that option had been taken away by anti-gun zealots.

Somehow you don’t feel comfortable with only your handgun and it’s seven-shot magazine to protect you from this approaching danger. You know the killer, who is rapidly nearing your door, is much more heavily armed than you. Things aren’t looking all that rosy for you and your family right now.

Why did this have to happen? Why were these liberals — these Democrats — so hell-bent on reducing your capacity to act in your own self-defense in a situation just such as this?

Interesting question, isn’t it? Setting statistics aside — the statistics on the number of people shot by lunatics on killing sprees versus the statistics on the number of times a civilian uses a privately-owned firearm to defend themselves every year, usually without ever having to pull the trigger – leaving those statistics aside, just what is it about the liberal Democrat mind that brings forth this primal fear, this hatred of the idea that a private individual would own a gun and use that gun in self defense?

I think I have some ideas here. Let’s share:

The liberal penchant for gun control starts with their obsession with controlling the lives and actions of those considered to be their inferiors … and anyone not liberal is inferior. To amplify the point; progs believe that their innate intellectual superiority gives them a right to control the lives of the not-so-bright. You can only buy a 12 ounce soft drink, you ignorant fool. Stop putting all that salt on your food. You can’t negotiate your own contract with an employer. We’ll tell you how much you’re allowed to work for. Union membership is not a decision for you to make. We’ll make that decision for you. We know best. Do as we say and you’ll be just fine.

L.A. Residents Live in Fear of LAPD Mistaking Them For Chris Dorner and Shooting Them

Again, I would just like to point out that cops are, at a minimum, 11 times more likely to accidentally shoot an innocent person than are “civilian” gun owners (who, by the way, shoot and kill twice as many bad guys as the cops).

Apparently, the citizens of Los Angeles and surrounding areas are slowly coming to that realization and have taken it upon themselves to help the police out, just a little:

And, since it doesn’t matter to the LAPD what make, model, or color your truck is, if you live near L.A., you might want to consider purchasing the following bumper sticker from eBay:

Explosive New Book On Benghazi Claims Attack Was In Response to Secret Raids Conducted By John Brennan – Obama’s Pick for New CIA Head

Something tells me we will be hearing a lot about this book in the very near future…:

EXCLUSIVE: David Petraeus was brought down after betrayal by vengeful CIA agents and his own bodyguards who made sure his affair was exposed, claims new book

• Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a former Green Beret, reveal the new claims in their book ‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report’
• Petraeus was humiliated after a ‘palace coup’ by high-level intelligence officers who did not like the way he was running the CIA, authors say
• The book also claims that Petraeus and Ambassador Chris Stevens were caught off guard by Benghazi consulate attack because they weren’t briefed about on-going U.S. military operations in Libya
• Webb and Murphy say Benghazi attack was a retaliation for secret raids authorized by Obama security adviser John Brennan

By MICHAEL ZENNIE – DailyMail.co.uk

David Petraeus was betrayed by his own bodyguards and vengeful high-ranking enemies in the CIA, who made sure his affair with his biographer was exposed to the public, a new book claims.

MailOnline can reveal a new angle on the story that rocked Washington last fall. It comes from two retired special operations commandos – a Navy SEAL and a Green Beret – who say they discovered a plot against the former CIA director while doing research about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Senior CIA officers targeted Petraeus because they didn’t like the way he was running the agency – focusing more on paramilitary operations than intelligence analysis. They used their political clout and their connections to force an FBI investigation of his affair with Paul Broadwell and make it public, according to ‘Benghazi: The Definitive Report.’

‘It was high-level career officers on the CIA who got the ball rolling on the investigation. It was basically a palace coupe to get Petraeus out of there,’ Jack Murphy, one of the authors, told MailOnline.

Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.

The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had ‘kicked a hornet’s nest’ among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing ‘unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,’ according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama’s pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.

Marines at Obama’s Inauguration Were Forced to Disabled Their Weapons

I fancy myself fairly well informed when it comes to Obama’s elitist, dictatorial policies, but even I was caught flatfooted on this one until Gateway Pundit’s, Jim Hoft, cast some light upon it, this morning.

Hey, Obama!   Paranoid, much?  

Pro tip for the Commander-in-Chief:  If you can’t even trust the Marines anymore, you’re doing something TERRIBLY wrong!:

Disabled Marine rifles at inauguration signal shift in administration policy

BY DAVID CODREA – Examiner.com

“Didn’t know the Marines had to take the bolts out of their rifles for the Inaugural,” an email forwarded to Gun Rights Examiner from a United States Marine Corps source observed. “Wonder if someone can explain why [they] would be marching in the inaugural parade with no bolts in their rifles!”

The email linked to a YouTube video of the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade, embedded in this column, featuring Bravo Company Marines from the Marine Barracks Washington. Sure enough, the observation in the email is confirmed by watching the video, with screen shots provided in the photo and slide show accompanying this article.

This prompted an internet search to see if others had also noticed, and the Blur-Brain blog had.

“The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round,” the post stated. “Apparently Obama’s Secret Service doesn’t trust the USMC. Simply searching each guy to make sure he didn’t have a live round hidden on him wasn’t enough, they had to make sure the guns were inoperable.

[...]

Unsurprisingly, a Google news feed search finds no reports on inaugural Marine disarmament in the “Authorized Journalist” media. Chances are, most of them aren’t qualified to notice such things, and that it doesn’t serve the agenda of those who are to point such things out.

CLICK HERE to read this article in its entirety.

71-Year-Old Newspaper Delivery Woman Shot By LAPD; Mistook Her For Cop Killer Chris Dorner

And, to think,  Diane Feinstein’s gun control bill allows active duty cops and those who are retired to own “assault weapons” while excluding “civilian” ownership.

Seems to me that “civilians” would have used better judgement in this instance.

Care to comment on that, Ms. Feinstein?:

Dorner manhunt: Officers opened fire on mother, daughter

February 9, 2013 – LATimes

In their pursuit of a fugitive ex-cop, at least seven officers opened fire on what turned out to be a mother and daughter delivering newspapers on a quiet residential street, law enforcement sources told The Times.

It was “a tragic misinterpretation” by officers working under “incredible tension,” LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said Friday in an interview with The Times.

Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were the victims.

Early Thursday morning, Christopher Jordan Dorner, 33, allegedly shot three police officers, one fatally. And, in an online posting authorities attributed to him, Dorner threatened to kill more police and seemed to take responsibility for the slaying over the weekend of the daughter of a retired LAPD captain and her fiance.

Then around 5 a.m. Thursday in Torrance, police from nearby El Segundo saw a pickup truck exit a freeway and head in the general direction of the Redbeam Avenue residence of a high-ranking Los Angeles police official, which was being guarded by a group of LAPD officers.

A radio call indicated that the truck matched the description of Dorner’s gray Nissan Titan.

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn’t gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn’t Dorner inside the truck, but Carranza and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

[...]

“How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large, black male?” said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Exactly!  What is this?  Shoot first, ask questions later?

[...]

Hernandez was shot twice in her back and is expected to recover. Her daughter escaped with only minor wounds from broken glass.

[...]

Panetta Claims Obama Was Absent During Benghazi Attack – UPDATED

Well…  Had John Q. Public been made aware from day one that Obama was absent from the War Room during the Benghazi attack, I seriously doubt he’d be sitting in the White House, right now.

When I get a chance, I’m going to go back and review some comments Obama made during the debates.  Seems to me that I remember Obama implying that he was in control of the entire situation.  So, someone’s bending the truth, here.  Somewhere…

Anyway, I think I can sum this up with the following cartoon:

Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi
By Daniel Halper – The Weekly Standard blog

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified [yesterday] on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o’clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.”

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

The 5 o’clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, according to Panetta’s recollection, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.

As Bill Kristol wrote in the month after the attack, “Panetta’s position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn’t get to unilaterally decide whether it’s too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country’s air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn’t raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it’s beyond inconceivable he didn’t then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon.”

UPDATE:

Okay, I took a look at the 2nd debate transcript.  Obama sort of starts off in the present-tense, but soon switches to past-tense, then future-tense:

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.

Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.

Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again.

And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we’re going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

Basically, if you parse his language, he’s saying that he found out Benghazi was being overrun while it was occurring, but he’s lying about when he gave those instructions to his “national security team” (whoever-the-hell they might be).

His instructions are clearly given after the fact.

Ergo, he knew about Benghazi when it was going down, but decided it was unimportant. So, he headed off to “wherever” and didn’t give it a second thought until he later found out that Ambassador Stevens and others had been killed.

Yup. Empty chair.