The News You Missed 9.07.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington                                       

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Little Rock Teachers Complain About Having to Wear Bras And Underwear Little Rock, Arkansas by Dave Jolly

When I was in high school in the late 1960s, we had fairly strict dress codes. No facial hair, boys’ hair could not be passed the collar, no t-shirts of any kind, a girl’s dress could be no shorter than 2 inches above the knee and everyone was expected to wear appropriate underwear. Over the past forty years schools across the country have relaxed their dress codes. Hair was allowed to grow on the face and beyond the shoulders. Dresses shortened and shorts were allowed. T-shirts became the predominant wear for boys and many girls. In many schools, bras and underwear were optional and not mandated. It was the age of free spirits. Over the past decade, many school districts have learned that the free spirit attitude in dress and other matters can be quite disruptive to the educational process and have been enacting stricter dress codes. But who would have thought that a school district would end up having to pass a stricter dress code for the teachers, as well as the students? Dexter Suggs, the Superintendent of the Little Rock school district, co-authored a letter with the president of the teacher’s union, Cathy Koehler that lays out the new rules for faculty. Among the new rules was the requirement for foundational garments, including bras and underwear. After the letter went out, Suggs received so many complaints from teachers about having to meet the new dress code, including the wearing of bras and underwear that the provision has been delayed for another year. Numerous teachers complained that the union president was involved in establishing the new dress and Koehler responded by saying: “No Dress Code could ever meet every person’s concerns or point-of-view. At best, one could hope to have something that did the least amount of harm to employees.” Notice that the union president said that she worked for a dress code that had the least amount of harm on the faculty. In other words, having to wear bras and underwear could be harmful to teachers. Additionally, not being allowed to wear halter tops, sheer or torn tops or backless dresses could also be harmful to the faculty. They aren’t allowed to wear jeans, except on special occasions and they cannot wear any clothing with patches or anything that contained references to obscenities, sexual issues, alcohol and cigarettes. Any of these things, according to the union president, could be harmful to teachers. It’s really sad when our culture has degenerated so far that teachers are forced to dress modestly when teaching students. No wonder we hear so many news reports of teachers losing their jobs and going to jail for have sexual relations with students. With so many teachers dressing so inappropriately and being so promiscuous with their students, is it any wonder that we have produced a generation of sexual perverts and deviates?

~~~~~~

In 2012 Obama Opposed Bombing Foreign Nations by Gary DeMar

Bombing a few places in Syria will not endear us to the Syrian people. As President Obama said in November 2012, “There’s no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” He said this in defense of Israel’s right to defend itself from missiles that were being fired into Israeli territories. Here’s the context of President Obama’s comments while he was on a three-nation tour in Asia: “Let's understand what the precipitating event here that's causing the current crisis and that was an ever-escalating number of missiles that were landing not just in Israeli territory but in areas that are populated, and there's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders. “So we are fully supportive of Israel's right to defend itself from missiles landing on people's homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians.” If the United States decides to rain down missiles on the sovereign nation of Syria, will Assad quote these words back at President Obama? Why would Syria tolerate such a breach of sovereignty with no absolute determination of proof? And even if solid proof were forthcoming, this is a civil war – Syrians fighting Syrians. Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? We don’t know. President Obama went on to say: “Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired into its territory. If that can be accomplished without a ramping up of military activity in Gaza, that's preferable. It's not just preferable for the people of Gaza. It's also preferable for Israelis, because if Israeli troops are in Gaza, they're much more at risk of incurring fatalities or being wounded.”

~~~~~~

Rand Paul on "Administration end around strategy on Gun Control"

Anti-gun statists around the globe believe they have it made. The United Nations is done with its dirty work finalizing the details of their so-called "Small Arms Treaty." With the full backing of the Obama administration for this outrageous anti-gun scheme from day one, time is running out until an all-out Senate ratification showdown on the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty."  If you and I are going to beat this Treaty, we simply must fight back NOW before it’s too late.  I’m doing everything I can to help expose the TRUTH about this radical scheme. But today I’m asking you to join me by taking a public stand against the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away.  With the national media still pushing anti-gun propaganda after last December’s horrific tragedy in Connecticut, President Obama and his anti-Second Amendment pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.’s global gun control crown jewel.
Reading through the details of the Treaty, it’s hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault. In fact, Article V of the Treaty mandates countries establish a "National Control List" -- or NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!

You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.  But the truth is, the U.N. is already plotting the next step -- developing new "International Small Arms Control Standards" (ISACS). Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty."

Introductory language already includes:

***  Mandated national "screening" for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you’re "competent" enough to own a gun;

***  Licenses for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!

***  Restrictions on how many guns and ammo any properly-licensed individual may legally own;

***  Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;

***  Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense -- unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.

To those who think government holds all the answers, the United States isn’t a "shining city on a hill" -- it’s an affront to their grand "utopian" designs for all of us. And as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by bureaucrats, those who want big government on a global scale will be out of luck.

That’s why I was so excited to see the National Association for Gun Rights leading the fight to stop the U.N.’s so-called "Small Arms Treaty!" Their efforts over the past few months have stymied President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid every time they’ve sought to ram gun control through the Senate. In fact, without NAGR’s bare-knuckled, no-compromise tactics, I believe President Obama would have already succeeded in passing any number of anti-Second Amendment schemes. But the truth is, NAGR depends on the action and support of good folks like you for their effectiveness.

~~~~~~

Carbon Tax Appears To Backfire in a Big Way in Australia by Erica Ritz

SYDNEY (AP) — The ruling Labor Party’s probable collapse in Australia’s next election is largely the consequence of its qualified success in the last one three years ago. To form the coalition she needed to stay in power, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard reneged on a promise and agreed to place a carbon tax on major polluters. On Saturday, the bill for that bargain comes due. Voters have never stopped hating the tax and its effect on their electric bills. Longtime Labor Party supporters — even people who have helped cut pollution by installing solar panels at home — have flocked to the opposition. “Whoever gets rid of it will get my vote,” said Mark Keene, a 54-year-old maintenance worker from Sydney who, for the first time in his life, won’t be voting for Labor.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott has declared the election a “referendum on the carbon tax” — a sure sign of confidence that most voters remain staunchly against it. Its unpopularity has already produced the downfall of Gillard, who lost her job to Kevin Rudd in a June vote of party lawmakers desperate to avoid a crushing election loss that could send them into the political wilderness for a decade. But Labor candidates for Parliament continue to trail badly in opinion polls.

~~~~~~

Have You Noticed Obama’s Strategy? Taking Our ‘Freedom’ to Expand Our ‘Rights’

It’s right in front of us, and yet somehow beneath the radar. President Barack Obama has whipped up a novel new strategy for expanding government’s control over our lives and enlarging the power of the executive branch. The reason it’s so hard to see is that ironically enough — actually, it’s almost hilarious — he’s taking portions our freedom by offering to expand our “rights.” You and I now have, Obama asserted, the right to health insurance. Not just the increased access to coverage afforded by Obamacare, but the right to it. Life, liberty, and managed care. But that’s not all. This year, Obama has been suggesting that you also have the right to go to college, to place your kids in early-childhood education classes – that is, daycare – and even the right to join the middle class as long as you put in some effort. Here’s what Obama isn’t telling you: When you start turning desirable commodities into fundamental rights, you must, by definition, have more government, because only government can guarantee “rights.” And you know what that means: More red tape, more bureaucracy, more rules, and of course more policing, for you cannot be denied your “rights.” Choice is eventually removed from the equation, because federally written standards must apply to ensure that no one’s rights are being abused or denied.

~~~~~~

"We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience. What this conscience dictates as our duty, is so; and that power which assumes a control over it, is an usurper; for no power can be pleaded to justify the control, as any consent in this case is void."  –Theophilus Parsons, The Essex Result, 1778

Top of Form

† † † † † † † † † † †