MSNBC has an online poll asking that very question. Oh how they probably want to see Americans vote “Yes!”
If so, they’re most likely extremely disappointed. Currently, the vote stands 89% to 11% in favor of keeping the motto on our dollars and cents. Over 17 million have already voted.
So please do your part and help to keep the vote an overwhelming endorsement of the motto and continue letting the rest of the world know “In God We Trust!”
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK – A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a “useful” job in the farms or industries of the nation.
A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return.
A nation that has the power to act against “unfair competition” and monopolies in business.
This is not a description of Cuba, communist China or the old USSR. It’s the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new “bill of rights” drawn up and pushed by President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein’s proposal has received little scrutiny.
In 2004, Sunstein penned a book, “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever,” in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights.
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled “The Constitution in 2020,” which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
After observing a female muslim student refuse to stand for the pledge of allegiance, a 16-year old ROTC member in Spring Hill, FL was suspended for 5 days for telling the irreverent student to “Take that thing off your head and act like you’re proud to be an American.”
No threats were made, no violence ensued, and the purported “victim” didn’t even complain. An oversensitive teacher overheard the remarks and reported the young girl who loves her country to the principal’s office.
from World Net Daily
Maybe it’s because her dad served in the U.S. Marines … or because her high school mascot is a fierce-looking eagle … or because she plans to enlist in the Army next summer after graduation to defend her country … whatever the reason, when Heather Lawrence saw a fellow student refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and recite it with the class, the 16-year-old Junior ROTC member saw a teachable moment and took it.
And for that, she’s been suspended five days.
Although the student walked away and filed no complaint, a teacher overheard Lawrence’s comment and reported her to school administrators. On Friday, Lawrence was called to Assistant Principal Steve Crognale’s office and her father was called and informed she would be suspended for five days.
Let them know we’re tired of our schools being used to promote Muslim ideology and culture at the expense of our own.
by Chuck Norris on Townhall.com
One of the most hideous ways the Internal Revenue Service usurps power and control over Americans is through its oppression over nonprofits, especially religious groups. Threatening to withdraw tax-exempt status and to levy penalties are just a couple of ways it exercises its tyranny.
For example, April 3, Catholic Answers, one of the nation’s largest lay-run apologetic (or defense) ministries for the Catholic movement, filed suit in federal court against the IRS for violating its right to free speech.
What spurred on the lawsuit is that the IRS imposed fines on Catholic Answers because Catholic Answers’ president, Karl Keating, wrote in one of his “E-letters” that 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry shouldn’t be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion) because of his pro-abortion stance, advocacy and voting record. Whether you agree or not, Keating was voicing his conviction and opinion, which he has a First Amendment right to do. At no point did Catholic Answers even tell people for whom to vote or not to vote.
Great job and many thanks to all who stood up for Lawrence High School history teacher Tim Latham, whose contract wasn’t renewed due to his conservative beliefs. The pressure you put on resulted in Mr. Latham being rehired!
Mr. Latham’s response: “I couldn’t be more pleased with this outcome. While I am happy to have this behind me, and look forward to returning to LHS next fall, I will always be grateful to my students for actually putting what I teach into practice.”
I, too, am grateful to Mr. Latham’s students, several of whom created the Facebook group, Save Mr.Latham, Lawrence High History Teacher, which counts almost 2,000 members after only a few days. These students refused to stand by and let their successors at Lawrence High be deprived of, as one student put it, “…a really good teacher.”
STATEMENT FROM MR. LATHAM:
There has been a rumor going around that the main reason I was non-renewed is because I supposedly compared Obama to Hitler. I have been receiving some pretty nasty e-mails about it so I feel I must speak.
This is completely and totally false. I NEVER compared Obama to Hitler.
This is what happened and where the rumor comes from:
In a good GOVERNMENT class you learn about ALL forms of government. On one particular day we were discussing the various forms of government; i.e. Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc. The difference between dictators, Prime Ministers, and Presidents, etc. We talked about many differences between the Democratic and Republican platforms. You have to understand I had VERY GOOD students who asked great questions leading to great discussions.
As we were talking about fascism (a gov’t that allows private property ownership but maintains strict control over banking and major industry) a student asked me what governments were fascist. The term was familiar but he couldn’t remember why. I pointed out that Benito Mussolin (Italy) and Adolf Hitler (Germany) of WWII were the most famous fascist dictators. Another student made a comment asking how someone like Hitler gets in power. I explained that he had actually been DEMOCRACTICALLY ELECTED… something many people don’t realize. He then became a dictator and took over control of everything. Another student asked how someone like Hitler could get elected? I stated that people didn’t realize he was going to become the person he did. Germany was suffering worse than any country in the world from the Great Depression (economic crisis), Germany was still angry over the Treaty of Versailles (WWI) and Hitler was a very good public speaker and told the people exactly what they wanted to hear. He made a lot of promises and appealed to the masses.
About 15 minutes later into the class we were discussing McCain and Obama again and what people liked about them, what each ones chances were of getting elected, etc. And yes, I did mention, that the best thing going for Obama was that he was an eloquent speaker, people were unhappy with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economy was looking bad. ALL points being covered in the news every day, by every political pundit in the world.
There is a girl in that particular class who LOVED to argue and who was a major Obama supporter. Made for good debates sometimes, sometimes frustration. This is one of those frustration times. THE STUDENT HERSELF is the one who, after I made the above statement about Obama, that said “so you’re comparing Obama to Hitler?” As soon as she said it, before I could even speak, several other students (who were used to argueing with her) stated that is not what I said. I myself repeatedly said no I was not comparing the two. I did admit that the “situation” for them to get elected is similiar but I in no way thought that Obama was in any way like Hitler. I repeated that statement more than once since she wanted to argue it, no I WAS NOT comparing Obama to Hitler. I pointed out that those situations are common in many elections; i.e. using the economy, an unpopular war (see Vietnam), etc. in order to gain support for an election. Not good enough, she went straight to the Asst. Prinicipal and said I was picking on Obama and comparing him to Hitler. I was called in, I explained everything that happened exactly like I have just stated, and I thought, that was that. Evidently not.
That is the true story. You decide for yourself.
UPDATE: Tim Latham and students will be on Fox & Friends at 7:45 AM tomorrow, Monday, June 15, 2009
UPDATE 2: Statement from Tim Latham
UPDATE 3: Latham rehired.
Though this was his first year at Lawrence High School, he’s been teaching History for the past 19 years. A self-professed liberal student who graduated this spring says, “It’s really disappointing because he’s a really good teacher. It doesn’t seem fair. Why would they let a good teacher go?” But let him go they did, after repeatedly chastising him for being critical of President Obama and even for having a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on his car!
Tim Latham states he was also dressed down by his assistant principal Jan Gentry for content on his school website, which she deemed “too patriotic.” But liberals needn’t worry now because his links to different branches of the US military and the military academies have been removed from the site. The Left no longer needs to worry that his pages may encourage high school students to serve their country.
While some of his pages have been left in tact, clicking on the “What I Think” tab now yields an empty page. Another tab on his home page labeled “Terrorism” also contains nothing. Apparently, school officials have scrubbed his pages of anything that might let young minds experience something other than the liberal education establishment view of our world. God only knows that they could just get the idea that Conservatism isn’t the evil so many educators wish to brainwash the children to believe.
You can help by joining the “Save Mr. Latham, Lawrence High History Teacher” group on Facebook now. Already, 655 have joined to show their support! There’s also a discussion thread on the group site to leave your comments. You can also sign a petition to help Mr. Latham get his job back.
Read more on this story here.
from the Fox Forum
Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.
According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
Apparently there are no limits to the current administration’s willingness and ability to lie to propagate its liberal agenda. It’s now known that the administration’s recent claims that 90% of weapons used in the Mexican drug war on our southern border come from the US are outright erroneous exaggerations. The Obama administration has purposely presented as fact, false claims and propaganda with the intention of mobilizing the American people to join its crusade against the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
The President has loaded his cabinet with gun-haters in almost every critical position. He’s tried hard to avoid political heat from gun-rights activists by keeping his anti-gun agenda in the background as he focuses his energy on fulfilling campaign promises for tax increases, apologizing to the US-hating international community, and drastically increasing the federal deficit, just to name a few.
Still, Obama’s desire to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights boils to the surface from time to time, reminding everyone who’s paying attention that the battle for the survival of this fundamental right will likely blow to the fore in the near future.
The gun-banning mentality of the administration reared its head last month when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Mexico. Not only did Clinton place the blame on American drug addicts for the thousands of Mexicans dying at the hands of that country’s murderous drug cartels, but she went on to blame American guns (and by extension, law-abiding American who fight to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights) for the actions of the vicious criminals who prey on anyone who stands in their way.
“Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”
“Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity … to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible. That’s not right.”
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton
The President himself publicly pronounced that American gun runners supplied 90% of the weapons used by Mexican drug cartels in their violent campaign to control the Mexican narcotics trade. When faced with indisputable evidence that his claims invalid, he pulled a slick semantic trick reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s famous “definition of ‘is'” response and reiterated his false claims. Obama didn’t have a problem with the definition of “is,” but seems not to understand the meaning of the word “recovered.”
The problem stems from the fact that the Mexican government actually “recovered” about 29,000 guns from crime scenes in 2007 & 2008. Of those, 11,000 were submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to trace their origins. Of those submitted, only 6,000 were successfully traced and 5,114 of those 6,000 were found to have originated in the US.
Obama’s fictitious claims lead the American public to believe more than 26,000 of the 29,000 recovered firearms were supplied by gun-runners in the US. The reality is that only 5,114 of the 29,000 fit that bill. Obama’s 90% figure paints the picture that, if we strengthen our gun laws, Mexican society would be free of weapons and the violence would stop. Looking past the administration’s propaganda, one realizes no such transformation will come from stripping Americans of their rights.
President Obama used the aforementioned misleading propaganda to outflank 2nd Amendment proponents by calling for the ratification of the UN treaty to ban small arms (aka CIFTA). This treaty would give the UN authority to bypass Congress and regulate US gun laws. Your constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms would be placed at the mercy of the anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Democratic dictators around the world!
The President hasn’t given up his gun-ban ideology. The battle may have been temporarily placed on the back burner, but it still looms on the horizon. These recent manifestations of his perpetual hatred for the 2nd Amendment and its advocates may even mark the first shots.
I’m always amazed when a Hollywood icon stands up for conservative values. Few suspect any who earns his living in Tinseltown to be anything but a flaming liberal.
But here’s Chuck Norris on Townhall.com, refusing to acquiesce to the powers-that-be in one of the most liberal cities in the US.
It greatly alarms me that Americans’ constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.
Several years ago, I watched then-“20/20” correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America’s constitutional basis, Saddam asked, “Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?” (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. — and somewhat at a loss for words herself — Diane quipped back in answering his question, “They host television talk shows!” Saddam’s facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.
Sounds so far-out, doesn’t it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track — a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.