From Political Outcast…

The Pocono Mountain School District believes elementary school students should have their First Amendment rights greatly limited.
In December 2010, a fifth grade girl at Barrett Elementary Center in Cresco, Pennsylvania went to school carrying flyers for a Christmas party at her church. Although other students have passed out flyers and invitations to other out-of-school events like scouting and various clubs, school officials stopped the girl from handing out her flyers because it contained elements of religious faith. The Pocono Mountain School District stood behind the school’s decision, claiming they have a policy that forbids anything being handed out that mentions religious faith in any fashion.

This is one of many methods used by the liberal run school system, wherever they can get away with it, to stifle the belief in God because this belief might one day stand between an individual and the doctrine of the state (the federal government), which as we know the political left wishes to see become our rulers, a collective monarchy of Bloombergian authority.

However, and thank the Lord, that these Americans support our constitutional rights….

In March of 2011, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Pocono Mountain School District on behalf of the student, claiming that her First Amendment rights of free speech had been violated. The school district not only cited their policies but argued before the court that elementary students are young enough to have their First Amendment rights greatly limited.

A lower court heard the case and ruled that the school had indeed violated the student’s First Amendment rights. The school district appealed the case to the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals who just issued a ruling that backs up the lower court’s decision that the school district did in fact violate the student’s First Amendment rights. The Appeal Court also ruled that the two policies the school used as their defense were unconstitutional when applied in this form of student expression.

Justice was served in both courts ruling that a grade schooler does indeed have First Amendment rights.

It’s all here.

This one from The Conservative Daily News, speakum big truth…

Obama: Law Breaker-In-Chief

“I, [President's Name] do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.”

That is the oath of office that all Presidents take when they are sworn in as President of The United States. However, it seems that Obama takes that oath with a grain of salt; I have heard Obama say “We are a nation of laws,” yet he seems to pick and choose what laws he will enforce. How can our Commander In Chief pick what laws to enforce and what laws he will ignore, what kind of message does that send?

Once again, he proves that he is not a President of all the people, but he only cares about the people that are behind his Liberal agenda. A President should uphold all the laws of the land, whether he agrees with them or not, if any of us would pick and choose what laws to follow, we would without a doubt be thrown into jail. How can we as a people, trust our own President to do the right thing, when he ignores the very laws he is sworn to uphold.

We have immigration laws in this country, which the President does not seem to care about. Our Southern boarders are being overrun with illegal aliens, but our President seems to favor them more than the citizens that live in those areas. He ties the hands of law enforcement and when Governors try to pass laws to protect their citizens, he takes them to court. He passes judgment on which illegal should go to jail and which one should go free, when they all broke the law by coming here illegally.

We have the Defense Of Marriage Act in this country, yet he comes right out and tells the Justice Department not to enforce it. The Presidents feelings about that law should not matter, he has sworn to uphold it, yet he does not. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights does it say that marriage is a right. Yet when the people of California voted against same sex marriage, he sends briefs to the Supreme Court telling them they should overturn what the people have voted for, I guess he now chooses what rights are and the voice of the people be damned.

Read the entire piece here, with a great big Amen!

I was travelling last week and completely offline, which is the reason I hadn’t posted anything.

During that time I picked up a book recommended to me by one of my husband’s former comrades-in-arms, and found it a real must-read for anyone (read “younger American voters”) who are Constitutionally challenged, so to speak.

The book is called The Last Line Of Defense, and was written by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli with Brian J. Gottstein.

Mr. Cuccinelli was one of the states’ attorney generals who sued the Obama Administration and the usual (Democrats, of course) suspects over Obamacare.

It’s a great and informative read, and as to my reference to younger voters, the bulk of whom seem to have voted for O, well, the early part of the book gives the historical reasons why the Constitution was written, the compromises between founding fathers(Patrick Henry/James Madison) that led to the Bill of Rights and full ratification of the greatest document for liberty in the history of the planet.

Perhaps if ALL Obama/Pelosi/Reid supporters read the book, learned what America is really all about and saw what these criminals are doing to our country, our liberty and our economy, with the exception of those who are socialists, communists, America haters, lowlifes who want to rob the hard working taxpayer via government handouts or simply very stupid people, they might revise their estimates of these dishonorable politicians.

I would call this book a must read and a worthy addition to the library of any American patriot.

From the Washington Times:

Hollywood might be a liberal town, but there are plenty of celebrities who own guns — and they’re not afraid to use them.

An E! Online report quotes gun owner Angelina Jolie talking about her willingness to protect her family: “If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them.”

She isn’t alone. Whoopi Goldberg of “The View” and James Earl Jones are both NRA members. Even Donald Trump — who spoke exclusively to The Times in November on the issue — and “The Avengers” star Jeremy Renner admit to owning firearms.

“I own guns and I don’t think guns kill people, I think people kill people,” Mr. Renner said recently.

Jennifer Lopez and Robert DeNiro are among a group of stars whose official gun-owning status is unknown, but have applied for a license to carry one, E! reports.

It’s really good to know that even among all those ultra-lefty Hollywoodians, there are indeed some people who stand firmly behind the Second Amendment. Some of the names we already know are believers in our right to keep and bear arms, others are, at least to me, something of a surprise.

Wow, here are a few examples from the link just above…

Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry is pro-gun. He said, “I have always been fascinated with guns. I grew up in America so granted, it is part of our heritage and it is written into the laws of how this country is run.”

Perry adds, “I’ve been fascinated with all kinds of weapons my whole life. And as I have been able to afford to acquire pieces, here and there I started to collect.”

Bad girl Angelina Jolie has always enjoyed guns. She previously said, “I bought original, real guns of the type we used in “Tomb Raider” for security”.

The beautiful actress adds, “Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one. And yes, I’d be able to use it if I had to… If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them.”

Angelina Jolie’s fiance, Brad Pitt, said about guns, “America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange, but I feel better having a gun. I really do.

“I don’t feel safe, I don’t feel the house is completely safe, if I don’t have one hidden somewhere. That’s my thinking, right or wrong.”

In fact, Pitt gave Jolie a $400,000 shooting range as an engagement gift.

NRA member and actor James Earl Jones previously stated, “The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”

Popular 80s actor Christian Slater keeps things simple, saying, “It’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.”

Rapper/actor Ice-T, whose real name is Tracy Morrow, supports the second amendment.

Ice-T said, “The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt.”

“Diehard” star Bruce Willis has very good points to make in support of guns. The action star previously said, “Everyone has a right to bear arms. If you take guns away from legal gun owners, then the only people who have guns are the bad guys.”

Shock jock Howard Stern may not seem like a pro-gun type of guy but admits, “I am licensed to own a gun and in fact I own several guns.”

Stern said, “While I’m not really a gun enthusiast, I believe that people who particularly live on The Island (Long Island) in a home should have a gun to protect it.”

Of course, there’s Clint,

We’ve heard actor Clint Eastwood say his catchphrase “Go ahead and make my day”, but seems to feel the same in real life. Eastwood said, “I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”

And, also a big of course:

We all know where rocker Ted Nugent stands on guns.

Nugent talked of other celebrity gun owners previously, saying, “The guys at Metallica support the Second Amendment … I just bought a number of guns for Joe Perry of Aerosmith. And when I performed in the Howard Stern movie, I was approached by Howard, who showed me his .32-caliber Seecamp pistol.

“I was approached by Ozzy Osbourne and talked about his German 9mm Luger. Everybody supports the common pulse of defending one’s self, which is why our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment.”

It’s nice to know there are some people in the entertainment biz who, in support of our precious Second Amendment, aren’t part of the mad, hell bent for leather liberal rush to abolish the U.S. Constitution….

There they go again, those power hungry socialist stool samples at the U.N., trying tostick their noses in our business.

While Hard Astarboard is not an advocacy for the smoking of marijuana or the use of drugs in general, it is not too far off the mark to observe that we are somewhat fanatical about the letter of the U.S. Constitution, as they say, “in for a penny, in for a pound”.

According to the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means whatever is not included below:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Having said all that, we have this, from Freedom Outpost.

A top official at the United Nations has called upon the Obama administration to illegally quash the recent initiatives in Washington State and Colorado where voters approved of legalization of the use of the plant. The vote, in essence, nullified unconstitutional federal statutes and the UN’s on narcotics agreement.

The President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Raymond Yans, voiced concerns in a press statement over the non-medical use of cannabis in both Colorado and Washington, as well as, cities such as Michigan and Vermont. Yans stated,

“these developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties, and pose a great threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states”.

Yans also went on to state, “Legalization of cannabis within these states would send wrong and confusing signals to youth and society in general, giving the false impression that drug abuse might be considered normal and even, most disturbingly, safe. Such a development could result in the expansion of drug abuse, especially among young people, and we must remember that all young people have a right to be protected from drug abuse and drug dependency.”

While he stressed the dangers of a plant that grows naturally and was put here on the earth by God in the Creation week (Genesis 1), he must be aware of the poppy fields our soldiers protect in Afghanistan. Yet, he says nothing about that. In fact, it seems he is noticeably quiet about it.

One hundred eight-five states agreed to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which decided to put cannabis under control and limit its use to medical purposes.

Yans press release claimed that he recognized the commitment of the federal government of the United States to resolve issues between the federal and state levels, but insists that the U.S. must meet its obligations under the drug control convention and he requested that the feds “take necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties within the entire territory of the United States.” Of course, he said this would be for the “health and well-being of its citizens.”

Now, look, I realize that many in my audience don’t think marijuana should be legal and that it will lead to all sorts of abuse. Well, too late for that. People abuse it now and it’s illegal, so the legality of that is not an issue. The purpose of the article is not geared toward that either. However, what should concern everyone is the fact that the UN is attempting to force our federal government to be heavy handed, which it is all happy to do anyway, with what is clearly a state’s rights issue under the Tenth Amendment. The United Nations has no jurisdiction in this matter at all.

I highly, no pun intended, recommend you read Alex Newman’s fantastic article on this subject at The New American.

The United Nations has long been a thorn in our side and now they are demonstrating just why we need to eliminate any and all support of them. They should have absolutely no sway over our federal government nor the rights of the states in our country. The federal government should have no say so in this matter if states determine to legalize marijuana and the United Nations definitely has no say so in the matter. Sadly, we as a people have given both the proverbial inch and for decades they have been taking miles. This needs to stop.

It is long past the time that America pull her funding of the UN and kick it and its global cronies out of our country.

Above emphasis mine, and Amen to that!

The U.N. came to monitor our recent elections (hmmmm, there’s still that question of rigged polls lingering about), they’re trying to have our Second Amendment rights tampered with, now this.

Those people just can’t stand the concept of a member state having any kind of sovereignty, can they? Just look to the E.U. for a few prime examples of what happens when you’re willing to give up your sovereignty to a larger body of countries.

The issue here is not about marijuana, it’s about the Constitution and the right of our individual states and the communities therein to self determination.

In the early days of Hard Astarboard, namely nearly 7 1/2 years ago (does time fly, or what?) Seth did a post on DEA interference in California’s right to a medical marijuana program and that interference’s support by the liberal justices of the Supreme Court, with the conservatives dissenting. Go figure.

So, with our own internal organs having already had a go at it (California’s program is still in place, and other states have been adopting it as well), do we really need those outsider busybodies from the U.N. sticking their proboscises wher they don’t belong?

From Patriot Update:

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

If your Second Amendment rights are important to you, definitely watch the video.

Today’s Day 1.

Yes, I feel a second post today is needed, since:

From The Hill:

President Obama’s signature domestic achievement — and, with it, a big part of his political legacy — is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

The nine justices on Monday will begin hearing three consecutive days of oral arguments about whether the healthcare law is unconstitutional. The landmark legal challenge threatens to overturn an historic legislative victory, raising the stakes once again in a debate that will help define Obama’s presidency.

No matter what the Pelosis, Obamas and Reids of this world tell us, ObamaCare is as blatantly unconstitutional as most of the other agendas the “progressive” elements within the government are constantly trying to foist on us, though when many such issues fail to pass congressional muster, they are somehow “passed” via rulings by liberal activist judges.

That won’t be the case in this particular incident, hopefully, and the Supreme Court will rule via the Constitution rather than said political activism.

Legal experts agree the healthcare case is already in the same league as the court’s most famous decisions, including rulings on abortion and civil rights. Some argue it’s more important than Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 presidential election, because of its sweeping implications for the role of government.

“It has the potential to fundamentally alter our concept of limited government,” said Robert Alt, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

So we’ll watch the proceedings and, as they say, travel hopefully: Hopeful that our cherished Constituion will prevail…

From the NRA-ILA:

It is certainly no surprise for gun owners to see the New York Times run a story belittling the United States Constitution. After all, the Times has worked for decades to devalue our founding document.

“[I]ts influence is waning,” opines the Times. It is “terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.” The paper faults the Constitution for being difficult to amend and reflective of the times in which it was written. While the Times does not go so far as to claim the U.S. Constitution has been bad for America, it does lament that it is of “little current use to, say, a new African nation.”

Hmmm. While the article focuses on the N.Y. Times, the next paragraph refers to one of the poster creatures of the “progressive” menagerie, their agent on the Supreme Court:

But it was a much bigger shock when the Times reported in the same story that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sitting associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and grande dame of the Court’s liberal voting bloc, shares the Times’ dim view of the Constitution. Ginsburg said “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Her personal recommendations would instead include “the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

None of this should come as a surprise. One wonders, for example, if Justice Ginsburg even looks to the United States Constitution when interpreting it in 2012. Having had only limited success in getting the courts to creatively re-imagine the Constitution to suit their individual tastes, America’s legal, academic, and media elites are now determined to minimize what is left of the founding charter’s original meaning and intent by making unflattering comparisons to “sexier,” more expansive documents that empower state bureaucracies, undermine individual rights, and micromanage citizens’ day-to-day lives.

A good definition of a liberal (besides “someone who’s never been mugged”, LOL) is an individual who takes full advantage of the liberties that come with living in a free country while trying to destroy those freedoms at the same time.

Do these people have issues, or what?

Anyway, the entire NRA-ILA article is here.

From a column by Robert McNight in the Washington Times:

The Constitution of the United States, whose adoption we celebrate every Sept. 17, clearly lists the powers of each branch of the national government. Let’s take a look at what Barack Obama, like any president, is empowered to do and see if it squares with his actions. In Article II, Section 1, he is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Section 2 names the president as commander in chief of the armed forces, grants him the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate and to appoint ambassadors, federal judges, Cabinet officials and other federal officers. Section 3 says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

In his two years and nine months in office, President Obama has compiled a spectacular record of noncompliance with the Constitution. Here are just some of the ways his administration has failed to execute the laws while using raw, unauthorized power:

A few “snips”:

The 15th Amendment: Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department has effectively become a race-based enforcement unit. After New Black Panther Party members were caught on tape intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, the Justice Department declined to defend the convictions and thus sent the message that baton-wielding thuggishness on Election Day is no big deal. Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who laid out the case before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, described the administration’s dismissal of charges as “lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.”

Well!

Illegal Immigration: The Obama administration has ignored the illegal actions of “sanctuary cities” and sued the state of Arizona in July 2010 for enforcing federal law. Then, last month, the administration announced a new policy that, in effect, ends enforcement of illegal immigration, providing the illegal alien meets the requirements of the Dream Act, a bill Congress failed to pass. So, Mr. Obama is ignoring current federal law while creating rules based on a law that never passed.

Hmmmmm.

The Fifth Amendment: The Constitution guarantees that no one is deprived of his or her property without “due process of law” or “just compensation.” The National Labor Relations Board’s absurd order to the Boeing Co. not to open a newly built $750-million Dreamliner facility in right-to-work South Carolina, because unions in Boeing’s home state of Washington object, violates that guarantee. Even liberal New York Times columnist Joseph Nocera commented, “Seriously, when has a government agency ever tried to dictate where a company makes its products? I can’t ever remember it happening.”

Wow!

The entire column.

I guess this means that all those liberals who defend and even praise Obama and would vote for his reelection don’t have much use for the Constitution, either.

…at least if one were a member of the party on the left side of the aisle, would have to be “Ouch!”

“We the people” are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States– the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution’s provisions were spelled out in “The Federalist,” a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge– to this day– to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.

The Constitution of the United States is the biggest single obstacle to the carrying out of such rampaging presumptions, so it is not surprising that those with such presumptions have led the way in denigrating, undermining and evading the Constitution.

As is always the case with Thomas Sowell, very well put.

To truncate a bit…

It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people?

To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of “czars” wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to pubic scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.

Now there is leaked news of plans to change the immigration laws by administrative fiat, rather than Congressional legislation, presumably because Congress might be unduly influenced by those pesky voters– with their Constitutional rights– who have shown clearly that they do not want amnesty and open borders, despite however much our betters do. If the Obama administration gets away with this, and can add a few million illegals to the voting rolls in time for the 2012 elections, that can mean reelection, and with it a continuing and accelerating dismantling of America.

Infuriating, at least to those of us who love America and embrace both the wisdom and the freedom guaranteed us by the Constitution, but true.

Read the entire spot-on column.