Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

1 Comment

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

June 12, 2010 · 103 Comments

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Well, the Obama Administration certainly has not let the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig crisis go to waste, using it as a smokescreen to silently assault and further diminish American citizens’ personal freedom.

While the nation has its eyes and ears focused on the blame game ping-pong match between President Obama and BP top brass, President Obama on Thursday, June 10, quietly announced a new Executive Order establishing the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.”

You will "change" to my liking!You will “change” to my liking!

Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

According to the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out ” lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.”

The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications detailed in Sec. 6 (c) focus on:

  • smoking cessation;
  • proper nutrition;
  • appropriate exercise;
  • mental health;
  • behavioral health;
  • sedentary behavior (see Sec. 3 [c]);
  • substance-use disorder; and
  • domestic violence screenings.

Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.”

Let’s consider who the President has sought advice and mentoring from in the past:

  • Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League calls a “Messenger of Intolerance,” and
  • Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960′s domestic terrorist group ”Weatherman” that was “responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.”

Now, President Obama is going to seek medical advisors who will be charged with modifying lifestyles and behaviors of those citizens he deems unhealthy? “Paging Dr. Kevorkian! You’re wanted in the White House STAT by President Obama!”

Whether you are a child, a parent, a worker, or retired, the President’s approximately 25-member “Advisory Group” will soon be present in every aspect of Americans’ lives, as the Executive Order prescribes in Sec. 4 (b). Specifically, our new so-called lifestyle behavior modification advisors will be actively carrying out the President’s orders in:

  • worksite health promotion;
  • community services, including community health centers;
  • preventive medicine;
  • health coaching;
  • public health education;
  • geriatrics; and
  • rehabilitation medicine.

President Obama’s sweeping plan to enforce “lifestyle behavior modification” is chock full of open-ended target areas, especially when it comes to issues of “mental” and “behavioral” health, “proper nutrition,” “sedentary behavior,” and “appropriate exercise.” The President’s Executive Order is a blatant and forceful attempt to adjust the way Americans young and old think, behave, eat, drink and whatever else free will used to entitle our nation’s citizens to enjoy as prescribed by the Founding Fathers.

If you are feeling stressed-out, sad, confused, hungry, thirsty, bored, or tired, do you honestly trust President Obama and his “Advisory Group” to act in your best interests.

Nanny State Liberation Front.net

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . . ..

Comments Off

Read this and see how you stand………….I personally stand guilty of being a Constitutionalist.

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . .

I am absolutely convinced that without a renewed allegiance to constitutional government and State sovereignty, there can be no resolution to America’s current slide into socialism and oppression. Therefore, it is critical that we cast aside our infatuation with partisan politics and steadfastly stand firm for the principles of federalism and freedom, as did America’s founders.

Might you be a modern-day Minuteman who understands the principles of freedom and federalism? I offer the following test. Read it and see if you, too, are a Constitutionalist. (Yes, Martha, this is another Jeff Foxworthy spin-off.)

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people’s liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three “separate but equal” branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People.

8. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that gun control laws do nothing but aid and abet criminals while trampling the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

9. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the income tax is both unconstitutional and immoral, and, along with the I.R.S. and the Federal Reserve, should be abolished.

10. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had no authority to tell former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery; or to tell a Pace, Florida, high school principal that he could not pray before a meal.( They certainly do not)

11. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that Congress or the White House or any sovereign State is not required to submit to unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings. (Do you know about nullification?)

12. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that freedom has nothing in common with illegal immigration.

13. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that outsourcing American jobs overseas is not good for America.( Can you say 10% unemployment?)

14. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the United States should get out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

15. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.( Here’s a history lesson for some people. In May of 1779 George Washington told the Delaware Indian chiefs while trying to convince them to send their children to American Schools……..“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”….from The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources)

16. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the Boy Scouts are not a threat to America.

17. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government should honor its commitments to America’s veterans and stop using U.S. military personnel as guinea pigs for testing drugs and chemicals.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

19. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

20. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that federal agents who murder American citizens should be held to the same laws and punishments that any other citizen would be held to. (Can anyone say, “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge”?)

21. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA (and similar agreements) are disastrous compromises of America’s national sovereignty and independence.

22. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see congressmen and senators be required to actually read a bill before passing it into law.

23. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that it is the job of government to protect and secure God-given rights, not use its power to take those rights away.

24. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that there is nothing unconstitutional about the public acknowledgement of God and our Christian heritage. (This is correct…..Congress is the only thing/people  that can violate the 1st amendment establishment clause, by making a law establishing a national religion. Anything else is not a violation of the 1st amendment as the courts have been unconstitutionally  enforcing since the 1960s. I challenge anyone to find me one, just one example of the founding fathers practicing “separation of church and state” in their day as the courts are making us do today ! You won’t be able to find any…….not even one, because they didn’t do it.)

25. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that government bailouts and “stimulus” expenditures defy virtually every principle of free enterprise and are a flagrant leap into socialism.

26. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that airport screeners have no business touching women’s breasts, using sophisticated machinery to look through passengers’ clothing to see their naked bodies, confiscating fingernail clippers, or denying pilots from carrying handguns.

27. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that many public schools’ “zero-tolerance” policies are just plain stupid.

28. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that parents have a right to homeschool their children.

29. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that governmental seizure of private property is plain, old-fashioned thievery.

30. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are personally determined to not submit to any kind of forced vaccination. (Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the Constitutionality of this.)

31. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose any kind of national health insurance.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world’s policemen, that they are not “nation-builders,” and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

33. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer of his district and that federal law enforcement (much of which is unconstitutionally organized, anyway) is obligated to submit to his authority. (Most people aren’t even remotely aware of this truth.)

34. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are determined to oppose America’s merger with any kind of regional, hemispheric, or international government, such as the North American Union.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

36. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to meet one single congressman or senator besides Ron Paul who acts as if he or she has ever read the U.S. Constitution.

Well, how did you fare? Are you a Constitutionalist? If so, your country desperately needs you to stand up and fight for freedom’s principles before they are forever taken from us. This means never again voting for anyone–from any party–who will not preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, don’t just take the test; make the pledge!

ChuckBaldwinLive.com

Judge Andrew Napolitano- Columbus Ohio Tea Party, August 1, 2009

2 Comments

Let me set down a couple of fervent beliefs that animate everything I do and everything I say.

I believe that God created heaven and earth and every single individual on the planet.

I believe that the God who gave us life gave us liberty and that freedom is our birthright.

I believe that the States created the federal government and not the other way around. And that the power that the States gave to the Federal Government – they can take back.

When we were colonists, and the King and the Parliament needed money from us, and they always seemed to need money, they devised ingenious ways to tax us. One of them was called the Stamp Act. The Parliament decreed that every piece of paper that the Colonists had in their homes; every book, every document, every deed, every lease, every pamphlet, every poster to be nailed to a tree had to have the King’s stamp on it. You think going to a Post Office is bad? You had to go to a British Government office and buy a stamp with the King’s picture.

Question. How did the King know that his picture was on every piece of paper in your house? The Parliament enacted a hateful piece of legislation called the Writs of Assistance Act which let the king’s soldiers write their own search warrants, and bang down any door they chose to look for the stamps or anything else that they were looking for.

It was the last straw.

We fought a revolution. We won the revolution. We wrote the Constitution. The constitution doesn’t grant power, it keeps the government off our backs.

When they were debating the Constitution in the Summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, there were two great arguments – one by the Jefferson and Madison crowd and one by the Adams and Hamilton crowd. Jefferson argued, though he wasn’t physically there in Philly, as he did in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are ours by virtue of our humanity. That as God is perfectly free, and we are created in his image and likeness, we too are perfectly free. The big government crowd – yes they had them even in those days – argued that you can’t have freedom without government, and that government gives us our rights, and therefore, that government can take them away. This is not an academic argument. Jefferson and the natural law argument prevailed because the Constitution was written to keep the government from interfering with our natural rights.

And so, your right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to travel where you want, to worship as you see fit, to keep and bear arms to defend yourself against a tyranny. And, after the right to life, the greatest and most uniquely American of rights – and I say this in front of the seat of the government – is the right to be left alone.

We wrote a Constitution to ensure that the government would never interfere with these rights. Think about it – if rights come from the government, then the government, by ordinary legislation, or presidential decree can take them away. But if the rights come from our humanity, then unless we violate someone else’s natural rights, the government cannot take our rights away.

This is not just a democrat, upper case D, or a republican, upper case R, problem. It’s a problem with government today. There’s a republican version of big government just as assaultive to our liberties as there’s a democrat version of big government.

We fought a revolution because British soldiers could knock on our doors and demand that we house them, and demand that we turn over property to them because they could write their own search warrants. In the Patriot Act, the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, a republican congress and a republican president authorized federal agents to do the unthinkable – to write their own search warrants. And the republican administration didn’t even let members of the House of Representatives read the Patriot Act before they voted on it.

Why should the government be able to spy on us? We should be able to spy on them!

When some judge is rationalizing away our liberty, or some congressman is plotting to take away your freedom or your tax dollars, we should know what they do every minute that they do it.

I was speaking to a group of congressman from a neighboring state – I won’t tell you which state it was, but they don’t play football there – and they came up to me and said “this is the first time we have heard that the Patriot Act allows federal agents to write their own search warrants.” Remember, in the Constitution, we put in the 4th Amendment, the right to be left alone, to make sure that if the government had a target, no matter how guilty the target, no matter how widespread is the belief in the guilt of the target, no matter how dangerous is the target, the government has to go through a neutral judge with a search warrant before it can get to that target. These members of Congress said, “we didn’t know that the Patriot Act allowed the government to bypass the courts and write any search warrant they wanted.” Then I asked them a question I knew the answer to already – did you read the Patriot Act before you voted on it? The answer – no. What were you voting on? A summary we received. Let me guess who wrote the summary – some lawyers in the justice department, right? Of course.

Would you hire anybody to run your business that committed you to a violation of the very reason you’re in business if they didn’t even the document by which they were making that committment? Of course not.

The camera is the new gun. There’s nothing that government dislikes more than the light of day, and cameras recording what the government is doing, whether it’s on a street corner, or in there, or in Washington D.C., we have the right to know everything that they do and why they do it, and when they do it, and how they are taking our freedoms.

I have another one of my basic core beliefs. The individual has an immortal soul. Every individual is greater than any government.

Your government is based on fear and force. You don’t have to take my word on it. The 2nd president on the United States, John Adams, said “Of course the government is based on fear.” And the first president, George Washington, said “Government is not reason, it is force.” I think they knew what they were talking about.

Now fast-forward to modern times. Whenever the government wants something, it scares us. During the civil war, Lincoln tried civilians in this state where no battles occured, by military tribunal. After he died the supreme court invalidated everything the military tribunals did. During the first world war, the Wilson administration locked up 2000 people called anarchists – same thing as enemy combatants. No trial, no charge, just jail for the duration of the war. In world war II, FDR locked up 150,000 Japanese Americans, people born in the United States, who got no trial and had no charges, and when the war was over were given $25 and told to go home.

Today we have federal agents. You know I get in arguments with my friends at Fox News, and one of them, I don’t have to tell you who it is, but is truly the most irascible person there. And he said to me, you know you have a problem with Guantanamo Bay, and you have a problem with the Patriot Act, what will you do if I get sent to Guantanamo Bay, will you visit me? And I say, Bill – no, because they’ll probably keep me there as well.

Government likes to say that it’s taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. In the years that I was on the bench, it seemed that every time government lawyers were in my courtroom, if the government was prosecuting someone who was legitimately guilty or whether it was a mistake, or whether somebody was suing the government because government contractors or government doctors, or government workers made a mistake – the government doesn’t come in to the courtroom to enforce the constitution, it comes into the courtroom to evade and avoid it. That, ladies and gentlemen, must be stopped.

This is a great moment in our history. A crowd of this magnitude on a beautiful day, in the boiling sun, in the most middle-American of great middle-American states…comes together not because the president is a democrat, not because his predecessor was a republican, not because a war is just or unjust, not because the Fed is stealing or printing – you’re here because you believe in human freedom.

It is the essence of our existence that we should be free. But remember this: the government hates freedom. It is an obstacle to every one of their designs. Whenever they write laws, whenever they take your tax dollars, whenever they regulate your private behavior, whenever they tell you how to spend your money, whenever they tell you what medicines to take, whenever they tell you what food to eat, whenever they tell you with who you may or must associate, they are taking away your freedom and they love to get away with it. And they cannot get away with it any longer.

In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation! Now is the time to defend our freedoms.

Jefferson was no saint but he was the greatest of our American presidents. He believed that the individual was greater than the state. He believed that the states were greater than the federal government. And when he wrote that our rights come from our creator, and that our rights are inalienable, he forever wed the notion of natural rights to the American experience and the American experiment. We must be vigilant about every right that the government wants to take away from us.

You’ve heard the president say, present president and his predecessor, “my first job is to keep you safe.” He’s wrong! His first job is to keep us free. It is his only job to keep us free.

Shortly before he died, Jefferson lamented, that in his view of the world that is was in the natural order of things for government to grow and freedom to be diminished; how ardently he wish that that wouldn’t happen. And in order to prevent it from happening he had a very simple remedy, “When the people fear the government, that is tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is liberty!”

Judge Andrew Napolitano

Cars.gov allows government to takeover dealer’s computer

8 Comments

Cars.gov allows government to takeover dealer’s computer and copy it all.

GM, Amtrak and an Increasingly Fascist America

11 Comments

GM, Amtrak and an Increasingly Fascist America

Last week, General Motors finally declared bankruptcy. Many in government thought $20 billion in taxpayer dollars would save the company, but as predicted, it only postponed the inevitable. The government will dump another $30 billion into GM and take a 60 percent controlling interest for it. Public officials are now involving themselves in tactical business decisions such as where GM’s headquarters should move and what kind of cars it will build.

The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak. Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!

In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only – by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay. Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending. Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.

Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.

Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM. The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union’s 17.5 percent stake. For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.

Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself. It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people. In the end, the market always wins out. Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck. For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.

DailyPaul.com

GOOD FOR THEM: Graduating students defy ACLU

4 Comments

Good for them……excercising their 1st amendment rights against the bullies at the ACLU, because there is no “separation of church and state” clause in the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,……”

George Washington, “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

Justice William O. Douglas, once wrote that forbidding public worship discriminates in favor of “those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”

WND Exclusive


FAITH UNDER FIRE

Graduating students defy ACLU

Seniors stand and recite Lord’s Prayer


Posted: June 05, 2009
10:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Principal Frank Lay

Members of the graduating class of 2009 at Florida’s Pace High School have expressed their objections to ACLU restrictions on statements of religious faith at their school by rising up en masse at their ceremony and reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

The incident happened just days ago, but has been virtually ignored by media outlets throughout the region, according to officials with Liberty Counsel, a legal team representing Principal Frank Lay and teacher Michelle Winkler in their battle with the ACLU, which had complained that faculty and teachers were talking about their beliefs.

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace, a Santa Rosa County school, stood up at their graduation, according to Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel.

Parents, family and friends joined in the recitation, and applauded the students when they were finished, Staver told WND.

“Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith,” the organization reported.

“Neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said Staver, who also is dean of Liberty University School of Law. “The students at Pace High School refused to remain silent and were not about to be bullied by the ACLU.

“Schools are not religion-free zones, and any attempt to make them so is unconstitutional,” he said.

Liberty Counsel has been representing Lay and Winkler against ACLU demands that all statements of faith be censored. The law firm also had volunteered to represent the school board in the dispute, but board members chose their own outside counsel.

The ACLU had sued the school six months earlier and as part of the discussions over that dispute, the school’s separate counsel had agreed to a consent decree that “essentially bans all Santa Rose County School District employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities,” Liberty Counsel’s report said.

The ACLU had alleged that during a dinner event at the school, Lay had asked the athletic director to bless the meal. In a second incident, the ACLU claimed Winkler’s husband, who is not a school board employee, offered a prayer at an awards ceremony.

As preparations were being made for the 2009 graduation, the ACLU demanded the school censor students from offering prayers or saying anything religious. As a result, two student leaders traditionally allowed by the school to address their graduation were banned from doing so.

Staver said class members, furious with the ACLU for hijacking their free speech rights, assembled the plan on their own. As soon as Lay asked everyone to be seated for the ceremony, the graduating seniors remained standing and recited the Lord’s Prayer.

A local Fox station had reported that students enjoyed a baccalaureate at a nearby church before the graduation. Class President Kaitlynn Floyd said then class members were grateful for the opportunity to attend that event.

Staver reported concerns over the application of an agreement reached by the school board to students’ rights remains an unresolved issue.

WorldNetDaily.com

Suspect detained over ‘extremist’ bumper sticker

1 Comment

This is a great example of what a lot of us were talking about happening and were criticized for it as over reacting to the DHS  report on “right wing extremists” .

Suspect detained over ‘extremist’ bumper sticker

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A Louisiana driver was stopped and detained for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the “subversive” message it sent, according to the driver’s relative.

The situation developed in the small town of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the “suspect” was investigated for “extremist” activities, the relative said.

It followed by only a few weeks the release of a Department of Homeland Security report, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The report, which cites individuals who sport certain bumper stickers on their vehicles as suspect, was delivered to tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation.

WND is withholding the driver’s name and the relative’s name at their request.

However, the situation was described on the American Vision blog. Which goes on to say, ” Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough.  Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse. They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!”

According to the relative, it happened this way: Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through the town, which has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by ticketing speeders. He was pulled over by police officers who told him “he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car.”

“They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes,” she told WND.

Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.

The company that sells the bumper sticker is The Patriot Depot, where Chief Operating Officer Jay Taylor told WND the woman had told his staff about the situation while ordering more bumper stickers.

“It’s rather shocking,” he said. “We supposedly have freedom of speech in our country.

“We joke around every now and then how our spouses will come to visit us in jail,” he continued, citing his products that say, “The Audacity of Nope,” “Taxed Enough Already,” “Born Free, Taxed to Death,” “Bring Home Our Troops: Send the Democrats” and “I’ll Keep my Guns and Money, You Keep the ‘Change’.”

“We hope people realize this is serious,” he said.

American Vision noted the “background check” that was done on the driver.

“Why? [He] had purchased and displayed a conservative ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ bumper sticker.””

The commentator wrote, “The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan ‘Don’t Tread on Me!’ underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.”

American Vision continued: “The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as ‘militia’-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as ‘extremists.’”

“‘Liberals’ and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty ‘extremists’ since at least the 1964 election,” the Vision America statement said. “Small town police misled by phony left wing ‘reports’ are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse.”

The DHS not only issued that report, but also an earlier memo defining dozens of groups, members of animal rights organizations, black separatists, tax protesters and others as “threats.”

That item, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” reportedly was rescinded almost immediately, but Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.It defines the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”Apparently, the DHS analyzes the “threat” level of Internet news websites like WorldNetDaily, for the lexicon defines “alternative media” as “a term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

Worldnetdaily.com

Obama Putting U.S. sovereignty on swap block?

2 Comments

U.S. sovereignty on swap block?

Obama negotiating for seat for U.S. on U.N. commission


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Obama administration is preparing to swap U.S. sovereignty for a higher level of U.S. presence at the United Nations, a plan that has alarmed officials working to protect the rights of Americans, specifically the parental rights that traditionally have been recognized across the nation’s history.

Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said, “The move is little more than another attempt at political correctness by an administration frantic for acceptance by the international community.”

Farris also is a dedicated leader behind the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.

WND reported just days ago his warning that parental rights in the U.S. already are being diminished.

“The erosion is upon us,” he said then.

Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, “the Supreme Court declared that ‘the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.’”

However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found “the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights.”

Now Farris is alerting to the plan in the Obama White House to try to secure a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, an intergovernmental body of 47 member states.

However, it has no legal authority and only offers opinions.

Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution

 

“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.   <click here


The report from Farris said to secure its seat, the Obama camp has submitted a series of “Commitments and Pledges” declaring its loyalty and “deep commitment” to the U.N.

Farris is familiar with the U.N. and its operations, having proposed the Parental Rights Amendment to prevent the loss of U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. through its treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which could be used to prevent parents from spanking their own children or directing their religious training.

This (Obama) administration is all about photo ops,” said Farris, “and is apparently willing to trade away U.S. sovereignty for a seat on a council which has no legal authority.”

In the April 27 “Commitments” document released by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the U.S. representative to the international body, the Obama White House pledged its support for the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which also makes the U.S. subservient to the international agenda.

If the two cited treaties are adopted, Farris said, they will “not only jeopardize U.S. sovereignty but hasten the end of the traditional American family.

“All U.N. treaties require strict scrutiny,” he cautioned. “The pledge, as written, expresses no such need but, rather, unilaterally commits the U.S. to meet its U.N. treaty obligations. Apparently, for this administration, membership in a U.N. Council with no authority trumps the right of Americans – not the U.N. or any other nation – to make public policy affecting Americans.”

Farris says the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution a description of parental rights as fundamental, would offer help for families.

“Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served,” the draft states. “No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80 co-sponsors in Congress, is moving “faster then we thought we would.” .

The website notes if approved, the Convention on the Rights of the Child would supersede “the laws of all 50 states on children and parents.”

According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.

Worldnet Daily.com

Remembering the Good Ole Days

Comments Off

Law vs. Moral Values



A civilized society’s first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values.

Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct.

The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.

Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults.

When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn’t have child-raising “experts” to tell them that “time out” is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.

To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted “Senior Citizen Seating.” Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.

You might be tempted to charge, “Williams, you’re a prude!” I’d ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning. Is foul language to or in the presence of teachers conducive to an atmosphere of discipline and respect necessary for effective education? If not, how would you propose it be controlled?

Years ago, simply sassing a teacher would have meant a trip to the vice principal’s office for an attitude adjustment administered with a paddle. Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men would not say the kind of things often said to or in front of women today. Gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.

During the 1940s, my family lived in North Philadelphia’s Richard Allen housing project. Many families didn’t lock doors until late at night, if ever. No one ever thought of installing bars on their windows. Hot, humid summer nights found many people sleeping outside on balconies or lawn chairs.

Starting in the ‘60s and ‘70s, doing the same in some neighborhoods would have been tantamount to committing suicide. Keep in mind that the 1940s and ‘50s were a time of gross racial discrimination, high black poverty and few opportunities compared to today. The fact that black neighborhoods were far more civilized at that time should give pause to the excuses of today that blames today’s pathology on poverty and discrimination.

Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.

CNS News.com

Tea Parties: Tax Day Anger Becomes Everyday Anger

14 Comments

Tea Parties: Tax Day Anger Becomes Everyday Anger

Herman Cain at Las Vegas Tea Party

The Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media and the flaming liberal media are attempting to downplay the organized anger expressed by hundreds of thousands of people on April 15 at Tax Day Tea Parties across the country.

The president issued a press release on tax day restating all the platitudes he has touted ever since he was running for president. As usual, his rhetoric does not match the agenda being steamrolled through Congress by his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The Democratic National Committee issued a statement on Thursday, April 16,which acknowledged people’s frustrations and suggested that “what’s clear is that the overwhelming majority of folks support President Obama’s plan to get the economy back on track, and provide 95 percent of working families with tax relief, because they are not going to accept ‘more of the same’ as an answer.”

People not accepting “more of the same” is an accurate message of the tax day events, but overwhelmingly supporting President Obama’s plan is a joke.


Here are some of the signs at the Las Vegas tax day event where I attended:

“Stop the spending. Stop the bailouts. Stop the tyranny”

“Got change? Hide it before Obama taxes it!”

“The only thing wrong with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Is that overwhelming support? And is the $8 a week for a single worker and $13 a week for a working couple tax relief? That’s the tax relief for 95 percent of working families the president and the Democrats are talking about.

And of course Speaker Pelosi weighed in with equally misleading statements when she said, “This tea party initiative is funded by the high end – we call it Astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.” Translated, let’s talk about class warfare.

I have warned readers in the past that when liberals disagree with a conservative, or when they are in denial of the facts, they change the subject. Casey Hendrickson of KXNT 840 AM out of Las Vegas appropriately calls this maneuver a WMD – a Weapon of Mass Distraction.

USA Today’s lead headline the day after the rallies read “Thousands rally at Tax Day Tea Parties”. Adding up the mostly understated news reports of crowd sizes in over 2,000 events around the country would suggest hundreds of thousands is more accurate. But the liberals are not counting.

And a flaming liberal publication, People’s Weekly World Newspaper, claimed that “Tax Day Rallies cry ‘Tax the Rich!’”. What planet are they from?

I attended the Las Vegas tax day rally, which attracted 2,500 people, and I did not see one sign that said to tax anyone more. I did not see one sign that proclaimed overwhelming support for the “Obama Plan” of trying to spend our way out of this financial crisis. And I did not see one sign that said “socialism now”.

But I saw lots of signs that were clearly not in support of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi direction of the country. Lots and lots of those signs!

Mr. President, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi, the anger is directed at y’all! You have ignored the message and the people again.

It’s not just tax day anger anymore. It is now everyday anger.

WSB radio.com

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers