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 video from Conservative Videos speaks for itself, and boy, does it ever!

Here’s a politician who is not afraid to espouse conservative values, who has a quiet yet in-your-face manner when addressing Obama Administration leftists and who’s sounding more and more like a viable 2016 presidential candidate. We really must watch him closely.

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 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.

From Godfather Politics

The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it is going to sue Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, claiming that his department is engaging in racial profiling in its well-publicized efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws.

The feds have been seeking to bring Arpaio under judicial control and “train” his officers in constitutional traffic stops and how to reassure Latinos that the department serves them as well. Arpaio flatly refused to have his department placed under a court monitor, saying it would undermine his authority by forcing him to seek approval of policy decisions.

How the Obama Administration detests any state or officials therein who dare embrace their constitutionally granted states’ rights, and even worse when said state or official therein deigns to follow the Constitution, a document the incumbent administration holds in utter contempt.

Besides, as we know, the Party of Obama also opposes requiring proof that one is eligible to vote; This way, illegals can help elect and reelect liberal politicians.

“An illegal vote is a Democrat vote”.

He’s right, of course. Everything the “fast and furious” folks at Eric Holder’s Justice Department have been doing in Arizona has been about bringing the sheriff to heel.

Arpaio, whose office has been under investigation by a federal grand jury since 2009 for abuse of power allegations, has been a thorn in the side of Justice and the Obama Administration, first by his enforcement of immigration laws that the feds have refused to enforce, then more recently by his public investigation of President Obama, which found that the birth certificate released by the White House, and possibly other documents, is a forgery.

All of this has put Arpaio under a microscope, and critics have been looking for any excuse to call for his resignation.

Here at Hard Astarboard we consider Joe to be America’s Sheriff. If only more state and local officials stood up to Obama’s bullying.

The legal actions may be coming from Justice, but lurking in the shadows is La Raza, a virulently racist radical group that openly promotes giving the American West to Mexico. It is also a big supporter of President Obama.

Holder’s Justice Department has been giving favors to the Black Panther Party, so it’s no surprise that it would be doing La Raza’s bidding as well.

All that’s needed is for the Obama Administration and Holder to start doing the bidding of right thinking Americans.

At a press conference Wednesday, Arpaio defended himself against the impending lawsuit, saying, “If they sue, we’ll go to court. And then we’ll find out the real story. There’s lots of miscommunication emanating from Washington. They broke off communications.

“They’re telling me how to run my organization. I’d like to get this resolved, but I’m not going to give up my authority to the federal government. It’s as simple as that.”

Go, Joe!

My own position on the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” movement, or whatever you call it, is one that both approves and disapproves.

While I don’t agree with their rhetoric (not that more than 5% of those involved is likely to have any technical knowledge of economic issues, anyway, or any proactive ideas as to how to enact the positive change they apparently want to bring about), I do see what they’re doing as exercising a fundamental American right to assemble and protest. Where I come from, doing what they’re doing would likely end them up in a filthy, overcrowded prison, a harsh labor camp, or worse. The worst that’s happened to the most obstructive in the OWS crowd has been a shot or two of pepper spray and a single night in a city jail, after which they were released and allowed to return to their assemblage. We already saw what such protest gatherings are met with in China.

So on that level, I see nothing wrong with those people doing what they’re doing. This is, after all, America.

On the other hand, there’s this, which serves only to undermine whatever dubious message the “legitimate” protesters are trying to get out.

Seth has spoken of the differences between the conservative side of the street and the liberal side of the street once the many demonstrations and/or counter-demonstrations he’d been to had ended, the former left pristine by the right thinking crowd while the latter had been “trashed” and left as such by the lefty faction.

The men, women and whatevers among the OWS people are obviously “progressives”, so the drugging and the unruliness are to be expected, especially in a protracted gathering such as the one in question.

BUT… I believe that in the spirit of American freedom we MUST allow those who disagree with our point of view to express theirs.

Unfortunately, we have become so polarized that while our side of the street objected to the treatment “the opposition” gave the Tea Partyers, we are doing the same thing to the Occupy Wall Streeters.

In 2009, where Democrats saw an unruly mob, Republicans saw patriotism.

In 2011, where Republicans see an unruly mob, Democrats see patriotism.

That was the “tea party.” This is the “Occupy” movement.

Reaction to the “OccupyWall Street” protests, which have now spread to Washington and other American cities, broke down along party lines Sunday, with Democrats voicing support for the movement and some Republicans painting the demonstrators as anti-capitalist agitators backed by big labor, anti-war groups and other liberal activists.

Since the tea party’s birth in 2009, conservative lawmakers, candidates and pundits have praised it as the natural reaction to an unprecedented explosion of government spending and federal regulation on a litany of issues including health care. Democrats and many of their liberal allies in the media, however, have often painted tea party members as “racists” and “bigots” who oppose President Obama’s every move simply because he’s black.

While the two movements are backed by opposite ends of the political spectrum, each party reciting the other’s talking points from two years ago, some see similarities between them.

The “core” grievance of the Occupy protesters “is that the bargain has been breached with the American people. There’s a lot in common with the tea party,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden said last week, citing the anger of both the tea party and the OccupyWall Street crowd toward federal bailouts of banks and other financial institutions.

Man, I hate quoting a Biden quote here, but the Veep’s right, even though, thankfully, he’s just Biden his time until he and his boss are voted out next year, relegated to a one termer.

But let’s be tolerant, here. The Tea Partyers, as good conservatives, conducted themselves with dignity and patriotism. As we see in the first linked article above, the OWSers are being the usual collective of liberals, so let’s allow them to make themselves look like dumb bunnies, dancing bears, idiots and buffoons while we honor their Constitutional Right to do so.

UPDATE: I had meant to include the Cain take on the Occupy Wall Street “movement”, which, since the bulk of our economic woes can be laid at the feet of the (previous) Democratic majority and the exacerbation of these woes at the feet of the Obama-in-Chief himself makes sense to me!

First, the good.

H/T Ric, who brought this to our attention (I had missed it completely!)

PHOENIX - A Glendale optometrist’s yearlong legal fight over what services he had to provide for a Spanish-speaking customer has translated into new protections for other businesses.

Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide “trained and competent” interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English.

Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law. But that didn’t save John Schrolucke from having to spend time and money defending himself and his practice before Walker’s office finally dismissed the case.

Schrolucke told lawmakers the incident stems from a patient who spoke only Spanish.
Although she did bring her 12-year-old child with her to the office, he said allowing the child to interpret for the parent would have gotten him into legal trouble.

He said he faced a potential malpractice lawsuit if the child did not properly translate some of the more technical explanations being provided, so he turned the woman away, telling her through her child to come back with someone at least 18 years old.

Schrolucke said he also gave the woman the option of going to one or two other optometrists who speak Spanish.

Instead, he said, the woman filed a discrimination complaint with the Attorney General’s Office.

State law prohibits discrimination in places of “public accommodation,” which include restaurants, hotels, theaters and any place that offers services or goods to the general public.

Schrolucke said he was given an option to settle. But that would have required him and anyone who bought his business to provide interpreters and documents in Spanish, something he said would set a bad precedent for not only his operation but other small businesses.

English is the official language of the United States of America.

It took the Attorney General’s Office a year to figure out there had been no civil rights violation and dismiss the case.

Once again, from the top: English is the official language of the United States of America.

It shouldn’t have taken the Attorney General’s office more than sixteen seconds to figure out that there had been no civil rights violation before dismissing the case.

Upset with the whole process, Schrolucke approached Sen. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, who agreed to sponsor what he called “clarifying language” to the state’s civil rights law.

“Nobody should be treated like this,” Huppenthal said. “It’s a nightmare to go through this. He was drug through the mud by us.”

Walker, who is the litigation chief of the civil rights division, offered his own apology “for what does occasionally end up as state bureaucratic confusion.”

But Walker told lawmakers that his agency is legally obligated to investigate complaints of discrimination. He said the system worked - eventually - when the complaint was dismissed.

Nonetheless, if they’re going to permit such a lawsuit to take place, Loser Pays should apply to the plaintiff to compensate the defendant for every minute of his time and every penny of the money he puts out for legal fees, since it is a frivolous lawsuit.

Huppenthal introduced identical legislation last year. While it was approved by a Senate panel it never made it to the full Senate floor.

Next, the Bad.

The Senate is expected to take up the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The effort is a dangerous treaty for the family, according to pediatrician Rosemary Stein of Burlington, North Carolina, and a spokesperson for the Christian Medical Association (CMA).

“It takes away the parents’ rights to rear their child and gives it to the government,” she explains. “The government becomes the caretaker and the guardian, and the parent becomes the babysitter. Another way to define it would be ‘the government takeover of our children.’”

If the contract is enforced, the government would have the right to intercede or supersede if officials believe the parents are doing something that is not in the best interest of the child. An example of this comes from Germany, where the government has passed laws that ban parents from homeschooling their children.

“I didn’t know that it was this insidious, and at the same time, this overwhelming,” Stein laments. “It goes over everything — what you teach them, what you do with them [and] how they’re reared.”

The CMA spokesman predicts this will change society from the bottom up. For instance, a 16-year-old girl in Great Britain asked her parents to let her boyfriend move in and share her bedroom. When the parents said no, the teen filed suit and won.

It is not known when the U.S. Senate will try to ratify the treaty, so Dr. Stein says people need to start contacting their senators to voice their views.

Ah, yes, the fascism of the left.

And the Ugly.

Chuck out.

…what if there was a revolution? I mean, what if Americans flatly refused to acknowledge laws stemming from the ObamaCare debacle and started cleaning their weapons, so to speak?

How could anyone call it treason, or otherwise condemn it, when all that these rebels would be doing was emulating our nation’s founders?

The American Revolution was fought, after all, to gain freedom from a kind of tyranny that, in truth, was not much different from what we are experiencing now under the Obama regime — yes, I said regime, not administration.

We, The People, are being ruled by officials elected, according to the Constitution, to govern according to the will of the people, not the other way around.

Yet here we are, having come full circle, so in the spirit of America, it seems to me that if there were a revolution, it should ideally be a short one — it would be an act of treason, in my opinion, for any U.S. serviceman, Law Enforcement officer or other American citizen in a position to do so to take up arms against the people if we got it into our heads to do exactly as our founding fathers did in the 1770s, taking our country away from those who would tax us into oblivion and dictate to us.

These politicians have violated the Constitution which is, given their oaths of office and the nature of their jobs, a federal crime in itself.

So, the Obama Administration and the Democrats in the House and Senate, those who voted for the “HealthCare” bill, are technically all felons, no matter what they and their sycophantic arse creepers of the lefty media say about it.

Doesn’t that make the President and his congressional majority a “renegade” criminal government, anyway, and certainly even less valid than that of the late King George?

…but first:

Who dat, who dat, who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints?

I was reading this morning’s Santa Monica Daily Press, and came across an OpEd by John W. Whitehead, a Constitutional lawyer, and found myself in total agreement with a commentary he titled Are You Brainwashed?

Precisely because Americans are easily distracted — because, as study after study shows, they are clueless about their rights — and because the nation’s schools have ceased teaching the fundamentals of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights — the American governmental scheme is sliding ever closer toward authoritarianism. This is taking place with little more than a whimper from an increasingly compliant populace that, intentionally or not, has allowed itself to be brainwashed into trusting their politicians.

If the people have little or no knowledge of the basics of government and their rights, those who wield governmental power inevitably wield it excessively. After all, a citizenry can only hold its government accountable if it knows when the government oversteps its bounds.

{The emphasis in the first paragraph is mine.}

I would recommend reading the entire piece, it’s right on the money.

I lived in New York for a time when Rudy Giuliani was the mayor, and as far as I’m concerned, he did a great job not only on crime, but also on quality of life and other issues that made the city not only safer, but more pleasant to live in. His handling of the 9/11 aftermath was masterful.

He was the perfect mayor during the years he served New Yorkers in that office.

He is, however, not my choice for the Presidency (I support Tom Tancredo).

His two greatest weaknesses among conservative voters are his anti-gun and pro-abortion stances, but there is one other reason, whose very magnitude dwarfs the first two, why I would not consider him as a viable candidate for the Oval Office, and though I hesitate in some ways to use the T word, that at the very least borders on treason.

GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has extensive and deep ties to the NAFTA Superhighway and the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC). Giuliani’s law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, is the exclusive legal council for Cintra, the Spanish firm chosen to operate the I-35 toll road in the TTC.

Okay, I know that’s a profoundly harsh word to use, the above quoted paragraph notwithstanding, but an August Review article by Cliff Kincaid more than adequately explains my choice of words here.

Evidence shows that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement involving the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is being expanded without congressional approval or oversight as part of a plan to create an economic and political entity known as the North American Union.

Brit Hume said on the Fox News Sunday program that it is possible that Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani could overcome his convoluted posturing on abortion and secure the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But Giuliani has some other major problems. These include foreign clients, one of whom is constructing part of the “NAFTA Superhighway” project that has people in Texas and around the nation up in arms.

Hume, the moderator of Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, will be in a position to ask Giuliani about it. Questions will also be posed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and White House correspondent Wendell Goler.

Evidence shows that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement involving the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is being expanded without congressional approval or oversight as part of a plan to create an economic and political entity known as the North American Union ( NAU). Federal documents uncovered by Judicial Watch quote participants in the scheme as saying that an “evolution by stealth” strategy is being used to put the pieces into place. Documents also speak of developing a common security perimeter and a common identification card for citizens of the three countries.

With the exception of Lou Dobbs of CNN, our national media have ignored not only the process that is well underway but the growing outcry over what is happening. Resolutions against the NAU have been introduced in 14 state legislatures-and have passed in two-and thousands of people have turned out in Texas to protest a Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) highway system, which will link the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Critics say the project is being funded by foreign interests, could run roughshod over private property rights, and could facilitate illegal activities, such as the trafficking of people and drugs, from Mexico.

I’ve been posting about the NAU, on and off, for some time, and readers here know that I take all evidence of this behind-the-scenes manipulation quite seriously, rather than as the nutjob conspiracy skeptics brand it as. It is an early and rudimentary element of the covert process that is intended to consummate in full globalization; We would no longer be Americans. We would be citizens of the world.

I was born and raised in America, cherish America and don’t particularly feel the need to spend my golden years in a non-sovereign, micromanaged, shadow-of-its-former-self America.

Read Cliff Kincaid’s entire article.

The target year for the NAU to assume its official position is 2010. Do we really want to see one of its major players and profiteers, a man who, despite his great public stature and his claims of patriotism, is willing to sell out his country as a sovereign entity, serve a term as POTUS that both includes and surrounds that year?

I don’t think so….

Hat Tip and considerably more to Cubed.