Contact:
David Page
409 223 3548
PageDavid62@yahoo.com
450 N. Blanton
Lumberton, TX 77657
June 10th, 2010
Hardin County Wrongfully Denies Lumberton Man the right to collect signatures for a petition to prohibit the sale of alcohol in Lumberton. Facts prove that Hardin County is wrong to deny petition. Democracy and the People’s right to vote are under attack in Hardin County.
David Page, a senior citizen and a long time resident of Lumberton who is not against anyone drinking but just likes Lumberton the way it is as a quiet bedroom community, has submitted an application to circulate a petition to prohibit the sale of alcohol within the city limits of Lumberton so Lumberton can stay dry like it always has been.
The county clerk and the county attorney have flat out denied the application for a petition from David Page. Remember last year when they denied Lumberton the right to vote based on some technical questions about the law. Well the State of Texas changed the law just for Lumberton so they could vote. You would think the county would let Lumberton finally get to vote now right? Wrong!
What was the excuse that Hardin County gave David Page for denying his request for a petition?
County Attorney Rebecca Walton told David Page this week, “You want to get a petition together to dry up Lumberton, but Lumberton is already dry. Lumberton is in JP precinct 5 and it is already dry. Everyone who lives in the city limits of Lumberton is in a double dry area. The city is dry and the JP Precinct 5 is dry. The sale of beer is not legal in Lumberton. Nothing is legal in the city limits of Lumberton”
This is completely and factually false. The county attorney is factually wrong and has wrongly denied this application for a petition. By the County Attorney’s own admission, JP Precinct 3 is wet. It is a fact that parts of the west city limits of Lumberton extend well into JP Precinct 3. This means that there are parts of the city limits of Lumberton that are wet because the western city limits of Lumberton extends into the wet JP precinct 3.
So it is an undisputable fact that there are parts of the Lumberton city limits that it is legal to sale alcohol because it is part of JP Precinct 3. So why did the county lie and say that there is no part of Lumberton that is in wet JP Precinct 3 and therefore there is no part of Lumberton that is wet and so Lumberton cannot vote to be dry. The county denied the petition by lying and saying no part of Lumberton is wet but it is a fact that there are parts of the west Lumberton city limits that alcohol is legal because it is in the wet JP Precinct 3.
Maybe the county did not lie. If the county did not lie, then they are just incompetent and do not know the city boundary lines and they do not know how to read a simple map. Wait, that sounds familiar. Didn’t the county already not know their own county precinct lines? There is a gas station in a dry area of Lumberton that is currently selling alcohol because the county allowed that gas station to sell thinking it was in a wet precinct. The county had to come out later and admit that they made a mistake and that the gas station selling alcohol was actually in a dry area and not allowed to sell. But it was too late and the gas station is still selling. Is this another case of the county not knowing the simple boundary lines of the county?
Commissioner Bobby Franklin lives a stone’s throw away from this gas station that sells alcohol. How could he not know where his own precinct lines end and whether or not the gas station was in his dry precinct? How could Councilman Don Burnett not advise the county that this gas station was in a dry precinct. Burnett was on the committee that decided these precinct lines so he had to know that these gas stations were in a dry precinct and should have never sold alcohol. Furthermore, Don Burnett knows that there is a part of Lumberton city limits that is currently wet and yet this councilman has not informed the county attorney. Instead David Page has informed us that councilman Don Burnett called him last week and tried to get him to not do a petition against alcohol and Don Burnett instead was trying to persuade David Page to do a petition to legalize alcohol.
Something fishy has been going on for quite a while. Now it is finally getting exposed. It is a fact that Lumberton is part of the wet JP Precinct 3. This means it is a fact that part of Lumberton is wet. This means that the county either knows this info and simply lied to David Page, or the County is simply incompetent on more than one occasion when it comes to looking at a simple map to see if the city Limits of Lumberton extends into the wet JP precinct 3. Either way, it is not good for the county that they have wrongfully denied David Page a petition. Even worse they have denied the city residents of Lumberton a chance to vote once again. This mistake is so blatant that the county will not be able to talk themselves out of the big mess they are getting themselves into now.
In the past the county has gotten out of trouble by saying they did not know the boundary lines. Well David Page showed the county attorney the map of Lumberton which clearly shows that the city limits of Lumberton extends in the wet JP precinct 3. Even after seeing the map the county still said Lumberton was all dry and could not vote and they rejected the application for a petition. It is believed that David Page will be getting a lawyer soon to sue the county for wrongfully denying him a petition. The county has no chance of winning because any judge looking at a map would be able to see that the county is wrong. Not only is the county wrong for denying the petition. The county has also stalled long enough to possibly make David Page have to wait until next year to do another vote instead of this year as David Page was going to petition for. So the county’s incompetence is once again keeping the people of Lumberton from voting and there would probably be severe legal repercussions for the county for blatantly wrongfully denying David Page a petition to allow the city to vote.
David Page has provided all of the information contained within this email. David Page can be reached at :
David Page
409 223 3548
450 N. Blanton
Lumberton, TX 77657
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
David Bellow Files Lawsuit against United States over Healthcare Bill
Hardin County Texas Resident Files Pro Se Lawsuit against United States over Healthcare Bill
On Wednesday Morning, March 24th, 2010, Lumberton Texas resident, David Bellow, filed a lawsuit against various United States government agencies over the recent healthcare legislation H.R. 3590. This lawsuit was filed within 24 hours of the President signing the bill into law.
Bellow states in the suit that the recent healthcare legislation violates several of his constitutional rights, including an unconstitutional mandate, a direct tax, and 4th Amendment violations.
The full text of the lawsuit, and a statement from David Bellow about the Lawsuit can be read on his website www.DavidBellow.com
"We can no longer just rely on our legislators to do the dirty work. We must get our hands dirty as well. We can no longer just leave it up to the politicians to try to fix this mess. It is too big. We need the people to all stand up and be counted. We need the people of America to get involved and start doing something to save the future of America." - David Bellow
On Wednesday Morning, March 24th, 2010, Lumberton Texas resident, David Bellow, filed a lawsuit against various United States government agencies over the recent healthcare legislation H.R. 3590. This lawsuit was filed within 24 hours of the President signing the bill into law.
Bellow states in the suit that the recent healthcare legislation violates several of his constitutional rights, including an unconstitutional mandate, a direct tax, and 4th Amendment violations.
The full text of the lawsuit, and a statement from David Bellow about the Lawsuit can be read on his website www.DavidBellow.com
"We can no longer just rely on our legislators to do the dirty work. We must get our hands dirty as well. We can no longer just leave it up to the politicians to try to fix this mess. It is too big. We need the people to all stand up and be counted. We need the people of America to get involved and start doing something to save the future of America." - David Bellow
Thursday, February 11, 2010
2010 Hardin County Primary Elections
Hardin County needs to elect conservative leaders who will stand up against the recent tax and budget increases, stop waste spending, and take care what we already have like the Veteran's Memorial in Lumberton.
Early Voting:
February 16th - 26th
Election Day:
March 2nd, 2010
Early Voting:
February 16th - 26th
Election Day:
March 2nd, 2010
Monday, November 2, 2009
Governor Rick Perry in Beaumont tonight
Governor Rick Perry was in Beaumont tonight. He talked about the importance of being a strong conservative, especially right now with what the nation is facing. He was pretty impressive when he talked about how Texas, under his leadership, is doing pretty good right now when most other states are in the tank. I do not know if he is for sure the guy for another term, but I can tell you that Hutchinson is for sure not the person for the job because she supports Roe vs. Wade and I can never support a candidate who supports abortion.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Voter Guide for Tuesday Nov. 3rd Texas Election
www.WallBuilders.com voting Recommendations
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hardin County Flooding Possible
Hey Everyone, my unit has called me up for a few days of active duty because they are expecting lots of localized flooding here in East Texas. If you live in an area that tends to flood with lots of heavy rain then be careful and keep an eye on the weather so we don't have to come in and save you from the high water!
David Bellow
David Bellow
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Hardin County Republican Meeting
There will be a Republican Meeting for everyone in Hardin County on Sept. 22nd, 2009. The meeting will start at 6:30 and will be at the Cleveco Building on Hwy. 69 in Lumberton in between Walton rd. and Chance Cutoff. our State Senator Robert Nichols and our State Representative Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton will both be there. We will start to really get in gear for next year's elections when we will start to take our Country back by first getting out local Conservative Republicans elected.
Thank you Sue Cleveland and the Hardin County Republican Women for helping get this meeting together!!
Thank you Sue Cleveland and the Hardin County Republican Women for helping get this meeting together!!
9/11 - Never Forget!
September 11 – Never Forget
2,977 People died when terrorist attacked us on our American soil
Do you think it is just a coincidence that we were attacked by terrorist every few years before 9/11/01 (USS Cole, World Trade Center Bombing) but since 9/11 we have not been attacked again? Do you think they have not tried? America was diligent after 9/11 in protecting ourselves from terrorist by going out and defeating terrorists on their own soil. Has our current president forgotten that fateful day? Obama no longer calls it the war on terror and now it is an overseas contingency. We have can no longer question terrorists for important information, which has proven to have stopped terrorists attacks already, because they now get U.S. constitutional rights as if they were an American. The terrorists we have detained are getting sent to U.S. prisons right in our backyard (with many getting released already) because the President believes it is “politically incorrect” to have a prison just for the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
We must always stay diligent, we can never forget our troops fighting overseas to defeat terrorists on their soil before the terrorists can come here (there are many soldiers getting deployed to Iraq later this year from the National Guard Unit I am in so local soldiers are still fighting), we must never forget the 2,977 lives that were lost on that fateful day.
We must NEVER FORGET 9/11
Sincerely,
David Bellow
2,977 People died when terrorist attacked us on our American soil
Do you think it is just a coincidence that we were attacked by terrorist every few years before 9/11/01 (USS Cole, World Trade Center Bombing) but since 9/11 we have not been attacked again? Do you think they have not tried? America was diligent after 9/11 in protecting ourselves from terrorist by going out and defeating terrorists on their own soil. Has our current president forgotten that fateful day? Obama no longer calls it the war on terror and now it is an overseas contingency. We have can no longer question terrorists for important information, which has proven to have stopped terrorists attacks already, because they now get U.S. constitutional rights as if they were an American. The terrorists we have detained are getting sent to U.S. prisons right in our backyard (with many getting released already) because the President believes it is “politically incorrect” to have a prison just for the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
We must always stay diligent, we can never forget our troops fighting overseas to defeat terrorists on their soil before the terrorists can come here (there are many soldiers getting deployed to Iraq later this year from the National Guard Unit I am in so local soldiers are still fighting), we must never forget the 2,977 lives that were lost on that fateful day.
We must NEVER FORGET 9/11
Sincerely,
David Bellow
LISD not showing Obama Speech
Due to the overwhelming response from parents, the Lumberton School District decided to cancel the showing of the Obama Speech on all campuses.
IMPORTANT - tell LUMBERTON Schools not to Show Obama Speech
Lumberton ISD allowing Liberal President Obama to indoctrine Lumberton kids on Tuesday!!
Click on the link below to EMAIL the SCHOOL BOARD and ask them not to take the kids away from class time to show them Obama's Speech on Tuesday, Sept. 8th.
http://www.lumberton.k12.tx.us/education/components/form/default.php?sectiondetailid=2063
Kids should learn about the president and the role of the president and past presidents, but the classroom should not be a place where vunerable kids are told by the president what policies are good and how the kids can help.
Among the activities initially suggested for pre-K to 6th grade students was to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what "the president wants us to do."
You might think this is drastic asking you to email the school board about a simple video getting shown to the students on Tuesday, but we have to start taking a stand. Obama is pushing his liberal, socialist agenda down our throuts and the people are fighting back and going to town hall meetings and tea parties. The president is losing ground so he is trying to take the fight to the kids who will believe anything. Again, there is nothing wrong with the kids learning about the presidnets and even the current president, but it is wrong for the current president to create assignments for our kids to do to get the kids to help the president on these important issues.
All you have to go is CLICK ON THE LINK below and it will take you straight to the SCHOOL BOARD contact form and you can send them a quick message asking them not to show the Obama Speech on Tuesday.
http://www.lumberton.k12.tx.us/education/components/form/default.php?sectiondetailid=2063
Thanks!
Click on the link below to EMAIL the SCHOOL BOARD and ask them not to take the kids away from class time to show them Obama's Speech on Tuesday, Sept. 8th.
http://www.lumberton.k12.tx.us/education/components/form/default.php?sectiondetailid=2063
Kids should learn about the president and the role of the president and past presidents, but the classroom should not be a place where vunerable kids are told by the president what policies are good and how the kids can help.
Among the activities initially suggested for pre-K to 6th grade students was to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what "the president wants us to do."
You might think this is drastic asking you to email the school board about a simple video getting shown to the students on Tuesday, but we have to start taking a stand. Obama is pushing his liberal, socialist agenda down our throuts and the people are fighting back and going to town hall meetings and tea parties. The president is losing ground so he is trying to take the fight to the kids who will believe anything. Again, there is nothing wrong with the kids learning about the presidnets and even the current president, but it is wrong for the current president to create assignments for our kids to do to get the kids to help the president on these important issues.
All you have to go is CLICK ON THE LINK below and it will take you straight to the SCHOOL BOARD contact form and you can send them a quick message asking them not to show the Obama Speech on Tuesday.
http://www.lumberton.k12.tx.us/education/components/form/default.php?sectiondetailid=2063
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)