TENNESSEE parents pitch a bitch and force school to lift the apparent Muslim-requested pork ban

Comments Off on TENNESSEE parents pitch a bitch and force school to lift the apparent Muslim-requested pork ban

Sunset Elementary School in Brentwood, TN had banned students from eating ham sandwiches, BLT’s and anything else made with pork, but eventually lifted the ban after parents complained. Muslims don’t eat pork and are offended if anyone eats it in front of them.

images Radio FoxNews Parents sending their third-grade children back to one Tennessee elementary this school year were greeted with a blanket ban on delicious snacks made from  anything originating from a pig. Sunset Elementary School in Brentwood, Tenn. rescinded the ban on pork just one day after it went into effect because parents complained.

Third grade teachers at Sunset Elementary School in Brentwood, Tenn. sent home an “Approved Snack List” for the school year and it specifically banned anything that comes from a pig. “No meats containing pork,” read the memorandum. “Starting Monday, August 12, 2013 your child must provide their own snack from the above approved snack list.”

snacklist

Kids could nosh on raw vegetables without dips or sauces, fresh fruit, crackers, pretzels, and popcorn – but no ribs or pork rinds. “Only choose a food from the following list to bring into school for snack,” the memorandum stated in bold-face type. “No other food items are permitted.”

One day after the pork ban went into effect, Williamson County Schools posted a message on their Facebook page telling parents to ignore the rules. “Schools should only be offering suggested snack choices, and that information will be sent home only if your child is in a classroom where there is a food allergy,” the district stated. “Any reference to not allowing pork products in school is incorrect. Please disregard.”

TENNESSEE parents pitch a bitch and force school to lift the apparent Muslim-requested pork ban | BARE NAKED ISLAM.

Advertisements

Patriot Act Author Sues Obama Over Abuse

Comments Off on Patriot Act Author Sues Obama Over Abuse

The author of the Patriot Act has joined a suit over the NSA data collection:

The chief author of the Patriot Act announced Friday that he’s joined a lawsuit seeking to stop the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of records, saying that the Obama administration is going far beyond what he intended when he wrote the law in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and chief sponsor of the Patriot Act, filed a amicus curiae brief on Wednesday saying he was misled about the scope of snooping the government intended to use the Patriot Act for, and said he would not have backed reauthorizing key parts of the law if he had known about it.

“This misinterpretation of the law threatens our First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said in a statement after he filed his legal brief. “Congress never intended this. I will rein in the abuse of both the Patriot Act and the U.S. Constitution with the support of the American public.”

Progressives assailed Bush over the passage of the Patriot Act and its uses during his administration. Bush was sued (it was dropped) to discover methods but not for abuse. Meanwhile, these same progressives were silent on Obama’s expansion of the compromising act.

Patriot Act Author Sues Obama Over Abuse | The Gateway Pundit.

NSA can reportedly break into most encrypted Internet communications

Comments Off on NSA can reportedly break into most encrypted Internet communications

This is just not right…………

The National Security Agency, working with the British government, has secretly been unraveling encryption technology that billions of Internet users rely upon to keep their electronic messages and confidential data safe from prying eyes, according to published reports Thursday based on internal U.S. government documents.

NSA can reportedly break into most encrypted Internet communications | Fox News

The NSA has bypassed or altogether cracked much of the digital encryption used by businesses and everyday Web users, according to reports in The New York Times, Britain’s Guardian newspaper and the nonprofit news website ProPublica. The reports describe how the NSA invested billions of dollars since 2000 to make nearly everyone’s secrets available for government consumption.

 

In doing so, the NSA built powerful supercomputers to break encryption codes and partnered with unnamed technology companies to insert “back doors” into their software, the reports said. Such a practice would give the government access to users’ digital information before it was encrypted and sent over the Internet.

 

“For the past decade, NSA has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies,” according to a 2010 briefing document about the NSA’s accomplishments meant for its UK counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. Security experts told the news organizations such a code-breaking practice would ultimately undermine Internet security and leave everyday Web users vulnerable to hackers.

 

The revelations stem from documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who sought asylum in Russia this summer. His leaks, first published by the Guardian, revealed a massive effort by the U.S. government to collect and analyze all sorts of digital data that Americans send at home and around the world.

Read more:

NSA can reportedly break into most encrypted Internet communications | Fox News.

Syrian War Authorization: It’s Not a Step in the Right Direction | Tenth Amendment CenterTenth Amendment Center

Comments Off on Syrian War Authorization: It’s Not a Step in the Right Direction | Tenth Amendment CenterTenth Amendment Center

This so-called constitutional process proposed by the Obama administration is wildly unconstitutional, at best.  Unfortunately, most Americans don’t understand the Constitutional underpinnings of congressional and executive war powers, so it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Here’s the short version.

The Constitution delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress.  The President, then, has the power to wage the war once declared by Congress.   Just because Congress “authorizes” something, does not mean it has fulfilled this requirement.

Usually, it’s just a sham.

In October, 2002, that’s exactly what happened.  Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq.  While it sure is nice that those politicians wanted us to think they were doing their job, making sure it was the representatives of the People making the determination whether or not the country would be engaged in war, they did nothing of the sort.

The important language from that AUMF is:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

No.  That’s not constitutional.  Not even close.

Congress didn’t declare war.  They told George Bush, “You make the call.  Let us know what you decide.”

That flies in the face of what James Madison had to say:

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war”

In ANY case.

Yeah, that includes the “case” where congress might say to the President, “you decide,” as happened in 2002.

Fast forward to today, and Barack Obama wants the same power that George Bush was handed.  From the text of the president’s proposed AUMF for Syria:

(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

You see that?  It’s the exact same thing.  This would authorize the President to make the actual determination as to whether or not diplomacy or war will be what this country pursues.

James Madison said the executive doesn’t have that right – in any case.

I think I’m pretty safe siding with the “Father of the Constitution” over Bush and Obama on war powers.

3.  Bad vs Bad

The so-called “more limited” AUMF proposed in the Senate is unconstitutional garbage as well.

The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only to: (1) respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria; (2) deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons; and (3) degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future.

If you believe that handing the president the same power to make the final determination over war is somehow a better situation, I’ve got some land on Saturn to sell you.

JUST ONE PERSON?

There’s good reason to want a system where just one person would never have the power to determine if an entire country will go to war. To determine if you’ll have to pay for their killing. To determine, possibly, if you or your children may have to fight and die for their cause.

The Founders knew this because they experienced it.

You and I should know this too, because you and I are experiencing it first hand.

Become a member and support the TAC!

No one in the world wages more war than the United States of America.  And it’s been like that for a long time.

On the one hand, I would argue that this “shoot first” mentality is not just morally wrong, it’s a complete failure.  Well, unless of course success is measured by the amount of money they need to keep taking from you to hand over to the war machine.

On the other hand, this just reaffirms the fact that neither Congress nor the President should be trusted no matter who is in power.

These people will never stop the power and cash cow on their own.  They need to be resisted.

I, for one, am ready to stand against them.  Are you with me?

Syria AUMF: It’s Not a Step in the Right Direction | Tenth Amendment CenterTenth Amendment Center.