Parents: Politics and Education are set to collide in your child’s classroom

On September 8, President Obama will be broadcasting into public schools across the nation. So instead of learning math, U.S. history or the parts of speech, children will be seated in front of computer screens or televisions watching Obama explain his political agenda.

No one really knows what the content of the speech will specifically be, but the U.S. Department of Education has developed "a menu of classroom activities" on its Web site to help the students to know what to listen to and think about the President’s speech.

This gives us a glimpse of what the content might be.

• What is the president trying to tell me?
• What is the president asking me to do?
• What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

Other questions also emphasize the importance of listening to the president and elected officials.

After the speech, teachers are to ask students:
• What do you think the president wants us to do?
• Does the speech make you want to do anything?
• Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

Parents should be cautious of the mixing of political indoctrination and education. School is a place to learn about multiplication, the states that make up the U.S., nouns and verbs and basic skills.

Some parents are considering pulling their children out of school the day of the speech. Are they being reactionary? No. They are being cautious.

Schools are leaving the basics of “Reading, Writing and Arithmetic” for a more radical agenda. For example, Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah showed the “I Pledge” video that features more than 50 Hollywood celebrities offering their support for President Obama's policies to the students at a school assembly on Aug. 28.

The video is about pledging to "to be of service to Barack Obama," "to never give anyone the finger when I'm driving again," "to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid” and “to advance stem-cell research.” The film was played for Obama during his inaugural celebration.

Can we really trust this administration not to use this tax-funded speech to promote its policies?

White House to "harvest" personal data from social networks

Are you on Twitter or Facebook? Do you put videos on YouTube? If so, Obama’s got your personal data.

The Obama administration is hiring a technology contractor to harvest personal information on millions of Americans using publicly accessible sites. According to the solicitation for bids posted by the White House New Media Office, “publicly-accessible sites may include, but are not limited to, social networking sites.”

According to the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) that uncovered the plan, the information that will be captured includes comments, emails, tag lines, audio and video. The sites that will be targeted include MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and more — any space where the White House “maintains a presence,” NLPC states.

The Obama administration has continued to makes efforts to collect information about citizens. In early August, the White House asked people to send them emails about anything they see "about health insurance reform that seems fishy." Outrage from citizens caused the administration to pull back on that effort.

According to World Net Daily, a ban on tracking by the federal government on Internet users has been in place since 2000, however this White House wants to lift the ban.

It appears that the Obama administration may be set to violate civil liberties and freedom of speech for political gain.

President Obama to heart patient — take a pill

Obama sees the need to get rid of the “waste” in our medical system, which seems to mean those who require more medical care.

When Obama is asked by Jane, if her 100-year-old mother (now 105), would have gotten a pacemaker under his plan: “Well now that's a tough one ... that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take ...a pill.”

In the Health Care reform bill (H.R. 3200) Section 123, it states that a government health benefits advisory committee will be established whose duties will determine “covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes.”

Your doctor will then refer to the health benefit rationing chart to determine if you get treatment to extend your life — or “the pill.”

Health treatment options should be determined by the patient, their families and doctors — not a government committee. I wonder if Senator Kennedy would have been told that surgery was not an option at his age and he just needed to take a pain pill.


The video below is President Obama responding to Jane


HR 3200 text

Healthcare or euthanasia?

According to Betsy McCaughey, former Lt. Gov. of New York and Health policy expert, ObamaCare would be hazardous to your health, especially if you are a senior.

After reading the 1,018 pages of the proposed Health bill, which most members of Congress have not done, McCaughey said in the New York Post:

“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.”

The push for this end-of-life focus in President Obama’s more than $1 trillion proposal is probably related to the health care costs because we are living long lives and therefore have more health issues. Obama’s administration sees that ending a life is less costly than preserving it.

Perhaps that is also why this proposal also presents the greatest threat to unborn children since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Both versions of the health-care proposals expand abortion through mandated abortion coverage in all health plans, mandated recruitment of abortionists and increased federal funding.

Health care reform may turn into health care rationing for the unborn and seniors who are seen as a “burden” on society.

Ginsburg: Abortion used for reducing certain populations?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is raising bloggerbrows with her comments in the New York Times magazine about Roe v. Wade, which some describe as having racist overtones.

The interview that appears in this weekend’s edition featured her thoughts on numerous topics, including her reluctance of restricting access to abortions through waiting periods and other means. When asked to elaborate about her thoughts on the landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortions, Ginsburg responded:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of,” the justice said.

How much is too many?
Which populations would that entail?
Who determines who is eliminated?
Do taxpayers get to fund this targeted extinction plan?

Critics of the comment say it smacks of eugenics, the same philosophy often attributed to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, which has grown into the nation’s large abortion provider.

Massachusetts files federal suit over the definition of marriage

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a federal suit July 8, on behalf of eight homosexual couples, over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted to protect states rights to define marriage as they see fit so that no state can force the redefinition of marriage on another state.

It appears that Coakley wants taxpayers from every state to fund gay marriage benefits in Massachusetts.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton.

This is the first time a state has challenged the Defense of Marriage Act — a foreshadow of the legal battles yet to come.

Planned Parenthood seeking $36 million from financially strapped California

The California state budget is estimated to have a $24 billion deficit. This is resulting in teacher layoffs, library closures and reductions in prescription drug coverage for senior citizens — but Planned Parenthood is calling on California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to restore $36 million in proposed cuts to family planning funds.

While most companies struggle to survive in the current economy, recent annual reports show that business has never been better for Planned Parenthood and profits have never been so high.

Planned Parenthood claims that no taxpayer funds actually pay for abortions. Pro-life advocates dispute that claim saying that government grants for family planning free up other funds for Planned Parenthood to use for abortion services.

It is obvious that Planned Parenthood, which netted more than one billion dollars in profits last year and which is now having a 21 percent jump in the number of women they perform abortions on in a weekly basis, does not need any help from taxpayers.

More than $349 million of Planned Parenthood’s revenues came in government grants and contracts.

Defunding Planned Parenthood not only helps with the budget deficit, but can also allow more state money for education, Alzheimer’s patients, state parks and economic support for families hit hard by the economy.

Lawyers challenge Prop. 8 in federal court

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two-high profile attorneys who represented George W. Bush and Al Gore during the contested 2000 election have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, California’s constitutional protection of traditional marriage.

The suit was filed May 22, several days before the California’s State Supreme Court, upheld the amendment by affirming its constitutionality. The case, filed by former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies, a former lawyer for Gore, alleges the state constitution’s ban of same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Protect Marriage coalition that supported Proposition 8, said the new federal suit is based on “highly questionable grounds” since there is no federal right to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution.

“We are treating this case seriously,” Pugno said, adding that he is filing a motion to intervene in the case, a similar step he took with the California high court.

“Without our intervention, the entire legal defense of Prop. 8 in the federal court will fall upon the California Attorney General, a troubling prospect since he has stated firmly that he believes that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and should be invalidated,” Pugno said. “We are optimistic that the federal court will allow us to intervene and provide a legal defense for Prop 8.”

Ironically, numerous gay rights groups are unhappy with the Olson-Boies suit, saying it could jeopardize a long-held plan to win same-sex marriage rights state by state.

“We have only one shot at the U.S. Supreme Court, and any attorneys bringing a case that will affect the freedom and legal status of an entire community bear a very heavy responsibility to be certain they have fully considered the consequences,” Shannon Minter, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and who served as lead counsel for the Prop. 8 challenge, said in an e-mail statement.

An initial hearing in the case is expected in July.

Proposition 8 is upheld

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — In a victory for California voters, the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, approved by ballot in November. The May 26 court ruling, posted just minutes ago, means that the state constitution legally restricts marriage as between only one man and one woman.

At the same time, however, the court also upheld the same-sex marriages conducted during a brief legal window from last June to Election Day. That window was opened last spring when the same court ruled that Proposition 22—a 2000 voter-approved initiative that changed state law to protect traditional marriage—was unconstitutional.

Three separate challenges to the amendment were heard during a March hearing in San Francisco. Even before the high court ruling, however, gay rights leaders said that if their legal challenge was thwarted by the justices, they would try to override the constitutional amendment at the ballot box as early as 2010.

Monitor our Web site for ongoing coverage of this story.

Searching for ways to cut the deficit? Defund Planned Parenthood

Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp has found a way to save money in this tenuous financial climate — defund Planned Parenthood. He stated “This year Kansas taxpayers paid out nearly $300,000 to subsidize this entity.”

The nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, recently released their annual report, this one covering the fiscal year 2007-2008.

The report reveals that taxpayer funding has increased from about $337 million to just under $350 million.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released the May 2009 budget review estimating that the federal government incurred a deficit of close to $800 billion for the first seven months of fiscal year 2009 more than four times the year-to-date gap of $153.5 billion in April 2008.

The U.S. deficit projections, which are up $89 billion from the White House's original estimates, will force the government to borrow almost half — 46 cents of every dollar it spends this year.

Among the items in the report: the number of annual abortions performed by Planned Parenthood is up over 5% to 305,310.

While Planned Parenthood’s report shows that adoption referrals are up from the previous report, they report only 4,912 referrals. In comparison to the 305,310 abortions report, that is more than 62 abortions for every one adoption referral.

Huleskamp’s amendment has passed through the Kansas House. If Governor Mark Parkinson signs the bill, Kansas will join six other states in the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Not only does defunding Planned Parenthood help deflect budget deficits, but perhaps that money could be used for educating children or feeding families that are unemployed.