Too many of us just go through the motions without commitment.
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ (Matthew 23:1-7)
23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. Matthew 23:23-28)
Like the Pharisees who too often told others what to do without doing it themselves, we too often mouth platitudes about the Christian way of life without following Jesus. To succeed at anything, from sports to religion, requires sincere dedication and continued application. We have to get serious about it.
First, we have to be saved by becoming believers in Christ Jesus. That justifies us before God through Jesus’s willing sacrifice of His own life. But to be truly saved we must travel the lifelong road of sanctification - becoming as nearly Christlike as our human condition allows.
By their fruit you will recognize them. ( Matthew 7:16)
Traveling the path of sanctification necessitates motivation. That is a function of what’s inside us, what’s in our hearts. An outward show in the manner of the Pharisees criticized by Jesus won’t do it.
What helps us to stick to the path of sanctification?
First, prayer. As the Apostle Paul advised the Thessalonians:
16Be joyful always; 17pray continually; 18give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. ( 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)
Second, study the Word of God.
12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
Third, while faith, not works, is the path to salvation, we must work to be truly faithful and to purify ourselves.
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:1-2)
Fourth, seek fellowship in the body of the church, where mutual help can be found.
Finally, stick to it.
16 for though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again, but the wicked are brought down by calamity. (Proverbs 24:16)
The headline is arresting. Baby Isaiah given 3 days to live by government. Baby Isaiah's parents want the Canadian government to continue their child on life support. If the government withdraws life support, does this violate the child's unalienable right to life?
Unalienable rights have to do with inherent natural obligations which human beings, as they come from the hand of God, are obliged to respect. What people should do with the work of human hands, e.g., with technologies that improve upon their natural capacities, may involve issues of conscience. But not all such issues have to do respect for with unalienable rights. The requirements of conscience go beyond the minimal requirements of the natural law to encompass those that arise from the law of love. As Christ made clear, (Matthew 5: 40-41) there's a difference between doing what the law requires and going the extra mile simply because that's the kind of help you'd want someone to give you if you were in need of it.
The parents in this case have a natural obligation to do all that they can to preserve the life of their child. Others are obliged to respect actions they take pursuant to this obligation so long as they do not otherwise violate the natural law which is the basis of such obligations. They may not, for example, kill someone else's child to save theirs. But if someone else's child is drowning, and they know how to swim, they will rightly feel obliged by the rule of conscience (do unto others as you would have others do unto you) to use their acquired skill to save the child. But their liberty, which is an unalienable right, means that they may refrain from helping if, in their own judgment, doing so would forfeit their own lives (leaving their own children without care) or otherwise interfere with the fulfillment of their own natural obligations.
What applies to the use of humanly acquired capacities logically also applies to the use of any medium of exchange that represents their value. Individuals may not, therefore, be compelled to use their money in ways that, in their own judgment, will endanger their lives or otherwise interfere with the fulfillment of their own natural obligations. Logically, what they are not obliged to do as individuals, they are not obliged to do when they act in community with other individuals endowed with the same unalienable right to liberty.
All this means that the parents of Baby Isaiah are not entitled to demand that public money be spent to keep their child on mechanical life support. The community acting at some level of government may decide to do so, but that decision is properly subject to legislation and adjudication by the organs of government charged with carrying out those functions on behalf of the community.
Though often confused in public discussion, this case is not substantially the same as that of someone like Terri Schiavo. In that case a judge, claiming to exercise legitimate government power, issued an order that interfered with actions her parents sought to perform pursuant to their natural obligation to preserve the life of their child. The judge's order put the community in the position of killing Terri Schiavo based on the judgment of an individual (her husband) whose authority to exercise that judgment (based on their marital relationship) could not supersede that of the parents. In the natural course of things, all human beings are born in a helpless condition requiring that they be sheltered and fed by others. By the law of nature, the parents are the first ones obliged to provide this care. The fact that Schiavo's husband abrogated his sworn obligation to care for his wife (in sickness and in health) did not in any way relieve her parents of this obligation. Indeed, on account of his abrogation, and their child's helpless condition, they rightly felt the full weight of the obligation (which marriage had, for the most part alleviated) fall once more upon their shoulders. Therefore the court's order did what no human power can have the right to do. It interfered with their performance of the natural duty assigned to them by their Creator. It violated the unalienable right arising from the natural bond that impels parents to care for their children throughout their lives (and vice versa.)
Taken together, the cases of Terri Schiavo and Baby Isaiah illustrate the substance of the natural obligations and rights arising from the fundamental family tie, as well as the nature and limits of the public's obligations in regard to them. The public is obliged to respect the natural right of individuals acting on their familial obligations, as Terri's parents were doing. The judge in her case violated their unalienable right. The Constitutions of Florida and the United States both demanded respect for unalienable rights. All public officials sworn to uphold the provisions of those constitutions were derelict in their sworn duty to defend it. On the other hand, a judge or legislative body does not violate natural right when exercising the community's liberty to give or withdraw its help (or the help made possible by public funds) based on a judgment about how the expenditure involved affects the well being of the whole community for which, as representatives of its sovereign power, they are responsible.
Both these cases offer a clear warning against extending the sphere of government power in ways that conflict with or exclude the possibility of responsible individual choice in response to natural obligation. Pervasive government control of access to health care inevitably does so. It puts in the hands of government officials a power over life and death decisions better left to the conscience of individuals. By avoiding government control (even when it's intended to be helpful) officials will be given less occasion to violate individual natural rights, and individuals will not be encouraged to develop a false sense of entitlement that ignores the sovereign liberty of the people as a whole.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Conservatives in America find themselves at a cusp in our history. Just one short year ago, it seemed that all was lost. A new President was installed into office - one who we knew, even if 53% of the voters didn’t, would destroy the liberty and prosperity remaining in America. To top it off, the opposition Party had been decimated in two straight elections, largely because it wasn’t opposing the march of big government, and was in no condition to advance the cause of conservatism at all. Yet, we now find ourselves on a whole different playing field. The incontinence and haste of our narcissistic, juvenile President and his Congress have ignited a public backlash against virtually all aspects of their agenda. The American electorate is suddenly finding their inner conservative once again, and the Republican Party has been the beneficiary (somewhat undeservedly) of the electorate’s turn of mind. The Tea Party movement, and the Town Hall takeovers from last fall have helped to crystallize the public’s opposition to the Democrat agenda, and have also served to channel their disgust into productive directions for conservatism.
As I’ve pointed outpreviously, the Tea Party movement is nothing new, but is the renovation of authentic conservative (regardless of Party or lack thereof) activism. In it, we see conservatives and other liberty-lovers of all stripes standing up, getting organized, and telling the tone-deaf, elitist political establishment in Washington that they’re mad, and they’re not going to take it anymore. This reinvigorated conservative activism helped Doug Hoffman in NY-23 to come out of nowhere and nearly put him into office, in the process relegating the leftist establishment Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava to third party status (and frankly, I think that if the voters knew last November what they know now, Hoffman would have won it hands down). Tea Partiers helped to mold the coalition that put Scott Brown into office, sending Obama and Co. a strong repudiation. Conservative activists have helped the conservative Marco Rubio take the lead in the GOP primary in Florida over the Stimulus-loving friend of Obama, Charlie Crist. All across the country, conservatives are getting involved and shaking up the political landscape like a volcano.
Another point I’ve made in previous articles is that conservatives need to stick together – and that means conservatives both outside and inside the Republican Party. That is where TEApublicanism comes in, a term which I used in my previous article, but did not define. Allow me to do so here.
TEApublicanism is a term that, to my knowledge at least, was first coined on Free Republic by FReeper SeattleBruce. In a nutshell, TEApublicanism is a practical approach to conservative activism that rejects two things: Third Partyism and establishment Republican business as usual.
As readers of my previous articles may have noted, I have roundly rubbished the notion that conservatives should go third party. I think the idea is pure foolishness. There’s nothing that helps to sap the drive and momentum of a movement like splitting it up among a gadzillion different little groups. This is what third partyism does. It takes our efforts, and divides them, introducing acrimony and destroying our ability to work together for the common goal of advancing conservatism. Let me say that I understand the frustration of those who want conservatives to take the third party route, and who want us to break with the Republican Party once and for all. I will address this in a moment. However, the GOP has the resources, the organization, and the membership that conservatives need to harness to have a practical chance of impacting our electoral and political systems. Why spend years building an organization from the ground up, when one is already established nationwide? And why spend years trying to woo the 56% of American conservatives who are also registered Republicans away from their party, only to try to induce them to join your particular third party, which is just one of dozens of conservative third parties (literally) floating around out there? A much better route is for conservatives to get involved with the Republican Party at the grassroots level, and use it to advance our agenda.
Now, this does not mean, however, that I am asking conservatives who are independents, members of third parties, libertarian-leaning, etc. to subordinate themselves to a Republican Party that is dominated by the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the RINOs who have made the GOP what she was in 2006 and 2008. I’m not asking them to join a group, only to see it remain the very thing that drove them to leave it in the first place.
Instead, TEApublicanism calls on conservatives to come together in the GOP, making the first order of business to be the destruction of the RINO establishment power structure, and its replacement with a party leadership and organization that is reflective of the values of the conservative majority. In short, TEApublicanism calls for conservatives to band together and to take on and defeat the McCain-Graham-Romney axis of evil.
There are two ways for this to be done.
First is for conservatives to get involved at the local level. Work within your county’s Party apparatus to capture it for conservatism, and then work your way up. Flood your county conventions if you have to, and bring along some folks who know how to use the parliamentary procedures that are used to run these conventions. When conservatives get hold of the county apparati, then they get to determine who the leadership is at the state level, and from there the national level. The establishment RINOs and the cigar-smoking, back-slapping smoke-filled back room types who dominate so much of the Republican Party’s power structure are only there because conservatives have failed to get involved and “upfilter” their numbers and influence into the higher reaches of the Party. Granted, we should expect that the RINOs and insiders will put up a fight – but we can beat them if we all get organized, on the same page, and use our conservative numbers to our advantage.
Second, conservatives need to do everything they can to dry up the ability of the RINOs and establishment types to exercise influence and power. I have long advocated that conservatives refrain from donating money to official Republican organs like the RNC, RSCC, the RCCC, and so forth. Give money directly to the candidate instead. The money donated to these organs by well-meaning but hoodwinked Republicans is often used against conservatives. Observe what happened in NY-23, where the RNC gave Dede Scozzafava nearly a million dollars, and this after it came to light just how bad and left-wing of a candidate she was. Observe also that individual conservatives at the grassroots level were able to deliver several money bombs to Hoffman’s campaign that made him competitive and nearly won the race for him. Likewise, in the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat, the RSCC did little to help Brown win – it only belatedly came out on election night, as reported by Ace at Ace of Spades HQ, that Party had quietly slid half a million to Brown’s campaign under the table. Of course, Brown was bringing in million dollar plus money bombs every day for the last two weeks of the campaign - from grassroots conservatives and Tea Partiers who enabled him to defeat Martha Coakley. Clearly, until the GOP establishment gets its act together (and that’ll coincide with the time when conservatives successfully take it over), the only feasibly option for committed conservative activists is to support candidates directly.
Another way to dry up the influence and power of RINOs is to remove them from elective office. We conservatives can work to do this by supporting conservative Republican primary opponents against known RINOs who are up for office, and by supporting conservative Republicans in the primaries to determine who will run against Democrat officeholders. I am blessed to have one such conservative Republican running in my district (North Carolina’s 4th district) to challenge the disgustingly left-wing David Price, who currently “represents” this district. In contested primaries between a RINO and a real conservative, we can work for the conservative’s campaign and band together to money bomb his or her coffers. We can support, for instance, Marco Rubio against Charlie “Chargin’ RINO” Crist in the Florida GOP senatorial primary. We can support J.D. Hayworth’s effort to take down John McCain, who has been one of the most consistently anti-conservative, pro-establishment, pro-amnesty, anti-free speech “Republicans” in the Senate. Find out who the conservatives are in your elections, and support them against the RINOs. Take away the offices that these RINOs hold, and you remove a lot of their influence and credibility. After all, if John McCain can’t even hold his own Senate seat against a conservative challenger like Hayworth backed by grassroots conservatives in Arizona and across the country, why would anyone think that his model for the Republican Party – which involves bringing it even further left and compromising with the Democrats even more – holds any water?
In short, TEApublicanism is an effort to unite lovers of liberty and smaller government, be they Republicans, independents, third partyists, libertarians, conservative Democrats, or anyone else who is with us, into a single movement that has the organizational advantages of the Republican Party, while also having the ideological advantages of the Tea Party movement. It’s a win-win situation, really. Conservative Republicans get their Party back, and conservative non-Republicans get a Republican Party that they can actually vote for without feeling dirty. Together, we can keep up the momentum that we are seeing to date, and rebuild the winning Reagan coalition.
President Obama directly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court, during his State of the Union address to Congress, over a decision allowing corporations to contribute to political advertisements.
Last Tuesday was an exciting day if you are an opponent of the socialistic agenda that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their various and sundry acolytes in Congress have spent the better part of the past year trying to ram down our throats. In Massachusetts of all places — that bright, glowing sapphire blue jewel in New England's crown — a reasonably conservative Republican won the Senate seat held by the Kennedy's since 1952. In doing so, Scott Brown becomes the 41st Republican vote in the Senate, and the barrier to the passage of Obamacare in any of its present House and Senate forms. Brown, an energetic and charismatic candidate, campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and opposition to the insanity we see unfolding in Washington. His victory over Marcia, er, Martha Coakley, in what should have been the single safest seat in the entire universe for the Democrats, has helped to underscore the disgust and anger on the part of the electorate for the present ruling power in the Capitol. People are angry, people don't want Obamacare, cap'n'trade', more spending, greater debt, higher taxes, and the rest of the "progressive" agenda that has hithertofore been pushed so aggressively by the Democrats.
The days and weeks to come will prove whether the Democrats learned anything from the drubbing they took in Massachusetts. So far, the signals seem to be mixed. Their handlers in the media seem to be in panic mode — even Chris Matthews, one of the wackiest of the whackos on television, has urged the Dems to pull back and reassess what they're doing. But then again, Matthews also got into a shouting match with Howard Dean about it, since Dean cluelessly thinks that the real problem is that the American people are mad that the Dems haven't gone far or fast enough. Several "moderate" Senatorial Democrats, like Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Jim Webb (Virginia) publically called on their leadership to back off of universal health care, and Pelosi was forced to admit that they don't have the votes in the House now to pass the thing — a sure sign that "Blue Dog" Democrats are abandoning ship, knowing that Obama isn't going to save them come November. Yet...there's also some noise that Pelosi is nevertheless going to make an attempt at passing Obamacare by reconciliation, which would serve as an end run around the loss of their filibuster-proof majority. Also, the Democrats just floated the idea of increasing the debt limit for the federal government another $1.9 trillion, so they can continue to borrow and spend more and more. So maybe the Democrats didn't learn their lesson after all.
While not as much of a red-meat conservative as I and many others would like, the general perception of Scott Brown is that he's "conservative enough," certainly as good as we can expect to see out of Massachusetts. As a state Senator in Massachusetts, he voted for Romneycare — the Massachusetts state version of socialized medicine — and he did so knowing it had a provision requiring the program to co-pay for abortions. His own stance on abortion, as articulated on his campaign's website, would appear to be a "soft pro-choice" position — he makes noise about abortion ultimately being "between a woman and her doctor" — yet he goes on to support a litany of positions which are indeed pro-life, such as parental notification and consent laws, opposition to partial-birth abortion, and support for making adoption easier. Brown stands generally for fiscal responsibility, and is on the record for supporting the right to keep and bear arms, opposing illegal immigration, and has stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also appears to desire to devolve a lot of these, and other, issues back to the states, so he sees to be solid on the issue of federalism as well. So I reiterate my terminology — Brown is "conservative enough," about as good as we'll get from a very leftist Northeastern state. Much better than Marcia, er, Martha Coakley would have been. As a Senator, Brown will give the conservative movement many more votes than Coakley would have, though he will probably have us rolling our eyes and groaning at times, too.
As imperfect of a candidate as he was, ideologically at least (as a campaigner, he was preternaturally exquisite), Brown nevertheless garnered the support of one group that has also been taking American politics by storm — the Tea Party movement. The Tea Partiers in Massachusetts endorsed and came out for Brown, which helped to put him over the finish line by delivering to him a strong majority among Independents.
This helps to illustrate the point I made earlier this month, which is that the Tea Party movement needs to "hijack" the Republican Party. The two cannot stand apart from each other, but they are unstoppable together — the essence of TEApublicanism. The Tea Party movement lacks the organization to operate as a mass-movement third party across the nation, and most of its leadership doesn't seem inclined to try to do so anywise, if the example of the coolness of the Florida Tea Partiers towards the self-proclaimed "Tea Party Party" started in that state is any indication. Further, if the Tea Party movement fields its own candidates in races where there is already a credibly conservative Republican running, then all they will accomplish is to split the vote and hand the seat to the Democrats — completely unnecessarily. DO run Tea Party conservatives when the GOP foolishly tries to install a Dede Scozzafava into office. DON'T run Tea Party candidates, however, when the GOP does the right thing and runs a Doug Hoffman on its ticket instead.
The Republican Party, in turn, desperately needs the Tea Party movement, and would be indescribably foolish to ignore or reject it. The Tea Party movement, as I said earlier this month, is a re-energized mass movement of conservatives who are getting active again after having gone dormant for a while. The Tea Party movement is, in essence, the rebuilding of the Reagan coalition of conservatives — Republicans, Independents, "Reagan" Democrats, libertarians — people who want fiscal discipline from their government and less intrusion into their own lives. If the Republican Party follows the John McCain route — trying to pawn off more big-government establishment insiders onto us — then it deserves to lose, and lose big.
However, that need not be the case. The election of Scott Brown shows us the way out of the wilderness. The Tea Partiers helped to elect the Republican. They united the thin-on-the-ground Republicans in Massachusetts with the much-thicker-on-the-ground Independents, and elected a Republican candidate who represents their views and interests much more than Marcia, er, Martha Coakley would have. The Republicans pick up a seat, while the Tea Partiers helped to kill, or at least severely wound, Obamacare. A win-win situation for all involved.
So what would have happened had the Tea Partiers irrationally played the "hate Republicans" game and endorsed the Independent candidate, Joseph Kennedy, perhaps delivering him a few percentage points of the vote, taken from Brown? Ol' what's-her-name would now be the Senator-elect from Massachusetts, the Democrats would have had no lessons to learn, and would even now be preparing to finalize the destruction of American health care and American freedom.
The example of the election of Scott Brown needs to be the wave of the future for conservative political activists. Granted, I hope we can find many candidates who are more conservative to run in the many more conservative districts all across this country. But this fusion of the conservative grassroots in the Republican Party with the concerned conservatives who make up a broad portion of the self-described Independents in this nation is what Reagan rode to victory in 1980 and what the Contract with America Republicans rode into office with in 1994. The people of this nation don't want socialism, nor do they want socialism-lite. They want statesmen (rather than politicians) who will stand up and protect their freedoms, their pocketbooks, and their country. Give them that by uniting the conservative movement and seeing the conservative agenda advanced, and follow up on it by not going soft and forgetting why we were elected in the first place, and we will see a renaissance for conservatism and America.
A profound quote from a blogger identifying himself only as “Mike M.,” on a website known as Missourah.com, crossed my desk the other day. With regard to the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, striking down key portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed into law a few years ago, the writer wrote: “Certainly, the spectre of corporate money buying candidates and influencing our political system is an unwholesome one. But the solution is not limiting campaign donations. It is limiting the power of government, so that the money spent in the system has less impact on our lives, and power is truly returned to ‘the little guy’ that politicians love to pay lip service to.”
The writer has hit upon a truth abandoned long ago by Democrats and increasingly ignored by Republicans as well. Somewhere along the way, our politicians developed the idea that regardless of the growth of the private sector or the condition of the economy, the growth of government is a given. In fact, when times are toughest, and hard-working, taxpaying Americans are struggling to make ends meet in their own personal budgets — this is when paternalistic bureaucrats try to save us with higher taxes, more regulations and programs that generally provide little benefit but perpetuate the growth of yet more government.
In a misguided attempt at campaign finance reform, Senators John McCain, R-AZ, and Russ Feingold, D-WI, cosponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, a bill that many have since called an incumbent protection act. It banned corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. With a wink and a nod toward the Supreme Court, President George Bush signed this bad legislation in 2002. In a 5-4 decision written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the High Court has finally ruled that corporations are entitled to the same right individuals have to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.
Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” Smaller government is still at the crux of modern conservative thought largely because of the Gipper’s leadership. And yet, due to greedy, overreaching members of Congress — primarily Democrats — government continued to grow during the 1980s and deficit spending ballooned. The 1994 GOP sweep of Congress, the lingering effects of Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts, the dot.com explosion, and the growth of investment by baby boomers combined to create a budget surplus through the Clinton years — despite his ill-advised tax increases.
However, in the last decade — with special emphasis on this last year — government growth has been frightening. Everyone pays lip service to the concept of big corporations holding sway in the halls of Congress, when the reality is that power hungry politicians don’t want to have to restrain themselves.
It is somewhat akin to the Islamic edict that women must cover themselves from head to toe so as not to be a stumbling block to men. There is nothing in the Koran that instructs men to show restraint, only that women shouldn’t show an ankle or a wrist for fear of tempting a man. Following this logic, Muslim men are basically admitting, “Yeah, we have no self-control, and we don’t really want to develop it, either, so instead of keeping our lust to ourselves, we will put the onus of responsibility on the objects of our lust and blame them if we feel some overwhelming need to commit rape!”
Likewise, progressives like John McCain and Russ Feingold, by their support of this legislation, are saying, “We want as much power as possible, and we don’t want outside influences informing the electorate of our plans, so anyone with the capital to mount a serious offense against our policies should be silenced so we can get back to creating the nanny state.”
As The Wall Street Journal correctly opined on the issue, “In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time.” Perhaps if we were to dust it off more often, the Constitution might tell us that the expansion of government is much more insidious than the expansion of free speech.
A lower court's "hostility" towards Christianity will stand after the U.S. Supreme Court today refused to intervene in a school district's censorship of a kindergartener's choice of literature for a class reading.
"By refusing to hear Mrs. Busch's case, the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed the kind of hostility toward religion that should never be found in an American public school," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which took on the Newtown Square, Pa., case.
Donna Busch accepted an invitation to visit her son Wesley's kindergarten classroom at Culbertson Elementary School to read a passage of Wesley's favorite book to his classmates in October 2004. Wesley's teacher had invited Busch because the boy was the featured student of "All About Me," a school event to feature a particular student and emphasize the student's personal characteristics, preferences and personality in classroom activities.
During the "All About Me" activity, a child's parent may read aloud from the student's favorite book. In this case, Wesley, a Christian, chose the Bible. His mother planned to read from Psalm 118.
But when Donna Busch prepared to read from the Bible, Wesley's teacher instructed her not to do so until Principal Thomas Cook could determine whether it would be acceptable.
According to the Rutherford Institute, the principal "informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the 'separation of church and state.'"
Then school administrators offered Wesley's mother an opportunity to read from a book about witches, witchcraft and Halloween. She declined the invitation.
A 2005 decision in U.S. District Court sided with the school's decision to ban the Bible reading. Officials with the Marple Newtown School District had defended their actions as reasonable, and the trial court judge agreed.
A Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision upheld the lower court's ruling that the school officials' decision did not violate the Busch family's First Amendment rights.
The court held that "educators may appropriately restrict forms of expression in elementary school classrooms" even when speakers have been invited into the classroom.
Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman issued a strong dissent, noting that the reading of a passage from Psalms to Wesley's class was within the subject matter of the "All About Me" unit, which was to highlight things of interest and importance to Wesley. The judge said the exclusion constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment because it was based solely upon its religious character.
The Supreme Court decision not to hear the case creates unwelcome precedents, Whitehead said.
"If these acts of censorship and discrimination are allowed to continue, there will be absolutely no freedom for religious people in public schools in this country," he said.
The case had highlighted the fact that while Busch was not allowed to read from the Bible, another parent was allowed to read a book about Judaism and teach the class a dreidel game.
The Great Chicken Trial of Brentwood is nearing its final hearing in what has been described as the REAL ‘Trial of the Century’ (not OJs in his Brentwood, but the one here in the East Bay of Northern California). The incident started over a young woman who kept two hens in her backyard, which outraged a neighbor who charged the hens with poop-bombing HER yard which would bring fatal diseases into her house and throughout the neighborhood…
The dispute was heard before the Brentwood planning Commission during the week of January 4th, which spurred newspapers and internet news sites to send reports of the trial around the world, making the chickens famous, even though their names were with-held due to their ages.
At the same time, a similar case was brought in Oakland where the hens won…YES!…and resulted in Oakland declaring itself a "Chicken Friendly City." As reported by the Contra Costa Times (1/10/10), since the declaration was passed, the sounds of saws and hammers can be heard in the backyards of Oakland as everyone is now building chicken coops. Yes! Power to the chickens!
The Brentwood case first went before the City Planning Commission and having passed that hurdle, is now scheduled for the final round of the dispute before the Brentwood City Council Meeting on Tuesday evening, January 26th, presided over by Mayor Bob Taylor. There will probably be many ruffled feathers to smooth during the caged proceedings.
A formal request has been sent to The Mayor, petitioning that the hens be allowed to attend the meeting to observe the proceedings against them. Whether or not the hens testify is still up in the air. All parties are hoping that the Mayor’s positive response will be forthcoming. The hens have a civil right to face their accusers. A big crowd is expected for the hearing next Tuesday so come early. A couple of expert witnesses may speak in defense of the hens.
Watch for an upcoming exclusive interview with the now famous chickens which will, for the first time, reveal the names of the hens and their keeper, with photos of the hens being interviewed. This will be a real scoop. Stand by.
A Georgia mother and her two daughters logged onto Facebook from mobile phones last weekend and wound up in a startling place: strangers' accounts with full access to troves of private information.
The glitch
—the result of a routing problem at the family's wireless carrier, AT&T—revealed a little known security flaw with far reaching implications for everyone on the Internet, not just Facebook users.
In each case, the Internet lost track of who was who, putting the women into the wrong accounts. It doesn't appear the users could have done anything to stop it. The problem adds a dimension to researchers' warnings that there are many ways online information
—from mundane data to dark secrets—can go awry.
Several security experts said they had not heard of a case like this, in which the wrong person was shown a Web page whose user name and password had been entered by someone else. It's not clear whether such episodes are rare or simply not reported. But experts said such flaws could occur on e-mail services, for instance, and that something similar could happen on a PC, not just a phone.
"The fact that it did happen is proof that it could potentially happen again and with something a lot more important than Facebook," said Nathan Hamiel, founder of the Hexagon Security Group, a research organization.
Candace Sawyer, 26, says she immediately suspected something was wrong when she tried to visit her Facebook page Saturday morning.
After typing Facebook.com into her Nokia smart phone, she was taken into the site without being asked for her user name or password. She was in an account that didn't look like hers. She had fewer friend requests than she remembered. Then she found a picture of the page's owner.
"He's white
—I'm not," she said with a laugh.
Sawyer logged off and asked her sister, Mari, 31, her partner in a dessert catering company, and their mother, Fran, 57, to see whether they had the same problem on their phones.
Mari landed inside another woman's page.
Fran's phone
—which had never been used to access Facebook before—took her inside yet another stranger's page, one belonging to a young woman from Indiana. They sent an e-mail to one of their own accounts to prove it.
They were dumbfounded.
"I thought it was the phone
—`Maybe this phone is just weird and does magical, horrible things and I have to get rid of it,'" said Candace Sawyer.
The women, who live together in East Point, Ga., outside Atlanta, had recently upgraded to the same model of phone and all used the same carrier, AT&T.
Sawyer contacted The Associated Press after reporting the problem to Facebook and AT&T.
The problem wasn't in the phones. It was a flaw in the infrastructure connecting the phones to the Internet.
That illuminates a grave problem.
Generally Web sites and computers are compromised from within. A hacker can get a Web page or computers to run programming code that they shouldn't. But in this case, it was a security gap between the phone and the Web site that exposed strangers' Facebook pages to the Sawyers. Misconfigured equipment, poorly written network software or other technical errors could have caused AT&T to fumble the information flowing from the Sawyers' phones to Facebook and back.
Fortunately, Hamiel said, the vulnerability would be of limited use to a hacker interested in pulling off widespread mayhem, because this hole would let him access only one account at a time. To do more damage the criminal would have to pull off the unlikely feat of gaining full control of the piece of equipment that routes Internet traffic to individual users.
AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said its wireless customers have landed in the wrong Facebook pages in "a limited number of instances" and that a network problem behind those episodes is being fixed.
The Sawyers experienced a different glitch. Coe said an investigation points to a "misdirected cookie." A cookie is a file some Web sites place on computers to store identifying information
—including the user name that Facebook members would enter to access their pages. Coe said technicians couldn't figure out how the cookie had been routed to the wrong phone, leading it into the wrong Facebook account.
He also said AT&T could confirm only that the problem occurred on one of the Sawyers' phones, possibly because they had logged off Facebook on the other two before reporting the incident.
Facebook declined to comment and referred questions to AT&T.
Some Web sites would be immune from this kind of mix-up, particularly those that use encryption. A Web browser would have trouble deciphering the encryption on a page that a computer user didn't actually seek, said Chris Wysopal, co-founder of Veracode Inc., a security company.
Sensitive sites and those used for banking and e-commerce generally use encryption. But most other sites, including some Web-based e-mail services, don't use it. One way of checking: The Web addresses of encrypted sites begin with "https" rather than "http." Facebook uses encryption when user names and passwords are entered, to cloak the sign-on from snoops, but after the credentials are entered the encryption is dropped.
It's unclear how many people were affected by the problem the Sawyers discovered, and whether it was limited to Facebook.
The reason all three women experienced the glitch is a function of the way cellular networks are designed. In some cases, all the mobile Internet traffic for a particular area is routed through the same piece of networking equipment. If that piece of equipment is misbehaving or set up incorrectly, strange things happen when computers down the line receive the data.
Usually that means a Web site simply won't load, said Alberto Solino, director of security consulting services for Core Security Technologies. In the Sawyers' case, "somehow they got the wrong user but they could keep using that account for a long period of time. That's what's strange," he said.
The AP tried to contact two of the people whose Facebook pages were exposed to the Sawyers, but the calls and e-mails were not returned. It's unclear whether they are also AT&T customers, though security experts said that's likely the case.
Indeed, it was the case in a similar incident in November.
Stephen Simburg, 25, who works in marketing, was home for Thanksgiving in Vancouver, Wash., when he logged onto Facebook from his cell phone. He didn't recognize the people who had written him messages.
"I thought I had gotten really popular all of a sudden, or something was wrong," he said. Then he saw the picture of the account owner: A young woman.
He got her e-mail address from the site, logged off and wrote the woman a message. He asked whether he had met her at some point and she had borrowed his phone to check her Facebook account.
"No," she wrote back, "but I was just telling my family that I ended up in your profile!"
Simburg and the woman figured out they were both using AT&T to access Facebook on their phones. (AT&T had no comment because the incident wasn't reported to the company.)
"I felt like I had been let down by the phone company and by Facebook," he said.
He says he has put the incident behind him. But one piece of it remains: He and the young woman are now Facebook friends.
The Federal Communications Commission is considering aggressive moves to stake out its authority to oversee consumer access to the Internet, as a recent court hearing and industry opposition have cast doubt on its power over Web service providers.
The FCC, which regulates public access to telephone and television services, has been working to claim the same role for the Internet. The stakes are high, as the Obama administration pushes an agenda of open broadband access for all and big corporations work to protect their enormous investments in a new and powerful medium.
"This is a pivotal moment," said Ben Scott, director of policy at the public interest group Free Press. The government wants to treat broadband Internet as a national infrastructure, he said, like phone lines or the broadcast spectrum. But federal regulators are grappling with older policies that do not clearly protect consumers' access to the Web, their privacy or prices of service.
The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.
The appeals court is still hearing the case, but analysts predict that the FCC will lose and that the ruling could throw all of its efforts to oversee Internet access into question. A loss could undermine the legality of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's push for policies that would prohibit service providers from restricting customers' access to legal Web content -- the concept known as net neutrality -- and throw into doubt the agency's ability to oversee pricing and competition among Internet service providers.
The agency said it will continue to argue that it had the authority to rule against Comcast, but it is making plans to deal with a loss.
"If the court removes the legal basis for the current approach to broadband, the commission may be compelled to undertake a major reassessment of its policy framework . . . or Congress will have to act," said Colin Crowell, senior adviser to Genachowski. "Any policies the commission pursues for the broadband marketplace will be rooted in the pro-consumer, pro-competitive structure of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, regardless of how the court ultimately decides."
Specifically, that could mean the agency will reverse policies from the past decade that put cable and DSL Internet services in a special category over which the agency has only "ancillary jurisdiction." Those policies were intended to deregulate Internet services in order to promote competition and innovation in the young industry as it developed. Consumer groups argue that they instead reduced competition and drove prices higher.
Analysts said the FCC may look to put broadband services back into a category alongside phone services that is clearly under the authority of the government.
At issue, some FCC officials say, is the future of how Americans will communicate and receive information. One in five U.S. homes has swapped landline telephone service for wireless. Most of those phones have Web browsers that are fast enough to watch videos and navigate traffic in real time. Consumers are also adopting ultra-high-speed Internet services over fiber and cable for 3-D games and videoconferencing.
"While I am still hopeful that we'll win the case, I am absolutely certain that consumers expect protection against gatekeeper control," said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. "That's why we need to move forward with whatever tools we have at our disposal to ensure an open Internet."
A move to reclassify broadband services would almost certainly be opposed. The telephone category is steeped in decades-long rules that are meant to prohibit blocking of services, protect consumer prices and spur competition. Such rules would be a stark change for Internet service providers that invest billions of dollars each year in networks but also receive high rates of consumer complaints over prices and services.
"To the extent that we need more regulation, we think less is more," said Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group. "The more granular and more regulatory we become with practical and legal issues, we can go too far."
The agency also could ask Congress to grant it explicit authority over Internet service providers. But that approach would also face significant barriers, analysts said.
"The odds are against it," said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Concept Capital, a research firm. "Net neutrality is the most controversial issue in the telecom media world, and even with a Democratic majority, it's not easy to pass."
Even if Democrats lose the special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator Tuesday, Congress may still pass health-care overhaul through a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.
That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.
"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said.
"Getting health-care reform passed is important," Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s "Political Capital with Al Hunt," airing this weekend. "Reconciliation is an option."
Should Democrats take that route, the legislation would have to be scaled back because of Senate rules.
He also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.
Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was "pure hallucination."
‘Into the Ditch’
"Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?" Van Hollen said. "For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner."
He said Democrats expect to see their majority shrink this year because the party that occupies the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in the first midterm election.
At the end of a week dominated by images of death and destruction after the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, Van Hollen said lawmakers likely will approve whatever relief money the president requests. Obama has already asked for $100 million.
"We want to help people who need relief immediately, and so to that extent I support it," Van Hollen said this afternoon.
Separately, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that Haitian nationals now in the U.S. will be allowed to stay for an additional 18 months because of the quake devastation.
Gasoline Tax
On other domestic issues, Van Hollen said Congress won’t raise the gasoline tax this year to fund a new long-term construction program for roads and mass transit. The current six-year, $286.5 billion transportation legislation is expiring.
Jobs legislation passed by the House includes $50 billion for construction projects, Van Hollen said. Longer-term legislation with a gas-tax increase will require "some kind of bipartisan consensus before you more forward," he said.
On the decision to require Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to testify before the House Financial Services Committee, Van Hollen said that while he didn’t believe Geithner was in political danger, it was appropriate for him to come before Congress.
AIG Payments
Lawmakers want to know why the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which Geithner formerly led, agreed to payments of 100 cents on the dollar to companies that held American International Group Inc. credit-default swaps tied to subprime mortgages.
Van Hollen said the New York Fed’s decision was wrong and the U.S. needed to "understand how that decision was made, because that kind of decision should not be made in the future."
As Democratic congressional leaders worked with the White House to meld House and Senate versions of the health-care overhaul legislation, Van Hollen said there was no deadline for completing the measure.
"Our more important goal is to make sure we get it right," he said.
While polls show opposition to the legislation -- a Quinnipiac University survey found 58 percent of Americans opposing the way Obama was handling the issue -- Van Hollen said the individual components were popular and most people will support the measure once it clears Congress.
"It’s been subject to a lot of demagoguery, a lot of misinformation," Van Hollen said. Once the measure is finished, "people will see the benefits."
There are already posted disturbing videos of young school children singing/speaking praises to President Obama, but when eleven more dropped in our email box it came as quite a shock. What seemed like an aberration now appears to be a troubling pattern.
Maybe “epidemic” is a better word.
Each one of the videos below is creepier than the last because the further down you go, the younger the children — brace yourself for kindergartners – except for the last and most disturbing video, which you have to see to believe.
Young captive minds, easily influenced, eager for direction, enlisted into a cult of personality focused on an individual who, other than being the first black president, has yet to accomplish anything of significance.
But Obama’s skin color has nothing to do with this. Does anyone interested in retaining their merit badge for intellectual honesty really want to argue that Condi Rice or J.C. Watts would’ve spawned a dozen-and-counting tribute videos?
This is about brainwashing our children into Leftist identity politics. Sure, the schools can argue that they had some kind of parental permission — which, if true, is somehow even more disturbing — but who even considers doing something like this with young minds? That’s a rhetorical question.
There was some guesswork, but to the best of our ability the videos run from oldest to youngest, starting with high schoolers. We list the name of the school and the date the video was posted. From there, if it could be found (or a confident guess made), you’ll find the schools’ website, followed by the original title given to the video and any notes added by whoever uploaded to YouTube.
Each video has also been transcribed so you can follow the bouncing ball…
*****
WEST HIGH SCHOOL — 12-6-08
This is the school’s probable website. What’s going on here is explained below in the video notes.
Video Title: “Multico’s Finale is Obama’s victory speech!“
Video Note: Each year, MULTICO, a company of West High School students chosen to reflect the diverse ethnic and racial population of Madisons schools, tours elementary and middle schools with an original thirty minute production focusing on the concerns and experiences of children and adolescents in a multicultural, multilingual urban environment. MULTICO, a two hour a day English class, writes and performs a series of short sketches that highlight race, gender, sexuality and conflict, providing another tool for classroom teachers to use as we all work towards a more empathetic world.
–
Transcript:
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, today is your answer.
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled — Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of red states and blue states; we are, and always will be, the United States of America.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.
The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.
For that is the true genius of America — that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
America, we have come so far. But there is so much more to do. This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time — to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and to restore the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.
*****
MORGAN PARK HIGH SCHOOL — 11-13-2008
This looks like the school’s website. Morgan Park HS is located in Chicago, these are high school students in the choir.
Video Title: “Change We Can Believe In-Song”
Video Note: This song was inspired by President-Elect Barack Obama’s campaign theme. Morgan Park High School Concert Choir of Chicago, IL are the singers on this video. The song was composed by Patricia Tyson (from Chicago), and its intent is to encourage and motivate the listeners and the performers to pursue a more excellent way!
This song has been submitted with the hopes that it will be sung at the Inauguration in Washington, DC!
–
Transcript:
Change we can believe in
Change that makes a difference
Together we can change the world
Tell every man and woman, every boy and girl
Change can tear down every wall
You and I can make the greatest change of all
We’re united we all stand as one
Divided we will fail and we will surely fall
Tell the children
Take them by the hand
Tell the generations that we can take a stand
Tell the nation let them know that God can heal our land
Change is what we all must be
Change is what we all must see
This is our moment, This is our time
Seize it, [unintelligible], we won’t be denied.
Say yes we can, yes we can,
Yes we can
From the power you may go so very long
Go so very long
Let us live [unintelligible]
Don’t matter what may come our way
They can not [unintelligible]
Tell the children
Take them by the hand
Tell the generations that we can take a stand
Tell the nation let them know that God can heal our land
We want change
We need change
We want change
We must change
Change, Change, believe it
Change, Change, a difference
[unintelligible]
Our change is here.
*****
SCHOOL UNIDENTIFIED — 3-9-09
We were unable to locate this school’s name, but it says right on the video and in the notes that these are 7th graders.
Video Title: “Yes We Can – Barack Obama Music Video 7th Grade Version”
Video Note: The 7th grade students followed the 2008 presidential election in several of their classes this term. Concluding the election the students were asked to make video segments based on the popular Obama music video, Yes We Can, by musician Will.i.am. The segments were then compiled into one video. In this video the students discuss various goals as well as how they are able to make a difference in improving our world.
–
Transcript:
Kids Speak over (Yes We Can by Will.I.am) playing in the background:
This is for the young and old
The rich and poor
Democrats and Republicans
Black, White, Hispanic, Native Americans
Gay, Straight
Disabled, Not Disabled
We can!
Yes, I can be my own person.
Yes, I can be a policeman
Yes, I can have a good future
Yes, I can be the first person in my family to go to college
Yes, I can do good in school
Yes, I can become the first Mexican President
Yes we can.
I can save electricity
I can do good in school
I can help clean up the community
I can volunteer
I can save water
I can give donations
Just as a Seventh Grader?
Yes, we can.
[unintelligible]
What you want to do say
Yes we can
Ay
Yes we can
Ay
Baseball, football, Yeah we can do it all
Yes we can
Ay
Yes we can
Ay
The constitution and make straight A’s
Yes we can
Ay
Yes we can
Ay
Lose or choose now what you want to do
Yes we can
Ay
Yes we can
Ay
Yes we can
Be at school on time
What the… loser
Don’t do drugs
Get good grades
Give me your money – give me your money
Leave him alone
No bullying.
Recycle.
Yes we can
Si se puede
I want to join the Army
Yes she can
I want to be a football player
Yes he can
I want to join the Air Force
Yes she can
I want to pass the Seventh grade.
Yes he can
I want to be a doctor.
Yes she can
Yes we can!
Yes we can…be a dentist
Yes I can be an anesthesiologist
Yes I can be a choreographer
Yes I can be a lawyer
Yes I can be a basketball player
Yes I can be a teacher
Yes we can
Yes we can
Yes we can
*****
GIFFEN ELEMENTARY — 2-12-09
This is the probable website for the school. The opening titles state the song’s video was written by the students of Mr. Dobson and Mrs. Dudley, which means these are 5th and 6th graders.
Video Title: “Barack Obama Rap”
Video Note:This is the updated version of a song my students wrote back in 05 after Senator Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention. This year they updated it in celebration of President Obama’s victory.
–
Transcript:
Barack Obama – Recorded:
“I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave-owners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.” — Barack Obama, “A More Perfect Union,” March 18, 2008.
Verse 1:
We’re here to tell you about the man. His name is Barack Obama he’s the leader of this land. He was born in Hawaii then he lived in Illinois. His father moved to Africa when he was a little boy. He got into some trouble when he was 17 and he has come clean now he’s [unintelligible] people [unintelligible] He fights for civil rights and better health care. He wants to make sure that we all will have care. He’s [unintelligible] reform [unintelligible] he’s very educated and he’s got a lot of rhythm. First black President with a heart that’s only true, he wants to make the world better for me and you. At Chicago University he used to be a teacher, [unintelligible] At the Democratic National Convention, the name Barack Obama became [unintelligible].
Chorus:
Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can.
Verse 2:
He was born, in August of 1961. In 2008 for President, He won. We have a new President, Barack is the President. He’s a pioneer. You can check the evidence. He’s African-American. The first black President. Now he’s in the white house. The 44th President. His campaign slogan was “Yes We Can” He’s a Democrat. He’s the man with the plan. There is a special book that was written by Obama. It’s Dreams from My Father, not Dreams from your Momma. [unintelligible] [laughter] [unintelligible] He’s running our country. [unintelligible] great power. [unintelligible] He ran against McCain. Now he’s our President we’re ready to make a change.
Chorus:
Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can.
Verse 3:
He attended Columbia U in ’82. He married Michelle in 1992. He’s English, he’s Irish, [unintelligible], he’s a modern Martin Luther who was also a great man. [unintelligible] Obama’s going down as the first in history. [unintelligible] about war and that is really great. He’s known around the world – come on let’s celebrate.
Recording:
Celebrate good times, come on. Celebrate good times, come on.
Celebrate good times, come on. Celebrate good times, come on.
Continuation of Verse 3:
He’s proved that education is a big part of the game. And in his spare time he enjoys basketball. When he’s at work he signs legible. Obama is his name, [unintelligible} man, man, women, women and girl. [unintelligible] He’s a true American. If you believe say, “Yes We Can”.
Chorus:
Say, Yes We Can [repeated]
Audience Member: Yes We Can.
***
GIFFEN ELEMENTARY — 3-29-2009
Here’s Giffen again. The video quality makes it impossible to tell if these are the same students, but according to the YouTube dates this performance occurred the month after the one above, this time in front of something called The Association of Teaching Artists.
Video Title: “Barack Obama Rap at the Albany Institute”
Video Note: This is a group of 5th and 6th grade students from Giffen Elementary School performing the Barack Obama song they wrote with their classmates. It is being performed at a function of the Association of Teaching Artists held at the Albany Institute of History and Art.
–
Transcript:
Barack Obama – Recorded:
“I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave-owners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.” — Barack Obama, “A More Perfect Union,” March 18, 2008.
Verse 1:
We’re here to tell you about the man. His name is Barack Obama he’s the leader of this land. He was born in Hawaii then he lived in Illinois. His father moved to Africa when he was a little boy. He got into some trouble when he was 17 and he has come clean now he’s [unintelligible] people [unintelligible] He fights for civil rights and better health care. He wants to make sure that we all will have care. He’s [unintelligible] reform [unintelligible] he’s very educated and he’s got a lot of rhythm. First black President with a heart that’s only true, he wants to make the world better for me and you. At Chicago University he used to be a teacher, [unintelligible] At the Democratic National Convention, the name Barack Obama became [unintelligible].
Chorus:
Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can.
Verse 2:
He was born, in August of 1961. In 2008 for President, He won. We have a new President, Barack is the President. He’s a pioneer. You can check the evidence. He’s African-American. The first black President. Now he’s in the white house. The 44th President. His campaign slogan was “Yes We Can” He’s a Democrat. He’s the man with the plan. There is a special book that was written by Obama. It’s Dreams from My Father, not Dreams from your Momma. [unintelligible] [laughter] [unintelligible] He’s running our country. [unintelligible] great power. [unintelligible] He ran against McCain. Now he’s our President we’re ready to make a change.
Chorus:
Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can.
Verse 3:
He attended Columbia U in ’82. He married Michelle in 1992. He’s English, he’s Irish, [unintelligible], he’s a modern Martin Luther who was also a great man. [unintelligible] Obama’s going down as the first in history. [unintelligible] about war and that is really great. He’s known around the world – come on let’s celebrate.
Recording:
Celebrate good times, come on…
Continuation of Verse 3:
He’s proved that education is a big part of the game. And in his spare time he enjoys basketball. When he’s at work he signs legible. Obama is his name, [unintelligible} man, man, women, women and girl. [unintelligible]He’s a true American. If you believe say “Yes We Can”.
Chorus:
Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, Say Yes We Can, We say – say Yes We Can, That guy say Yes We Can, That guy say Yes We Can, Everybody say Yes We Can!
Audience Member:
Yes We Can.
*****
GOTHAM AVENUE SCHOOL — 2-7-09
Here’s the likely website for the school. Per the video’s title, these are fifth graders.
Video Title: “Ending – Part II of the 5th Grade Performance”
Video Note: Special thanks to Mr. Lewis.
–
Transcript:
We believe in Barack Obama
He loves you and he loves your mama
We believe in Barack Obama, yeah
With all the change he’s building
Gonna bring hope to the children
We believe in Barack Obama, yeah
Change
That we can believe in
Change
That we can believe in
Change
That we can believe in
We believe in Barack Obama
He loves you and he loves your mama
We believe in Barack Obama, yeah
With all the change he’s building
Gonna bring hope to the children
We believe in Barack Obama, yeah
Change
That we can believe in
Change
That we can believe in
Change
That we can believe in
Yeah, haha, haha.
Alright, come on now, here we go;
You know we gotta get Barack and all of his crew
In the White House so they can prove that
In their hearts they know what to do
And that includes Michelle and the kiddies too
[kids chanting] “There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.”
We believe in Barack Obama
He loves you and he loves your mama
We believe in Barack Obama, yeah
With all the change he’s building
Gonna bring hope to the children
We believe in Barack Obama, yeah
[Chant at end of song – unintelligible]
*****
POWELL ELEMENTARY – May 6, 2009
This is the likely website for the school. Though the age of the students in the video isn’t given, the website says the school’s age range is pre-kindergarten through the third grade.
Video Title: “Powell Elementary Present Kings of Rock”
Video Note:Ode to Obama, school kids in New Jersey celebrate Obamas win
–
Transcript:
Barack Obama there is none higher
Other politicians should call me sire
To burn my kingdom you must use fire
I create change till I retire!
Democratic Party come correct
Our cuts are on time our rhymes connect
Got the right to vote and will elect
Others can’t feel us but give us respect
Now I walked through crowds, shook many hands
Spent my time saying YES WE CAN!
I stood on many stages, held many mics
Took airplane flights at great heights
PA and Jersey, I won that fight
Chicago Illinois was so hype
Moving so strong
Biden joined the fight
Now we are a team and we ignite!
Now I crash through walls,
Cut through floors,
Burst through ceilings
Knock down doors.
He is George
And I’m Turan
We’re never far behind
In class we shine
For every living person
With dreams and plans
Keep hope alive –
Think “Yes We Can”
We’re the baddest of the bad
The cool of the cool
I’m Barack
I rock and rule.
I’m Joe. I rock and rule.
It’s not a trick or treat or April fools,
It’s all brand new
With a little old school.
We’ve got the music and the message
For all my friends.
Check us out on the internet,
Load and send.
Music ain’t nothing
but a peoples jam.
It’s President Obama
Rockin’ with the band!
*****
HENNIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL – July 16, 2009
This is the probable website for the school. Note the life-size cardboard cut-out of the President and the kid with Obama’s head on a stick.
Video Title: “obama”
Video Note: Music video for the Obama Song from the America SCORES New England winter program at the Hennigan Elementary School.
–
Transcript:
Barack Obama – Recorded:
“Because of what we did on this day, in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America.”
Kids:
Obama is fresh. Obama is cool. He has two daughters that like to go to school. It’s hot outside, they jump in the pool. [unintelligible] to follow the rules. Obama is President and has a new residence. There’s people all around who questions all the evidence.
Michelle wants her daughters to think their own things. She doesn’t want their colors to do it instead. The 44th President of the USA because he beat Senator John McCain. Obama in charge of the oval office. He told Bush and his cabinet to get off this. A – a-a-a-aay. Obama is President of the USA-aaaay. Tomorrow’s a new day – ay – ay- ay- ay. And we’re living our life.
Barack Obama – Recorded:
“It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.”
Screen Text:
Great Job! Merilyn B.; Rachel C.; Radael D.; Edwin G.; Faith M.; Oscar M.; Rosemary M.; Elena R.; Janetlah V.
Special Thanks to the CityYear Corps at the Hennigan!
Barack Obama – Recorded:
“I know you didn’t do this to just win an election. I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead.”
*****
HARMONY LELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — 2-14-09
This is the school’s probable website, and these are kindergartners.
Video Title: “Barack Obama is Our New President”
Video Note:Ms. Susan Marsico’s Kindergarten music class sings about President Barack Obama. Performed: Friday, February 13, 2009 Harmony Leland Elementary School, Mableton, GA
–
Transcript:
Barack Obama is our new President
Barack Obama is the leader of our land
On November 4, 2008
All the Americans voted
In each and every state
Barack Obama is our new President
Barack Obama is the leader of our land
He moved into the white house
With his wife, Michelle
His daughters, Malia and Sasha
And new dog as well
Barack Obama is our new President
Barack Obama is the leader of our land
He’ll bring us all together
And work hard every day
To make our nation better
And keep our people safe
Barack Obama is our new President
Barack Obama is the leader of our land
In the oval office
From sea to shining sea
He’ll represent our country
The land and the free
Barack Obama is our new President
Barack Obama is the leader of our land
*****
MARYMOUNT SCHOOL — 3-18-2009
Kindergartners sing what is the catchiest of the eleven songs. The school is Marymount. Couldn’t find a website.
Video Title: “No One’s as Irish as Barack Obama”
Video Note: Miss Maeve’s Kindergarten class performs!
–
Transcript:
O’Leary, O’Reilly, O’Hare and O’Hara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
You don’t believe me, I hear you say
But Barack’s as Irish, as was JFK
His granddaddy’s daddy came from Moneygall
A small Irish village, well known to you all
He’s in the white house, He took a chance
Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance
Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish As Barack O’Bama
He’s as Irish as bacon and cabbage and stew
He’s Hawaiian he’s Kenyan American too
He’s in the white house, He took his chance
Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance
Toor a loo, toor a lay, toor a loo, toor a lama
There’s no one as Irish As Barack O’Bama
From Kerry and cork to old Donegal
Let’s hear it for Barack from old moneygall
From the lakes if Killarney to old Connemara
There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama
*****
BARACK OBAMA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL — 1-31-2009
If you think the Nobel committee jumped the gun… Days after the 2008 presidential election Ludlum Elementary in Long Island petitioned and won the right to have the name of their school changed to Barack Obama Elementary. Watch this and ask yourself if the Nobel committee’s rationale couldn’t be that much different than the students questioned in the news report.
The video below isn’t of students singing but of a woman named Janelle Kirton performing the school song. The song doesn’t mention Obama, it just relies heavily on his platitudes, but pay special attention to the school decorations inter-cut throughout the video.
If that doesn’t creep you out enough, check out this slide-show from the school’s website.
Video Title: “Barack Obama School Song, Do You Hear The Sound, Janelle Kirton, Barack Obama Song.”
Video Note:Barack Obama Elementary School Song, Written by Janelle Kirton, arranged by Alex Kirton…
–
Transcript of “Do You Hear The Sound?”:
There’s a sound of Change
Blowing in the wind
It’s a sound that started long ago
By those who dare to dream
Fighting against the loss
With a passion of hope of better days
They had a dream
They had hope
for a friend to bring this nation together as one
The journey begins to education
Unlocking every door
Shaping a better tomorrow
We are sons and daughters
Of promise
Of school like a city upon a hill
Lights inside our hearts
And hope to [unintelligible]
To rise and conquer
[unintelligible]
To dream
To make a difference
Not just in our land
But in the world
Yes we can
Make a difference
If we unite
Together and take
I am the dream
I am the hope
I am the bridge that’ll bring this nation
Together as one
The journey begins to education
Unlocking every door
To shaping a better
Tomorrow
There’s [unintelligible]
If I teach you believe
My voice will count
My voice will be heard
Do you hear the sound
I am the dream
Do you hear the sound
I am the hope
Do you hear the sound
Yes we can.
The Barack Obama Elementary School
*****
“Children are like wet cement. Whatever falls upon them makes an impression.” — Dr. Haim Ginott (teacher, child psychologist)
A Massachusetts man has been fired from his sales position at the Logan Airport branch in Boston of Brookstone allegedly for telling a female manager that his Christian faith says homosexuality is wrong.
Peter Vadala was fired and the company says he violated a tolerance policy. But Vadala reports his dismissal came because he expressed his Christian view of homosexuality after a female manager made repeated references as she approached him four times during work hours to her plans to marry her lesbian partner.
"At the start of the day, she told me she was getting married. I told her 'Congratulations,' and asked, 'Where's he taking you on your honeymoon?'" Vadala said.
"She replied that her partner was a 'she,'" he continued, "So I immediately tried to change the subject.
"I think she knew I was uncomfortable talking about it," he continued. "But, she brought it up to me three more times during the day.
"After the fourth time she told me about her plan to marry her partner, I told her, 'I think homosexuality is bad stuff,'" Vadala said.
"That's what I said. I wasn't rude about it and I didn't act disrespectfully to her," he said. "All the woman said to me as she left the store was, 'Human Resources buddy. You keep your opinions to yourself!'"
Vadala said when he was hired he went through the company's training program, including a requirement to watch a video.
"In the video, there was a homosexual man who said he overheard two workers talking. One man in the outsourced video tells the other, 'If a homosexual man hits on me, he better watch out.'
“The homosexual man in the video said he was offended, but I'm not allowed to be offended by a homosexual ... I was told that since homosexual marriage is supposedly legal in Massachusetts, that I was wrong for being offended," Vadala said.
A Brookstone human resources staffer called a few days after the incident and Vadala said he told the caller he wanted to resolve the matter.
"I spoke to (the human resources staff member) and I wanted to resolve it. I said that for his sake, the matter needed be resolved because this manager will be around customers who, chances are, will be offended by the types of things she is saying," Vadala said
But during the course of the conversation Vadala said it became clear the call wasn't about resolving the issue.
It was a few days later Vadala received a termination letter from Brookstone.
The letter accused Vadala of "harassment" and described his comments as "inappropriate and unprofessional." Further, the letter charged, he was "imposing" his beliefs upon others.
Vadala said the letter from Brookstone, signed by Susan McGrath, contained numerous false accusations.
In a copy made available to WND, the letter reads, “You acknowledge that you then expressed to Ms. (name blacked out) that you disagreed strongly with her homosexual lifestyle and that [you] believe it is wrong. You describe it in your statement, as you did when speaking with me, as 'deviant.'"
But Vadala said he didn't use that word.
McGrath's letter further asserts that a sales associate "who was working with you at the time … provided a written statement indicating that while she did not witness the conversation … you did tell her later that you 'knew (she) is marrying another woman' and that you 'hate people like that.'"
Vadala reports he also did not say that.
McGrath refused WND's request to comment on the dispute. Instead she suggested Brookstone’s legal department be contacted. That department did not respond.
When contacted about the firing, store manager Katelyn Woodard said, "You need to speak to human resources about this and if you call this number again, I'll file harassment charges."
Vadala said it's clear to him he was fired for his faith.
The headline is arresting. 
Last Tuesday was an exciting day if you are an opponent of the socialistic agenda that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their various and sundry acolytes in Congress have spent the better part of the past year trying to ram down our throats. In Massachusetts of all places — that bright, glowing sapphire blue jewel in New England's crown — a reasonably conservative Republican won the Senate seat held by the Kennedy's since 1952. In doing so, Scott Brown becomes the 41st Republican vote in the Senate, and the barrier to the passage of Obamacare in any of its present House and Senate forms. Brown, an energetic and charismatic candidate, campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility and opposition to the insanity we see unfolding in Washington. His victory over Marcia, er, Martha Coakley, in what should have been the single safest seat in the entire universe for the Democrats, has helped to underscore the disgust and anger on the part of the electorate for the present ruling power in the Capitol. People are angry, people don't want Obamacare, cap'n'trade', more spending, greater debt, higher taxes, and the rest of the "progressive" agenda that has hithertofore been pushed so aggressively by the Democrats.
A profound quote from a blogger identifying himself only as “Mike M.,” on a website known as Missourah.com, crossed my desk the other day. With regard to the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, striking down key portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed into law a few years ago, the writer wrote: “Certainly, the spectre of corporate money buying candidates and influencing our political system is an unwholesome one. But the solution is not limiting campaign donations. It is limiting the power of government, so that the money spent in the system has less impact on our lives, and power is truly returned to ‘the little guy’ that politicians love to pay lip service to.”
The Great Chicken Trial of Brentwood is nearing its final hearing in what has been described as the REAL ‘Trial of the Century’ (not OJs in his Brentwood, but the one here in the East Bay of Northern California). The incident started over a young woman who kept two hens in her backyard, which outraged a neighbor who charged the hens with poop-bombing HER yard which would bring fatal diseases into her house and throughout the neighborhood… 
