When in the Course of human events it again becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with a failed authority and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as well as our original, properly constituted laws entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
It has abused its role over the law and instituted fiat rules that are detrimental to the common good — welfare, cap and trade, oppressive taxes, onerous regulation on business are recent examples.
It has forbidden governors of states to pass laws useful to local needs and has interfered in state business.
It has refused the right of local government to govern at home and has as a matter of course caused local legislators to carelessly assume they have no power.
It has defacto dissolved the authority of state governments so that the representatives of the people constantly defer to rule from Washington.
It has refused to secure the borders so that all manner of foreigners of the lowest station might flood these shores without hesitation while refusing to allow those foreigners with useful skills and education to enter and apply for citizenship.
It has allowed capricious courts to usurp proper legislative duties and to rule from the bench.
It has seated judges with no opposition or investigation and has not required judicial candidates to express an interest in the true meaning of the law of the land.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com …
William Cwirla (LCMS): When people say things like that, I always like to ask, “On what basis do you think that? What evidence can you put forward that this statement is true?”
It is true that all religious paths, save one, lead to the same place, but that place isn’t God. All religions, save one, hold that you must work your way to God, whether by your creeds, your conduct, or your worship. This is essentially the religion of the Law, something that all religions, save one, have in common.
The statement presupposes that we are on a search for God, much like a hiking trip through the mountains, and whether we take the high road or the low, we will all ultimately wind up in the same place. Buddhism essentially works this way, and even a surprising number of Christians have been caught up into believing this notion that all paths lead to God as long as you sincerely follow your chosen path.
The path is not ours to define but God’s. Jesus pointed out that the way to destruction is broad, and no one has trouble finding that road, while the way to life is exceedingly narrow, and those who find it are few (Matt. 7:13-14). Christianity is the only religion that is really a non-religion, in the sense that we don’t work to God but God comes all the way to us. “But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:4-6). God in Christ does it all.
The narrow door Jesus was speaking of is the narrow door of his own death. We would not seek this door on our own, much less find it. Who in their right minds would construct a religion out of an all-sufficient, all-atoning sacrificial death of the Son of God in which the sinner is justified before God? To the wisdom of the world, this is utter nonsense, not to mention bad for morality in general. That’s why from start to finish, God must do the work of salvation for us. We would not have it this way on our own.
As with everything else in Christianity, it all hangs on the death and resurrection of Jesus. While it is theoretically possible that there are other ways for a sinner to stand justified before God, God has not revealed any. Instead, he sent his only begotten Son who claimed to be the only way to the Father (John 14:6). On its own, that might be an outrageous example of hubris on the part of Jesus. But then, he’s the only One who died and rose bodily from the dead. We’re going to have to take his word on that one.
Jason Stellman (PCA): Well, in a certain sense it is true that all paths lead to God. The Bible teaches that all people, great and small, rich and poor, will stand before their Maker. The problem isn’t getting to God, it’s being accepted by him.
Many today feel that God will happily receive all who stand before him with a smile and a warm hug (R. C. Sproul jokingly calls this view “Justification by Death”). But if we take a few moments to consider who this God is, it becomes necessary to reevaluate our position and question our confidence.
Let’s use the realm of civic justice as an illustration. Suppose there were a judge in a certain town who was known for being an accepting, gregarious fellow in private, and his magnanimous personality spilled over into his work. So when thieves, murderers, and kidnappers stand before him, he just can’t help but love them and let them off with a small slap on the wrist. If this were to happen over and over, the town would rise up and demand justice, wouldn’t they? And rightly so. We all have an inherent sense of right and wrong (which really flares up when we’re the ones wronged!) which tells us that criminals should be punished.
But whatever sense of justice and fairness we share as humans beings is there because we have been made in God’s image. If we think evil should be punished, how much more true is this when we consider God and his standards, his holiness, and his judgment? God is infinitely more pure, just, and offended at sin than we, and therefore his very nature demands that sinners be punished for their actions.
The good news, of course, is that God is also infinitely more gracious and merciful than we, and for this reason he has sent his Son into the world to walk in our shoes, live the life we have failed to live, and die the death that our sins demand. So though it is true that “all paths lead to God,” it is also true that only one of those paths leads to forgiveness and blessing. All others lead to eternal destruction.
From Modern Reformation (March/April 2006): Does God Believe in Atheists?
The assassination of John F. Kennedy remains more than just a pastime for conspiracy theorists. Kennedy himself, in fact, was one that looked to stamp out what he perceived as powerful secret societies within the U.S. government.
Two years before his assassination, JFK delivered a powerful speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. Speaking with the National News Publishers Association on April 27, 1961, Kennedy called for an end to secret societies in government.
Many conspiracy theorists believe that this speech sealed the fate of a conspiracy theorist president.
So, did Kennedy’s denouncement of secret societies indeed seal his fate?
According to a transcript of the speech, entitled “The President and the Press,” Kennedy spoke out against secrecy in government and warned those at all levels of government to avoid the stifling of dissent and covering up of mistakes.
Yet, in the same speech Kennedy scolded the press for revealing sensitive issues of national security.
The idea that Kennedy’s assassination was a government cover-up is by no means an uncommon theory. Even filmmaker Oliver Stone took plenty of heat for his Academy Award-winning film JFK, which implied that Lyndon Johnson played a role in the President’s assassination.
The question of course remains: did those looking to harbor secrecy within the government have enough at stake to warrant murdering Kennedy? Theorists have taken aim at the CIA, KGB, the Mafia, the FBI, and even Fidel Castro.
If I am ever caught with a concealed weapon in today’s world, I want to have a permit to show I am legal. Otherwise, my weapon will be taken and I will be hauled off to jail and face expensive penalties.
I would not sell my soul to save money. But getting legal is not difficult and although I and probably you find the whole concept disgusting and draconian, I see it as the best thing to do.
If and when the day comes when we cannot carry legally, I will carry illegally. Because I love my family more than I fear the government. But In the meantime, l can pay their bribe and stay legal for now.
You and I buy marriage certificates, driver’s licenses, pay property taxes year after year long after we have paid off our properties, we pay gasoline taxes, sales taxes when we purchase at the store, and so on ad infinitum. We could find ways around every one of those and our lives would be extremely annoying and almost certainly our wives would not be happy with us not driving, not buying anythin
If giving a speech entails fixating a microphone and teleprompter in front of a mollycoddled, petulant adolescent, who in turn uses the microphone and teleprompter to propel accusations and prevarications because he can’t have his way, then Barack Obama and his teleprompter gave a speech on the debt ceiling June 29, 2011. The speech emanated a child throwing a public tantrum, desperately trying to reconcile the fantasy world of cartoons and failed progressive ideologies with the harsh reality in which the world exists. Obama’s hemorrhage of a prosaic intellect and déclassé character, captured with his halting and vacillating elocution, was aimed at the very tax breaks he gave corporate jet owners with his stimulus package he neither read nor knew what it contained, and also which has yet to stimulate one sector of the economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at jimbyrd.com …
Attorney Wesley Hoyt affirmed as Mr. Steele’s representation, Edgar releases Installment #2: The Tao of ED
Attorney Wesley Hoyt affirmed as Mr. Steele’s representation, Edgar releases Installment #2: The Tao of ED
(Authored by the www.free-edgar-steele.com Administrators. There was a court hearing today 7/6/2011 in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho on this matter.)Today marks the beginning of a defense for Edgar Steele by attorney Wesley W. Hoyt, formerly the attorney for Cyndi Steele. Over the objection of the Government, who did not want Mr.
Steele to be represented by an effective attorney, the Court ruled that Mr. Hoyt, who was selected by Mr. Steele from the beginning, would be, from this time forth, Mr. Steele’s “attorney of record.” (That term will have special significance to anyone paying attention to this saga as it unfolds, especially in light of events that are about to happen in the very near – we will keep you posted.)
What today’s ruling means is that one of the people who have been closely monitoring the progress of Mr. Steele’s case last August, and one of the ones who believes that Mr. Steele is innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt, is now authorized to lead his defense. Mr. Steele’s principle defense is government fabrication of evidence, i.e., two tape recordings where supposedly he asked someone to kill his wife. Although the evidence of government fabrication was suppressed in his trial, Mr. Hoyt’s main thrust will be to bring that
evidence to light to prove government misconduct by Mr. Steele’s accusers.
We asked Mr. Hoyt to comment, however, he is not able to do so based on the local court rules, so you’ll just have to accept our interpretation of events as they unfold, with the promise that we will do the best we can to report the facts as they appear to be.
We understand that Mr. Steele was very calm and in good spirits as he celebrated his sixty-sixth birthday yesterday. He now has a very Zen attitude and is developing what he refers to as the Tao of Ed, (pronounced “Dow”). We wish him great endurance and peace of mind as he endures this false imprisonment and conviction on false charges.
(The first literation of Ed’s “The Tao of ED” — Installment #2 — is INCLUDED
BELOW for your convenience.)
Please encourage everyone you know to send contributions as we need to pay to keep this fight alive, which is really a battle for our own freedom with Ed as the one who is vicariously suffering for us now, but before long they will be knocking at your door, arresting you on equally false charges, and if they can get away with it in Ed’s case, they surely won’t be halted from doing it in your case; if you catch our meaning.
Thanks to all the loyal followers who have given so much already, but we will never give up, never!!!!!
What I read was a bit shocking. Marx had “10 planks” that this evil manifesto was based upon and he advocated the use of any means to accomplish these socialist goals including violent revolutions. The planks are listed bellow, followed by my comment on how it applies to America today:
10 planks of communism by Karl Marx
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
Dr. Elliott’s Comment: This is where eminent domain comes into the picture, and even property taxes. Once you own your property outright by paying off your mortgage, you still don’t technically own it because the government could jack up property taxes so high that it makes it unaffordable to remain.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Dr. Elliott’s Comment: Marginal tax rates increasing as income goes up IS a graduated income tax. This is in opposition to a more fair tax like a national sales tax or flat tax where a person is not taxed at a higher rate the more income they earn.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Dr. Elliott’s Comment: In the U.S. these can be seen as estate taxes (i.e. the death tax).
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Dr. Elliott’s Comment: This is nothing more than government seizures, IRS property confiscation and the 1997 Crime/Terrorist bill which calls for the imprisonment of terrorists (not such a bad thing), but also for those who speak out against the government. Your LIFE is the most valuable property you have, but the government has the right to take it away because of things that you may say. Consider Senate Bill 3081, the “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The following is actual text from the bill that explains what a belligerent may be and the reasons they can be detained without due process: “(A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the United States or upon United States citizens or United States civilian facilities abroad at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States… (B) The potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel or United States military facilities at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States…. (C) The potential intelligence value of the individual… (D) Membership in al-Qaida or in a terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaida… (E) Such other matters as the president considers appropriate. . .” [THIS IS WHERE THERE IS A MAJOR, MAJOR PROBLEM] This is very subjective and could include a multitude of things – even just disagreements on policy!
(Column continues below)
For Time Served and “Good Behavior“….Ughh! All she has to do is pay some big fines…
Obama Pal and Terrorist Dohrn Linked to Mexican Killer Case
July 7, 2011
Crime reporter and blogger Tina Trent says that President Obama’s intervention on behalf of an illegal alien killer can be traced back to a 2003 conference that featured Bernardine Dohrn, Van Jones, and representatives of the Soros-funded Open Society Institute. “The purpose of the conference was to find ways to insinuate international (read: United Nations) laws and resolutions in American legal arenas, as Sandra Babcock is attempting to do to free her client, Humberto Leal,” Trent reports on her blog.
Babcock is the attorney for a killer described in liberal media reports as “a Mexican national” who is in fact an illegal alien convicted of the 1994 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda in San Antonio, Texas. Leal was scheduled to be executed on Thursday night in Texas before the Obama Administration intervened on his behalf, claiming his rights as an illegal in the U.S., under an international treaty, had not been protected. Leal has had the benefit of 45 different hearings and appeals and his guilt is beyond question.
The issue that Obama is concerned about is whether this illegal alien was able to contact the Mexican embassy in order to protect his “rights” under international law.
Trent reports, “Humberto Leal’s defense attorney, Sandra L. Babcock, of the terrorist-sheltering law school at Northwestern University, has an interesting vitae. Ms. Babcock’s research interest is imposing international law on the American justice system, a hobby she practices with her colleague, terrorist-cum-law-professor Bernardine Dohrn.”
“If President Obama, his friend Bernardine Dohrn, and Jimmy Carter get their way, the police are going to find their hands tied in ten different ways, and our criminal justice system will soon be utterly subservient to whatever the hell they dream up at the U.N.,” Trent says of the Obama Administration’s intervention in the case.
In intervening on behalf of Leal, Obama is acting on behalf of the government of Mexico.
Indeed, Babcock’s work has been funded by the government of Mexico. According to Babcock’s biography, “From 2000-2006 she served as director of the Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program, a program funded by the Mexican Foreign Ministry to assist Mexican nationals facing capital punishment in the United States. For her work, she was awarded the Aguila Azteca, the highest honor bestowed by the government of Mexico upon citizens of foreign countries, in 2003.”
Dohrn is the former leader of the communist terrorist Weather Underground who, with her husband and fellow terrorist Bill Ayers, hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama when he ran for the state Senate in Illinois. She praised the followers of mass murderer Charles Manson and Manson himself as a “true revolutionary.” Dohrn and Ayers signed a document, “Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism,” dedicated in part to Sirhan Sirhan, the Marxist Palestinian who killed Robert F. Kennedy. This endorsement played a role in the University of Illinois denying Ayers, who had been a professor of education at the school, emeritus status after he retired.
For her part, Dohrn was jailed for seven months for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the murder of two policemen and a security guard in the 1981 Brinks robbery. She is accused by former FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, based on a meeting he had with Ayers, of planting the bomb that killed San Francisco Police Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell in 1970. Dohrn denies the charge.
Van Jones, listed as being “invited” to the international law conference, is the former Obama official and self-proclaimed communist who voiced doubts that Muslims carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Trent notes that Babcock and Dohrn were listed by Northwestern as experts on human rights issues when the Chicago City Council adopted a resolution in support of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty gives a U.N. body the power to pass judgment over how parents raise their children.
Trent says that…………………………
Is November 4, 2008 more a coup d’etat than it is a general election? Is Election ’08 a mere formality?
Is November 4, 2008 more a coup d’etat than it is a general election?
Is Election ’08 a mere formality?
Obama is spiraling into the inevitability of a one-term presidency.
His policies of appeasement around the world have caused the overthrow of the only middle-east regimes that either recognized Israel, or leaned just far enough toward the west that they could be counted on in tough times.
The middle-east doesn’t reward weakness, and consider “negotiations” a victory for them, because their demands can never be met, if their negotiating partner still has room to exist.
His energy policy, to shut energy and coal companies and make costs, “necessarily skyrocket,” is the only thing working as he promised. Gas is 100% more expensive since he became president, and coal companies are under attack.
His raping of the financial system of this country, his collusion with the corrupt Federal Reserve,the Billions he has stolen from the taxpayers for secret payments to foreign banks have helped destroy and keep down a now-struggling economy.
The Democrat party will be able to run on having the most “failed catastrophically ignorant and dangerous policies.” Not a category soon to be rewarded by the majority..
So, under the heading of, ”If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit,” are we about to see a reshuffling of the ticket? Face it Joe Biden brings nothing, zip, zero, nada to this ticket. Unless you count ridicule.
Biden is the only person in the White House that manages to say more ignorant things than Obama. (I think Biden knows what year it is, and how many States are in the Union…I think…) Even after Obama announces his amnesty position to get the Hispanic vote, he can’t win with his current demographics…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com …
A DUAL citizen at birth does NOT have sole allegiance to the United States and is NOT an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 natural born Citizen eligible for the Presidency of these 50 States of the Union within the meaning and context of the United States Constitution as required.
Lower Courts CANNOT overrule the Supreme Court.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS 100% USURPER. HE MUST STEP DOWN AND BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE OR BE REMOVED AND BROUGHT TO JUSTICE ALONG WITH ALL THOSE WHO AIDED AND ABETTED THIS FELON FOR THE SAKE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS A WHOLE.
Weakness in The Constitution will cripple The People.
Hey, See the Reader Responses on each article,
they are gems in themselves!
Gunny G: BLOGGER 1984 +
The President (if that is what you want to call him) accused the Republicans of foot dragging and outright intransigence over tax hikes, comparing the Republican leaders to spoiled procrastinating children and trying to paint them as putting millionaires, oil companies and private jet owners ahead of needy students. One Democratic official said that in the talks to date, the administration was seeking$400 billion in higher tax revenue over the next decade.
The Republican House Speaker, Rep John Boehner’s reply was:
“The President is ignoring reality his administration has been burying our kids and our grandkids in new debt and has offered no plan to rein in spending.”
The President insisted that he would not support any kind of deal to cut the deficit unless it included higher tax revenue, not just spending cuts. The Republican response was an emphatic NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO.
My husband and I have been married for over 3 years (been together 5 years). For the last two years of our marriage, my husband has become obsessed with conspiracy theories. Initially, I chalked it up as a new hobby/interest. But lately (over the past year) his obsession has progressed and has me alarmed. He spends countless hours on the internet researching conspiracy theories, mostly political (i.e. 9/11, new world order, Illuminati, reptilians, and I could go on and on). We can’t have a conversation with him bringing up some sort of theory. He brings them up if were out with other friends or at a party. This concerns me because I feel like he’s not the same person I married. He used to be driven, ambitious, and had career goals. He’s an engineer and once had dreams of starting his own company. But, he doesn’t speak of it anymore. I feel as if we have nothing in common. He becomes defensive and argumentive when I disagree with his theories. One day out of the blue, he went out and bought a huge safe, withdrew all of his savings and bought gold. He wants to to start stockpiling food and supplies for some sort of catastrophic event that he believes is coming. His health history is unremarkable. He does use marijuana daily (which he did prior to our marriage). His younger sister was diagnosed with schizophrenia in her early teens and lives in some sort of assisted living. Should I be worried that he is also showing the beginning signs of schizophrenia, also?
A small town in Arizona is suddenly a YouTube sensation after a town-hall meeting devolved into a physical clash as a woman was forcibly removed from speaking during the public portion of the event. Jennifer “Jade” Jones, 45, of Quartzsite, Ariz., was taken into custody by local police at the behest of Quartzsite councilmembers, over the objections of the mayor, who pleaded with officers not to remove the woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com …
via ARMED AND DANGEROUS.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who forty years ago wrote of a highly controlled future society where the population would be subjugated by a technocratic elite, appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe yesterday to predict that middle class unrest caused by economic disenfranchisement would soon hit America.
“I don’t want to be a prophet of doom — and I don’t think we are approaching doom — but I think we’re going to slide into intensified social conflicts, social hostility, some forms of radicalism, there is just going to be a sense that this is not a just society,” Brzezinski said, adding that civil unrest would begin when the lower middle class becomes severely affected by the economic fallout and rising unemployment.
The former National Security Advisor predicted “really serious international turmoil” as a result of the United States, Europe and Japan, the three traditional pillars of global economic strength, struggling with deep financial crises.
CFR member Brzezinski’s so-called concern about “disparity” and a “fair society,” as the rich get richer and the middle class becomes poorer, is completely hypocritical given the fact that he wrote books four decades ago virtually advocating precisely that system, where a tiny elite ruthlessly control and dominate the rest of humanity.
However, this is certainly not the first time that Brzezinski has expressed concerns that a growing rage caused by economic and social disenfranchisement could threaten the existing power structure.
During a Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal last year, Brzezinski, a regular attendee of the elitist Bilderberg Group meeting, warned of a “global political awakening,” mainly comprising of younger people in developing states, that threatened to topple the existing international order.
“For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive… The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination,” Brzezinski told fellow elitists.
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (AD)
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Since such a movement only represents a threat to the power monopoly of the privileged circles in which Brzezinski moves, one can only conclude that he was decrying this development. As one of the of the chief architects of the “existing global hierarchy” to which he also made reference in the speech, Brzezinski himself is under direct threat, as is the continuing ability of the global elite in general to control world affairs, a point he again touched upon in the MSNBC interview.
“Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring,” said Brzezinski during last year’s speech, adding that this in combination with a fractured elite “makes it a much more difficult context for any major power, including currently the leading world power, the United States.”
Since Brzezinski is a proponent of a highly controlled society run by technocrats, the prospect of an angry middle class rising up to challenge the target of their rage is not something to be welcomed in the eyes of the elite.
In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski wrote the following.
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
Does this sound like a man who would express sympathy for an economically deprived underclass, as Brzezinski feigns during the MSNBC interview, or is this a man petrified that the new world order he helped build is becoming more vulnerable to collapse even as it tightens the screws on an increasingly aware, angry and desperate population?
In the spring of 1961, President Obama’s father revealed a plan for his unborn son that might have changed the course of American political history.
The elder Barack H. Obama, a sophomore at the University of Hawaii, had come under scrutiny by federal immigration officials who were concerned that he had more than one wife. When he was questioned by the school’s foreign student adviser, the 24-year-old Obama insisted that he had divorced his wife in his native Kenya. Although his new wife, Ann Dunham, was five months pregnant with their child – who would be called Barack Obama II – Obama declared that they intended to put their child up for adoption.
“Subject got his USC wife ‘Hapai’ [Hawaiian for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away,’’ according to a memo describing the conversation with Obama written by Lyle H. Dahling, an administrator in the Honolulu office of what was then called the US Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Obama, the Subject, and his USC, or United States citizen, wife, obviously, did not put their baby up for adoption. Whether the young couple actually considered such a step, or the elder Obama made the story up in order to appease immigration officials who at the time were considering his request for an extension of his stay in the United States, is unclear. Family members on both sides of the marriage now say they never heard any mention of adoption.
But his statement provides a unique glimpse into the relationship between the president’s parents and the fragility of his connection to the father whom he would little know.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com …
Time is extremely short. Yet the Progressives in Congress are attempting to block every effort to deal with it, guaranteeing the worst possible collapse possible. If we are given the time, our only hope is to vote every progressive out of office at every level of government in 2012 and replace them with those who understand the U.S. Constitution and are committed to systematically restore America to the Constitutional Rule of Law.
Today is the day she may walk free. Prepare yourselves.
Call me Pollyanna, but the Judge did give FingerBoy 6 days. Hopefully he has scoured the law so she can cool her heels a little longer.
Nancy Grace is livid. She had been shilling for months for a conviction of Casey Anthony for allegedly murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, and now the jury has acquitted Anthony of murder charges. What’s a gal like Nasty Nancy to do?
Perhaps the first thing that Nasty Nancy should do is to read the laws of this country, and learn the standards that supposedly exist for conviction. Even though Nasty Nancy’s standards for conviction are simple – an accusation automatically means one is guilty – the legal standard actually is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
(One must remember that Nasty Nancy during the Duke Lacrosse Case, in which she automatically declared the lacrosse players guilty of gang rape, actually tried to claim that the legal presumption of innocence was a creation of Hitler’s Germany. I’m serious.)
During the trial of Casey Anthony, the prosecution managed to establish what people already knew:
* The skeletal remains found were those of Caylee and there was duct tape sticking to her skull;
* Casey lied to the police about a number of things;
* Casey denied murdering her daughter;
* Casey was not a person of the highest character.
First Lady Michelle Obama has told her husband the President she’s “had enough” and is packing up their daughters and moving back to Chicago. Only this week’s GLOBE has the exclusive story of what triggered Michelle’s shocking decision to leave the White House – and her husband.
(Excerpt) Read more at globemagazine.com …
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com …
Today’s Toons 7/7/11
GOP Briefing Room ^ | 7/7/11 | pookie18
Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:09:03 AM by pookie18
Click on link.
via Today’s Toons 7/7/11.
According to a shocking news report, California legislators have enacted legislation that gives the state the dubious distinction of being the first state in the nation to require public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in their social studies curriculum.
We can be certain that one result of this ill-advised move will subject kids to a form of what CIA spooks call “blow back” — an inevitable result of a specific action.
When I was a youngster I was teased and bullied for being an adopted child. In view of my personal experiences, should we add the contributions of adoptees to the legislation? How about adding the contributions of skinny kids, or kids with red hair, or extra-long legs or eyeglasses?
Where does it stop?
Singling out a segment of the population for specific inclusion in school studies programs on the basis of their sexual preferences elevates what — rightly or wrongly — many see as a form of sexual perversion, to a civil right.
The bill, SB 48, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and so-called transgendered people as well as those with physical or mental disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.
Unless I’m badly mistaken, what the legislature has done is to classify sexual preference as a form of disability, meaning that those who adopt the lifestyle are mentally or physically disabled though no fault of their own. Somehow I seriously doubt that gays or cross-dressers will appreciate being classified as disabled as a result of their sexual orientation or preferences.
This is just another example of the tendency of legislators sticking their noses into the personal lives of the citizenry.
It will prove instructive to see how the state’s lawmakers go about the job of implementing this absurd legislation. Will they, for example, rule that textbooks must describe what the state classifies as acceptable behavior? Or exactly how?
Should the state require textbooks used in its schools to provide play-by-play descriptions of the behavior they sanction? Just where does this stop? Should not the “contributions” of convicted thieves be celebrated? Or those of serial killers? Or embezzlers?
The matter of the content of school textbooks has long been a controversial subject, but until now it has never reached the point where specific parts of the population are singled out for preferential treatment, especially when the segment of the population is distinguished solely by their sexual preferences.
School textbooks should never be used to promote anybody’s political positions. They should instruct, not propagandize the publisher’s personal politics.
According to news reports, San Francisco’s Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano insists that SB 48 is crucial because gay students are being bullied. Republicans said the bill had good intentions but was ill-conceived, and raised concerns regarding indoctrination of children.
Assembly Speaker John Perez, the first openly gay speaker of the California Assembly, says, “This bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized.”
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the sexual preferences of groups “that are not often recognized” have no place in deciding the legitimacy of legislation.
One hopes the governor will have his veto pen handy. This bill is a monstrosity.