America is at a Crossroads: Video Reveals Dangers To US From Obama Presidency

Levin Says HHS Secretary Sebelius Should Be Impeached

I agree! The Republicans in the House need to start the impeachment proceedings ASAP.  This woman needs to be sent a message loud and clear that she is not allowed to violate our right to freedom of religion.

H/T Breitbart 

MIni Eagle Freedom Links -- Air Supply Edition -- 2-12-12

The past few weeks I have felt sooo tired. It is probably due to some medicine I'm taking. That is the main reason I haven't done a Eagle Freedom Links post or the mini version lately.  Plus, I'm on the hunt for a better job.

Zilla of Zilla Of The Resistance has moved her blog to a new site so please be sure and visit her new blog soon and often. 

About a week or so ago we had the HHS decision mandating that all non-profit organizations provide contraception, sterilization procedures and abortion inducing pills even though that violates the conscience and religious liberty of citizens.  Another sign that Obama is an anti-constitutional tyrant who is imposing his beliefs (or lack thereof) on the American people. He is morally bankrupt IMO.  We must fight together against this unjust mandate.

Some questions: Who is your choice to be the GOP nominee out of those presently running?  If you could pick who would have been your choice for GOP nominee, excluding those presently running? What are the characteristics you look for in a President?  Do you have any prayer requests? If so, please do mention and myself as well as the rest of the conservative bloggers will keep your prayer intentions in our thoughts and prayers. 

Don't Tread On Us - Dear Mayor Bloomberg 

A Pissed Off Irishmen - King Obama Encouraging Abortion! 

Acts Of The Apostasy - Obama's Contraception Compromise... 

Verum Serum - The Santorum Sweep Becomes The Santorum Surge 

Always On Watch - How Is This A Compromise? 

Anonymous Political Scientist - Andrew Breitbart Announces He Has College Video Of Young Obama's Radical Perspective 



BBCW - Not So Fast Mitt Romney, Maine Isn't Yours Yet: Ron Paul Points Out The Flaw In Appointing Romney The Winner 

Biblical Conservatism - In 2012, Conservatives are Still the Center 

Blue's Blog - The Fist Of God...

Capitalist Preservation - If They Only had a Brain 

Commentarama - Government Dependence Is Killing America 



Creative Minority Report - WH: We are Done Negotiating With Catholics 

Divinity Diva - Keep Calm and Catholic On! 

AlwaysCatholic - Sofia has an URGENT PRAYER REQUEST for one of our own here at AlwaysCatholic,com 

Battle Beads Blog - We Cannot - We Will Not - Comply With This Unjust Law 

Greg Mankiw's Blog - Semantics at the Highest Level 

Hack Wilson - Should Women be Allowed in Combat? Those who say Yes put Women in Harm's Way 



Innominatus - Irritation of the Day 

Just a Conservative Girl - Sarah Palin Rocks CPAC

Left Coast Rebel - Contraception, Health Care, and the Constitution 

Legal Insurrection - The Asphyxiation of an Industry 

Liberty At Stake - Sign Me Up! 

Lone Star Parson - More Guns Please! 



Obama Cartoons - Barack Obama and Religious Freedoms

Pedaling Fast - Where in the World

Give Me Liberty - Army Goes Rolling Again Song 

Conservatives On Fire - US Debt _ Who's Holding The Bag? 

Proof Positive - Happy Lincoln's Birthday! 



Pundit & Pundette - Video: Daniel Hannan at CPAC 

Freedom By The Way - NY Times Says The Constitution is "Terse & Old".

QUICKWIT - Little Walter.... 

The Conservative Lady - It's Unacceptable!

The Scottcarp Dream - Halftime in America: Remy Chrysler Ad Parody 



Wyblog - Obama Contraception "Compromise" is Worse than the Original Mandate 

Sentry Journal - Has Compromise Become a Placebo for the Ignorant? 

The Country Thinker - The Eagle Has Crashed Episode 1: Prologue 

Conservative Hideout - Parents are Apparently Unqualified To Make Decisions on School Choice 

Da Tech Guy - Andrew Breitbart Answers a Question on Citizens United's Occupod Movie 

Zilla Of The Resistance - The Other Victims of the Abortion Industry 

Glenn Beck Interviews Bill Donohue President of the Catholic League

You can visit both the Catholic Advocate and Catholic League to get the latest scoop on conscience protections and the latest tactics to defend and protect our religious liberty.

Liberty's Kids: We The People

As I was flipping through the channels on the television one day I noticed an interesting cartoon being shown on one channel which teaches about our nation's founding.  Since I hadn't seen a full episode I decided to search the internet to see whether I could find any of the episodes on YouTube and did. Cool. This cartoon looks to be a good way for kids to learn about our nation's founding and the issues that were involved during the first beginnings of the United States of America. It is even possible that some adults who are uneducated in the history of our nation's founding would learn a thing or two about our history from this cartoon. What do you think of the cartoon?

Bishop Lori Defends Religious Liberty In Front Of House Judiciary Committee

Here is Bishop Lori's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. 

 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, allow me to 

thank you for the invitation and opportunity to be with you today to offer testimony 

on religious liberty.  Let me also express my appreciation to you for calling this 

hearing on a topic of fundamental importance to our Church and to our Nation.

I am here today representing the United States Conference of Catholic 

Bishops (USCCB).  I serve as Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport, and as the 

newly appointed Chair of the USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. 

I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into 

the record.

I hope to address three topics today.  First, I would like to offer a few brief 

reflections on the Catholic vision of religious freedom for all, as rooted in the 

inherent dignity of every human person, and this vision’s deep resonance with the 

American experiment.  Second, I would like to identify certain threats to religious 

liberty that have emerged with particular urgency in America today.  And third, I 

would urge you to action in support of particular legislative measures that would 

secure religious liberty against these threats.

I.

Religious liberty is not merely one right among others, but enjoys a certain 

primacy.  As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI recently explained: “It is indeed 

the first of human rights, not only because it was historically the first to be recognized 

but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, his relation with his 

Creator.”   (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 10 Jan. 2011.)   The 

late Pope John Paul II taught that “the most fundamental human freedom [is] that 

of practicing one’s faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.”  

(Pope John Paul II, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 13 Jan. 1996, No. 9.)   Not 

coincidentally, religious liberty is first on the list in the Bill of Rights, the charter of 

our Nation’s most cherished and fundamental freedoms.   The First Amendment 

begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 

prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”   It is commonly, and with justice, called our 

“First Freedom.”

Religious liberty is also prior to the state itself.  It is not merely a privilege 

that the government grants us and so may take away at will.  Instead, religious 

liberty is inherent in our very humanity, hard-wired into each and every one of us by 

our Creator.  Thus government has a perennial obligation to acknowledge and 

protect religious liberty as fundamental, no matter the moral and political trends of 

the moment.   This insight as well is reflected in the laws and traditions of our

country from its very inception.  The Declaration of Independence boldly 

proclaimed as a self-evident truth that our inalienable rights are “endowed by our 

Creator”—not by the State.

Religious freedom is most commonly understood as an individual right, and it 

certainly is that.  Religious freedom proceeds from the dignity of each person, and 

so protects each person individually.   “[T]he exercise of religion, of its very nature, 

consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the 

course of his life directly toward God” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis 

Humanae, No. 3).   Therefore individuals are “not to be forced to act in manner 

contrary to [their] conscience,” nor “restrained from acting in accordance with [their] 

conscience.”   (Ibid.)   Congress has shown special vigilance in protecting these 

individual rights of conscience, for example, in the form of the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act (RFRA), which forbids the federal government from imposing any 

“substantial burdens” on religious exercise absent the most compelling reasons.

But religious freedom also belongs to churches and other religious 

institutions, comprised of citizens who are believers and who seek, not to create a 

theocracy, but rather to influence their culture from within.  The distinction 

between Church and State, between God and Caesar, remains “fundamental to 

Christianity” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, No. 28).  We look to the State 

not to impose religion but to guarantee religious freedom, and to promote harmony 

among followers of different religions.  The Church has “a proper independence 

and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community the State must recognize”

(Ibid.).   An indispensable element of this independence is the right of churches

“not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part 

of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own 

ministers” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 4).  We are grateful 

that federal courts in the United States—at least to date—have uniformly 

recognized this core protection under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Finally, the Church teaches that these rights of religious freedom—prior to all 

other rights and even to the State, and protecting both individuals and 

institutions—are held not just by Catholics, but by all people, by virtue of their 

common humanity.   Government has the duty “to assume the safeguard of the 

religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other 

appropriate means” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 6 (emphasis 

added)).  Even in societies where one particular religion predominates, it is 

“imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious 

freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice” (Ibid.).   The United

States stands strongly for the principle that these rights of freedom are also rights of 

equality—that government should not impose any special civil disadvantages or 

otherwise discriminate against its citizens based on religion.  And although it may 

not have always lived up to this or other religious freedom principles in practice, our 

country’s unique capacity for self-correction has always provided avenues to repair 

to these principles that have made it a great nation.

II.

Regrettably, now is the time for such self-correction and repair.  In the 

recent past, the Bishops of the United States have watched with increasing alarm as 

this great national legacy of religious liberty, so profoundly in harmony with our 

own teachings, has been subject to ever more frequent assault and ever more rapid 

erosion.

As I mentioned previously, I am the Chair of the USCCB’s new Ad Hoc 

Committee for Religious Liberty, which was instituted precisely to help resist these 

assaults and reverse this erosion.  The Bishops of the United States decided in 

principle to institute a committee like this in June of this year, based on 

developments over the months and years preceding that date.   That I am already 

appointed as Chair represents action at near light-speed in Church time, and attests 

to the urgency of the matter from the Bishops’ perspective.

Although the Bishops’ decision was based on facts arising before June, I am 

here today to call to your attention grave threats to religious liberty that have 

emerged even since June—grim validations of the Bishops’ recognition of the need 

for urgent and concerted action in this area.   I focus on these because most of them 

arise under federal law, and so may well be the subject of corrective action by 

Congress.

· In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued 

regulations to mandate the coverage of contraception (including 

abortifacients) and sterilization as “preventive services” in almost all private 

health insurance plans.  There is an exception for certain religious 

employers; but to borrow from Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health 

Association, it is so incredibly narrow that it would cover only the “parish 

housekeeper.”  And the exception does nothing to protect insurers or 

individuals with religious or moral objections to the mandate.   The 

“preventive services” mandate is but the first instance of conscience 

problems arising from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

enacted in March 2010 – an act whose goal of greater access to health care the 

Bishops have long supported, but that we had persistently warned during the 

legislative process did not include sufficient protections for rights of 

conscience.

· In May, HHS added a new requirement to its cooperative agreements and 

government contracts for services to victims of human trafficking and to 

refugees who are unaccompanied minors, so that otherwise highly qualified 

service providers, such as USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), 

will be barred from participation in the program because they cannot in 

conscience provide the “full range” of reproductive services—namely, 

abortion and contraception.   This requirement is exactly what the American 

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has urged HHS to adopt in a lawsuit 

challenging the constitutionality of MRS’s longstanding contract with HHS

to serve victims of human trafficking.  Ironically, ACLU has attacked the 

Church’s exemplary service to these victims as a violation of religious 

liberty.   Already, HHS has taken its major program for serving trafficking 

victims away from MRS and transferred it to several smaller organizations 

that frankly may not be equipped to assume this burden.

· The State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) is increasingly requiring contractors, such as Catholic Relief 

Services (CRS), to provide comprehensive HIV prevention activities 

(including condom distribution), as well as full integration of its programs 

with reproductive health activities (including provision of artificial 

contraception) in a range of international relief and development programs.  

Under this new requirement, of course, some of the most effective providers 

helping to prevent and treat AIDS in Africa and other developing nations will 

be excluded.

· The federal Department of Justice (DoJ) has ratcheted up its attack on the 

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by mischaracterizing it as an act of 

bigotry.  As you may know, in March, DoJ stopped defending DOMA 

against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that 

decision.  But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking 

DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only 

have been motivated by bias and prejudice.  If the label of “bigot” sticks to 

our Church and many other churches—especially in court, under the 

Constitution—because of their teaching on marriage, the result will be 

church-state conflicts for many years to come.

· DoJ has also undermined religious liberty in the critically important 

“ministerial exception” case now pending before the Supreme Court, 

Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC.   DoJ could have taken the position that the 

“ministerial exception,” though generally providing strong protection for the 

right of religious groups to choose their ministers without government 

interference, didn’t apply in the case before the court.   This would be 

consistent with the uniform judgment of the federal Courts of Appeals for 

decades, as well the DoJ itself until now.   Instead, DoJ needlessly attacked 

the very existence of the exception, in opposition to a vast coalition of 

religious groups urging its preservation through their amicus curiae briefs.

· At the state level, religious liberty protections associated with the redefinition 

of marriage have fallen far short of what is necessary.  In New York, county 

clerks face legal action for refusing to participate in same-sex unions, and gay 

rights advocates boast how little religious freedom protection individuals and 

groups will enjoy under the new law.   In Illinois, Catholic Charities has been 

driven out of the adoption and foster care business, because it recognizes the 

unique value of man-woman marriage for the well-being of children.

III.

These are serious threats to religious liberty, and as I noted previously they 

represent only the most recent instances in a broader trend of erosion of religious 

liberty in the United States.   The ultimate root causes of these threats are profound, 

and lie beyond the scope of this hearing or even this august body to fix—they are 

fundamentally philosophical and cultural problems that the bishops, and other 

participants in civil society, must address apart from government action.  But we 

can—and must—also treat the symptoms immediately, lest the disease spread so 

quickly that the patient is overcome before the ultimate cure can be formulated and 

delivered.

As to the “preventive services” mandate, and related problems under the 

health care reform law, there are three important bipartisan bills currently in the 

Congress:  the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act 

(H.R. 361), and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).  All three go 

a long way toward guaranteeing religious liberty and freedom of conscience for 

religious employers, health insurers, and health care providers.   United with my 

brother bishops, and in the name of religious liberty, I urge these three bills be 

swiftly passed by Congress so they may be signed into law.   We welcome the fact 

that H.R. 358 was recently approved by the House in a bipartisan vote, and that the 6

text of H.R. 361 has been included in the House subcommittee draft of the 

Labor/HHS appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012.

As to the illegal conditions that HHS and USAID are placing on religious 

providers of human services, this may call for a Congressional hearing or other form 

of investigation to ensure compliance with the applicable conscience laws, as well as 

to identify how these new requirements came to be imposed.  Additional statutes 

may be appropriate, possibly to create new conscience protections, but more likely 

to create private rights of action for those whose rights under the existing protections 

have been violated.  Unfortunately, the authority to enforce the applicable 

conscience protections now lies principally with the very federal agencies that may 

be violating the protections.

As to the attack on DOMA, this body should resist legislative efforts to repeal 

the law, including the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 1116).  We also applaud the 

decision of the House to take up the defense of DOMA in court after DoJ abandoned 

it, and we urge you to sustain that effort for as long as necessary to obtain definitive 

confirmation of its constitutionality.  Moreover, DoJ’s decisions to abandon both 

DOMA and the “ministerial exception” seem to warrant congressional inquiry.

The religious freedom threats to marriage at the state level may fall beyond 

the scope of authority of Congress to control—except to the extent that state 

adoption and foster care services are federally funded.  We believe this avenue for

protecting the religious liberty of faith-based service providers should be explored 

more fully.

Thank you for your attention, and again, for your willingness to give religious 

freedom the priority it is due.  

Dr. Alan Keyes Speaks on the Issue of Eligibility to be President of the United States

A certificate of live birth is NOT the same as a long form birth certificate.  A newspaper announcement does not constitute as proof for being a United States citizen.  Geesh... The Department of Motor Vehicles in Pennsylvania wouldn't even allow me to use my certificate of live birth when transferring my car from one state to another.  I was required to show my birth certificate to transfer my car from one state to another.  It would be nice if Obama followed the Constitution and released his long form birth certificate to verify his eligibility to be President.

Alan Keyes is spot on!

The Forgotten Man by Jon McNaughton

Ed Schultz - The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Here is Ed Schultz spewing his hatred for conservatives:

Ed called conservatives “evil” at the one nation “working together” rally. He and other progressives make the unfounded accusation that conservatives are “evil” He also claims that conservatives don’t want to follow the constitution. Plus, he said that conservatives want to change this country. Like Obama’s whole mantra during his presidential campaign calling for “hope and change” somehow didn’t call for “change”. Okay, this guy is off his rocker, delusional. Was Ed in some kind of psychosis during the 2008 campaign? Nah, he believes changing from capitalism to socialism is good.

He is right about conservatives wanting to change the country . Conservatives are for returning to the principles instilled by our Founding Fathers. We are for getting back to our constitution. Conservatives believe that “all men are created equal”, and that includes those that aren’t able to speak for themselves, like the unborn.

This sad and pathetic man thinks that we’re “evil” when the liberals are the ones that make compromises with the devil. They are “pro-choice” and have been advocating for the infanticide of our children since before Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973. Progressives advocate for pulling the plug on grandma - euthanasia. Conservatives stand up for those most vulnerable and their right to live while progressives prey on weak and innocent human beings. The Democratic Party is the party of death.

As for the accusation about conservatives not following the constitution, this is equally obnoxious coming from a self-proclaimed progressive. The progressive movement is about moving beyond the constitution. The constitution is what their trying to “progress” beyond and away from. They want to move America beyond the stage of being a representative republic. They want a social democracy. The constitution, as they understand it, is not the permanent law of the land but a “living document“ that can and should evolve into something entirely different from our Founders’ principles. Ed makes these absurd claims about conservatives. HotAir points out just how polarizing Ed Schultz is. Ed Schultz calling conservatives “evil” and disrespectful of the constitution is like “the pot calling the kettle black.”

Faithful Catholicism a Firing Offense; Godophobia in Higher Education

In recent years, and especially as of late it has become more prevalent for certain people in our society to defend a Muslim’s right to free speech, and religious freedom while the exact opposite can be said for traditional Christianity. Traditional Christians are told or taught to conform to our ever-changing society which promotes homosexuality, women priests, abortion, contraception and be “tolerant” while there is no tolerance of our traditional religious beliefs. I guess “tolerance” is only a one way street. All religions should be respected for their beliefs. Our constitution guarantees “freedom of religion.” If you looked at our society one might think that our country applied the philosophy of freedom from religion instead freedom of religion in our society today. There have been way too many instances where people stir up trouble and make the claim that the word God or prayer offends them. If that is the case while at the same time they are fine with pornography and sexual implicit scenes and other moral decay of the family being prevalent on both TV and in movies it is because they are either intolerant Godophobes or they must have some mental defect that makes them incapable of comprehending the love of God. Our Founders recognized that both God and religious freedom was important for America and made that one of the underpinnings of America’s foundation. This foundation is very important for America, and for America to be “America” we must continue to defend religious freedom today and not some selective distorted quasi-religious freedom.

There has been an incident at the University of Illinois where a professor was teaching a Catholicism 101 course and someone was offended because the professor explained the tenets of Catholicism which includes having the belief that homosexual acts are a sin. The Catholic professor was fired for teaching one of the beliefs of the Catholic Church - the belief that homosexual acts are sinful. The student accused the professor of hate speech because he thought that the professor should be tolerant of what nonbelievers perceive to be moral behavior when his faith teaches him that homosexuality is immoral. This situation is ludicrous when it was his choice whether to take this particular class or not.

If you took a class called Hindu 101 would expect them to say they like beef and believed it was okay to eat beef just to conform to society when their belief is the exact opposite and that the cow is sacred? If a Christian attended a class called Jewish Faith 101 would you expect the professor to teach about the New Testament when they don’t believe in a New Covenant or that Jesus is the Son of God? Would a Christian student expect Scientology 101 to teach that Christ is Our Creator?

CatholicVoteAction.org has posted both the AP article and the email address of the public affairs office of the University of Illinois on his site. I am in full agreement with his call for people to swamp the university with emails. The fact that both the university and the on-campus Catholic center fired Dr. Howell for being a faithful Catholic is unjust. No person should be discriminated upon for their beliefs. In fact this course is all about the beliefs of the Catholic Church so this whole situation doesn’t make sense. Here is the email that caused Dr. Howell to be fired.

Here is a description of events by Dr. Howell :

Factual Description

Thomas states: “As Catholics, we can’t allow this injustice to stand. If a university can have valid grounds for firing a professor as upstanding a this one for an opinion so universally held by the Church, other universities will be able to gradually push out faithful Catholic teachers from their institutions once they decide the positions taken by the Church and being defended by such-and-such a teacher are inconvenient or offensive.”

I am in full agreement with Thomas’s statement. The University of Illinois is penalizing and persecuting Dr. Howell for his being a faithful Catholic. Secular society is praising dissenting Catholics while persecuting and marginalizing faithful Catholics. This is wrong! We have become a nation in which it is only acceptable to have one set of “religious beliefs” that conforms to those secular societal beliefs of moral relativism, where there is an anything goes policy. These people do not believe in moral absolutes. We have become a nation that no longer respects one’s religious beliefs. This is exactly what the Founders feared. We must fight back against this injustice. When being faithful to one’s own faith, one’s own moral principles is considered to be hate speech then this country has veered way off course to the Left and entered into being an anti-religious State that is diametrically opposite to our Founders core beliefs as to citizens right to religious freedom. We must keep on fighting the good fight to retain and restore our religious rights and restore many of the rights that the immoral secular Left have stolen from us. We must stop the Godophobia!

9 Key Concepts of The Declaration of Independence

Secularism Encroaches on Freedom of Religion

(CNA News).- "In an exclusive interview obtained by CNA, Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center asked Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. about some of the issues facing the Church in the “contemporary context.” In his reply, Archbishop Wuerl spoke about the role of and need for religious freedom in society, a role which is dramatically changing."



Phil Cooke points out how in America free speech is being stifled in the world of science.  F.R. points out how the Supreme Court has infringed on our freedom of religion while allowing secularism to run rapant, pretty much unchallenged and unfetttered in our society while freedom of religious expression has been severely restricted and limited to approved areas in our society.

 The Jeremiah Project points out several cases where  encroaching secularism has violated our freedom of religious expression.

In Our Schools...


Freedom of speech and press is guaranteed to students unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional. [Stein vs. Oshinski, 1965; Collins v. Chandler Unified School district, 644 F. 2d 759, 760 (9th Cir. 1981).]

Remove student prayer: "Prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State." [Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962).] On June 26, 1962, the Supreme Court bans the New York State school prayer, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country."

It is unconstitutional for students to hear prayers of the Chaplain of the U.S. House or Senate. [State Board of Ed. vs. Board of Ed. of Netcong, 1970]

Remove benedictions and invocations from school activities: "Religious invocation...in high school commencement exercise conveyed message that district had given its endorsement to prayer and religion, so that school district was properly [prohibited] from including invocation in commencement exercise." [Graham v. Central Community School Distict of Decatur County, 608 F. Supp. 531, 536 (W.D.N.Y. 1985; Kay by Disselbrett v. Douglas School District 719 F. 2d 875 (or. Ct. App. 1986; Jager v. Douglas, 862 F. 2d 824, 825 (11th Cir. 1989).]

If a voluntary, nondenominational prayer is coercive, what would you call the left indoctrination that has become the staple of modern pedagogy, from condom distribution to AIDS education to multiculturalism to Earth worship?

Prayer before athletic events is unconstitutional. [Jager vs Douglas, 1989]

In Our Court Rooms...


Remove the Ten Commandments from view: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the commandments...this...is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause...The mere posting of the copies [of the Ten Commandments]...the [First Amendment] prohibits." [Stone v. Gramm, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980).]

The ACLU has filed suit against Etowah County Circuit Judge Roy S. Moore asking that prayer be banned from his chamber and that he be ordered to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from the wall above his bench. [Birmingham News/Birmingham Post-Herald, April 1, 1995.]

In California and Pennsylvania, prosecutors were banned from referring to the Bible in state courtrooms. [Pat Robertson, newsletter, March 1993.]

In the Public Square...

The city of Vienna, Virginia put up a secular Christmas scene alongside a nativity scene to avoid trouble. But that wasn't good enough for the ACLU, who filed suit, won, and had the nativity scene removed. Intimidated by the ACLU, city leaders asked the Vienna city chorus to sing only secular songs at the Christmas program. To its credit, the chorus refused. Now the city has dropped the program altogether. [D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries newsletter, October 31, 1994]

More here

Islamization of America: Islam Trumps Constitution in Dearborn Michigan

Cass Sunstein Threatens Freedom of Speech & Calls for 'Cognitive Infiltration' of 9/11 Conspiracy Groups

As much as I disagree with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I do think that the people who support these types of theories have a right to free speech which is guaranteed in our consitution. Cass Sunstein wants a 'cognitive infiltration' of 9/11 conspiracy groups.  This seems to me that our government is crossing a line here and trying to quash free speech in this case.  I have no problem with Obama or his administration speaking out against these kinda loony theories but to have an all out campaign against these citizens freedom of speech is ludicrous and kinda fascist.  What does this adninistration consider to be "extremist theories"?  It seems like this could lead to the Obama administration targeting anyone who disagrees with their political positions.  We must save all freedom of speech and stand up for our rights which are outlined in our constitution.

From The Raw Story, Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

 Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government "enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."

Sunstein argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

"We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI," Estrin writes at the Rag Blog, expressing surprise that "a high-level presidential advisor" would support such a strategy.

Estrin notes that Sunstein advocates in his article for the infiltration of "extremist" groups so that it undermines the groups' confidence to the extent that "new recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides."

 

 
 
H/T Raw Story

Tea Party Exposes Disconnect Between Democrats & Concept of Democracy

A Common Sense Solution that Needs to be Followed by ALL of Our Representatives

Article 5 of the Constitution states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

H/T LandShark 5150

DEMON PASS, Part Deux - GET THE WORD OUT! IT CAN BE STOPPED!

Teresamerica and The Naked Ontologist bring you this update.

We just heard this on Rush Limbaugh's show, and time is of the essence.  A constitutional lawyer and former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Justice Department and for the Department of Treasury just called in and spoke to Rush less than an hour ago.  She has been tryign to get through to Republican members of the House to let them know that specific provisions in the Constitution trump the general rules that the House is constitutionally empowered to make for running its own proceedings.  The same article and section that they are using to justify "Deem and Pass" - Article 1, Section 5, which says that they can make their own procedural rules, specifically allows for 20% of the members of the House to demand an up or down vote on "ANY QUESTION", and to have that vote recorded:

"Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal."

That means that if enough Republicans - and there need only be enough to make up one-fifth of the house, formally demand an up or down vote on the Health Care bill, they cannot, as a procedural move, simply deem that the Senate Bill has passed in a vote on a separate question (e.g. a "reconciliation" vote).

But right now the House Republicans are seriously cowed by Pelosi and do not know that they have this option.  So please, GET THE WORD OUT!  Spread this around - if the Dems don't have enough votes, we can stop this thing!

We The People: A Message to President Obama

H/T goes to A Patriotic Rottweiler

Data Mining: Is Credit Card Fraud More Serious Than Terrorism?

This is clearly appeasement politics gone bad. People are okay with data mining when it is used to fight against consumer fraud with relation to credit cards but are not alright with data mining when it comes to our safety from terrorists. This country has become A$$ backwards. This is ludicrous!! Our government has given up a very important capability to sift out who are and who are not terrorists. It is clear that the civil libertarians overreacted to this necessary and effective tool that could have been used to protect us from terror while maintaining our privacy at the same time. Civil libertarians consistently defend Individual rights to the enth degree even when it is to the detriment to our national security. This is on more instance where political appeasement took precedent over Americans' safety.

Here is an interesting article I found that was written by John Yoo about data mining as it relates to terrorism and how valuable information is being lost in the fight to stop terror because our government isn't willing to allow its use against terrorists.


The U.S. is fighting terror with one hand behind its back by refusing to exploit data-mining tools.


With the arrests last week of 24 alleged terrorists in Britain, the government's legal tools for fighting Al Qaeda are up for debate once again. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggests that Congress emulate Britain's law allowing extended pretrial detention of suspects. Others have observed that British law enforcement can more easily initiate investigations and obtain search warrants than their American counterparts.

But increasing detention time or making warrants easier to come by merely extends an old-fashioned approach to catching terrorists. These tools require individualized suspicion and "probable cause"; police must have evidence of criminal activity in hand. Such methods did not prevent 9/11, and stopping terrorists, who may have no criminal record, requires something more.

Instead of enlarging the scope of standard law enforcement methods, we should be doing what Americans do best--innovating and applying new technology to the problem. Despite what civil libertarians might have you think, that means data mining.

Data mining uses supercomputers to analyze vast amounts of information for suspicious patterns of behavior. It appears to have been an important tool in breaking up the plot in Britain. According to news reports, British authorities searched telephone, e-mail and banking records and uncovered connections between the bombers in Britain and their supporters in Pakistan.

American efforts to develop sophisticated data-mining abilities died early in 2003, when criticism killed the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program. The idea was to develop mining techniques to compare information in government and commercial databases. Civil libertarians engaged in a scare campaign representing the TIA as an unchecked Big Brother. Congress cut off all funding for the program. It was a political defeat early in the war on terrorism, and the president retreated as fast as he could.

But that was a dangerous overreaction. Corporations already use data mining to detect consumer fraud and to market products such as credit cards and magazine subscriptions. Financial companies analyze patterns that might indicate a stolen credit card or bank account number. Why should the government be barred from using similar tools on similar databases to protect the country from attack? Data mining is nothing but an ordinary, ubiquitous feature of technology today.

In fact, the government also already uses modest forms of data mining. In response to drug cartels and organized crime, federal authorities are allowed to search banking records for signs of money laundering. Such analysis has already paid off in the war against terror by identifying groups that funnel funds to extremist organizations.

What about privacy concerns? The Supreme Court has found that the information in business records does not merit 4th Amendment protection because the consumer has already voluntarily turned over the information to a third party.

Still, civil libertarians object to data mining because most of the records and communications that would be searched are innocent, and there is no suspicion of criminal activity attached to any individual whose records may be mined. When the National Security Agency was discovered in May to be looking at telephone billing information on millions of calls within the United States, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) railed at a hearing: "Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with Al Qaeda?"

But it's important to remember that data mining is not the same thing as gathering the information in the first place. The NSA's program of looking at billing information, for example, doesn't raise the same constitutional issues as its other recently revealed program: warrantless wiretaps. There, the content of communications was captured. A federal trial judge in Detroit enjoined such surveillance Thursday, in a decision already on appeal.

Data mining could be controlled and developed so that it protects us from terror and maintains our privacy. Analysis could be limited to data already turned over to third parties. Searches could be performed initially by computer; only after a certain level of suspicious activity had been registered would an intelligence or law enforcement officer be allowed to see the results. A warrant could still be required to investigate the content of communications or the purpose of purchases.

Right now, we're fighting terror with one hand behind our back by refusing to exploit data-mining tools. London's success should serve notice that we must use our technological sophistication and reject the sky-is-falling claims of the extreme civil libertarians.

H/T goes to American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research

Historian David Barton -- Is America a Christian Nation?

This is a most informative speech by David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, who explains about the Christian Foundation of America.  The videos are in total about 45 minutes long and well worth listening to.  Barton is a historian who is extremely knowledgable about the Founding of America.


Out of the 56 that signed the Declaration of Independence, 29 had seminary degrees.


The first public school law in America in 1647 – The Old Deluder Satan Act – They believed that people should be able to read the Bible (which Satan didn’t want), so they wanted to teach children to read and write. For the next 320 years, the Bible was part of public education.
















H/T goes to Right Scoop