The War On Words Continues – 50 Banned Words from NYC School’s Standardized Tests

The New York City Department of Education is waging a war on words of sorts, and is seeking to have words they deem upsetting removed from standardized tests.

The fear is that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from city-issued tests.

The word “dinosaur” made the hit list because dinosaurs suggest evolution which creationists might not like. Halloween is targeted because it suggests paganism; a “birthday” might not be happy to all because it isn’t celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

“They’re going to meet people from all walks of life and they’re going to have to learn to adjust.” One NYC parent stated.

Words that suggest wealth are excluded because they could make kids jealous. “Poverty” is also on the forbidden list. That’s something Sy Fliegal with the Center for Educational Innovation calls ridiculous. “The Petersons take a vacation for five days in their Mercedes … so what? You think our kids are going to be offended because they don’t have a Mercedes? You think our kids are going to say ‘I’m offended; how could they ask me a question about a Mercedes? I don’t have a Mercedes!’” “It’s all of life! I don’t know how they figure out what not to put on the list. Every aspect of life is on the list.” Fliegal said.

In a throwback to “Footloose,” the word “dancing” is also taboo. However, there is good news for kids that like “ballet”: The city made an exception for this form of dance.
Also banned are references to “divorce” and “disease,” because kids taking the tests may have relatives or parents who split from spouses or are ill.

Even some students think banning these words from periodic assessment tests is ridiculous.
“If you don’t celebrate one thing you might have a friend that does it. So I don’t see why people would find it offensive,” Curtis High School Sophomore Jamella Lewis told Diamond. Jamella has more common sense in her Sophomore mind than the NYC Board of Education – combined.

Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said the DOE is simply giving guidance to the test developers.
“So we’re not an outlier in being politically correct. This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests,” Walcott said Monday He also says, “New York City’s list is longer because its student body is so diverse.”

Let me get this straight. On one hand, the school system states that the list is so long because the NYC student body is so diverse, yet they want to do away with the very things that make the entire city -no, the entire country so diverse. Of course, now that makes so much more sense.

Now they’re not talking about just young children. These word bans would be at every level of standardized testing, including middle and high school.
Do they truly believe these kids live in a closet?

Wait until these overly sensitive kids grow up and out into the real world.. won’t they be in for a surprise. How about preparing kids for the real world, a world that does include swimming pools, meth heads, unemployment and birthdays?

What they’re effectively doing is raising a generation of emotionally crippled adults that won’t know how to cope with the harshness of reality – i.e. the real world.

Here is the complete list of words that are up for execution (whoops, can I say that?):

Abuse –physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological (So much for questions on health)

Alcohol –beer and liquor, tobacco, or drugs (I wonder if the word hooch is acceptable?)

Birthday celebrations and birthdays  (Because no one was born on any particular day -ever. )

Bodily functions (Ahh.. the dreaded fart)

Cancer – and other diseases (Too scary. So much for health and science testing)

Catastrophes/disasters – tsunamis and hurricanes (It may give the kiddos that have never heard of them nightmares)

Celebrities (Ok, they got me there. I wouldn’t want to discuss most celebrities either. Now don’t get your feelings hurt, I did say MOST, not all.)

Children dealing with serious issues (Kids can only handle unicorns and rainbows)

Cigarettes – and other smoking paraphernalia (Because they may give you cancer and that’s another banned word)

Computers in the home – acceptable in a school or library setting (Little Suzie had to walk to the library to use the computer, because they don’t have one at home, just three Obama phones)

Crime (Never happens in NYC, so why even mention it?)

Death and disease (Might as well ban it. You can’t use cancer or crime)

Divorce (How dare the system make the kids with parents feel guilty about the kids with just a baby daddy?)

Evolution (We can’t let kids think there may be different points of view)

Expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes (There can’t be haves and have nots – just ask any liberal)

Gambling involving money (Hey, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas -right?)

Halloween (Damn those Pagan rituals.. or maybe someone will get their feelings hurt when the Great Pumpkin doesn’t come to visit?)

Homelessness  (Those aren’t homeless people in NYC, they’re sidewalk warmers – is that more an acceptable term?)

Homes with swimming pools (See Above – the Have and the Have Nots)

Hunting ( I was sad when the hunter killed Bambi’s mom too, but I got over it)

Junk food ( I had 3 Oreos. Billy took 2.  How many fingers did Billy have left after I chased him down and caught him? )

In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge (What..Seriously? No mention of Obama Golf? Oh the humanity!)

Loss of employment (Interesting how welfare isn’t on the banned list)

Nuclear weapons ( Question 2: Who said, “We seek the total elimination one day of :: banned word:: from the face of the Earth.”
1. Ronald Reagan 2. Ahmadinejad  3. Kim Jong Un)

Occult topics -i.e. fortune-telling ( I guess the non-Gypsy kids wouldn’t get it)

Parapsychology ( I guess any mention of Ivy League Duke University’s Parapsychology Department is out of the question – literally)

Politics (and that’s where low information voters come from)

Pornography (On a school test? Who does that anyway?)

Poverty (Why give kids the silly idea that with an education and a good work ethic, they may be able to get themselves out of a lifetime of it? That would be just silly.)

Rap Music (Anyone remember The Sugar Hill Gang? I said a hip hop the hippie the hippie to the hip hip hop, a you dont stop…)

Religion ( I don’t think I saw Atheism on the list. Imagine no religion… I wonder if you can.. )

Religious holidays and festivals -including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan (Is Festivus safe?)

Rock-and-Roll  (So you ban the word Rock and Roll, but not Justin Beiber?)

Running away (I wonder how that would go on a test – Johnny ran away from CPS 10 times. The police brought him back 2 times. How many times did Johnny escape?)

Sex (Storks bring babies and I’m not seeing abortion on the list of banned words)

Slavery (Riddle me this Batman – On a standardized test, how do you test knowledge of world history without mentioning slavery?)

Terrorism (They’re not terrorist, they’re freedom fighters!)

Television and video games (How about – Television and video games, turn them off and go outside)

Traumatic material – including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters
(I always found leftist particularly upsetting, yet they still exist)

Vermin – rats and roaches (Try living in NYC and not mention them. Good luck with that.)

Violence (Kumbya my Lord.. Kumbya…)

War and bloodshed (You’re kidding me – No questions about War for Oil?)

Weapons – guns, knives, etc. (Well so much for teaching the 2nd Amendment. I’m surprised the word Constitution isn’t banned -yet)

Witchcraft, sorcery, etc. (Sorry Harry Potter, no more Quidditch for you)

Oh please, they just want to promote an everyone is equal, utopian society where no one has more or less than anybody else, and if they do, it’s not fair. It’s good to share the wealth- you know spread it around. So let’s start indoctrinating the kids – get them while their young.

What do you think about the war on words? Let me know in the comments below 

URGENT ACTION ALERT — Urge North Carolina Gov. to Sign Anti-Sharia Bill HB 522

There have been more than 50 cases in 23 states in which judges have applied foreign law, depriving people of their constitutional rights.
No Sharia Law In America!

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory is facing a tough decision – whether to veto a bill that prohibiting judges from considering foreign law, including Islamic Sharia law. Although there shouldn’t be a need for this law, sadly there is. There have been more than 50 cases in 23 states in which judges have applied foreign law, depriving people of their constitutional rights. Often women and children wind up the victims when Sharia law is applied. This is without a doubt unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped liberal judges.
Read More On: Sharia Law In American State Courts [PDF File]

North Carolina Muslims hope they can persuade the Republican governor to veto the bill, according to The State.com
Muslims oppose the effort because they think it is motivated by intolerance and say it could infringe on other religious groups. .
But others say measures banning the use of “foreign laws” are targeting Sharia law, not other religions – Nonsense!

On U.S. soil, we must all embrace the laws of this country via the Constitution, and not demand enforcement of rules and regulations left in other cultures. Many Sharia law problems in the United States involve cases of women being beaten by their Muslim husbands and judges ruling that because the men were not accustomed to U.S. laws against spousal abuse, they cannot be convicted.

CAIR sent out a national “action alert” urging Muslims to call and email McCrory to ask him to veto the bill. Defending Sharia law from U.S. restrictions is one of CAIR’s top agenda items, according to its March 2012 statement announcing a “community toolkit to challenge ‘Anti-Sharia’ bills.”

---

WE MUST TAKE ACTION TODAY!

If McCrory signs the bill, North Carolina would become the seventh state to have an anti-Sharia law, according to TheState.com, joining Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Alabama lawmakers approved a similar constitutional amendment, which will be on the ballot for voters to consider in 2014.

                                                                                                                                                     

As Americans, especially Americans living in North Carolina, we MUST take action now. House Bill 522, titled Foreign Laws/Protect Constitutional Rights,  has been ratified and sent to Governor McCrory for signature as of July 26, 2013.
Please take a moment to email Governor Pat McCrory through this email form on the Governor’s web page  asking him to sign HB 522  The Anti-Sharia Bill.
We MUST let him know that as Americans we say,“NO FOREIGN LAWS IN AMERICA!”
Please be respectful when contacting the Governor, but make sure he knows you support HB522.

You can also contact Governor Pat McCrory’s office by:
PHONE: (919) 814-2000
or FAX: (919) 733-2120
TWITTER: @PatMcCroryNC

Obama’s Executive Order – HIV Care Continuum Initiative

Yes, Obama just signed an executive order that “recommends” clinicians screen all people ages 15 to 65 years for HIV.
Never forget – you have the right to say NO.  Never, ever be intimidated by any physician no matter how strongly he/she recommends a treatment, test or otherwise. Do what is right for YOU.

For Immediate Release

July 15, 2013

Executive Order — HIV Care Continuum Initiative

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

ACCELERATING IMPROVEMENTS IN HIV PREVENTION AND CARE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE HIV CARE CONTINUUM INITIATIVE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government to effectively respond to the ongoing domestic HIV epidemic, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Addressing the domestic HIV epidemic is a priority of my Administration. In 2010, the White House released the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy (Strategy), setting quantitative goals for reducing new HIV infections, improving health outcomes for people living with HIV, and reducing HIV-related health disparities. The Strategy will continue to serve as the blueprint for our national response to the domestic epidemic. It has increased coordination, collaboration, and accountability across executive departments and agencies (agencies) with regard to addressing the epidemic. It has also focused our Nation’s collective efforts on increasing the use of evidence-based approaches to prevention and care among populations and in regions where HIV is most concentrated.

Since the release of the Strategy, additional scientific discoveries have greatly enhanced our understanding of how to prevent and treat HIV. Accordingly, further Federal action is appropriate in response to these new developments. For example, a breakthrough research trial supported by the National Institutes of Health showed that initiating HIV treatment when the immune system was relatively healthy reduced HIV transmission by 96 percent. In addition, evidence suggests that early treatment may reduce HIV-related complications. These findings highlight the importance of prompt HIV diagnosis, and because of recent advances in HIV testing technology, HIV can be detected sooner and more rapidly than ever before.

Based on these and other data, recommendations for HIV testing and treatment have changed. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that clinicians screen all individuals ages 15 to 65 years for HIV, and the Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines for Use of Antiretroviral Agents now recommends offering treatment to all adolescents and adults diagnosed with HIV.

Furthermore, ongoing implementation of the Affordable Care Act provides a historic opportunity for Americans to access affordable, quality health care. The Act is expanding access to recommended preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, including HIV testing, and, beginning in 2014, insurance

companies will not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including HIV. Starting October 1, 2013, Americans can select the coverage that best suits them through the new Health Insurance Marketplace, and coverage will begin January 1, 2014.

Despite progress in combating HIV, important work remains. Since the publication of the Strategy, data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there are significant gaps along the HIV care continuum — the sequential stages of care from being diagnosed to receiving optimal treatment. Nearly one-fifth of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States are undiagnosed; one-third are not linked to medical care; nearly two-thirds are not engaged in ongoing care; and only one-quarter have the virus effectively controlled, which is necessary to maintain long-term health and reduce risk of transmission to others.

In light of these data, we must further clarify and focus our national efforts to prevent and treat HIV infection. It is the policy of my Administration that agencies implementing the Strategy prioritize addressing the continuum of HIV care, including by accelerating efforts to increase HIV testing, services, and treatment along the continuum. This acceleration will enable us to meet the goals of the Strategy and move closer to an AIDS-free generation.

Sec. 2. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Initiative. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Initiative (Initiative), to be overseen by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. The Initiative will mobilize and coordinate Federal efforts in response to recent advances regarding how to prevent and treat HIV infection. The Initiative will support further integration of HIV prevention and care efforts; promote expansion of successful HIV testing and service delivery models; encourage innovative approaches to addressing barriers to accessing testing and treatment; and ensure that Federal resources are appropriately focused on implementing evidence-based interventions that improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 3. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Working Group. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Working Group (Working Group) to support the Initiative. The Working Group shall coordinate Federal efforts to improve outcomes nationally across the HIV care continuum.

(a) Membership. The Working Group shall be co-chaired by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy and the Secretary of Health and Human Services or designee (Co-Chairs). In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Working Group shall consist of representatives from:

(i) the Department of Justice;

(ii) the Department of Labor;

(iii) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iv) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(v) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(vi) the Office of Management and Budget; and

(vii) other agencies and offices, as designated by the Co-Chairs.

(b) Consultation. The Working Group shall consult with the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, as appropriate.

(c) Functions. As part of the Initiative, the Working Group shall:

(i) request and review information from agencies describing efforts to improve testing, care, and treatment outcomes, and determine if there is appropriate emphasis on addressing the HIV care continuum in relation to other work concerning the domestic epidemic;

(ii) review research on improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(iii) obtain input from Federal grantees, affected communities, and other stakeholders to inform strategies to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(iv) identify potential impediments to improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum, including for populations at greatest risk for HIV infection, based on the efforts undertaken pursuant to paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subsection;

(v) identify opportunities to address issues identified pursuant to paragraph (iv) of this subsection, and thereby improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;

(vi) recommend ways to integrate efforts to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum with other evidence-based strategies to combat HIV; and

(vii) specify how to better align and coordinate Federal efforts, both within and across agencies, to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

(d) Reporting.

(i) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall provide recommendations to the President on actions that agencies can take to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

(ii) Thereafter, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy shall include, as part of the annual report to the President pursuant to section 1(b) of my memorandum of July 13, 2010 (Implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy), a report prepared by the Working Group on

Government-wide progress in implementing this order. This report shall include a quantification of progress made in improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/15/executive-order-hiv-care-continuum-initiative

Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF): ‘CELEBRATE OUR GODLESS CONSTITUTION’ – Seriously?

In response to a pro-faith ad from The Hobby Lobby ad titled “In God We Trust”, The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has taken out their own full-page ad: ‘CELEBRATE OUR GODLESS CONSTITUTION’.

“The ads quote U.S. Founders and Framers on their strong views against religion in government, and often critical views on religion in general,” reads a press release announcing the atheist effort. “The ad features two revolutionaries and Deists, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin, and the first four presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.”

People reading the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune and other daily newspapers across America will likely be surprised when they are greeted with today’s atheist-laden history lesson.

“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” reads one of the quotes from a part of a treaty that was once signed by John Adams.

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other course,” another statement from Washington reads. And these are just two of the many.

See the full FFRF ad here

The Hobby Lobby ad  takes the opposite stand –  titled “In God We Trust,” it provides quotes showing the Founders’ pro-faith views. Among the quotes and information shared in the text are statements from President George Washington and Patrick Henry.

“It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor,” the nation’s first president is quoted as saying (this comes from a Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789).

“Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” – James Madison: Signer of the Constitution; Fourth President of the United States
A brief history lesson on the Establishment  Clause: The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

The Establishment Clause is followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
These two clauses make up what are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. But here’s the kicker – A notable precursor of the Establishment Clause was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The statute was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly in 1779. James Madison played an important role in its passage. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteed freedom of religion to people of all religious faiths, including Catholics and Jews as well as members of all Protestant denominations. I can not make it anymore clear than that. 

Our Godless Constitution? Hardly. This was all just another way for militant atheists to poke a stick in the eyes of anyone that believes in a higher power. 

Which brings me to this question: Is our country founded One Nation Under God?
To answer that question, I’ll leave you with this…

Leave your thoughts and comments below. You know my opinion, I’d like to hear yours.

excepts from The Blaze

Staples Backs Off After Banning NE Gun Dealer From Contest

 

This Nebraska gun shop was banned from a Staples contest because it promotes firearms

Office supply chain Staples is backing down after banning a Nebraska gun shop from entering a company contest.

Maple Creek Gunsmithing, a gun retailer in Fremont, tried to enter a Staples small business “Push it Forward” contest for a shot at winning a $50,000 marketing campaign. Instead, the owners got an email from Staples saying they couldn’t participate because their business promotes firearms and weapons.

Well, the little gun shop has since gotten some free publicity anyway, thanks to outrage from the gun community.

The gun shop owners — Travis Vonseggern and Bill Jackson — posted the Staples email on their Facebook page and wrote, “Wow we spent a ton of money with them and this is the support we get. We are never spending a dime in that store again and would encourage you to do the same.”

Vonseggern said the store has gotten calls and emails of support from across the country from people who are boycotting Staples.

“It’s pretty crazy,” he said.

He and Jackson opened the store in July of 2012 after meeting in school after he returned home from Iraq in 2006-2007 with a traumatic brain injury and Purple Heart. He said injuries were caused by IEDs, or improvised explosive devices. His time in combat made him appreciate his freedom in America.

The store is filled with “pro-second-amendment stuff,” he said.

“We stand pretty strong on our constitution and right to bear arms,” he said. “We both have a love for guns.

A candidate for governor in Nebraska, Sen. Charlie Janssen, saw their Facebook post and called on Staples to revise its contest criteria and allow legal gun retailers to participate.

“The targeting of those who legally buy and sell guns is totally unacceptable,” Janssen wrote in an email to supporters.

Janssen said the owners are Army veterans — Vonseggern has a Purple Heart — that he calls “great guys” who are well-respected in Fremont and offer gun training courses.

“They (run) a great business,” he told Nebraska Watchdog on Friday.

The Boston-based company has since apologized to the store owners, saying it erred and will allow the firearms industry to participate in future contests. Staples spokeswoman Carrie McElwee said the company posted a note on its Facebook page, saying, “We heard you!” and now realizes the rules of the contest were “too restrictive and kept out legitimate businesses.”

Staples said it can’t change the rules since the contest is already under way, but it will revise them to ensure future contests “are more inclusive and reflect our commitment to helping all small businesses.”

Janssen said Staples’ response “sends a good message.” He is a staunch supporter of Second Amendment rights, sponsoring a bill this year designed to thwart new federal restrictions on guns in Nebraska. The bill didn’t make it out of committee, but Janssen says a petition calling for action on the bill has so far garnered more than 10,000 signatures.

Ironically, Vonseggern figures the store has gotten at least $50,000 worth of free publicity, with guns coming in for repairs from around the  nation.

“I think we probably got more than that,” he said.

 

via watchdog.org

 

NSA Prism Program – Helpful or Hurtful?

Since the Prism program has become public, we’ve heard from both sides – both for and against. I’m not going to try to convince you either way, both sides have valid points.
I will say I may have been swayed to support the Intel community, but with this administration…now I’m not so sure. I will admit, there’s a fine line between privacy and counter-terrorism.

First let me explain what PRISM is and what it’s supposed to do.

NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says. More specifically, it’s a data mining program.

The Guardian UK has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims “collection directly from the servers” of major US service providers such as Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet providers.

Unlike the collection of the Verizon call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the meta data,(meta data is technical information about communications traffic and network devices) although members of the Intelligence community state that only meta data is being collected. If this is true, it would be the first time President Obama was honest about anything – ever.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian UK request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

 The ACLU’s Mr. Jaffer had this to say about PRISM: “The stories published over the last two days make clear that the NSA now has direct access to every corner of Americans’ digital lives. Unchecked government surveillance presents a grave threat to democratic freedoms.” 

As far as oversight, a former member of the Intelligence Community has stated that PRISM is overseen by congress and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

Now let’s take a look at the other side of the coin…

The crucial point is here, from the Director of National Intelligence:

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

The information, the data, may be in the US as a result of the global spread of the internet and the physical location of servers. But the information cannot be about either a US citizen or someone who is in the US. And, if we’re prepared to be honest about matters, we do actually want the government to be keeping an eye on foreigners in foreign lands. Which is what they’re doing.

Has the program actually thwarted a terrorist attack? 

Nobody knows. The US government has said that the monitoring schemes it runs are necessary to defend against terrorist threats. But it hasn’t cited any threats that were thwarted – unsurprising, given that the program has only just become public. One member of the intelligence community has stated that they have used collected information to stop a planned attack, but because of security reasons he could not elaborate.According to John Arquilla, writer for National Security at foreignpolicy.com:

“The tantalizing prospect of PRISM, and of the whole “finding effort,” is to deny the terrorists the virtual haven that they enjoy throughout the world’s telecommunications spaces — indeed, throughout the whole of the “infosphere,” which includes cyberspace. The piercing of this veil would mark a true turning point in the war on terror, for al Qaeda and other networks simply cannot function with any kind of cohesion, or at any sort of reasonable operational tempo if their communications become insecure. Cells and nodes would be ripped up, operatives killed or captured, and each loss would no doubt yield information that imperiled the network further. Even if al Qaeda resorted to the drastic measure of moving messages, training, and financial information by courier, operations would be so slowed as to cripple the organization. And even couriers can be flagged on “no fly” lists or caught boarding tramp steamers and such. So for all the furor caused by the PRISM revelations, my simple recommendation is to take a deep breath before crying out in protest. Think first about how the hider/finder dynamic in the war on terror has driven those responsible for our security to bring to bear the big guns of big data on the problem at hand. Think also about whether a willingness to allow some incursions into our privacy might lead to an improved ability to provide for our security, and where that equilibrium point between privacy and security might be. And last, think about the world as it might be without such a sustained effort to find the hidden — to detect, track, and disrupt the terrorists. That would be a world in which they stay on their feet and fighting, and in which they remain secure enough, for long enough, to acquire true weapons of mass destruction. Those of us in the national security business, who know that networks so armed will be far harder to deter than nations ever were, believe that big data approaches like PRISM and its forebears, have been and remain essential elements in the unrelenting and increasingly urgent effort to find the hidden.”

I’ll admit, I’m sitting on the fence on this one – for now- at least until I get more facts..

What do you think? Is our government over reaching again or is this program necessary to keep us safe from further planned terrorist attacks? I’d really like to hear your opinions.

Supreme Court Upholds Law Allowing DNA Samples Without Warrant

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, that it is constitutional for police to take DNA swabs of felony arrestees–who have not yet been convicted of anything–without a warrant. It’s not whether the government can take DNA from people convicted of a crime. All states require DNA collection from individuals convicted of a felony. Instead, the issue is whether it’s constitutional to take DNA samples from people prior to their trial. The Supreme Court ruled yes.
So much for innocent until proven guilty and our 4th Amendment rights.

So what’s the difference between taking a DNA sample and fingerprints?  One is actually used for identification and one is not. It’s falsely claimed by the majority om the Supreme Court that DNA swabbing is necessary to identify the suspect. As Justice Scalia notes in his dissent, “These DNA searches have nothing to do with identification.” By law, DNA testing only starts after arraignment and bail decisions are already made. At that time, the suspect has long been identified. 

Scalia says that DNA analysis can take months, while the “average response time for an electronic criminal fingerprint submission is about 27 minutes.” Clearly, it is unreasonable to wait several months before a suspect is identified.

What if DNA evidence is needed to help solve the case? As Senator Ted Cruz who opposes the ruling writes, “If the government has good cause for needing the DNA sample—such as trying to match DNA at a crime scene to a particular person where there is other corroborating evidence—then the government can ask a judge for a search warrant. That’s what our Framers intended—judicial checks on extensive government power to invade our personal lives.”

What part of this does SCOTUS not understand? Oh wait…never mind.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that it’s necessary for identification before a conviction or do you believe that the Fourth Amendment was just trampled on? Let me know what you think.

 

Eric Holder – The Moses of Our Time?

That was actually said by a left wing pundit and MSNBC contributor Michael Eric Dyson.
“He’s the chief law giver of the United States of America , so to speak. He’s the Moses of our time, and at least for this administration.”
Seriously? I couldn’t make this up if I tried….

Holder is the chief law giver? I thought Congress gave us laws, and the DOJ was supposed to make sure they are universally and judiciously enforced. He’s “the Moses of our time”? The only thing Eric Holder parted like the Red Sea was Congress. I wonder whether Holder consulted the Ten Commandments before potentially perjuring himself in his May 15 testimony when he claimed that he not been involved with any “potential prosecution of the press” for disclosing classified material?

Leave a comment and tell me what you think. I know I can’t be the only one that thinks someone has lost their mind.

Video: Dem lawmakers exposed when reporters pose as homeless

James O’Keefe’s latest Project Veritas  — the hypocrisy of liberal lawmakers

At issue is California’s “Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act,” a bill backed by Democratic Assemblymen Roger Dickinson and Tom Ammiano, which would grant any homeless person the right “to move freely, rest, eat, share, accept, or give food or water, and solicit donations in public spaces,” according to The Daily Caller.

“The effect of this proposed legislation,” James O’Keefe during the video narration, “is that homeless people would be entitled to sleep or solicit donations on any public sidewalk.”

In an interview withThe Daily Caller, O’Keefe explained, “Essentially, the bill gives homeless people a ‘right’ to sleep out in front of your house. We wanted to see how the assemblyman would react if he had homeless people sleeping out in front of his house.

 

DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights

My free speech is not negotiable.

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

via DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights | Judicial Watch.

Are you scared yet? You should be. This isn’t islamophobia or fear mongering, this is a blatant infringement of  The Bill of Rights – YOUR First Amendment right to free speech and free press. We can not allow this to happen…ever.

First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.
When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all our other liberties are endangered.

We’re sliding down that slippery slope and fast.
As Americans, this shouldn’t even be open for debate.

We already have laws in place for extending protections-
As originally intended, freedom of speech never meant a perversion of polite society. You can’t disturb a religious service with impunity, for example, and of course deliberately creating a panic by falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is not a freedom of speech issue, but an incitement to riot. Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech.

It’s already happened in the UK. – A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby. Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature. He was charged with an offense of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

Two other men from the UK were released on bail by British authorities after anti-Islam/Muslim/Terrorist comments on Twitter. British Police had nothing to say to Muslims if they attempted any copycat terrorist attacks, but warned other people to be careful about what they write on twitter. Police say ‘consequences could be serious.’

Posting your opinion on Facebook, a Tweet or even a blog post and you can face criminal charges. Is that what you want here? It’s not such a big imaginary leap to being dragged out of your home in the middle of the night for being critical of our government.

An Iraqi citizen having his tongue cut out for verbal dissent.

UPDATE Saturday June 1st: Meeting on How the Feds Might Prosecute Those Who Post “Inflammatory Documents” About Muslims