Glenn Beck’s Decline: What Caused It?

Comments Off

What’s going on with Glenn Beck? Or is this the elite’s propaganda trying to get rid of Beck?

Glenn Beck’s Decline: What Caused It?

Six months ago, Glenn Beck held his “Restoring Honor” rally on the
National Mall, drawing a crowd of about 100,000. Newspapers and
magazines featured the rally on front pages around the country. The next
month, The New York Times Magazine devoted a cover story to him. “In record time,” the piece observed, “Beck has traveled the loop of curiosity to ratings bonanza to self-parody to sage.”

Just six months later, however, Beck seems to have traveled somewhere
else entirely. His ratings and reputation are in steep decline: His
show has lost more than one million viewers over the course of the past
year, falling from an average of 2.9 million in January 2010 to 1.8
million in January 2011. He now ranks fifth among Fox’s six weekday talk
hosts, trailing lesser-known personalities like Shepard Smith and Bret
Baier. Beck’s three-hour radio show has been dropped in several major
cities, including New York and Philadelphia, and has seen a ratings
decline in most other markets.

Beck’s commercial viability also seems to have suffered. His viewership
among 25- to 54-year-olds, a prized advertising demographic, declined by
almost one-half in 2010. An advertising boycott organized by liberal
groups has caused over 300 companies—including Procter & Gamble,
UPS, Coca-Cola, and Wal-Mart—to stop showing commercials during Beck’s
show. The Beck brand isn’t what it used to be off the airwaves either:
His most recent non-fiction book, Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure, was his first book in eight years not to reach number one on The New York Times best-seller list.

Recently, however, conservatives have been criticizing Beck openly.
Bill O’Reilly, who feted him for an hour after the Restoring Honor
rally, has rapidly become more and more dismissive. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol has criticized Beck’s “rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East.” Conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin called Beck a “ranting extremist,” and former Bush administration staffer Pete Wehner wrote for Commentary’s website, “If conservatism were ever to hitch its wagon to this self-described rodeo clown, it would collapse as a movement.”
What happened? Beck built a following by making outlandish,
conspiratorial claims—about ACORN, Obama, and so on. (Bizarrely, his
extremism may have augmented the number of curious liberal viewers
tuning in: A Pew Research Center poll from last September found that 9
percent of Beck’s Fox viewers identified as Democrats, and 21 percent as
moderates or liberals.) But “anytime you have extreme stimulus,” says
Alexander Zaitchik, author of the unauthorized Beck biography Common Nonsense, “you’ll have diminishing returns.”

To be fair, Beck’s decline may be stark in part because of the
extraordinary rapidity of his earlier ascent. “What he was doing in his
first two years was unprecedented,” says Zaitchik. And Michael Harrison
of Talkers, a radio trade publication, cautions that, “in radio,”
one has “to look [at] over a year’s ratings. … It’s just too soon to
determine anything.”

Then there is always the possibility he will still recover. Beck has
successfully changed his persona before: He was a morning drive-time DJ
on Top 40 stations long before becoming a political pundit. “He’s a
showman,” says Harrison. “I have no doubt in my mind” he’ll adapt. On
the other hand, maybe Beck really has reached a tipping point.
Demagogues, after all, have a way of outwearing their welcome.

New Republic

UPDATED: ACLU Threatens Tennessee Schools That Observe Christmas

Comments Off

This stuff on religion and the government has gotten completely out of hand. The 1st amendment is written to only “Congress” and when you study the Founding Fathers you learn they did all kinds of things in their day that would be declared unconstitutional today by the courts, like the 1st Congress purchased 20,000 Bibles to be used in the schools, like Thomas Jefferson giving government money to build a church for a Indian tribe and paying the first years salary of a pastor as well. Let’s use a little common sense here, don’t you think the Founding Fathers knew more of what they meant when they wrote the 1st amendment than people 200 yrs later would? There is a poll at this website below that you may want to participate in.

How Should Schools Respond to ACLU Letter Warning About Promoting Holidays?

The American Civil Liberties Union sent a nice Christmas letter to schools in Tennessee. Oops, sorry. We mean a nice holiday letter.

As we near Christmas, the ACLU branch in Tennessee felt that it was time to send a note to schools throughout the state, reminding them that they should be careful about promoting one religion over the others, according to The Associated Press.

Hedy Weinberg, ACLU executive director in Tennessee, told the AP that people need to “embrace the constitutional guarantees of the First Amendment in order to ensure that religious freedom flourishes.”

Winter celebrations, that highlight other religions, are allowed according to the ACLU, and for the most part, schools carefully follow district guidelines in connection with any holiday parties. This, not shockingly, has some parents displeased.

Soda Head

Alliance Defense Fund Responds to ACLU Threats and Lies.

The Alliance Defense Fund is contacting school districts in Tennessee to correct some fallacies from the ACLU about celebrating Christmas.


“I think it’s another story of the Grinch who stole Christmas,” says David Cortman, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). According to the attorney, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee sent a letter to every school district in The Volunteer State.

“…Basically saying,” explains Cortman, “that if you’re going to celebrate any aspect of Christmas at all, then you’re constitutionally required to celebrate every holiday — which of course is not true.”

The attorney says he finds it “interesting” that the ACLU letter used words such as “divisive,” “indoctrinating,” “coercive,” and “censorship.”

David Cortman (Alliance Defense Fund)”…It’s ironic that they use such heavy-handed words when people are merely trying to celebrate the Christmas holiday,” he comments.

ADF has responded with a letter of its own to the school districts, informing them they do not have to deny students and teachers their constitutionally protected right to recognize Christmas just because of the threats issued by the ACLU. “It’s just the ACLU using their bully pulpit to try to whitewash anything religious from society, even if that includes Christmas,” states Cortman.

The ADF attorney explains that the ACLU’s letter to the Tennessee school districts “smacks of political correctness” and has little or no legal basis.

Papastors.net

Chattanooga Tn School Bows to Freedom from Religion Foundation and Ends Prayers

Comments Off

Well here we go again….two  students are “offended” by prayers at the school and contacted The Freedom from Religion Foundation in Wisconsin which wrote a letter to the school system in Hamilton county threatening a lawsuit, so they are discontinuing the prayers. Although a poll I saw said 87% were in favor of the prayers, the minority prevail and stopped the free speech rights of the majority……again !!!

I have studied the Founding Fathers extensively and you won’t find even one example of them practicing “separation of church and state” as demanded by the courts today. Again, I challenge anyone to give me an example of the Founding Fathers practicing “separation of church and state” in their day as demanded by the courts today of us.

Either the Founders had no idea what they meant or had created, or the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States  today has invented another document out of what our forefathers wrote, and meant when it was written!

Tenn. High School Bans Pre-Game Prayers

A southeastern Tennessee public high school will no longer allow prayers to be said over its public address system before the start of its football games.

Hamilton County School Superintendent Jim Scales has ended the tradition of a prayer being said over the loudspeakers after two students at Soddy – Daisy High School near Chattanooga objected to the practice.

One of the students contacted the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based group that promotes separation of church and state.  The organization’s officials sent a letter of complaint to Scales asking him to halt the prayers.

“The fact of the matter is that prayer in not allowed at public functions including graduation and football games, and it can’t be done over a loudspeaker. It can’t be done at graduation ceremonies,” Freedom From Religion attorney Rebecca Markert said.

“Once someone presses the issue, then we know how the courts rule on these things, so it’s probably incumbent upon us at this point to act in a responsible manner,” Scales said.

Scales instructed Principal John Maynard to stop the practice.

However, several students say they support publicly praying before the games and they don’t want the practice stopped.

“I think before a football game everybody should get together for a prayer to God for everyone to make sure nobody gets hurt and nothing goes wrong,” student Taon Harris said.

“Everybody that I know is all for it,” another student said. “They see that good things come from prayer. It’s what we do around here.”

Jim Rogers is the father of East Hamilton School’s football team manager. He told the Associated Press that public prayer is protected under the U.S. Constitution.

“Our country was founded on the principle of religious suffrage and the freedom to express that religion,” he told the newspaper.

The new rule applies to all Hamilton County schools. It also forbids teachers and coaches from taking part in group prayer during school events.

CBN.com

Congress is NOT authorized by the Constitution to pass any law on any subject

3 Comments

Here’s is another great article by my friend Publius Huldah in the Canada Free Press. She is a retired Constitutional Lawyer, retired and lives in Tennessee. Here she  explains and proves the enumerated powers of Congress.  Lawfully, their powers are very limited!  In addition,  I have previously studied things on FDR and the founding fathers wanting to abolish slavery and Ms PH’s explanation on both are accurate. As a matter of fact the Southern Colonies are what prohibited Slavery from being abolished at the time of the ratification of the Constitution as many of the founders wished.

Congress’ enumerated powers

By Publius Huldah  Sunday, October 17, 2010

1. With the U.S. Constitution, We The People created the federal government. It is our “creature”, and has no powers other than those We granted to it in The Constitution.

Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), says re “constitution”:

…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.

If you, dear Reader, will study this paper and read the Constitution, you will know more about it than most State & federal judges, most law professors & lawyers, most who spout off on TV & radio, and anybody in Congress (except for Michele Bachmann and perhaps a few others). And you will certainly know more than anyone currently occupying any office in the executive branch of the federal government.

2. The federal government * has three branches: Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch (Congress) & lists its powers; Article II creates the executive branch & lists its powers; and Article III creates the judicial branch & lists its powers.

In this paper, we will consider only the enumerated powers of Congress. But the powers of the other two branches are likewise strictly limited and enumerated.

3. Congress is NOT authorized to pass any law on any subject just because a majority in Congress think the law is a good idea! Instead, the areas in which Congress is authorized to act are strictly limited and defined (“enumerated”). Article I, § 8, grants to Congress the powers:

  1. To lay certain taxes;
  2. To pay the debts of the United States;
  3. To declare war and make rules of warfare, to raise and support armies and a navy and to make rules governing the military forces; to call forth the militia for certain purposes, and to make rules governing the militia;
  4. To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  5. To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization;
  6. To establish uniform Laws on Bankruptcies;
  7. To coin money and regulate the value thereof;
  8. To fix the standard of Weights and Measures;
  9. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting;
  10. To establish post offices and post roads;
  11. To issue patents and copyrights;
  12. To create courts inferior to the supreme court; and
  13. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Laws of Nations.
  14. Other provisions of the Constitution grant Congress powers to make laws regarding:

  15. An enumeration of the population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes (Art. I, § 2, cl. 3);
  16. Elections of Senators & Representatives (Art. I, §4, cl. 1) and their pay (Art. I, § 6);
  17. After 1808, to prohibit importation of slaves (Art. I, § 9, cl. 1); **
  18. A restricted power to suspend Writs of Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2);
  19. To revise and control imposts or duties on imports or exports which may be laid by States (Art. I, § 10, cl. 2 &3)
  20. A restricted power to declare the punishment of Treason (Art. III, §3, cl. 2);
  21. Implementation of the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, §1); and,
  22. Procedures for amendments to The Constitution (Art. V).

The 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, & 26th Amendments grant additional powers to Congress respecting civil rights & voting rights, the public debt [lawfully incurred], income tax, successions to vacated offices, dates of assembly, and appointment of representatives from the D.C.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to exercise throughout the States these and only these powers!

4. Two provisions of the Constitution grant to Congress broad legislative powers over specifically defined geographical areas:

a) Article I, §8, next to last clause, grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation” over the following geographically tiny areas: the seat of the government of the United States (not to exceed 10 square miles), forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and the like. As James Madison said in federalist no. 43 at 2., it is necessary for the government of the united states to have “complete authority” at the seat of government, and over forts, magazines, etc. established by the federal government.

b) article iv, §3, cl. 2 grants to congress power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the united states (as opposed to property belonging to individual states). as these territories became states, congress’ powers under this article were terminated.

5. thus, congress has no authority to bail out financial institutions, businesses, and homeowners who don’t pay their mortgages; no authority to take control of our health care; no authority to pass laws denying secret ballots to employees who are solicited for membership by labor unions; no authority to take away your ira’s and other retirement accounts, no authority to pass laws respecting energy consumption or “emissions”, education, housing, etc., etc., etc.

Therefore, the laws which Congress has passed on such topics are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by The Constitution. We the People did not give such powers to Congress when we ordained & established the Constitution, created the Congress, and listed its 21 enumerated powers. And these powers are not granted to Congress in any of the Amendments.

6. If you look at The List of powers We granted to Congress, you will see that Congress’ legislative powers fall into three categories:

a) International commerce and war;

b) Domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy law, a [limited] power over interstate commerce, and mail delivery. Congress also has the power to establish lower federal courts and make rules for naturalization.

c) Protection of civil and voting rights.

That’s about it! All other powers are retained by the States or the People!

7. You ask, “How can Congress make all these laws if they are unconstitutional? How can what you say be true?”

Congress gets away with it because We are ignorant of what our Constitution says; and We have been indoctrinated into believing that Congress can do whatever they want!

But consider Prohibition: During 1919 everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages! So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

8. But during the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), all three branches of the federal government abandoned the Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” programs; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court ruled (generally 5 to 4) that these programs were unconstitutional as outside the legislative powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving FDR’s programs (5 to 4).

9. Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution! Instead, they teach decisions of the FDR-dominated Supreme Court which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that three clauses, the “general welfare” clause, the “interstate commerce” clause and the “necessary & proper” clause, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

10. “Well”, you ask, “what about ‘the general welfare clause’? Doesn’t that give Congress power to pass any law on any subject as long as it is for the ‘general Welfare of the United States’ “? NO, IT DOES NOT!

First, you must learn what “welfare” meant when the Constitution was ratified: “Welfare” as used in the Preamble & in Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, meant

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government (Webster’s, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), added a new meaning: “Public relief—on welfare. Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when new meanings are substituted for original meanings?

Second, James Madison addresses this precise issue in federalist no. 41 (last 4 paras): madison points out that the first paragraph of art. i, §8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms.  so, yes! the powers of congress really are restricted to those listed hereinabove.

OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace & prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society & civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited & restricted in what it was given power to do!

11. “OK”, you say, “but what about ‘the commerce clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3)?  Doesn’t that give Congress power to pass laws on any subject which ‘affects’ ‘interstate commerce’ “? NO, IT DOES NOT! In federalist no. 22 (4th para) and federalist no. 42 (11th &12th paras), alexander hamilton & james madison explain the purpose of the “interstate commerce” clause: it is to prohibit the states from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export—merchandize—as they are transported through the states for purposes of buying and selling. that’s what it does, folks; and until the mid-1930’s and fdr’s “new deal”, this was widely understood. ***

12.“well, then”, you say, “doesn’t the ‘necessary & proper’ clause’ (Art. I, §8, last clause) allow Congress to make any laws which the people in Congress think are ‘necessary & proper’?” NO, IT DOES NOT! Alexander Hamilton says the clause merely gives to Congress a right to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers ( federalist no. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power ( federalist no. 33, 4th para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” ( federalist no. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy. ( federalist no. 33, 4th para). james madison agrees with hamilton’s explanation. ( federalist no. 44, 10th-17th paras). in other words, the clause simply permits the execution of powers already declared and granted. Hamilton & Madison are clear that no additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

13. The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So! If a power is not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government; and if the States are not prohibited (as by Art. I, § 10) from exercising that power; then that power is retained by the States or by The People. And WE are The People”!

14. Our Framers insisted repeatedly that Congress is restricted to its enumerated powers. James Madison says in federalist no. 45 (9th para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 39(14th para):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects.

and in Federalist No. 14 (8th para):

…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…

15. In all its recent legislation, Congress ratchets up its concerted pattern of lawless usurpations. The executive branch and the federal courts approve it. Such is the essence of tyranny. They are “ruling” without our consent, and hence the federal government is now illegitimate. PH


* “Federal” refers to the form of government: An alliance of States with close cultural & economic ties associated in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas.

** Some object that our Constitution endorsed slavery. During the 18th century, slavery was universal. Article I, § 9, clause 1, is our Proclamation to the World that WE would abolish the slave trade! Of course, James Madison wanted the “barbarism” & “unnatural traffic” of the slave trade abolished immediately ( Federalist Paper No. 42, 6th para).

*** See Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in united states v. lopez (1995). justice thomas’ opinion shows why those disposed to usurp attack him so virulently.

Canada Free Press

Wannabe DICTATOR Obama: Republicans Will Have to Learn to Get Along With Me

Comments Off

This just substantiates the fact that Obama is an ideologue. He may have a surprise coming if the Republicans take both the House and Senate. The tables may turn and he may be the one that has to get along. He forgets one thing, even tho he’d like to be a Dictator……he’s NOT one.

Obama: Republicans Will Have to Learn to Get Along With Me

President Obama reveals in a magazine article that he is weighing what to do if Republicans win the House majority next month, and has come up with a novel approach: Make the GOP work with him.

In a seeming twist on the post-1994 midterm calculation made by President Bill Clinton — when Republicans pummeled Democrats in the congressional election — Obama said he thinks Republicans will have to move in his direction no matter the outcome of the Nov. 2 vote. (What? When the polls show his approval ratings at an all time low, Republicans will have to move in his direction? What is wrong with this man? Is he that much out of touch or is he that arrogant to think such a thing?)

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,” he is quoted saying in the Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine, “either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Accusing the public of mistaking his abilities, the president also told the magazine that he’s a little taken aback that voters are disappointed with the current turn of events in his administration. (A little taken back? Does this man not understand if he ran for re-election in November 2010 he’d be defeated handily?)

Obama said he also realized too late that “there is no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” a familiar refrain made by the president when he was trying to sell the stimulus package.

“There are almost 100 shovel-ready transportation projects already approved,” he said in August 2009. As recently as July of this year, he said, “Shovels will soon be moving earth and trucks will soon be pouring concrete.”

Fox News


Muslim Holidays to be Observed in Cambridge Massachusetts Schools

Comments Off

Well we’ve arrived now haven’t we Cambridge. Beginning next year their school system will observe on Muslim Holiday and close the schools. Cambridge School Committee Vice Chairman Marc McGovern said, “Cambridge schools already close for some Christian and Jewish holidays, and McGovern said he believes Muslims should be treated equally.”

“The issue that sort of came up was should we celebrate any religious holidays, but there was not the will to take away Good Friday or one of the Jewish holidays,” he said. “So I said, if that is the case, I think we have an obligation to celebrate one of the Muslim holidays, as well.”

An official also said, “It just didn’t seem right that we would close for two of those religions (Christian & Jewish), but not for the third.”

(This article below starts out in an attempt to pull your heart strings for 17 yr old Dunia Kassay and her dilemma so you’ll go along with this decision.)

(IMO-It is appropriate that  we don’t close for the third “religion” (ideology) because we are a Christian nation, not Islamic. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Saudi Arabia celebrates even one Christian holiday or doesn’t even allow a Christian church to be built, along with allowing Bibles in the country?)

School system to get Muslim holiday

Cambridge to start observance in 2011-12

As a Muslim and a high school senior at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, 17-year-old Dunia Kassay faces a tough choice every year on Islamic holy days: go to school or stay home to be with family and friends.

If she stays home, Kassay says, she will be forced to play catch-up and make up her school assignments. But if she goes to school, she will be neglecting what she feels is her religious obligation on holidays such as Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting.

“It’s really conflicting,’’ Kassay said. “Instead of fasting for a month and enjoying this really big day, eating and going to family’s houses, it’s kind of like, ‘Oh, hey, guys, I’ve got to go do my homework.’ ’’

But beginning next year, Cambridge public schools will attempt to make it easier for Muslim students to honor their highest holy days.

In a move that school officials believe is the first of its kind in the state, Cambridge will close schools for one Muslim holiday each year beginning in the 2011-2012 school year.

The school will either close for Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha, also known as the Festival of Sacrifice, depending on which holiday falls within the school year. If both fall within the school calendar, the district will close for only one of the days.

But Cambridge School Committee member Marc McGovern, who pushed for the Muslim holiday in city schools, said he thinks people need to take a step back from what he called hysteria and the stereotypes of all Muslims as terrorists.

“At a time when I think the Muslim population is being characterized with a broad brush in a negative way, I think it’s important for us to say we’re not going to do that here,’’ McGovern said.

Cambridge schools already close for some Christian and Jewish holidays, and McGovern said he believes Muslims should be treated equally.

“The issue that sort of came up was should we celebrate any religious holidays, but there was not the will to take away Good Friday or one of the Jewish holidays,’’ he said. “So I said, if that is the case, I think we have an obligation to celebrate one of the Muslim holidays, as well.
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, spokesman for the department, JC Considine. said,If a school district has a large number of students who observe Good Friday and would not attend school that day, Considine said the districts are allowed to close because of the expected low attendance. But the state does require districts to schedule at least 180 days of school.

Cambridge School Superintendent Jeffrey Young said the district does not collect information about the religion of its students. But Young said that there is a significant Muslim population in the city, and that, at least anecdotally, the Muslim population in the schools appears to be growing.

A large Muslim population is one of the reasons why the school district in Dearborn, Mich., began closing schools for high Islamic holy days 10 years ago, said David Mustonen, communications coordinator for the school system.

Mustonen said that at first there were some people in the community who didn’t like the schools being closed on Eid holidays. “However, I don’t think this is the case anymore as people have come to realize that it is no different then taking time off at Christmas or Easter,’’ Mustonen said in an e-mail.

(I have to disagree with Mustonen…we are a Christian nation and worship a different God than Islam. Massachusetts may later feel the wrath of the God of Abraham…..not allah by doing this.)

Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said that to his knowledge Cambridge would be the first school district in Massachusetts to close schools for a Muslim holiday.

“Somebody has to be first,’’ said Koocher. “I suspect there may be heightened interest in this. We’ll see how this plays out.’’

Boston.com


Muslims Were a Part of the Founding of America

3 Comments

President Obama said, during the White House celebration of Ramadan.

“These rituals (i.e. Ramadan) remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings,” Obama said. “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America.”

As you watch this video of America’s founding and it’s founders watch very closely for all those Muslims that were there at that time, you may have to replay it a time or two in order to catch them being recognized.

visit www.Wallbuilders.com. Encourage your pastor to participate in the Capitol Tour @ Watchmen on the Wall, May 25-27, 2011 in DC. Again, visit www.WatchmenPastors.org and click on events for details.

Natural-Born Citizen per Justice Ginsberg?

Comments Off

As you read more and more info on what the founders of this country meant by being a “natural born citizen” in order to quailfy for POTUS , you’ll see and understand Barack Husein Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President or Vice President. You’ll also understand why the courts and DOJ have any challenges dismissed because of “lack of standing”….they don’t want the truth out or Obama will be history and everything he’s signed will be “invalid” from day one. The House when the Republicans take it over can subpoena all the records which have been withheld & hidden from the US citizens.

Natural-Born Citizen per Justice Ginsberg?

Affirming that the world recognizes “birthrights” of the Father (not the mother), bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright

By JB Williams  Wednesday, May 5, 2010

In the Supreme Court CaseTuan Anh Nguyen v. INSJustice Ginsberg made the following statements… affirming that the world recognizes “birthrights” of the Father (not the mother), and bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright… aka, “natural-born citizenship.”

  • “Mr. Kneedler, I have a problem with it [Kneedler’s argument]. You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn’t recognize that the child born abroad to U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen because, as you point out, in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.”—“You call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would NOT be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn’t that so?”
  • “Well, I thought you said in your brief that in most places, and I think it’s right, they do not go on just solely, they go on parentage.”
  • “Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”
  • “Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our nation’s history, that the father’s citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother’s?”
  • “You are talking to children not born to a marriage…”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TUAN ANH NGUYEN etal. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99—2071. Argued January 9, 2001—Decided June 11, 2001
Petitioner Tuan Anh Nguyen was born out of wedlock in Vietnam to a Vietnamese citizen and copetitioner Joseph Boulais, a United States citizen. Nguyen became a lawful permanent United States resident at age six and was raised by Boulais. At age 22, Nguyen pleaded guilty in a Texas state court to two counts of sexual assault on a child. Subsequently, respondent Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated deportation proceedings against him based on his serious criminal offenses. The Immigration Judge ordered him deportable. Boulais obtained an order of parentage from a state court while Nguyen’s appeal was pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, but the Board dismissed the appeal, rejecting Nguyen’s citizenship claim because he had not complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a)‘s requirements for one born out of wedlock and abroad to a citizen father and a noncitizen mother. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit rejected petitioners’ claim that ¬ß1409 violates equal protection by providing different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father.

From the decision—”§1409(a)(4) [DNA of the father] represents a reasonable legislative conclusion that the satisfaction of one of several alternatives will suffice to establish the father-child blood link required as a predicate to the child’s acquisition of citizenship.”

Ginsberg is clearly familiar with the Law of Nations, as were the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the birthright of children based upon the father’s bloodline, a matter of “natural law” recognized the world over.

She would also be familiar with the respected writings of Vattel in his 1758 book on the topic of “sovereign citizenship” from which the U.S. Founders borrowed the term “natural-born citizen” as a requirement for the offices of President and Vice President. (More excellent material on Emmerich de Vattel here)

Vattel is VERY clear on the matter – “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”

Our Founding Fathers were equally unambiguous – “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Also from the decision—“Finally, even a facially neutral rule would sometimes require fathers to take additional affirmative steps which would not be required of mothers, whose names will be on the birth certificate as a result of their presence at the birth, and who will have the benefit of witnesses to the birth to call upon. Pp. 7—9.”

As we know, Barack Hussein Obama has thus far refused to release a 1961 birth certificate which he claims to possess, which will include time, date and place of birth, as well as witnesses to the birth. Obama has instead, offered three different 2007 COLBs (Certification of Live Birth), which are readily available to anyone with a Hawaiian street address as a form of ID and are purchased by those who do NOT have an actual birth certificate.

This not only affirms all of my previous works on the subject of Barack Hussein Obama and his ineligibility for the office of president, it confirms that even the most far left liberal member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows that Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “natural born citizen” of his father’s country, Kenya.

On this basis, at the very best, Barack Hussein Obama II could be a “14th Amendment Citizen”—a naturalized “dual” citizen with “divided” national loyalties. He cannot hold the office of president or vice president.

This means that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible for the office of president, and is therefore, an imposter, a fraud and a usurper of the U.S. Constitution. It also means that everyone in Washington DC is aware…and complicit in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on U.S. citizens and the world.

Obama’s Department of Justice will never allow a single case over Obama’s eligibility to enter a courtroom, rushing DOJ lawyers around the country to file dismissals for Obama, based on “a lack of standing” on the part of U.S. citizens.

They already know that Obama is a fraud. They dare not allow any court in the land to hear the evidence, as they already know the most likely outcome of a trial that forces Obama to become a “transparent” president.

John F. Kennedy left behind two very pertinent quotes for this occasion…

  • “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
  • “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Oh, if only today’s Democrats had the backbone of JFK or Thomas Jefferson.

Canada Free Press

The TRUTH about “Separation of Church and State”. Does the Supreme Court have constitutional authority to ban religion from the public square?

Comments Off

I thought I had posted this once before, but I don’t think I did. It’s another great article by my friend which is a retired Constitutional lawyer here in Tennessee and I might add that she is a great person. Separation of church and state was created by the Supreme Court in 1947, NOT by the founders of this country and I might add you won’t find one example of the founders practicing it in their day or for the next 175 years or so. Not one!  BTW….Congress is the only thing that can violate the 1st amendment by passing a law……..read the 1st amendment.

The TRUTH about “Separation of Church and State”. Does the Supreme Court have constitutional authority to ban religion from the public square?

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

AND

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S USURPATIONS OF POWER

A Primer in Constitutional Law

By Publius Huldah

1. How did it happen that our country became a land where children are forbidden to use the word, “God” in the public schools; public school students are forbidden to say prayers at football games; and religious speech is banned from the public square?  Read on, and I will show you how judges on the U.S. Supreme Court perverted our Constitution, prohibited the Free Exercise of Religion, and abridged our Freedom of Speech.

Read the rest of this long, but great article at:

Publius Huldah.wordpress.com


Massachusetts joins effort to bypass Electoral College

2 Comments

What the heck? How can these States get away with this? The Constitution calls for the Electoral College by the founding fathers in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.   It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections.  The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Massachusetts Moves to Circumvent the Electoral College and Constitution

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on the verge of passing a new law that will circumvent the Electoral College system so that future elections will be determined by the national popular vote. One vote remains in the Massachusetts state senate before the National Popular Vote bill is signed into action by Governor Deval Patrick. The legislation will allow all of the state’s electoral votes to go to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally. It is part of an effort lead by a group called National Popular Vote (NPV) that is gaining momentum across the country to obliterate the Electoral College.

The Wall Street Journal explains that in order for the NPV campaign to be successful, “The plan needs to enlist just enough states to command 270 electoral votes, or a majority of the Electoral College.”

The Boston Globe addresses the implications of such a law that seems contradictory to the intent of the Founding Fathers. “[Critics] point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state’s 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.”

Likewise, the Boston Globe adds, “Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.”

These notions are diametrically opposed to the system of government created by the Founding Fathers that rested the greatest control and authority to the individual first and foremost, the state second, and finally the least control to the central government.

Despite this, Massachusetts state House Speaker Robert DeLeo issued a statement on the bill. “The National Popular Vote measure will ensure that our presidential elections reflect the true will of the people.”

Little does DeLeo know that the intention of the Electoral College was created to guarantee the rights of the peopleIt is a uniquely American system that was intended to be one of the many protections against a too-powerful federal government.

The New American

Why the Electoral College?

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place.  Notice that the country is named the “United States”, not the “United People”.  Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.  They had their own independent governments.  They had militaries which defended their borders.  They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Shouldn’t a presidential election be determined by a popular vote in a democracy?

Yes.  But we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress.  The Congress is divided into two houses.  The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power.  The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will).  In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power.  The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union.  Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.
When thinking about government decisions, it sometimes helps to relate them to your own personal situation.  Think about moving into a new apartment versus living alone.   Let’s assume that you have lived alone for several years and have somewhat enjoyed the freedom with running your apartment the way you see fit.  Now let’s assume that you have agreed to move into a 5-bedroom apartment with four of your friends.  Is the new apartment going to be run exactly the way you see fit?  Are you going to get the shower for as long as you want anytime you wanted as you did when living alone?  Of course not.  But there is the security factor.  Most of us feel much more secure when living with others than living alone.  This is very similar to a state’s decision to enter the United States.  They have much more power as an independent nation that they would relinquish when joining the Union, but the Union offers a certain level of security that they could not have had otherwise.  But that security could also be emulated by simple alliances with the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam), and if such security could be achieved without acceding the United States, it would be very foolish to join.  This is exactly why Puerto Rico and Guam are not U.S. states.   They CHOOSE not to be.  This is very confusing to those American citizens who’ve been brainwashed into believing that the United States is a perfect union that no sensible nation could resist.  Puerto Ricans aren’t stupid.  They like their independence.  Now they have managed to do the genius thing of maintaining independence while creating an alliance with the most powerful nation on Earth that would certainly defend you if you have run into any problems.  In Puerto Rico’s case, they are having their cake and eating it too.
So then the question arises as to why any state would ever join the United States in the first place.  The answer is in the Senate and Electoral College.  A state with 1/100 of the population of the United States would actually have a voice greater than 1/100 of Congress.  The two equal-power Senators are the ONLY way to encourage newcomers into joining the U.S.  Similarly, the Electoral College which is framed exactly the same as the U.S. Congress gives that necessary extra voice to the small states.
How do states determine which candidate(s) get their Electoral College votes?
This is determined by the individual state.  Remember the whole purpose of the Electoral College in the first place was to let the states cast their votes for the presidency.  Therefore the states must be allowed to cast the votes in any way they see fit to any candidate they wish.  In 48 states and Washington, D.C. all electoral votes are cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote.  Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be given to the candidate who wins each of their districts (Maine 2, Nebraska 3).  Then the other two votes are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote.  This system seems to work remarkably well, and even the anti-Electoral College liberals find very little to argue against this arrangement.
It should be known that the most popular argument against the Electoral College system in this country is against casting all state electoral votes for the candidate who wins by the slightest of margins in the state.  Those that consider this a flaw in the system should not blame this on the Electoral College but on the individual states.  If you would like for this to be changed in your state, you should contact your state government representatives.  Keep in mind that the smaller states tend to favor a “winner-take-all” system because it maximizes the state’s voice in the electorate.  When a state divides its votes among two or more candidates, its voice is also divided and it loses power.
How many electoral votes does a presidential candidate have to receive to win the presidency?
An absolute majority.  Technically, it is 50% + 1.  Since there are currently 538 electoral votes (in 2000), a presidential candidate must receive 270 to win the presidency.  In rare cases, no candidate has received an absolute majority.  In this situation, the new Vice President would be chosen by the Senate with the winner receiving the most votes.   The President, however, would be chosen by a unique election in the House of Representatives.  Each state would get exactly one vote toward a single candidate.   States that are divided equally along party lines may not conclude a winner for the state.  So they may abstain from the voting entirely.  But in this House election, the winner must receive an absolute majority (26) of the House votes.  If no candidate was able to receive the required number of votes in the House, the Vice President (chosen by the Senate) would officially become the President.  The selection of the new Vice President at this point is unclear and may be appointed by the new President.
The Presidential election has been sent to the House once before.  In 1824, four different candidates received electoral votes, and none of them received an absolute majority.  The vote then went to the House and John Quincy Adams was elected as the president.
What would happen if we abolished the Electoral College?
This is basically common sense.  What would happen when you decrease the power of government representation for a group of states?  What if we abolished the U.S. Senate?  This is exactly the same thing.  Abolishing the Electoral College or Senate would reduce the government representation of the smallest states to make it illogical to remain in the Union.  This has happened before, in 1860.  I shouldn’t need to remind you of the 620,000 deaths over the next five years after that.   You think that was bloody?  Try abolishing the Electoral College or Senate in the 21st Century.  You’ll see division in this country not seen since the War for Southern Independence.  Only this time, the two sides are not geographically separated.  Our decades of racial, religious, and political integration in this country will come to haunt us in the future.  It will be then when the nation’s integrity and peace are ultimately challenged.  Can we divide into two nations peacefully with few problems or will the liberals insist that we fight another war?  Is 10 million deaths worth a segment of the country retaining domination over the rest?  Only time will tell.  I hope and pray that future leaders will foresee the blood-shedding and prevent it before it’s too late.
So who would want to abolish the Electoral College if it tears the country apart?
The same people who want to do away with ALL states’ rights.  They don’t understand the purpose of having states in the first place.  These people would prefer living under an omnipotent centralized government.   They believe that their lives will be much more secure under such rule.  Those of us who oppose such government power recognize that a strong centralized government that can deliver perfect security from invading and interior forces then itself becomes the primary enemy as it controls its own power limits.  If you let anyone or anything determine its own limit of power, then it will choose not to limit itself.  A “secure” nation is one with a perfect balance of limited government and national/domestic defense.  Any shift in either direction leaves the population at serious risk to domestic and/or foreign opposition.

maitreg.com

Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.   It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections.  The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Why the Electoral College?

To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place.  Notice that the country is named the “United States”, not the “United People”.  Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land.  They had their own independent governments.  They had militaries which defended their borders.  They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers