The Obama Administration Chews the Fat
By Matt Purple on 5.26.10 @ 6:07AM
When the president announced that Michelle Obama would be heading up an anti-obesity task force last summer, most of us shrugged. Most presidents like to send their wives off on a health-related mission of some sort. Laura Bush worked closely with heart disease and breast cancer charities. Nancy Reagan lectured children on the dangers of drugs. Hillary Clinton tried to burn down the entire American health care system.
In retrospect, we probably should have been a little more concerned. In October, Mrs. Obama confessed that, as recently as two years ago, Sasha's and Malia's meals had been chock full of fast food and pizza. When the Obama family pediatrician told Michelle that this wasn't doing her daughters' health any favors, the First Lady's jaw hit the table. "I was shocked," she said.
The same woman who was floored by the news that Wendy's Baconators are unhealthy was assigned to spearhead the government's anti-obesity policies. That probably should have set off a few alarm bells.
Read the rest of the article here.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Newt is not the answer in 2012
Joseph Farar
WorldNetDaily
Posted: May 24, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
Newt Gingrich is out there campaigning for the presidency in 2012 with a new book, "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine."
I won't tell you I read the book.
I don't feel I need to do so after reviewing Gingrich's political career through the 1990s.
It's not that Gingrich isn't smart. He is.
Gingrich had his moment. He did an amazing job in 1994 leading the "Republican Revolution" and becoming speaker of the House.
But Gingrich lost his way during the Clinton years. He became part of the problem. Do I really need to remind Americans he resigned the speakership in moral disgrace?
I was among the first to call for his resignation then. I sure don't think he's the right man to succeed Obama when we need a radical approach to reversing unconstitutional initiatives and policies.
Gingrich was a revolutionary until he got power. Then he became the politician, again. Ask most members of the freshman class of 1994 who betrayed the "Republican Revolution" and they will tell you Gingrich did.
He sold out his principles. He accommodated. He appeased. He fought harder to get in the front of Air Force One to chat with the president than he did to subvert that president's agenda.
Now we're to believe Newt is the fiery revolutionary, once again.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
Everything Gingrich says about Barack Obama's administration is true. But he's really a Johnny-come-lately to the party.
For instance, his battle plan calls for stopping the energy tax. That would be cap and trade – Obama's answer to the phantom problem of climate change.
But, not long ago, Gingrich was helping Nancy Pelosi and others sell climate change to the American people. In case you forgot, I invite you to watch the happy couple in the TV commercial on this subject.
Do you really expect President Gingrich will fight to stop cap and trade after serving as an advocate of the phony climate-change scenario?
Lately I've heard him more than once tell the American people the new speaker of the House is going to be John Boehner. Personally, I think the new class of freshman House Republicans might have a better idea about that. I think they might want new leadership in both the House and Senate.
Why?
Because that's what we need.
The Republican Party is moribund.
It's going to fare extremely well in 2010, but not because of any leadership exerted by the party. It will be the result of a grass-roots rebellion against the party in power.
If the Republicans were in the majority in the House and Senate, it would be they who would be voted out in droves in November. The people don't like the direction of the country under Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid. But they are not enamored of the Republican opposition under Boehner and Mitch McConnell, either.
America needs real change today, and that does not mean looking backward for yesterday's failed leadership.
I believe we have better candidates who may not be as well known as Gingrich.
It's time to start talking about them.
I've given you an example of one ticket I like. It is certainly not the only one. But I wanted to illustrate that there are good people available in 2012.
It's just that none of them are named Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
WorldNetDaily
Posted: May 24, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
Newt Gingrich is out there campaigning for the presidency in 2012 with a new book, "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine."
I won't tell you I read the book.
I don't feel I need to do so after reviewing Gingrich's political career through the 1990s.
It's not that Gingrich isn't smart. He is.
Gingrich had his moment. He did an amazing job in 1994 leading the "Republican Revolution" and becoming speaker of the House.
But Gingrich lost his way during the Clinton years. He became part of the problem. Do I really need to remind Americans he resigned the speakership in moral disgrace?
I was among the first to call for his resignation then. I sure don't think he's the right man to succeed Obama when we need a radical approach to reversing unconstitutional initiatives and policies.
Gingrich was a revolutionary until he got power. Then he became the politician, again. Ask most members of the freshman class of 1994 who betrayed the "Republican Revolution" and they will tell you Gingrich did.
He sold out his principles. He accommodated. He appeased. He fought harder to get in the front of Air Force One to chat with the president than he did to subvert that president's agenda.
Now we're to believe Newt is the fiery revolutionary, once again.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
Everything Gingrich says about Barack Obama's administration is true. But he's really a Johnny-come-lately to the party.
For instance, his battle plan calls for stopping the energy tax. That would be cap and trade – Obama's answer to the phantom problem of climate change.
But, not long ago, Gingrich was helping Nancy Pelosi and others sell climate change to the American people. In case you forgot, I invite you to watch the happy couple in the TV commercial on this subject.
Do you really expect President Gingrich will fight to stop cap and trade after serving as an advocate of the phony climate-change scenario?
Lately I've heard him more than once tell the American people the new speaker of the House is going to be John Boehner. Personally, I think the new class of freshman House Republicans might have a better idea about that. I think they might want new leadership in both the House and Senate.
Why?
Because that's what we need.
The Republican Party is moribund.
It's going to fare extremely well in 2010, but not because of any leadership exerted by the party. It will be the result of a grass-roots rebellion against the party in power.
If the Republicans were in the majority in the House and Senate, it would be they who would be voted out in droves in November. The people don't like the direction of the country under Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid. But they are not enamored of the Republican opposition under Boehner and Mitch McConnell, either.
America needs real change today, and that does not mean looking backward for yesterday's failed leadership.
I believe we have better candidates who may not be as well known as Gingrich.
It's time to start talking about them.
I've given you an example of one ticket I like. It is certainly not the only one. But I wanted to illustrate that there are good people available in 2012.
It's just that none of them are named Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Sorry, Mr. President: Socialism's not in the Bible
John Aman - Guest Columnist - 5/22/2010 5:00:00 AM
Onenewsnow.com
Having placed 50 percent of America's economy under government control, the Obama administration is now angling for a tighter grip on the financial sector.
The operative word is "fairness," which is shorthand for Obama's famous campaign promise to "spread the wealth around."
When critics said that this remark to "Joe the Plumber" displayed Obama's socialist leanings, Obama justified it by citing Scripture:
"My Bible tells me there is nothing wrong with helping other people," said then-Sen. Obama. "That we want to treat others like we want to be treated. That I am my brother's keeper, and I am my sister's keeper. I believe that."
But Obama, who once dismissed the Bible's relevance to politics, saying, "People haven't been reading their Bibles lately," may need to go reread his Engels. Co-author with Karl Marx of The Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels knew better than Obama about collectivism's clash with Christianity, stating, "...if some few passages of the Bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it ...."
Despite Engels and Marx (who dismissed religion as the "opium of the people"), Obama and many others still manage to see socialism in the Bible. They point to the early church which, at first glance, seems like a model socialist community. The New Testament reports that these first believers "had all things in common" (Acts 4:32) and "all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need" (Acts 4:34-35).
But unlike socialism, the sharing was voluntary, not coerced, and the money was given not to the state, but the church. As Southern Baptist leader Richard Land puts it on the new Coral Ridge Ministries documentary, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger, "It's one thing for you to give out of compassion to someone who's less fortunate. It's an entirely different thing for the government to confiscate your property and give it to someone else." (Part 2 of the documentary airs Sunday, May 23, nationwide on The Coral Ridge Hour.)
While the Bible asserts property rights and the rights of inheritance, socialism assaults them. Marx and Engels put the "abolition of property" first in a ten-step program for implementing communism. That's not exactly a Christian thing to do. The eighth commandment, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15) applies every bit as much to the men and women who hold the reins of political power as it does to everyone else.
So does the 10th commandment, "You shall not covet" (Exodus 20:17). Coveting, or envy, is a powerful driver of socialism, which is in a perpetual snit that some people have more than others. So when President Obama castigates "Fats Cats" on Wall Street, decries "economic inequality," and warns, as he did in his 2009 budget statement that a "disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," he stokes a destructive impulse that is condemned by Scripture.
Socialism also runs afoul of the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3). Socialist governments seek to play God — to take His place as the ultimate sovereign. Consider the veneration that Russians once gave to the embalmed remains of Lenin and Stalin, the Nazi-prescribed prayer to Hitler ("Thy Reich [kingdom] comes, thy will alone is law upon the earth"), and the personality cult surrounding North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong-il.
The sixth commandment, "You shall not murder," is also widely ignored by Marxist regimes. Marx and Engels proclaimed that their aims could be "attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Their disciples, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist henchmen, killed 100-million people, a "tragedy of planetary dimensions," as the French publisher of The Black Book of Communism put it.
Barack Obama may say that the Bible tells him to be his brother's keeper (his youngest half-brother reportedly lived in a shack in Kenya on $1 a day at the time he said this), but he ought to go back and reread what God's Word actually says. Engels was right. Socialism has nothing in common with Scripture.
John Aman - Guest Columnist - 5/22/2010 5:00:00 AM
Onenewsnow.com
Having placed 50 percent of America's economy under government control, the Obama administration is now angling for a tighter grip on the financial sector.
The operative word is "fairness," which is shorthand for Obama's famous campaign promise to "spread the wealth around."
When critics said that this remark to "Joe the Plumber" displayed Obama's socialist leanings, Obama justified it by citing Scripture:
"My Bible tells me there is nothing wrong with helping other people," said then-Sen. Obama. "That we want to treat others like we want to be treated. That I am my brother's keeper, and I am my sister's keeper. I believe that."
But Obama, who once dismissed the Bible's relevance to politics, saying, "People haven't been reading their Bibles lately," may need to go reread his Engels. Co-author with Karl Marx of The Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels knew better than Obama about collectivism's clash with Christianity, stating, "...if some few passages of the Bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it ...."
Despite Engels and Marx (who dismissed religion as the "opium of the people"), Obama and many others still manage to see socialism in the Bible. They point to the early church which, at first glance, seems like a model socialist community. The New Testament reports that these first believers "had all things in common" (Acts 4:32) and "all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need" (Acts 4:34-35).
But unlike socialism, the sharing was voluntary, not coerced, and the money was given not to the state, but the church. As Southern Baptist leader Richard Land puts it on the new Coral Ridge Ministries documentary, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger, "It's one thing for you to give out of compassion to someone who's less fortunate. It's an entirely different thing for the government to confiscate your property and give it to someone else." (Part 2 of the documentary airs Sunday, May 23, nationwide on The Coral Ridge Hour.)
While the Bible asserts property rights and the rights of inheritance, socialism assaults them. Marx and Engels put the "abolition of property" first in a ten-step program for implementing communism. That's not exactly a Christian thing to do. The eighth commandment, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15) applies every bit as much to the men and women who hold the reins of political power as it does to everyone else.
So does the 10th commandment, "You shall not covet" (Exodus 20:17). Coveting, or envy, is a powerful driver of socialism, which is in a perpetual snit that some people have more than others. So when President Obama castigates "Fats Cats" on Wall Street, decries "economic inequality," and warns, as he did in his 2009 budget statement that a "disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," he stokes a destructive impulse that is condemned by Scripture.
Socialism also runs afoul of the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3). Socialist governments seek to play God — to take His place as the ultimate sovereign. Consider the veneration that Russians once gave to the embalmed remains of Lenin and Stalin, the Nazi-prescribed prayer to Hitler ("Thy Reich [kingdom] comes, thy will alone is law upon the earth"), and the personality cult surrounding North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong-il.
The sixth commandment, "You shall not murder," is also widely ignored by Marxist regimes. Marx and Engels proclaimed that their aims could be "attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Their disciples, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist henchmen, killed 100-million people, a "tragedy of planetary dimensions," as the French publisher of The Black Book of Communism put it.
Barack Obama may say that the Bible tells him to be his brother's keeper (his youngest half-brother reportedly lived in a shack in Kenya on $1 a day at the time he said this), but he ought to go back and reread what God's Word actually says. Engels was right. Socialism has nothing in common with Scripture.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
GOP on track to snatch defeat from jaws of victory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter
Posted: May 20, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!
That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.
Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.
The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!
But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as the New York Times reported.
The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat, and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.
Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!
Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate Obamacare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?
Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.
Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.
For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.
Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.
Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.
Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."
For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.
How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.
No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.
Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey – what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?
As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"
As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.
Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.
After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)
But now we find out from a front-page article in the New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" – he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.
He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)
Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!
Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.
Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor – who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.
But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter
Posted: May 20, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!
That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.
Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.
The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!
But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as the New York Times reported.
The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat, and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.
Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!
Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate Obamacare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?
Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.
Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.
For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.
Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.
Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.
Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."
For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.
How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.
No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.
Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey – what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?
As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"
As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.
Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.
After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)
But now we find out from a front-page article in the New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" – he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.
He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)
Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!
Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.
Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor – who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.
But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!
Playing politics with education standards (OneNewsNow.com)
The Texas State Board of Education is getting closer to adopting new social studies guidelines for the classroom. But some liberal groups are not pleased with the conservative values added to the standards, and they want to delay the vote.
Read the rest here...
Read the rest here...
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Supreme Court Again Cites CRC in Overriding American Law
by Michael Farris
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juvenile felons cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole in non-homicide cases. This stands as another example of the all-too-common practice of federal judges substituting their political judgments for that of state legislators.
In addition, the Supreme Court, in the process of reaching this decision, once again used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a guide to interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, international laws “are irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution or the Court’s discernment of any longstanding tradition in this nation.”
Today’s ruling provides a perfect example of how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used to slowly erode the principle that American law should exclusively govern this nation on issues of parents and children.
Michael Farris, Chairman of HSLDA and President of ParentalRights.org, wrote a brief on behalf of sixteen members of Congress in this case. The Supreme Court majority referenced his brief twice in making its ruling. His brief is available by clicking here.
Combined with recent statements by groups dedicated to the ratification of the UN CRC, today’s ruling signals that we must stop the ratification of the CRC before it gains momentum in the Senate.
Just last week Senator Jim DeMint introduced S. Res. 519 urging President Obama not to send the UN child rights treaty to the Senate for ratification. Our goal is to get at least 34 co-sponsors of S. Res. 519. If we are successful in this, the CRC will be dead at least until this Congress is replaced in January 2011.
This is a means of stopping the CRC for now. Ultimately, we need the Parental Rights Amendment as a permanent solution. Only then can we be confident that we have stopped the courts from using international law to decide cases about American children and American parents. Please call both of your US Senators to urge them to co-sponsor S. Res. 519 to stop the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child...
...As alluded to above, our call blitz to the Senate to support SR 519 continues. In fact, if anything, it is intensified by this Supreme Court decision. Please visit the Resolution Status Board and call now!
In addition, now is a great time to call your congressman and urge him once again to support H.J.Res. 42, the Parental Rights Amendment. It is the only permanent solution to the threat to families posed by the CRC.
Visit ParentalRights.org/States and click on your state. If your congressman is not a cosponsor, click on his name for contact information and give him a call.
Tell him you support parental rights and want to see them permanently protected in the text of the Constitution. Tell him party affiliation is no excuse – the Louisiana Senate recently passed a resolution calling for the amendment, and the 34-0 vote included 17 Democrats, 16 Republicans and 1 Independent. Tell them you will be looking for a courageous leader on family issues this November, and ask them to support H.J. Res. 42.
Be polite and thank them for their time.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juvenile felons cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole in non-homicide cases. This stands as another example of the all-too-common practice of federal judges substituting their political judgments for that of state legislators.
In addition, the Supreme Court, in the process of reaching this decision, once again used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a guide to interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, international laws “are irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution or the Court’s discernment of any longstanding tradition in this nation.”
Today’s ruling provides a perfect example of how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used to slowly erode the principle that American law should exclusively govern this nation on issues of parents and children.
Michael Farris, Chairman of HSLDA and President of ParentalRights.org, wrote a brief on behalf of sixteen members of Congress in this case. The Supreme Court majority referenced his brief twice in making its ruling. His brief is available by clicking here.
Combined with recent statements by groups dedicated to the ratification of the UN CRC, today’s ruling signals that we must stop the ratification of the CRC before it gains momentum in the Senate.
Just last week Senator Jim DeMint introduced S. Res. 519 urging President Obama not to send the UN child rights treaty to the Senate for ratification. Our goal is to get at least 34 co-sponsors of S. Res. 519. If we are successful in this, the CRC will be dead at least until this Congress is replaced in January 2011.
This is a means of stopping the CRC for now. Ultimately, we need the Parental Rights Amendment as a permanent solution. Only then can we be confident that we have stopped the courts from using international law to decide cases about American children and American parents. Please call both of your US Senators to urge them to co-sponsor S. Res. 519 to stop the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child...
...As alluded to above, our call blitz to the Senate to support SR 519 continues. In fact, if anything, it is intensified by this Supreme Court decision. Please visit the Resolution Status Board and call now!
In addition, now is a great time to call your congressman and urge him once again to support H.J.Res. 42, the Parental Rights Amendment. It is the only permanent solution to the threat to families posed by the CRC.
Visit ParentalRights.org/States and click on your state. If your congressman is not a cosponsor, click on his name for contact information and give him a call.
Tell him you support parental rights and want to see them permanently protected in the text of the Constitution. Tell him party affiliation is no excuse – the Louisiana Senate recently passed a resolution calling for the amendment, and the 34-0 vote included 17 Democrats, 16 Republicans and 1 Independent. Tell them you will be looking for a courageous leader on family issues this November, and ask them to support H.J. Res. 42.
Be polite and thank them for their time.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Information about Gonorrhea Lectim :-)
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent
strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's
pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em" , and it is a terrible obamanation..
Many victims contracted it in 2008,,, but now most people, after having been infected for the past
one to two years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.
It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just
coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010
and the second dose in 2012 .
If not treated, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out
all life as we know it.
Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey ,
and apparently now Massachusetts , with many more seeing the writing
on the wall.
strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's
pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em" , and it is a terrible obamanation..
Many victims contracted it in 2008,,, but now most people, after having been infected for the past
one to two years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.
It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just
coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010
and the second dose in 2012 .
If not treated, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out
all life as we know it.
Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey ,
and apparently now Massachusetts , with many more seeing the writing
on the wall.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Quote
"The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level."
-- Norman Mailer
(1923-2007) American novelist, journalist, essayist, poet, playwright, screenwriter, and film director
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Mailer.Quote.939D
-- Norman Mailer
(1923-2007) American novelist, journalist, essayist, poet, playwright, screenwriter, and film director
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Mailer.Quote.939D
Thursday, May 13, 2010
4 little words + 1 American flag = 'offensive' (OneNewsNow.com)
Becky Yeh - OneNewsNow California correspondent - 5/12/2010 6:00:00 AM
A 7th-grade teacher in California has criticized a 13-year-old student for writing "God bless America" across her drawing of the American flag -- one more reason, says a conservative activist, why parents should remove their children from public school. Read the rest here.
A 7th-grade teacher in California has criticized a 13-year-old student for writing "God bless America" across her drawing of the American flag -- one more reason, says a conservative activist, why parents should remove their children from public school. Read the rest here.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Resolution Challenges Child Rights Covention
The following is a press release from ParentalRights.org, going out tomorrow morning:
Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // May 12, 2010 // Washington, D.C. – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today introduced S.R. 519, a resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention, or CRC) in an effort to discourage the State Department and the Obama administration from submitting it to the Senate. Citing dangers posed to American families and to State and federal sovereignty if the treaty were ratified, the measure resolves that “the president should not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent.”
In Washington’s current political climate, the resolution has little chance of gaining 51 votes for adoption, but its proponents say that is not the point. Since ratification of the Convention requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate, or 67 favorable votes, S.R. 519 needs only 34 cosponsors to prevent that vote and effectively end any chance of ratifying the treaty in the immediate future.
Opponents of the CRC warn that under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the treaty’s ratification would render it “the Supreme law of the land,” superseding all state constitutions or laws as well as pre-existing federal law. The only legal authority higher than a ratified treaty is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution. According to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), ratification of the Convention would “undermine the U.S. system of federalism, a system on which this nation was founded.” All family law, the vast majority of which is currently set at the state level, would be federalized as a treaty obligation of the national government.
“We want to see the CRC taken off the table for this Congress, and this resolution will do that. But I am also aware that the only permanent solution to this threat to our families is a parental rights amendment to the Constitution,” DeMint said, referring to another resolution he champions, S.J. Res. 16, which proposes just such an amendment.
Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, agrees. “The Amendment is what we really need, but this resolution is a good temporary fix in the meantime.”
Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // May 12, 2010 // Washington, D.C. – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today introduced S.R. 519, a resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention, or CRC) in an effort to discourage the State Department and the Obama administration from submitting it to the Senate. Citing dangers posed to American families and to State and federal sovereignty if the treaty were ratified, the measure resolves that “the president should not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent.”
In Washington’s current political climate, the resolution has little chance of gaining 51 votes for adoption, but its proponents say that is not the point. Since ratification of the Convention requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate, or 67 favorable votes, S.R. 519 needs only 34 cosponsors to prevent that vote and effectively end any chance of ratifying the treaty in the immediate future.
Opponents of the CRC warn that under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the treaty’s ratification would render it “the Supreme law of the land,” superseding all state constitutions or laws as well as pre-existing federal law. The only legal authority higher than a ratified treaty is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution. According to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), ratification of the Convention would “undermine the U.S. system of federalism, a system on which this nation was founded.” All family law, the vast majority of which is currently set at the state level, would be federalized as a treaty obligation of the national government.
“We want to see the CRC taken off the table for this Congress, and this resolution will do that. But I am also aware that the only permanent solution to this threat to our families is a parental rights amendment to the Constitution,” DeMint said, referring to another resolution he champions, S.J. Res. 16, which proposes just such an amendment.
Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, agrees. “The Amendment is what we really need, but this resolution is a good temporary fix in the meantime.”
Thursday, May 6, 2010
A Helper Suitable for Francis Shaeffer
Again, cleaning out some old email. This was from August 2007. What's such a blessing is as I reviewed this article, I realized it was written by a Godly lady with whom I attend church now!
By Susan Verstraete
and Jim Elliff's Christian Communicators Worldwide
Edith Seville was ready for a fight. The announced topic for the young people's meeting in her liberal Presbyterian church was "How I know that Jesus is Not the Son of God, and How I Know that the Bible is not the Word of God." The speaker was confident that everyone in the room either agreed with his heretical premise or could be easily persuaded to do so. Edith, on the other hand, was determined to challenge him. She listened carefully, mentally preparing what she would say in rebuttal to his remarks. As far as she knew, she was the only Bible-believing Christian in the room.
Just as the speaker finished and before Edith could get to her feet, someone else stood up. "My name is Francis Schaeffer," he said, "and I want to say that I know Jesus is the Son of God, and He is also my Savior." As soon as Francis finished describing his personal experience with God, Edith jumped up and added a brief apologetic for the truth of the Bible. That night, June 26th, 1932, began a pattern that would continue for the next fifty-two years—Francis and Edith would work together, each contributing what the other lacked, to defend the authenticity of the Bible and to model the present reality of the Christian life.
Francis and Edith began dating that very night, and married in 1935. In the beginning, Edith worked as a seamstress in order to help pay for Francis' seminary tuition. Every day he would come home from seminary and share what he was learning with Edith. This practice, coupled with Edith's extensive reading, gave her an informal seminary education as Francis earned his degree. After Francis graduated and became a pastor, Edith participated in his ministry by teaching children's Bible classes in their home.
Just after World War II, Francis and Edith decided to move to Switzerland to help strengthen the few, isolated churches in Europe who still taught the Gospel. Francis worked tirelessly in what was called the "Separated Movement," a group of churches in the U.S. and Europe who left liberal denominational affiliations over the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible. But after several years in this work, he came to a crisis point. He noticed that, though these churches clung to correct doctrine, often there was no love or kindness demonstrated in relationships among the members. People within the movement were quick to turn on each other and divide over doctrinal minutia. Worse yet, he noticed even in himself a love for theological debate that had less to do with compassion for the lost and more to do with gamesmanship and self-righteousness.
As Edith prayed for him, Francis spent the next few weeks pacing the hayloft over the chalet in which his family was living. He went all the way back to his agnostic roots and rethought his reasons for believing in God. He studied Jesus' words about how believers should live. In his book True Spirituality, he sums up his conclusions this way:
In the midst of being right, if self is exalted, my fellowship with God can be destroyed. It is not wrong to be right, but it is wrong to have the wrong attitude in being right, and to forget that my relationship with my fellow man must always be personal. . . . Christianity is not love in abstraction, but to love the individual who stands before me in a person-to-person relationship. He must never be faceless to me or I am denying everything I say I believe.1
The Schaeffers went on to demonstrate their new focus by ending financial ties to the Separated Movement and beginning a ministry called L'Abri, or "The Shelter." Tucked away in a Swiss chalet near a ski resort, the Schaeffers prayed that God would bring the right people to them—ones who needed answers to their questions about God. They did not solicit for funds or advertise, but trusted God to meet their needs as a demonstration of His power. People from all over the world began trickling into L'Abri to get "honest answers for honest questions" and to live for a time in the Schaeffers' home. Edith was in charge of running the household and overseeing the preparation of nutritious meals. Often she would teach a visitor something about Christ as they worked alongside each other baking bread or tending the gardens. Francis met with enquirers individually, led group discussions and preached.
In the meantime, Francis' books and articles gained a loyal following in the United States and around the world. He was in demand as a speaker, especially on college campuses, and earned the title "Missionary to the Intellectual." Edith was busy writing at this time, too. While Francis' books discussed the culture, philosophy and apologetics, Edith's books centered on the home, prayer, and the history of L'Abri. Francis said that to understand their ministry and philosophy, one must read both her books and his—they completed each other in print, just as they completed each other in life.
Today, there are seven L'Abri study centers continuing the work begun by Francis and Edith Schaeffer. More than 20 of their books are still in print, along with many books written about them. Perhaps an equal legacy is the impact they had in the lives of individuals they encountered one by one, over a cup of tea or a bowl of hearty soup—an impact we can hope to replicate as God brings individuals in need of spiritual shelter into our own sphere of influence.
____________________
1Schaeffer, Francis True Spirituality 1971 Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton IL pg. 152 and 157
Again, cleaning out some old email. This was from August 2007. What's such a blessing is as I reviewed this article, I realized it was written by a Godly lady with whom I attend church now!
By Susan Verstraete
and Jim Elliff's Christian Communicators Worldwide
Edith Seville was ready for a fight. The announced topic for the young people's meeting in her liberal Presbyterian church was "How I know that Jesus is Not the Son of God, and How I Know that the Bible is not the Word of God." The speaker was confident that everyone in the room either agreed with his heretical premise or could be easily persuaded to do so. Edith, on the other hand, was determined to challenge him. She listened carefully, mentally preparing what she would say in rebuttal to his remarks. As far as she knew, she was the only Bible-believing Christian in the room.
Just as the speaker finished and before Edith could get to her feet, someone else stood up. "My name is Francis Schaeffer," he said, "and I want to say that I know Jesus is the Son of God, and He is also my Savior." As soon as Francis finished describing his personal experience with God, Edith jumped up and added a brief apologetic for the truth of the Bible. That night, June 26th, 1932, began a pattern that would continue for the next fifty-two years—Francis and Edith would work together, each contributing what the other lacked, to defend the authenticity of the Bible and to model the present reality of the Christian life.
Francis and Edith began dating that very night, and married in 1935. In the beginning, Edith worked as a seamstress in order to help pay for Francis' seminary tuition. Every day he would come home from seminary and share what he was learning with Edith. This practice, coupled with Edith's extensive reading, gave her an informal seminary education as Francis earned his degree. After Francis graduated and became a pastor, Edith participated in his ministry by teaching children's Bible classes in their home.
Just after World War II, Francis and Edith decided to move to Switzerland to help strengthen the few, isolated churches in Europe who still taught the Gospel. Francis worked tirelessly in what was called the "Separated Movement," a group of churches in the U.S. and Europe who left liberal denominational affiliations over the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible. But after several years in this work, he came to a crisis point. He noticed that, though these churches clung to correct doctrine, often there was no love or kindness demonstrated in relationships among the members. People within the movement were quick to turn on each other and divide over doctrinal minutia. Worse yet, he noticed even in himself a love for theological debate that had less to do with compassion for the lost and more to do with gamesmanship and self-righteousness.
As Edith prayed for him, Francis spent the next few weeks pacing the hayloft over the chalet in which his family was living. He went all the way back to his agnostic roots and rethought his reasons for believing in God. He studied Jesus' words about how believers should live. In his book True Spirituality, he sums up his conclusions this way:
In the midst of being right, if self is exalted, my fellowship with God can be destroyed. It is not wrong to be right, but it is wrong to have the wrong attitude in being right, and to forget that my relationship with my fellow man must always be personal. . . . Christianity is not love in abstraction, but to love the individual who stands before me in a person-to-person relationship. He must never be faceless to me or I am denying everything I say I believe.1
The Schaeffers went on to demonstrate their new focus by ending financial ties to the Separated Movement and beginning a ministry called L'Abri, or "The Shelter." Tucked away in a Swiss chalet near a ski resort, the Schaeffers prayed that God would bring the right people to them—ones who needed answers to their questions about God. They did not solicit for funds or advertise, but trusted God to meet their needs as a demonstration of His power. People from all over the world began trickling into L'Abri to get "honest answers for honest questions" and to live for a time in the Schaeffers' home. Edith was in charge of running the household and overseeing the preparation of nutritious meals. Often she would teach a visitor something about Christ as they worked alongside each other baking bread or tending the gardens. Francis met with enquirers individually, led group discussions and preached.
In the meantime, Francis' books and articles gained a loyal following in the United States and around the world. He was in demand as a speaker, especially on college campuses, and earned the title "Missionary to the Intellectual." Edith was busy writing at this time, too. While Francis' books discussed the culture, philosophy and apologetics, Edith's books centered on the home, prayer, and the history of L'Abri. Francis said that to understand their ministry and philosophy, one must read both her books and his—they completed each other in print, just as they completed each other in life.
Today, there are seven L'Abri study centers continuing the work begun by Francis and Edith Schaeffer. More than 20 of their books are still in print, along with many books written about them. Perhaps an equal legacy is the impact they had in the lives of individuals they encountered one by one, over a cup of tea or a bowl of hearty soup—an impact we can hope to replicate as God brings individuals in need of spiritual shelter into our own sphere of influence.
____________________
1Schaeffer, Francis True Spirituality 1971 Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton IL pg. 152 and 157
Where Have All the Little Girls Gone?
This is a very old article from www.Christianworldviewnetwork.com. In fact, the link that I have for it no longer works. The email I copied it from was from November 2007, but I the truth is truth regardless of age.
“Those songs, I now see, were indeed insidious, fed as they were into a vulnerable society; Mr Blair was moving into No 10 with his guitar, and cool new Britannia was upon us. If Wag culture was to take over; if too many newly empowered girls were to end up with monstrous credit-card debts from buying too much bling; if little girls in the playground would move up to anorexia, bulimia, failing livers and chlamydia from too many alley encounters after pub and club, blame it on the Spice Girls. They took the inheritance of the serious, middle-class feminists of 30 years back and squandered it. This was not the girl power we had in mind. We didn’t believe the law of unintended consequences applied to us. Whoever does?”
--Faye Weldon, The Times Online, on the social legacy of the newly reunited Spice Girls
Over 12,000 fans screamed in ecstasy this last week as rocker Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana, strutted her stuff on stage at the CenturyTel Center outside Shreveport , Louisiana . Most of the fans were little girls between the ages of 6-12. Outside the arena before the concert, thousands of little girls gathered in anticipation as speakers blared their favorite star's biggest hits. Swinging their hips and mouthing the words to the hit, these girls could easily have been years older in their behavior and dress. One anxious fan, still missing her front teeth, lisped to a reporter how she was preparing to “go nuts” when she saw her beloved rock star. Huge earrings and eye shadow were the norm among these small girls. Their entire world had obviously been shaped and molded by the media-created sensation of Hannah Montana. As I watched the news video of the event, I was struck with sadness at what has become of the world of young girls today. The word “tragedy” comes to mind.
Read the rest here.
This is a very old article from www.Christianworldviewnetwork.com. In fact, the link that I have for it no longer works. The email I copied it from was from November 2007, but I the truth is truth regardless of age.
“Those songs, I now see, were indeed insidious, fed as they were into a vulnerable society; Mr Blair was moving into No 10 with his guitar, and cool new Britannia was upon us. If Wag culture was to take over; if too many newly empowered girls were to end up with monstrous credit-card debts from buying too much bling; if little girls in the playground would move up to anorexia, bulimia, failing livers and chlamydia from too many alley encounters after pub and club, blame it on the Spice Girls. They took the inheritance of the serious, middle-class feminists of 30 years back and squandered it. This was not the girl power we had in mind. We didn’t believe the law of unintended consequences applied to us. Whoever does?”
--Faye Weldon, The Times Online, on the social legacy of the newly reunited Spice Girls
Over 12,000 fans screamed in ecstasy this last week as rocker Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana, strutted her stuff on stage at the CenturyTel Center outside Shreveport , Louisiana . Most of the fans were little girls between the ages of 6-12. Outside the arena before the concert, thousands of little girls gathered in anticipation as speakers blared their favorite star's biggest hits. Swinging their hips and mouthing the words to the hit, these girls could easily have been years older in their behavior and dress. One anxious fan, still missing her front teeth, lisped to a reporter how she was preparing to “go nuts” when she saw her beloved rock star. Huge earrings and eye shadow were the norm among these small girls. Their entire world had obviously been shaped and molded by the media-created sensation of Hannah Montana. As I watched the news video of the event, I was struck with sadness at what has become of the world of young girls today. The word “tragedy” comes to mind.
Read the rest here.
Tea Partiers Boiling over New York Mayor's Remark
from www.onenewsnow.com
A conservative organization is calling on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to apologize for remarks he made shortly after the recent failed terror attack in Times Square.
Less than 24 hours after the failed car bomb attack, CBS anchor Katie Couric asked Mayor Bloomberg about possible suspects.
Bloomberg: "If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Somebody..."
Couric: "A home grown?"
Bloomberg: "A home grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda [who] doesn't like the healthcare bill or something -- it could be anything."
Although the mayor did not mention the Tea Party by name, Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty, believes Bloomberg's message was clear.
"...The most outspoken movement on the healthcare bill has been the Tea Party movement," Langer explains. "[Mayor Bloomberg] might have been trying to parse words or have it both ways, but the end result is still the same -- he was trying to pin this on the Tea Party movement."
Langer is calling on the mayor to make things right. "We are going to be asking for the mayor to recognize what this movement is all about and to apologize for his ill thoughts [and his] ill-conceived remarks," he remarks.
In a press release, Langer states: "There is nothing more irresponsible than a politician using a crisis to extend a dogmatic agenda."
The Institute for Liberty is planning a petition to ask Mayor Bloomberg to issue a formal apology.
from www.onenewsnow.com
A conservative organization is calling on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to apologize for remarks he made shortly after the recent failed terror attack in Times Square.
Less than 24 hours after the failed car bomb attack, CBS anchor Katie Couric asked Mayor Bloomberg about possible suspects.
Bloomberg: "If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Somebody..."
Couric: "A home grown?"
Bloomberg: "A home grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda [who] doesn't like the healthcare bill or something -- it could be anything."
Although the mayor did not mention the Tea Party by name, Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty, believes Bloomberg's message was clear.
"...The most outspoken movement on the healthcare bill has been the Tea Party movement," Langer explains. "[Mayor Bloomberg] might have been trying to parse words or have it both ways, but the end result is still the same -- he was trying to pin this on the Tea Party movement."
Langer is calling on the mayor to make things right. "We are going to be asking for the mayor to recognize what this movement is all about and to apologize for his ill thoughts [and his] ill-conceived remarks," he remarks.
In a press release, Langer states: "There is nothing more irresponsible than a politician using a crisis to extend a dogmatic agenda."
The Institute for Liberty is planning a petition to ask Mayor Bloomberg to issue a formal apology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)