AZ Governor Jan Brewer Signs Bill to Allow Bible Classes in Public Schools

By Michael Gryboski via Christian Post

Governor while meeting with United States Pres...Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law a bill that allows the  establishing of elective classes that focus on the Bible and its influence on  western civilization.

Sponsored by State Representative Terri Proud, House Bill 2563 was passed by  a 21 to 9 vote in the state Senate last Thursday and signed by Brewer on  Tuesday.

According to HB 2563, “A school district or charter school may offer an  elective course pertaining to how the Bible has influenced western culture for  pupils in grades nine through twelve.”

“A teacher who instructs a course offered under this section in its  appropriate historical context and in good faith shall be immune from civil  liability and disciplinary action,” reads the bill.

The Bible class elective would teach students, among other things, “the  contents of the Old Testament and the New Testament,” “the history recorded by  the Old Testament and the New Testament,” and the “influence of the Old  Testament and the New Testament on laws, history, government, literature, art,  music, customs, morals, values and culture.”

HB 2563 was not without its critics, as church-state groups like Americans  United for the Separation of Church and State openly opposed the bill’s passage.  Joe Conn, spokesman for Americans United, told The Christian Post that he was  “disappointed” by the signing of the bill.

“This bill is not about improving academic achievement; it’s about  introducing religious indoctrination into the schools and currying favor with  conservative religious voters,” said Conn.

“I think most public schools will decide not to offer Bible courses. They are  already strapped for funds, so I doubt if they’ll want to use scarce resources  to intervene in such a controversial topic.”

While Conn believes that the “Bible obviously played an important role in  history,” he also felt that having a social studies class about it would be  difficult given the many Bible translations and interpretations.

“Many…denominations use different versions of the Bible and come to  dramatically different theological understandings about what it means,” said  Conn.

“It is very difficult for a public school to teach about the Bible without  wandering into constitutional and religious difficulties.”

Rep. Proud, the chief sponsor of the bill, told CP in an earlier interview  that she “worked with various attorneys and other individuals to ensure this  bill is constitutionally sound.”

“Many professors from various universities like Harvard, Yale etc. have  stated that biblical knowledge is a key factor to a successful education,” said  Proud.

“As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said: ‘[It] might well be said that  one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the  history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of  civilization.’”

With the bill now officially a law, Arizona becomes the sixth state to allow  school districts to create elective classes studying the Bible. The other states  are Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and South Carolina.

Read more at Christian Post.

The Amazing Presidential Power-Grab (And Disregard for Rule of Law – He Makes Up His Own)

By Kyle Stone via The American Thinker

With  little consternation or lasting opposition, the Obama administration has  dramatically usurped congressional power at the expense of popular will and the rule of law.  Numerous dastardly bureaucratic coups — motivated by the  president’s progressive and political agenda — have amazingly failed to  engender a serious response.

What  began as a trickle of presidential power-grabs has turned into a cascade of  executive roguery.  A list of them is worth some review and  reflection:

  •   In June 2012, President Obama circumvented Congress’s refusal to pass the DREAM  Act by instituting a portion of it on his own. Through executive order, the  administration has directed federal officers to no longer deport large swathes  of younger illegal immigrants, with an inclusive  net that could impact over a million. Conservative sage Charles Krauthammer summed  it up pithily: “This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president  himself say[ing] months ago, ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws  on the books.’ Well, I have news for the president — the  laws remain on the books. They haven’t changed.”
  •   Earlier this month, the Obama administration quietly stripped away a central  component of the 1996 bipartisan welfare reform act — the lynchpin work  requirements — passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President  Clinton. The regulations allow states to  substitute education programs as “work” for their residents to enjoy welfare  benefits. Self-described “neo-liberal” pundit Mickey Kaus reacted  to the “surprising (and possibly illegal) attempt to grant waivers of the work  requirements” as follows:

A  great deal of effort was put into defining what qualified as work, and making  sure that work actually meant work and not the various BS activities (including  BS training activities) the welfare bureaucracies often preferred to substitute  for work[.] … To the extent the administration’s action erodes the actual and  perceived toughness of the work requirements, which it does, it sends the  opposite and wrong signal.

In  effect, the administration is taking the teeth out of the reform.  So long  as states believe that new methods might achieve employment goals in the long run, the feds can approve the  changes, and those not working can enjoy sustained welfare benefits.  All  this without consulting those charged with actually making  law.

  •   The so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) is one mammoth legislative concession to  executive-branch lawmaking. The Act is hardly a law at all, but rather a series  of directives and mandates, providing the secretary of HHS (i.e., the Obama  administration) immeasurable power in implementing the Act’s policy aims. One  example from earlier this year is the HHS religious mandate, requiring employers  to include abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception in their  employee health insurance. The regulation  applies to religious institutions like Catholic hospitals, schools, and  charities — regardless of whether these institutions object to such services on  moral grounds. Want to find the portion of the 2,700-page bill that deals with  this issue? Good luck. It’s not there.
  •   Less publicized examples are numerous. The Wall Street Journal‘s  Kimberly Strassel, in a recent superb  column, outlined a laundry list a few weeks ago:

o   The president opposes a federal law  criminalizing medical marijuana.  No problem — he merely instructed his  Justice Department not to prosecute violators.

o   He disapproves of the federal Defense  of Marriage Act.  No need to work with Congress on repealing it — he  merely stopped defending it in court.

o   With no love for the federal No Child  Left Behind Act, he ordered his Education Department to issue waivers “that are  patently inconsistent with the statute.”

o   Congress falls  short of passing cap-and-trade?  The administration had the Environmental  Protection Agency enforce something similar though unilateral  regulations.

o   Congress demurred in taking up “net  neutrality” internet regulations, so the president’s Federal Communications  Commission did it instead.

This  list could go on.

When  presidents past overstepped constitutional or statutory boundaries, the Fourth  Estate would lecture on “imperial” presidencies.  For President Obama,  however, the media’s progressive core prompts compliments of bravery and  perseverance, while journalistic duty turns a blind eye to procedural  lawlessness.  One wonders what their reaction would have been had President  George W. Bush and his administration acted similarly.

Politically  combatting this lawlessness is difficult, as a public debate about procedural  malfeasance invariably morphs into disputes of the substantive policy itself.   Attempts to highlight procedural strong-arming are blurred by political  attacks — “wars” on women, immigrants, the poor, and the like.  It may  also be said by political strategists that when one argues about procedure, he  has already lost the policy debate.

Political  challenges, however, are no excuse for allowing this administration to peel away  constitutional checks and balances.  A coordinated effort by conservative  and Republican (big “R” and small) causes must be brought to bear to inform the  voting public on these knavish executive end-runs.  John Adam famously  warned that our Constitution sought “a government of laws and not of men.”   Process matters.  Our constitutional framework depends on  it.

Kyle  Stone is a practicing attorney in Chicago, co-chair of Maverick  PAC Chicago, and board member for the Chicago Young  Republicans.  He can be reached at  kyle.evan.stone@gmail.com.

Read more at The American Thinker

San Diego Newspaper Rates Obama as Worst President – EVER

Via Union Tribune San Diego

Editor’s note: It’s a presidential election year, so we thought we’d weigh in with our list of the five worst presidents.  We start with, yes, the current incumbent. See our other choices at U-T Opinion online.

(Kasey’s note:  We all know Carter is second, check out the other three!)

He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.

He railed against the heavy spending and big deficits of his predecessor, but blithely backed budgets that had triple the deficits ever seen in American history.

He promised a smart, sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system, but ended up giving us a Byzantine mess promoted to the public with myths: that offering subsidized care to tens of millions of people would save money; that people would keep their own doctors; that access to care wouldn’t change; and that rationing would never happen.

He promised a more sophisticated approach to the economy than that of his predecessor, but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees.

He offered hosannas to genius entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs in his prepared remarks, but when speaking off the cuff betrayed his faculty-lounge view of the world, saying of businesspeople, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”

He swore to bring overdue oversight and honest accounting to the corporate world, but made flagrantly dishonest claims about General Motors paying back its government loans that would have triggered a criminal fraud investigation in the private sector.

He promised to set a high new standard for ethics in the White House, but used a baffling claim of executive privilege to shield his embattled attorney general from the repercussions of a cover-up involving the death of a federal law enforcement officer.

He denounced his predecessor for permitting harsh interrogation tactics with suspected terrorists, but once in office somehow concluded that a better, more moral approach would just be to use drones to assassinate such suspects without getting any information from them.

He presented himself as a shrewd student of Washington politics, but once in office displayed a counterproductive standoffishness to many Democratic lawmakers eager to embrace him, never developing the broad range of personal relationships that often mark a successful presidency.

He ran as a unifying force who would bring in a new era of civility and racial healing to Washington, but once in office embraced ugly, Chicago-style political hardball that saw nothing wrong with his supporters’ loathsome practice of depicting opposition to his policies as being driven by racism.

He constantly offered praise for the wisdom and insights of the American public, but reacted to the broad discontent over Obamacare, high unemployment and vast deficits by saying it was a failure of his administration to properly explain its glorious record to a confused populace – not a predictable reaction to his struggles and ineffectiveness.

And in December 2011 – at a time in which one-quarter of American adults who wanted full-time work couldn’t find it, after a year in which the federal deficit was a staggering $1.3 trillion – here was what Barack Obama had to say for himself in a CBS interview: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president, with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln.”

Unbelievable. If self-reverence were a crime, our current president would be facing a life sentence. For the good of America, let’s pray we have someone else in charge of the federal government come Jan. 20, 2013.

H/T Nice Deb

 

Obama Campaign Gears Up For Massive Voter Fraud

By  Via The Western Center for Journalism

Charlie Rangel, flanked by high-level Democrats, recently strutted up to the microphone declaring himself the winner against Hispanic opponent Adrian Espaillat in the race for New York’s 15th Congressional District. At least until his opponent discovered that polling places were illegally asking voters for ID, were turning away pro-Espaillat voters, and even were reporting zero votes to suppress the counts.

 

What a shocker: Charlie Rangel was involved in massive voter fraud and intimidation.

No one is surprised, really. Far-Left “Progressive” (i.e., socialist) Democrats have been involved in these tactics for years. Like Obama, Rangel was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America in 1996. Like Obama, Rangel has deep ties to the unions and Alinsky (ACORN-style) groups that are the shock troops of voter fraud.

Imagine if the tactics used in the Rangel/Espaillat race were used on a national scale. Where the entire Democratic National Committee (DNC), all the major unions, and all the “Progressive” groups were engaged in a massive voter fraud and voter intimidation campaign.

Well, we don’t have to imagine it as this is what occurred in 2008 with Obama supporters during the Democratic Primary, as countless poll workers, Hillary Clinton supporters, and simple bystanders extensively reported.

And the mainstream media did what they do best and ignored it.

Now imagine all the previous groups banded together with the power of the Obama presidency, the power of the DOJ, the power of all aligned city governments, etc., involved in a repeat of what we witnessed in 2008.

We will have an attack on our election process that makes the ballot stuffing and intimidation of 2008 look like child’s play.

Do we think Eric Holder is running around the country blathering about the evil of voter ID laws because he cares about minority voters? Holder is nowhere to be found when Espaillat, a Hispanic, is calling foul.

The Obama campaign and Eric Holder’s DOJ are gearing up for a tidal wave of voter fraud and intimidation that will drown this country with a corrupt election beyond resuscitation.

Both Obama and Eric Holder need to be impeached before this can occur.

Obamatax Video – Another Obama Lie – Individual Mandate IS a TAX!!!

Another lie from Obama and a great ad for Republicans – according to the Supreme Court the individual mandate IS a TAX!!!  If the Democrats keep denying it is a tax then I guess the whole thing is null and void!

Obamacare = Obamatax

By striking down the individual mandate as unconstitutional via the Commerce Clause, did Justice Roberts just force Obama and the Democrats in Congress to ‘own’ the massive tax hikes soon to be imposed on many middle class Americans? If so, has the Court just given Congress unlimited taxation powers? Has he paved the way for Conservatives in November?

Has Chief Justice John Roberts Forced Dems to ‘Own’ a Massive New Tax Hike Just Before Elections???

By Kasey Jachim

Many Conservatives are calling Chief Justice John Roberts a ‘traitor’ for upholding the individual mandate – the backbone of Obamacare.  Unlike many, I was not convinced today would be a slam-dunk victory for conservatives, especially in light of the Court’s immigration decision throwing Arizona under the bus - with the help of Justice Roberts.

Although I am very disappointed, I wonder whether or not there is a method to his apparent ‘madness’.  By striking down the individual mandate as unconstitutional via the Commerce Clause, did he just force Obama and the Democrats in Congress to ‘own’ the massive tax hikes soon to be imposed on many middle class Americans?  If so, has the Court just given Congress unlimited taxation powers?

“If courts agree that Congress can use its taxing authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, that decision will have huge ramifications, says Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. “If Congress could do this for this reason, [it] could do anything for this reason” as long as it can call the consequence for noncompliance a “penalty.”  Congress “could make you have an abortion. They can make you buy a car from [General Motors]. They can make you work in the defense industry,” Barnett adds.”   DC Bar

If individuals don’t ‘purchase’ health care, IRS can withhold tax returns and even impose fines and liens on their homes.  The Obama administration is going to have massive damage control ahead of them, especially since the President vehemently denied the individual mandate was a tax in a 2009 ABC interview.

According to Eric Erickson in Red State:

“…while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach.  In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers.  In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases.  On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now.  Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.”

Most Americans are already aware of the Democrats record of ‘Tax and Spend’.  Those on the receiving end love it because most of them do not pay taxes and are the recipients of the spending.  The Democrats will face a tougher battle in November and can no longer distance themselves from this Obamanation.

Did Justice Roberts just punt the ball back into the ‘political’ arena and out of the ‘constitutional’ arena?  In light of the Court’s decision, Republicans must now decide how to proceed with Obamacare.  There are many options floating around – Should they defund it?  Repeal it?  Repeal and replace it?

Let’s face it, as long as Harry Reid, his minions and Rinos have control of the Senate and there is a Democrat in the White House, none of the above are feasible.  The only way we can get out of this mess is to win them both in November.  I think Justice Roberts just helped pave the way!

Paybacks are hell and I think Justice Roberts just delivered his. If Obamacare had been overturned by the SC we would have seen a tremendous swelling of support and money for Obama and he would have had the momentum heading into November. Instead WE have the support, money and momentum!

Please let me know what you think…..

Herman Cain and Ken Blackwell to Eric Holder: States Should Not Have to Sue Government to Protect Citizens’ Sacred Right to Vote.

Herman Cain and Ken Blackwell join forces to protect your vote. Voter ID laws offer a “reasonable safeguard” to protect against voter fraud and ballot-box stuffing.

They want to know why Holder won’t prosecute those involved in voter intimidation but will sue states who are trying to protect against voter fraud!  According to Blackwell, “Protecting the integrity of the ballot box is essential to our democracy.”

President Obama’s Fast and Furious Scandal Grows

Kasey Jachim:

Did Obama just implicate himself by asserting Executive Privilege? He now owns Fast and Furious!  His continued arrogance and ignorance of the Constitution amazes me - what part of ‘I solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution….’ doesn’t he understand?!?

Related articles:

Originally posted on Gds44's Blog:

Morning Bell: President Obama’s Fast and Furious Scandal Grows – Heritage.org.

Rory Cooper

On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed by an untraceable assault weapon that was deliberately handed to Mexican drug lords by U.S. officials via Operation Fast and Furious. Ever since, the Terry family and Americans across the nation have asked how this could have happened.

And ever since, Attorney General Eric Holder has stonewalled Congress in its attempts to find these answers. Yesterday, President Obama joined this stonewalling effort, asserting executive privilege over many of the documents about the operation that Congress had subpoenaed but still had not received.

Executive privilege is legitimate when properly invoked. But even then, the Supreme Court has maintained that it is not absolute. The Department of Justice (DOJ) must provide a compelling rationale for each assertion. Shielding wrongdoing has never been…

View original 830 more words

If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

By Michael Filozof via The American Thinker

If  the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would  be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal  aliens.

Article  1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states  that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of  Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and  naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of  illegals.

The  role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s  refusal to execute Congress’s immigration  laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an  impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be  removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes  and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and  allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,”  and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be  considered “bribery.”

In  theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to “grant Reprieves  and Pardons for Offenses against the United States” and offer a blanket pardon  for all violators of immigration law. He’s not doing that, because he’d  certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he  does lose in November, he’ll do it anyway on his last day in  office).

The  upshot of Obama’s policy not only to allow hundreds of thousands of illegals to  live and work in the U.S. during a time of 8 to 10% unemployment, but even  worse, since the vast number of illegals we’re talking about are Hispanics  eligible for affirmative-action preferences, to actually get preferential treatment over native-born  Americans.

Remember  Obama’s speech in Berlin in 2008? Well, now you know what “citizen of the world”  means: instituting an illegal and unconstitutional policy that favors Third  Worlders, and disadvantages people actually born as U.S.  citizens.

Of  course, he’ll get away with it… if you think the gutless Republicans in the  House actually represent the interests of their native born constituents  and will introduce articles of impeachment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell  you….

For more click here.

H/T News You May Have Missed

Obama By-Passes Congress (again) and Ignores Questions Regarding His ‘Non-Dream, Non-Amnesty Act’

By Kasey Jachim

Yet again our President by-passes Congress and enacts his version of the ‘Dream Act’ – then runs for  cover!   Although the Dream Act failed in Congress, Obama has decided to ignore the Legislative Branch and use the Executive Branch to pursue his agenda.  Will he also ignore and challenge the Judicial Branch when Obamacare is overturned?

Even though he had two years of a Democrat White House, Senate and House of Representatives, he failed in his promise to pass immigration reform.  But now, just five months before the election, he decides to upstage Senator Marco Rubio and his plans for ‘legitimate’ immigration  reform and pander to the Latino vote.  Have you no shame Mr. Obama?

When questioned by reporters over his decision, the President retreated to the Oval Office.  According to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller:

“President Barack Obama declined to take any questions from reporters about  his controversial and significant decision to offer a de-facto amnesty to at  least 800,000 foreigners aged 15 to 30.

The president turned and walked away from reporters at the end of an early  afternoon address in the White House’s Rose Garden, even though two reporters  called out questions about his decision.

The announcement of the decision comes at a time of record unemployment among  low-skilled workers, Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Neil  Munro explains his exchange with President Obama in Rose Garden [VIDEO]

We need a leader who will enforce our laws instead of arrogantly ignoring them and suing states for doing the job he refuses to do.  Several states are being sued by the Obama Justice Department for trying to enforce immigration laws, voter ID laws, and even Right to Work laws.  Tell me again why this man is still the legal occupant of the White House?