tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65784326584289575852023-11-16T12:11:27.805-05:00Eternal VigilanceEternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty --Thomas Jeffersondanettenoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-34864370701112851072010-11-17T23:08:00.003-05:002010-11-17T23:18:36.230-05:00Bikers ride with boy in support after school banned his flagAWESOME!!<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bikers-rally-to-ride-with-boy-after-school-banned-american-flag/">The Blaze</a>:<br /><br />"hundreds of patriotic bikers — many of them veterans — showed up to escort him to school Monday morning"<br /><br /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="cs_player" width="425" height="330"><param name="movie" value="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/cs_api/get_swf/3/&pl_id=8178&page_count=5&windows=1&show_title=0&va_id=1832557&auto_start=0&auto_next=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/cs_api/get_swf/3/&pl_id=8178&page_count=5&windows=1&show_title=0&va_id=1832557&auto_start=0&auto_next=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="330" /></object><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/school-responds-boy-forced-to-remove-flag-for-his-own-safety/">More on the story here</a> - after a huge outcry the school reversed its decision and is allowing the flag. I gotta tell ya, the school's "safety" excuse doesn't make sense to me... they claim some students complained about the flag and made threats, but if that is the case it is the students making the threats who should have gotten in trouble, not the innocent boy who was threatened. Since when do we appease bullies by forcing others to give in to them?!danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-41778446180481131272010-05-08T01:56:00.008-04:002010-05-08T03:43:36.051-04:00I think it's fair to say...<br>...that the school officials in <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/california-students-sent-home-wearing-flags-cinco-mayo/">this case</a> acted "stupidly":<br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/california-students-sent-home-wearing-flags-cinco-mayo/">California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo</a><br /><br />How the American flag can possibly be considered "incendiary" - being displayed in America, by Americans - is utterly beyond me. Generations of Americans have served and many have given their lives to defend our freedoms and that includes the freedom to display our flag proudly at any time and place.<br /><br />More on the story here (H/T <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/07/video-i-never-thought-id-be-on-national-tv-for-wearing-an-american-flag-shirt/">HotAir</a>):<br /><br /><object width="480" height="291"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/NhpqfoOwQtk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/NhpqfoOwQtk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="291"></embed></object><br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Update: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/california-principal-apologizes-forbidding-flag-shirts-mexican-holiday/">California Principal Apologizes for Forbidding U.S. Flag Shirts on Mexican Holiday</a><br /><br />I'm glad to hear that.danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-51938397306416985302009-10-07T08:44:00.006-04:002009-10-07T11:57:23.582-04:00Obama leads the charge AGAINST freedom of speech?!<br>I posted on <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/02/un-attack-on-free-speech.html">this video</a> a while back (video reposted below for reference), with the comment:<br /><blockquote>Obviously this would be unconstitional in the United States, and I don't see any indication in the report that the U.S. is actually considering this (thank goodness) but I think it's good to be aware that this is out there.<br /></blockquote><br />Well, I stand corrected. Not only is the U.S. considering this, apparently the Obama administration is taking the lead in pushing it forward.<br /><br />From the <a href="http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/043ytrhc.asp">Weekly Standard</a>, dated Monday 10/5:<br /><blockquote>The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.<br />...<br />So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression. <br />...<br />The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."<br />...<br />Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.<br />...<br />In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."<br /><br />The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.</blockquote><a href="http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/043ytrhc.asp">Click here to read the whole article</a>.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, although they speak in terms of "religious tolerance" the only religion any of the folks supporting this seem interested in "protecting" is Islam. I see no reference to complaints about defamation of Christians or Jews, or Buddhists or Hindus, or atheists or anyone else. I would not want any such "protections" in the form of limits on free speech - the freedom of expression is a fundamental right that must be protected at all costs, even if it means that someone (probably everyone) is going to be offended at some point in time. I would much rather risk being offended than give up such a vital freedom as that of free expression.<br /><br />That our own government seems willing to not only sign on but lead the charge to violate our own Constitutional rights in the name of fostering international "consensus" is absolutely unacceptable. If they think such actions will garner favor among our enemies, they are wrong. It will only garner further contempt from both enemies and allies (and the current administration seems quite confused as to which is which) as we will be seen as weak, abandoning our principles.<br /><br />More on this here:<br /><a href="http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/obama-signs-up-to-stop-your-freedom-of-speech-at-un-happy-now/">Obama signs up to stop YOUR freedom of speech at UN. Happy now?</a><br /><a href="http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-introduced-un-resolution-to-limit.html">Obama Introduced UN Resolution To Limit Free Speech</a><br /><br />~~~~~~~~<br />Here is the video referenced above:<br /><object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ji-qdC5zYd4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ji-qdC5zYd4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-80163857293429418942009-08-28T23:04:00.004-04:002009-08-28T23:11:25.364-04:00"It ain't [America] no more, OK?"<br><br />What the @%&#?!?<br /><br />I respect our police officers and the fact that they have difficult jobs. I believe the vast majority of officers are hard-working people who strive to do the right thing.<br /><br />That being said, I find this encounter disturbing. The officer in question can't offer an actual reason for his request to remove the sign, except to finally say it's because it has a picture on it (huh?). Then he threatens to "charge you with whatever I wanna charge you with." And when the person videotaping says, "this used to be America" the officer answers with "It ain't no more, ok?"<br /><br />Again, what the @%&#?!?<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hIKPKjl0-pg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hIKPKjl0-pg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-75345621987912568132009-08-27T00:46:00.003-04:002009-08-27T01:06:45.851-04:00Freedom of speech an "exaggeration"?<br>H/T <a href="http://twitter.com/kHat43/status/3572992634">kHat43</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/RightKlik/status/3572627925">RightKlik</a><br /><br />Disturbing views from Obama's diversity czar, Mark Lloyd.<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055">CNS News</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.<br /><br />...<br /><br />“It should be clear by now that <span style="font-weight:bold;">my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press</span>,” he said. “<span style="font-weight:bold;">This freedom is all too often an exaggeration</span>. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”<br /> <br />“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”</blockquote><br /><br />"Democratic governance" is a nice euphemism for "government control." And who exactly count as "real people"? If some people are "real," are others "fake"?<br /><br />Last time I checked, between the internet, television (cable / satellite), radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. anyone and everyone who wants to have a voice has that opportunity. Likewise anyone can find what they want to watch / read / listen to from all over the spectrum of ideas. The last thing we need is the government stepping in to control what Americans see and hear. Constitutional rights are not an "exaggeration" for the government to curtail, they are the rights of every citizen. It is becoming more clear to me every day that there are significant forces in government that would like nothing more than to take all our freedoms and control every aspect of our lives. Each of needs to keep standing up for our freedoms or we will lose them. <br /><br /><br />Read the whole article <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055">here</a>.<br /><br />More from the Examiner <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Obamas-diversity-officer-at-FCC-to-use-Alinskys-confrontational-tactics">here</a>.danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-22645906762445264102009-08-01T10:11:00.007-04:002009-08-15T21:21:39.846-04:0010 million watchdogs<br>If you've been listening to or watching Glenn Beck lately you've already heard about this, but in case you haven't (where have you been? hehe), thought I'd post this to spread the word.<br /><br />Personally I love the idea because there is so much going on, everyday it's something else. It's easy to feel overwhelmed, almost to the point of wanting to just shut it all out and go hide under the bed or something, but we can't do that because we owe it to our children to STAND UP and fight back to preserve freedom.<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28438/">Glenn Beck</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>be a constitutional watchdog because we need to stop these people in their tracks, and the one thing I learned is <span style="font-weight:bold;">while there is one thing about one watchdog, there's something more than twice as powerful in two watchdogs. Now imagine with the radio audience and the television audience, imagine ten million watchdogs.</span> I need you in the next couple of days to help me. This is like a 100 front war. He is overwhelming the system. It is right out of the playbook from Saul Alinsky. It is what a community organizer does: Overwhelm the system.<br /><br />...<br /><br />We don't need the mainstream media anymore. The paradigm is about to shift. Don't worry about the media. The media will find themselves in the dustbin of history. We have each other.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />...<br /><br />help me define what the fronts are. What are the lines that they are moving in and pushing on. For instance, healthcare cannot be passed. No form of universal healthcare. Because it is not about the healthcare. It is about the structure, and I will outline this in the next few days. Structure is what matters. Nothing else matters. Structure is what matters. We need to watch the czars. We need to watch cap and trade, structure on cap and trade. We need to watch ‑‑ quite honestly we need to guard, as much as I hate every member of congress, we need to guard congress because the executive branch is devouring all other branches. They are devouring it, and the people in congress are so stupid, so insipid or so in on the game, they are going to find themselves irrelevant wildly fast [<span style="font-style:italic;">ed note: I <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/07/obamas-power-grab-via-czars.html">blogged about this</a> recently in reference to the <a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/07/obamas-power-grab-via-czars.html">czars</a></span>]. We must guard all three branches of government. It is a shell game. It is a transformation. And what I said to you over a year ago, you will wake up someday and your country will not be the same. It's happening, and it's happening right now. But one person can't watch it all. No media source can even do it.<br /><br />...<br /><br />here's the great thing. <span style="font-weight:bold;">You don't have to watch them on all fronts. There are 10 million listeners. Pick the thing that interests you.</span> Are you into guns? Are you into healthcare? Do you know it? Do you feel it? Do you watch something on TV and say, "I know this, I know what they're doing!" Follow it! Don't pay attention to all of it. You'll get lost. That's what they want us to do. So don't follow all of it. Follow the thing that your gut says "This is important and I understand this and I get this." Just follow that one thing and alert me. We will put the gears into at least neutral. Eventually we will jam that back into reverse. And if we don't, we'll strip all the damn gears because it will be time to get out of the car and rebuild it the American way. <span style="font-weight:bold;">So I ask you, will you be a constitutional watchdog. The time has come to bark and to bark loudly.</span> Understand what this means. What this means is you may be called a racist, a homophobe, a hate monger, you want to starve children. Whatever it is, whatever your category is, they will find a way to ridicule you because that's what Saul Alinsky taught them to do: <span style="font-weight:bold;">Have no fear. No fear no more! Stand up! You know the truth. Stand for the truth because only the truth will set us free.</span></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28438/">Read the whole thing here</a>.</span>danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-89257869922616251362009-07-21T18:41:00.001-04:002009-08-15T21:24:19.780-04:00Obama health policy advisor on rationing<br>If Obamacare is implemented, it stands to reason that demand for care will go up while supply of care will go down. On the one hand, I believe that some doctors will choose to leave practice (and students will opt to avoid medical school) rather than work under even more government control than already exists. Aside from that, the government is fixated on "cutting costs" with regard to healthcare despite it's free-spending ways when it comes to everything else. <br /><br />Such an environment will create a scarcity of care, much like what has already happened in countries with socialized medicine like Canada and Britain, which invariably leads to government rationing of care. Given that, it's worth asking <strong>how</strong> will care be rationed?<br /><br />For some insight into that, we can look to the <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/07/06/electing-god/">recommendations</a> of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, NIH bioethicist (an ironic title IMO), Rahm Emanuel's brother, and most importantly, Barack Obama's "<a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/dr_ezekiel_emanuel_rahms_broth.html">Special Advisor for Health Policy</a>."<br /><br />So, what are Dr. Emanuel's views on rationing of care? He recently coauthored an article on the topic, "<a href="http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/departmentpubs/Persad%202009%20-%20Lancet.pdf">Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions</a>," in <a href="http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/departmentpubs/Persad%202009%20-%20Lancet.pdf">the Lancet</a>. While the article references specific care like organ transplants, kidney dialysis, and vaccines in the event of a pandemic, it is also clearly meant to apply any time there is a "scarcity" of care (which Obamacare would undoubtedly create).<br /><br />After considering a number of possible rationing methods that <em>could</em> be used, Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues recommend a combination of criteria which they call the "complete lives system":<br /><br /><blockquote>"It prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. ... also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants (figure)."</blockquote><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbvSzTCK3SWV71cFDc3APNLyljOaPUFeNcrOA9jdx_XbOqCSoLvDTfv_HoCihUH9K738PViLqEFTULT7RH0PykNDD2_I85_8F0vX5TGZJ5khOSsM4q_CWiHh-WbVv96EZX8iPUbXNVyk0/s1600-h/healthchart2.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360005551891850594" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 182px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbvSzTCK3SWV71cFDc3APNLyljOaPUFeNcrOA9jdx_XbOqCSoLvDTfv_HoCihUH9K738PViLqEFTULT7RH0PykNDD2_I85_8F0vX5TGZJ5khOSsM4q_CWiHh-WbVv96EZX8iPUbXNVyk0/s320/healthchart2.JPG" border="0" /></a><br />While I was disgusted to see the curve take a nose-dive around age 50, I can't say I was surprised, based on Obama's recent statement regarding the elderly, "<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597492337757443.html">Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller</a>," (translation, go home and die?). However, I admit I <em>was</em> surprised (and appalled) to see babies and young children also targetted to be denied care. What would this mean for preemies? Would life-saving NICU care be deemed "too expensive" by the bureacrats?<br /><br />It gets even worse when you see his justification for such discrimination against the "very young."<br /><br /><blockquote>"Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, <strong>investments that will be wasted </strong>without a complete life. <strong>Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.</strong> Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, <em>'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does</em>'; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo."</blockquote>That paragraph is just <em>wrong </em>and abhorrent on so many levels. What parent considers their love and time spent parenting as an "investment"? What parent would consider the loss of a baby less tragic than the loss of an older child? What parent would agree that it is acceptable to let a baby or young child die on the grounds that they haven't "invested" much time in that child yet (or worse, that the state hasn't "invested" in their education yet)? And to say, "this argument is supported by empirical surveys"?! <strong>WHO THINKS LIKE THAT?!?</strong> It makes me physically ill. No wonder these people don't care to protect the unborn or even newborns. If babies, toddlers, and even children who haven't yet reached adolescence mean so little to them, surely an unborn child would be worth even less in their eyes. I guess that answers my question about preemies...<br /><br />Here's more:<br /><br /><blockquote>"A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses."</blockquote>And who determines prognoses? Something tells me it won't be doctors and families.<br /><br /><blockquote>"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure)."</blockquote>Attenuated. Good luck with that. How's that "hope and change" working out for ya?<br /><br />As to potential objections that such a policy discriminates against the elderly, the authors have this to say:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."</blockquote>Sure, ok. Well, I feel better now. It's not like we'd be discriminating against anyone on the basis of age or anything. :rolls eyes:<br /><br />On the need to influence public attitudes to accept such a system:<br /><br /><blockquote>"the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a <em>complete life</em>, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources." </blockquote>In other words, the belief in the sanctity of life in general must go, and be replaced by the notion that a "complete life" is more important than just any life, that some lives are more worthy of saving than others. If you're over 40, just accept that you need to step aside and not expect much care, someone younger has a "stronger claim" to that care. And if your child is not yet 15 or determined to have a lower "prognosis," accept that someone older or healthier has a "stronger claim" to care. Anyone else feeling outraged yet, or is it just me?<br /><br />But, let's not be too hasty. They're not <em>quite</em> advocating this system be applied to the entire health care system, at least not until we take some other steps first:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending."</blockquote>Huh? I thought we were supposed to be making healthcare more affordable, not increasing spending... won't that just increase the cost to taxpayers under a government-controlled system?<br /><br />Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues are careful to distance themselves from so-called "objective" methods of discounting the value of life on the basis of disability or "quality of life," but their objection is to the attempt to quantify it. They have no problem with more qualitative methods of taking "instrumental value" into account. The fact that they advocate only resorting to that in the event of an "emergency" might be intended to reassure us, except that our current government is in a constant state of "crisis."<br /><br />So what do they mean by "instrumental value"?<br /><br /><blockquote>"Instrumental value allocation <strong>prioritises specific individuals to enable or encourage future usefulness</strong>. ... Responsibility-based allocation—eg, allocation to people who agree to improve their health and thus use fewer resources—also represents instrumental value allocation."</blockquote>What exactly does "usefulness" mean? While they claim their system doesn't discriminate on the basis of disability, does anyone reading this really think that such language won't be used to discriminate against those with special needs if some bureacrat decides their "future usefulness" is less than someone else's? And how about anyone deemed "inconvenient" to society? What is the criteria for "usefulness," who decides, and why should it even matter? Can you imagine going to the doctor and being asked questions to determine your "usefulness" to society before being offered any care? The idea is unconscionable, and the sanctity of all life would be meaningless under such a system.<br /><br />Where have we heard such notions before? I hate to bring up Nazi references but the similarities in thought are there. The Nazis also believed in "life unworthy of life" and saw the elimination of such people as a "healing" process for society as a whole. To be clear, Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues are NOT advocating killing anyone as the Nazis did, but denial of care via rationing would ultimately result in needless loss of life. Most importantly, it would result in loss of life that would <em>not</em> occur under our current system. Emanuel & friends obviously saw the potential for readers to see such parallels because they addressed it:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of <em>Untermenschen</em> whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on', but rather <strong>empowers us to decide fairly</strong> whom to save when <strong>genuine scarcity</strong> makes saving everyone impossible."</blockquote>Whew... I feel better now. Well, not exactly. Obamacare will CREATE "genuine scarcity" in many, many areas where it does not exist today, making such decisions more and more "necessary." And in reality, denying or limiting care is no less than a death sentence in many cases.<br /><br />Lastly:<br /><br /><blockquote>"To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or <strong>retreating to the status quo</strong>."</blockquote>Interestingly, Obama tends to favor that term "status quo" also, and he uses it in a similarly derisive tone. Heaven forbid we hold onto a system that doesn't require rationing, especially centralized rationing, for the vast majority of care.<br /><br />We keep hearing about how our current healthcare system is in a state of crisis. It's not. Are there some things that need to be improved? Of course, it's not perfect. But let's not burn down the whole town just to fix a few potholes in the road.danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-17327942936268373322009-07-20T07:06:00.002-04:002009-08-15T21:24:59.034-04:00Obama's power grab via "czars"<br>Does Congress not see that they are gradually being marginalized, their power taken and amassed within the executive branch via "czars"?<br /><br />The whole concept of "czars," presidential appointees that are not under congressional authority but report solely to the president, needs to end. I realize it's been done before, for years actually, but never on the scale of what Obama has done. At last count he now has over 30 "czars," many of whom are duplicating (and likely replacing from a practical standpoint) official cabinet positions. Others are entirely new positions with new and far-reaching power, power not granted to them by Congress and not approved by Congress.<br /><br />There is no vetting process (at least not one open to scrutiny by Congress or we the people) and no accountability other than to the president. Transparency anyone?<br /><br />It's a blatant circumvention of the constitutional separation of powers and it needs to stop. To me, it appears to be not only <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/06/15/senior_democrat_says_obamas_czars_unconstitutional">unconstitutional</a> but a clear attempt to consolidate power in the executive branch while marginalizing the power of Congress. As Senator Byrd said in a recent letter to Obama, "The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances." Indeed.<br /><br />Perhaps <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/obamas-czars-draw-criticism-sides-political-aisle/">some in Congress are waking up</a> to what's happening.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/">Taxpayers for Common Sense</a> has a <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Wastebasket/2009/Obama_Czars.xls">running list of the czars</a> with additional detail on each one.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost">Here's the current list:<br /><br />1. Afghanistan czar<br />2. AIDS czar<br />3. Border czar<br />4. CA Water czar<br />5. Car czar<br />6. Climate czar<br />7. Domestic violence czar<br />8. Drug czar<br />9. Economic czar<br />10. Energy czar<br />11. Faith-based czar<br />12. Great Lakes czar<br />13. Green jobs czar<br />14. Guantanamo closure czar<br />15. Health czar<br />16. Information czar<br />17. Intelligence czar<br />18. Mideast peace czar<br />19. Mideast policy czar<br />20. Pay czar<br />21. Regulatory czar<br />22. Science czar<br />23. Stimulus accountability czar<br />24. Sudan czar<br />25. TARP czar<br />26. TARP oversight czar<br />27. Technology czar<br />28. Terrorism czar (umm, shouldn't that be the man-caused disaster czar?)<br />29. Urban affairs czar<br />30. Weapons czar<br />31. WMD/Terrorism czar<br /><br />and two not appointed yet:<br /><br />32. Copyright czar<br />33. Cyberspace czar<br /><br />33 and counting...</span>danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-90742624247133693412009-07-18T21:28:00.006-04:002009-07-18T21:57:36.881-04:00"Science Czar" a proponent of forced abortion, involuntary sterilizationObama's so-called "science czar" <a href="http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/07/obamas_totalita.html">John Holdren</a> goes beyond environmental extremist notions that "<a href="http://www.eternalvigilanceusa.com/2009/07/global-warming-alarmists-abortion.html">responsible</a>" citizens should limit their family sizes, into the realm of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization.<br /><br />Here are a few excerpts from a book that Holdren wrote with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The book is called <em>Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment</em> and although it was written in 1977, <a href="http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/">Zombietime</a> notes that Holdren has never denounced the things he wrote at that time so it stands to reason that he still holds these beliefs:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including <strong>laws requiring compulsory abortion</strong>, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."</blockquote>Forced abortion?! Whatever happened to a woman's "right to choose"? Whatever happened to "my body, my choice"? Oh... well, as long as it's for the "greater good," right?<br /><br /><blockquote>"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to <strong>insist</strong> that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption — especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. ... It would even be possible to <strong>require</strong> pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."</blockquote>Oh look! So women might be given some choices... have your baby forcibly taken by the government and given to someone else, get married, or we're back to forced abortion. Wow, how thoughtful of the totalitarian regime to offer some choices after all.<br /><br />Then again, this guy has thought of everything. The whole notion of forced abortion doesn't necessarily have to happen if we have forced sterilization, right?<br /><br /><blockquote>"The development of a <strong>long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted</strong> under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and <strong>might be removable, with official permission</strong>, for a limited number of births."</blockquote>It just gets more and more disturbing. He thinks the government has the right to decide who can and who cannot have children. Anyone who gets pregnant outside of that "approval process" would be subject to having their child forcibly taken from them, or being forced to kill their own child. I can't even begin to tell you how outraged I am by this whole notion. And again, this is the person that president of the United States as appointed as his personal science advisor. As such, he is in a position to make recommendations to the president. And these are his beliefs when it comes to "reproductive health" as the liberals are calling it these days.<br /><br />But wait, there's more... implanting and removing "sterilization capsules" could be costly and time-consuming. Isn't there a more cost-efficient way to force sterilization on the masses?<br /><br /><blockquote>"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. ... To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."</blockquote>No mention of ethical or moral problems here, but extensive discussion on the logistical challenges. I mean, it's one thing to subject an entire population to involuntary sterilization (presumably without their knowledge or consent), but we wouldn't want to have any side-effects to livestock.<br /><br />In the event that they decide to grant you permission to have children, such "rights" would be limited.<br /><br /><blockquote>"In today's world, however, <strong>the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern</strong>. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"</blockquote>Really?! Are you kidding me?! How is it anyone's concern other my husband, myself, and God how many children we bring into our family? Whatever happened to keeping government out of the bedroom?<br /><br />Apparently anyone who is not on board with such suggestions is a... racist?<br /><br /><blockquote>"Another related issue that seems to encourage a <strong>pronatalist attitude</strong> in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by <strong>fear that their group may be outbred</strong> by other groups... Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all."</blockquote>Hmm... now this strikes me as interesting. It would never occur to me to have children on the basis of making sure my "social or ethnic group" isn't "outbred" by another. The fact that it <em>does</em> occur to Holdren is telling. I mean, many of his ilk are already limiting their family size to two or less children for any number of reasons (and although they have absolutely NO right to force such choices on the rest of us they are well within their rights to determine what size family is best for them). But after I read his comments on that topic, I wonder if it is actually he and others who think like him who feel the need to limit the family size of others in order to keep from being "outbred" by others who don't share their ideology. After all, we wouldn't want to let "pronatalist attitudes" (translation: the notion that babies are good) become too common.<br /><br />Sigh. As if all this isn't bad enough, Holdren doesn't just want the U.S. government making these decisions for us. He wants an international "planetary regime" to be in charge.<br /><br /><blockquote>"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for <strong>determining the optimum population for the world and for each region</strong> and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits."</blockquote>This man is frightening beyond words, and what he proposes is no less than a brutal totalitarian regime that has absolutely no place in a country that has for 200+ years been the beacon of freedom and liberty to the world. The fact that he has the president's ear and the ability to push for such policies is all the more cause for alarm.danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-11113082725072494862009-07-18T17:58:00.000-04:002009-07-18T21:45:34.259-04:00Global warming alarmists & abortion advocates - an unlikely pair?A few months ago, I came across <a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece">this article</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.<br /><br />Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says <strong>curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming</strong>.<br /><br />.....<br /><br />Porritt, <em>who has two children</em>, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, <strong>even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion</strong>. </blockquote><br /><br />Gee, do you think it's a coincidence that the number of "permissable" children according to this guy just happens to be the same number of children that <strong>he</strong> has?<br /><br />This was the first time I had really thought about the connection between the global warming alarmists and the pro-abortion crowd, but upon reading this it made sense. If the far-left crazies think that abortion is necessary to "save the planet" then of course they will do everything they can to make abortion seem "acceptable" in mainstream society. After all, how can one encourage everyone to do something that they find repulsive? You do it in stages. First you try to convince everyone that abortion is perfectly ok. Then you have a socially "acceptable" solution to offer when you start telling people they need to limit their family size, to whatever the so-called "experts" say it should be. <br /><br />Then abortion becomes not just ok, but it's for the "greater good." After all, anyone who doesn't choose to limit their family size is being "irresponsible" and selfish.<br /><br />It's reprehensible. It would be easy enough to write this guy off as a quack but in fact he chairs the UK Sustainable Development Commission. As such he is in a position of some influence obviously in England, but to some extent here in the United States as well given our own government's (the liberals anyway) love affair with everything European and desire to follow them even if it means following them off a cliff.<br /><br />Although Mr. Porritt keeps his suggestions in the realm of voluntary limitation of family size, it doesn't take a genius to see that others might continue the slide down that slippery slope and suggest forcing the matter, all in the name of the common good. It's not unprecedented. Consider China's "one child" limit - enforced in part through forced abortions. Again, easier to accomplish if society has been adequately convinced that abortion is acceptable.danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-1903367055746201182009-06-18T22:52:00.002-04:002009-06-18T22:58:33.127-04:00Obama pushes anti-gun treatyHe can't get it through Congress so he wants to circumvent the House (only the Senate ratifies treaties), not to mention yet more trampling on the Constitution. Let's hope the Senate won't go for this, time to start calling / writing.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D9X2VbhSH9o&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D9X2VbhSH9o&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object><br /><br />For more information, click <a href="http://gunowners.org/fs0901.htm">here</a> and <a href="http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate5-CIFTA.htm">here</a>.danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-24158153139808574852009-05-27T06:06:00.003-04:002009-05-27T10:18:08.646-04:00Prolonged preventative detention?I can't tell you how many times in the last few days and weeks I have read an article and thought to myself incredulously, what the heck is happening to this country?! Sounds a little melodramatic but this stuff is just insanity on so many levels. Here is just one example, more to come:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object></embed><br /><br /><br /><span id="fullpost">Almost as shocking as the content is the fact that this actually aired on MSNBC.<br /><br />Obama is framing this up in terms of terrorist threats from foreign nations, specifically it kind of sounds like some sort of "insurance policy" to allow him to hold Gitmo detainees who cannot be successfully prosecuted through the legal system, since he insists on going that route in the first place.<br /><br />However, what he's proposing here is a broad scope of power (dare I use the now overly worn-out word, "unprecedented"?) with what checks and balances? Once established, how easy would it be for such power to be abused - if not by this administration, then by the next one, or the one after them?<br /><br />Remember that <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/you-might-be-a-radicalized-rightwing-extremist-if/">Dept of Homeland Security report</a> warning of the risks of "right-wing extremism"? It was loosely defined to target those who favor states' rights, value the sanctity of life, support the 2nd amendment, or are U.S. veterans, just to name a few (and <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/17/senators-to-napolitano-show-us-the-data/">lacked supporting evidence</a>).<br /><br />If they're starting from scratch on setting the rules, and doing so outside the existing legal system, isn't it possible that these purposely vague descriptions could be used to target individuals for nothing more than exercising free speech? Or not even that, but just on the suspicion of possibly holding opinions that might conceivably (however remote the possibility) be deemed to be a "threat"? Or do I just have an overactive imagination? (I sincerely hope it's the latter).<br /><br />Listen to what he's saying in the speech though - the justification for holding people is not what they've done, but what the government suspects they <font style="font-style: italic;">might</font> do in the future. Being held - indefinitely, and without charges or trial - for a crime not yet committed (and possibly not ever intended to be committed). Imprisonment based not on actions or even intent, but on mere <span style="font-style: italic;">suspicion</span>. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?</span>danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-85066275358032075732009-03-31T00:57:00.008-04:002009-03-31T01:42:51.864-04:00Join the NRA for freeThanks to <a href="http://twitter.com/womengunowners">@WomenGunOwners</a> for sharing this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nra.org/benefits.aspx"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 118px; height: 117px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlSfIHHvl4TEADdgSwe8bjQyMjTm4hFXsU8MEoAklKRcr5XFJQp7S9xQ7ahznJJD7Rh8yP_UenQRVitTYc_PSoDnmvDczWqquD-dhqyPq880lmzIruRqnuT5vnXMr6PlcG5gc-VimOyZU/s320/joinnra2.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5319223092153898610" /></a>The NRA is offering free one-year memberships at the following link:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp">NRA Special Bonus Offer</a><br /><br />Even if you don't own a gun, please join and <a href="http://www.nra.org/home.aspx">support the NRA</a> in their efforts to protect Americans' 2nd amendment rights.<br /><br />"<em>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, <strong>shall not be infringed</strong>.</em>" ~ U.S. Constitution, 2nd amendment (emphasis added)<br /><br /><em>An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject</em>. ~source unknowndanettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-80427915687998072902009-03-14T17:46:00.007-04:002009-03-14T20:44:17.383-04:00Gun control does not equal crime controlThere has been a lot said recently about efforts by the government to limit 2nd amendment rights, most recently with the introduction of <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45">H.R. 45</a>, the <a href="http://www.timesgazette.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=162123">Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009</a>. The law would require federal licensing with a rather stringent (and likely expensive) process involved, and puts all the control in the hands of the Attorney General (and our current Atty General has <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1227228105.shtml">made his opinions quite clear</a> regarding citizens and gun ownership).<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />We are <a href="http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4509">likely to hear more efforts</a> toward imposing stringent control over firearms and ammunition in any number of ways from this administration in the coming months. They will probably point to tragedies like the recent <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52A01D20090312">shootings in Alabama</a>. These events are horrific, but the fact is that criminals will be able to obtain guns regardless of the laws, and unstable people who want to harm or kill others will find other ways to carry out their plans if firearms are not available. Germany has very strict gun laws, but <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/11/germany-school-shooting-laws">that didn't stop a 17-yr-old gunman</a> from killing 16 people before turning the gun on himself the other day. What is really at stake is whether we are going to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families from such individuals. <br /><br />Aside from the fact that our Constitution specifically prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, it just makes sense from a <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d13-Gun-control-as-a-measure-of-safety-and-freedom">public safety perspective</a>. Gun control advocates will say the opposite, but yet time after time when it is tried, stringent gun control does not have the desired outcomes.<br /><br />Take what happened in Great Britain, for instance. The government banned guns in 1997, telling the people that the new laws would make them safer. In reality, <a href="http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/nemerov/2004/nemerov071104.htm">crime rates in England increased significantly</a> after the 1997 ban. Australia has seen similar results.<br /><br />Why? Because criminals, by definition, are people who disregard the law. Therefore, the only people who turned in their guns were law-abiding citizens. The criminals held on to theirs, and the law-abiding citizens became sitting ducks for criminals who no longer had to fear that their victims might actually be able to defend themselves with a gun.<br /><br />You can see more details about the English gun ban and citizens' protests of the law here.<br /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nQoQTdVlxkA&hl=" width="425" height="344" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" fs="1&rel=" color1="0x2b405b&color2=" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed><br /><br /><br />Further evidence is found in a 20/20 special on the issue:<br /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j_YTM_eAWnQ&hl=" width="425" height="344" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" fs="1&rel=" color1="0x2b405b&color2=" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed><br /><br /><br />In the 1990's, some detailed studies were conducted looking at the impact of gun-control laws on violent crime. What they found was that often just having a firearm (not even having to use it) plays a key role in averting would-be criminals. The effect is even more significant for women, for whom having a gun helps to "level the playing field" so to speak, negating to some extent the physical advantage that some criminals might have over them. On the other hand, in areas with stringent gun-control laws, the criminals are emboldened by the knowledge (or increased likelihood) that potential victims are unarmed.<br /><br />You can read more about the studies <a href="http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.largo.org/Lott.html">here</a>. Here are excerpts:<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html">Professor Gary Kleck</a> is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. He had expected the research involved in that writing to infer negatively on gun ownership. He discovered a vast amount of violent crimes were prevented by firearms usage. Even though this was contrary to his original premise, he had the integrity to stand by his research. Although that book was awarded the best book (of 1993) on criminology by the American Society of Criminology it was largely ignored by gun control advocates such as most medical journals and our Government's Justice Department and Center for Disease Control.</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>In 1996, the most comprehensive "gun control" study of all time was published by <a href="http://www.largo.org/Lott.html">John Lott</a> of the University of Chicago Law School. Fifteen years of FBI files from all 3,054 counties in our country were analyzed regarding the correlation between the occurrence of violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. Invariably, where responsible, law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry firearms, the rate of violent crime plummeted. The criminals were afraid to attack those who "might" be armed.</blockquote><br /></span>danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-49351999932679026212009-02-27T00:53:00.006-05:002009-02-27T01:33:34.877-05:00Alert - parental rights at risk if this is ratifiedI first <a href="http://parentalrights.org">read about this</a> a couple of months ago, and although I've been mainly focused on the out-of-control spending lately I want to make sure people are aware of it, because according to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/">yesterday's news</a>, this is being brought up again for consideration and it needs to be stopped.<br /><br />The "U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child" essentially demotes parents to simply caregivers, and elevates the state as the ultimate authority on how children should be raised, giving the state the right to override any number of parental decisions.<br /><br />Forget about homeschooling, imparting your religious values to your child, or teaching responsible behavior. Forget about setting appropriate limits on what your children may and may not do. If the state disagrees with you, this law would give them the power to intervene. If your CHILD disagrees with you (for instance, if you ground them or give them a curfew), they are empowered to seek state intervention to override you. This is yet another attack on the family.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br />The United States has signed the convention, but the Senate has not yet ratified it. We are the only nation, aside from Somalia which has no organized government, that has not yet ratified the treaty. Ratification is required to actually make it a binding law in the U.S. If that happens, because of our treaty law, this would nullify approximately 90% of existing family laws currently on the books at the state and local levels, and because it allows the U.N. authority, it would also seriously infringe on our national soveriegnty.<br /><br />What can we do to stop this? <a href="http://parentalrights.org">Parentalrights.org</a> is seeking to <a href="http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E7900CE9-7AE0-47B3-81F6-CC16B7CAA8A0}">amend the Constitution</a> to protect children by empowering parents. The text of their proposed amendment reads:<br /><br /><blockquote>DRAFT PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT<br />FOR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION<br /><br />SECTION 1<br />The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.<br /><br />SECTION 2<br />Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.<br /><br />SECTION 3<br />No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/385/default.asp?formid=signup">Click here to sign the petition</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={97AC9727-7102-4289-82F7-9F6D89D62C83}">Click here to learn more</a>.<br /><br />I'll continue to post updates here.<br /></span>danettenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6578432658428957585.post-82360322619486137302009-02-27T00:31:00.000-05:002009-02-27T00:43:47.562-05:00U.N. attack on free speechA new U.N. resolution is aimed at making it illegal to criticize "religions" (Islam in particular). Obviously this would be unconstitional in the United States, and I don't see any indication in the report that the U.S. is actually considering this (thank goodness) but I think it's good to be aware that this is out there.<br /><br />Lou Dobbs is right on about the U.N. when he says, "The United Nations is getting a bit burdensome, it seems to me, to anyone who's interested in freedom, whether it be through the World Trade Organization, whether it be all sorts of institutions, organizations, ranging in issue from global warming to anti-blasphemy, this is becoming a totalitarian, authoritarian organization."<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ji-qdC5zYd4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ji-qdC5zYd4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object><br /></span>danettenoreply@blogger.com0