In two weeks On January 16th, there will be a nullification rally in Austin at the Capitol building.  Details are here.  More on the movement is here.  Texas has passed a bill through the house reasserting our 10th amendment rights (not health-care specific).  I’m sure there will be more to come! 

Rasmussen is reporting (via Hot Air headlines) that 47% of those who oppose health care believe states should have the right to opt out.  There are plenty of us out there — we just need to keep the focus on the issue.

This is becoming a pattern with Obama.

I saw this last night on the crawl over at FNC.  I meant to write about it, but then I saw it covered over at Hot Air.  Ed, as usual, has the bases covered.   Obama’s nominee for TSA chief lied about illegally accessing the records of his ex wife’s boyfriend (he “forgot” what he did).  The guy will only have access to passport, visa, travel, etc information on passengers flying (is it only flying) through the US.  I’m sure he won’t look up any private info at THAT job.  Nah.   But, oh, heaven forbid we have the option of using a body scanner (which, admittedly, probably isn’t the best answer to the problem either) instead of a pat down at the airport because some person, who won’t see your face, will be able to see your love handles. 

Does Obama only seek out people who have violated the rules which they will be entrusted to enforce?  Geithner as Treasury Sec. (evaded taxes).  Holder as AG (he recommended Rich be pardoned AND his old firm represents many GITMO detainees).   Richardson for Commerce Sec. (investigated for pay-for-play scheme; withdrew name).  Rattner as Car Czar (charged with running auto industry but investigated for kickbacks for investing in a pension fund; eventually quit).  The list goes on.

I wonder if Obama will just go ahead and nominate a “reformed” terrorist to take over for Napolitano when she gets thrown under the bus.  Maybe that’s his angle — if you know how to break the rules, you better know how to enforce them or fix them.  Hmmm.

Unfortunately, this letter is real.  I tried to find the teacher on the faculty list, but instead, I found discussions in local papers about the letter here and here.  Both articles refer to a comment by the author stating his letter “speaks for itself.” 

The reason for my extra double take is that after reading the letter initially and doing a double take, I had to do another one at the reason behind the controversy.  The articles point to the last line of the letter as the birth of the controversy:

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.

That, I believe, is merely rhetoric, because I doubt he would tell a police officer to lay down his weapon should that be the only defense between his child and a killer.  That’s an easy line to say, and many hard-leftists make similarly unprovable statements in the face of defending ideology.

What I thought would be controversial was this:

 … it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others. 

Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.

This line comes during his internal debate of lockdown or flee during a school shooting (apparently, his school was the site of a recent incident).  That line is mind-boggling to me.  He’s saying that if my kid knows how to find shelter better than another, she should suffer like the others because schools should level the playing field.  I can’t even find the words — I’m so shocked by that message. 

And that further begs the question, how does this type of view translate in his math classes?  If I were the parent of one of his students, I’d certainly be asking. 

I’m just aghast.