That’s what Alexander Zakharchenko, a leader of the rebels in Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine, is quoted as saying in Christian Neef’s article of that name in Spiegel Online International.
Fair enough. Then you and your rebels should leave Ukraine and move to Russia, which you think is a better nation than Ukraine, anyway. After all, you’re in Ukraine illegally, now.
Federal Judge Andrew Hanen has refused to stay his temporary injunction blocking President Barack Obama’s refusal to deport some 4 million illegal immigrants in Federal custody or whose whereabouts otherwise is known to the Feds. Hanen’s injunction will remain in force while Obama’s men appeal the stay to the 5th Circuit.
Refusing to stay his injunction has the effect, among others, of blocking Obama from pursuing (pending that appeal’s outcome) his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program and his planned expansion of the 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
OF course, enforcing that block is problematic. Aside from the obvious reasons for suspicion, there’s this about that 2012 program from Hanen’s order and ruling:
The Court finds that the Government’s multiple statements on this subject were indeed misleading, as detailed in the Order filed simultaneously with this Order. It also finds that the remedial measure taken by counsel for the Government through the filing of an “advisory” on March 3, 2015, was neither prompt nor fully candid.
Since this administration, once again, has shown it cannot be trusted, there’s no reason to suppose Obama won’t move ahead apace with both programs.
Hanen wasn’t done, though. In a separate order, on the matter of that 2012 program and the President’s men lying about it, Hanen
also issued a separate ruling Tuesday night allowing the states to conduct discovery into their separate claim that the administration, beginning late last year, improperly implemented part of its immigration program, even though it had allegedly represented to Judge Hanen that it wouldn’t do so until February.
There’s a school district in Prince George’s County, MD (which works out to suburban DC), that’s looking to set up two public (not private) high schools for immigrants and second generation students who don’t speak English—and to teach in their old country language.
The NAACP is objecting, and they’re right on this one, albeit for some wrong reasons. Bob Ross, president of the Prince George’s County branch of the NAACP, had this:
It risks turning Prince George’s County into a segregated school system[.]
He said the setup is a violation of Brown v Board of Education, and he’s close. He’s also worried that this will divert resources from the existing school system, and he’s right here, too. This objection, though, isn’t that important; any effort to add schools will divert those resources.
Tehani Collazo, Senior Director of Casa’s Schools and Community Engagement section, disagreed, also with reason:
If we are saying all [English-language-learning] students must go to these schools, that’s one thing. But we are not.
Like the many that already exist across the country, the International Schools are schools of choice. They are built on an innovative and proven model that will help support the needs of our most struggling group of learners—English Language Learners.
They’re both missing the larger point, though, about American education in this context. The segregation argument is close, but it misses. Brown was about forced segregation; this is voluntary.
On the other hand, “schools of choice” are appropriate for a lot of things, but not in this context. There can’t be any choice about being taught in English.
Immigrants need to assimilate into American culture; it’s our culture that has created the opportunities we have and that underlie our enormous success. Our culture isn’t learned by students and their families holding themselves apart from it, which is what happens when students go to American schools to learn in their own language instead of in English.
Language is thought, and English is the language of American culture. It’s entirely likely that English needs to be taught with greater emphasis in those of our public schools that have large fractions of their student populations who don’t speak a version of English natively. However, public funds should not be spent on public schools that will teach only in a foreign language. That’s not how American culture will be learned; that’s not how immigrants will assimilate.
And a righteous one.
The public schools’ association for religion teachers, Religionslærerforeningen, has today urged that the controversial Mohammed Cartoons, which were first printed in Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, should become part of the public school curriculum as quickly as possible.
The RLF is a Danish teachers’ organization. The Danish government is starting to get on board, too.
And now, several political parties—including Socialdemokraterne, Dansk Folkeparti (DF) and Konservative—have voiced their support for that idea, although the degree of support varies.
“It would be natural for the cartoons to become part of the material that the teachers can choose to use,” [according to Konservative’s spokeswoman Mai Mercado].
DF is a bit more forward in its view of the matter. According to their immigration spokesman, Martin Henriksen,
One of our time’s great challenges is the threat from Islamism and the pressure on freedom rights that have built up over many years.
If they really want to do something right, in terms of making sure that the students—including those with a Muslim background—know which freedom rights we have in Denmark, they should go all the way.
h/t The Washington Post.
It’s out.
This is the first of a pair of publications on American policy; the other is concerned with National Policy, which consists of foreign and defense policy.
Domestic Policy both is necessary in its own right and must come before National Policy since a sound policy domestically is absolutely required both for the health of the nation within our borders and to facilitate—indeed, to enable—any form of outward-facing policy at the national level.
Domestic Policy is a combination of social and economic policies. Social Policy consists of these things: the concept of the American nation; American citizenship; the role of faith in our society; the role of immigration and its importance to our society; the importance of consensus; and the role of education.
Economic Policy consists of these things: the nature of a free market and its condition as the most moral system and the one most conducive to generating prosperity for all (even though there always will be some more or less prosperous than others), the role of the Federal government in protecting and enhancing our economy, and the role of Federal regulation in facilitating our economy.
Of course, these two major divisions of Domestic Policy are not truly separate from each other any more than biology, chemistry, and physics are separate from each other within science. Just as we divide scientific disciplines from each other to facilitate inquiry and discussion, I’m separating domestic policy into these divisions to facilitate a similar inquiry and discussion—while remaining fully aware and making occasional use of their very large areas of overlap.
The book is available in eBook form from amazon.com (amzn.to/1wY4RA8) and from Barnes&Noble (bit.ly/1DYN4xE)