Obama’s children seek therapy

Obama’s children had a rough week in Los Angeles. After almost two months of camping out on the lawn of City Hall, police managed to oust the Occutards from their camp. Most went peacefully, but almost 300 were arrested and brought to jail. Slowly they have begun to make bail and trickle out of jail. They are trying to figure out what’s next for their movement?

Apparently … therapy.

Some of the Occutards are saying that they will need therapy in order to cover from the “traumatizing” experience of witnessing police use nonlethal force to clear their camp and arrest their fellow non-law abiding comrades.

Awww … the poor, poor pitiful little puffballs.

These are the same children that went to government schools, and in these government schools, a therapist was called in to coddle them in the most mindless of circumstances. Little Jimmy zipped his wee wee in his jeans … call in the therapists! Bonnie’s baseball team didn’t win the championship … therapists! Quick, get all these kids participation trophies so that they don’t feel bad! God forbid they know what it feels like to fail and to reap the consequences of their failure. Or God forbid these kids play by the rules, or follow the laws, because somewhere along the way they believe that THEY know best … that’s where these Occutards come from.

As Barry’s Brats are leaving the jail in LA, they are suggesting that fellow Occutards “Make note of every single violation of human rights.”

Human rights?

These kids are the ones who believe you have a human right to a house, to a job, to a retirement account, to healthcare. Their definition of “human rights” is warped, to say the least.

I am sick and tired of Paulistinians and faux conservatives and their lies from the left….

I listened to a radio show where the host made the most bald-faced, radical claims against Rick Santorum, I just had to go look them up. You’ll notice, one statement over and over in quotes…the rest is speculation attached to an out of context statement…

I am sick to death of so-called constitutional conservative/libertarian rabble rousers who speak out of their hat with no proof except their say-so.

The United States is a nation FOUNDED on Judeo-christian values, the Constitution says our RIGHTS are guaranteed by our Creator…but because he says the same things, we should be a moral nation, obey our laws and the higher law of morality, he’s labeled a theocrat…what a line of bull crap…the ONLY places I can find any of this is off of leftwing, liberal, commie, fascist bastards web sites…so if this is your source, all I can say is get off the damn koolaide and quit spewing the progressive crap and parroting the MSM in attacking real conservatives just because the have a Christian set of values!

Libtard Bull Sh*t follows::::

SLATE:
U.S. law should follow God’s law. As Rick Santorum put it:

Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.

Anything that’s immoral by religious standards should be outlawed. Santorum again:

God gave us rights, but He also gave us laws upon which to exercise those rights, and that’s what you ought to do. And, by the way, the law should comport—the laws of this country should comport with that moral vision. Why? Because the law is a teacher. If something is illegal in this country because it is immoral and it is wrong and it is harmful to society, saying that it is illegal and putting a law in place teaches. It’s not just—laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral, Ron. There is only moral and immoral. And the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society.

The federal government should impose this morality on the states. Santorum once more:

The idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong. Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, the states do not have the right to do wrong. … As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together.

Freedom means obeying morality. Santorum concluded, “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

There was one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone. Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way.

Atheist commentary: Rick Santorum: We Are Obliged to Make America a Christian Theocracy
Are there any major Republican political leaders who aren’t theocrats? I’m not sure there are, though some are more open about their theocratic intentions than others. Rick Santorum is especially honest about his intentions. When he filled in for Tony Perkins on the American Family Association’s program “Today’s Issues,” he tried to argue that Shariah law is incompatible with western civilization while at the same time Christian Shariah is necessary for western civilization.

Jesus said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and that huge piece of wisdom has really set the course for western civilization where you have civil laws and have civil penalties – we exact justice in a civil fashion – and then we have higher laws, we have God’s law.

Now our civil laws are supposed to comport with God’s laws but sometimes they don’t, and so it is always the obligation of those, for example, the issue of abortion – the civil law does not comport with God’s law, in my opinion and I think the opinion of many people in this country and it is our obligation to continue to try and change that law. We have to live under the civil law, we have to obey that law because it is the civil law but we need to continue to try to change it to make sure that these laws, the laws our country, comport.

In the Islamic world, that is not the case. Mohammad did not say “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” because the civil law in Islam and the sacred law are one in the same. Shariah is both a civil code and a religious code.

Source: Right Wing Watch

Rick Santorum starts out making an argument that you’d normally hear from a Christian defending church/state separation: some things belong to God and some things belong to Caesar, so don’t mix the two. Santorum is correct in noting that this separation has been important to western civilization where civil authority and religious authority have been kept separate (at least ideally, though not always in practice).

Then, sadly, Rick Santorum goes right off the deep end by asserting that civil laws must “comport” with God’s laws. That’s the antithesis of separating church and state. He asserts that we must obey civil laws, but then he insists that those laws must be changed to match “God’s laws.”[ this is bull sh*t because the laws we already have comport to biblical teachings ] What are “God’s laws”? They are the Christian equivalent of Shariah. So why must we follow his god’s laws?

I don’t think that Rick Santorum has enough of a sense of irony to realize the contradictions in his words. People capable of a bit more introspection might notice that they were condemning one set of religious laws while endorsing the imposition of another set of religious laws — but I’ve never seen Santorum demonstrate anywhere near that level of self-understanding and I’ve had to watch him for years now.

More Bull crap from the radical left atheists:

We’ve been ringing the alarm bell for months now on the theocratic leanings of the various Republican presidential candidates. William Saletan over at Slate suffered through the latest Republican “debate” – this past weekend’s “Thanksgiving Family Forum”. He provides 12 direct quotes from candidates that only further emphasize that the true threat to religious pluralism (including the freedom not to worship/believe) in America isn’t sharia law, it’s Judeo-Christian theocracy, with the emphasis strongly on Christian.

I could go on with pointing out these lies but what it the use…the self-puffery of the “I am always right and you are always wrong” group will never admit they were snookered…

Report Recommends ‘Diet Police’ in U.K. to Monitor What People Eat

A report released today by 2020Health, a think tank in the U.K., suggests that the private sector could save money it is currently losing from a “sick note culture” if “health and safety inspectors” were given an increased role in educating employees on healthy lifestyles.

The Telegraph sums it up: “Council inspectors should start monitoring what private sector employees eat at work in order to help improve the country’s health and to reduce sickness rates, a report has concluded.”

It has more:

The report recommended the role of council “diet police” be increased to offer advice to the private sector. The authors said the proposals in the report, released today, would help reduce the “sick note culture”.

The suggestion is likely to lead to claims of more “meddling” from council inspectors.

Latest figures show that up to 3 percent of the active workforce is off sick at any one time. About 175 million working days are lost each year due to ill health, costing the economy more than £100 billion.

Read more here.

Congress Votes for Military to be Able to Arrest US Citizens Without Trial

The ‘clean energy scam’ in Maryland

The inspiration for this post was received yesterday when I perused a commentary by Townhall.com writers Amy Oliver Cooke and Michael Sandoval called “Disasters Keep Hitting Clean Energy Scam.” It picks out over two dozen news items which illustrate the folly of so-called clean energy, alternatives which have “so far failed to demonstrate the necessary economic and energy-efficient capacity to succeed in a true energy market,” the authors write.

Their work got me to thinking about events closer to home. While Maryland doesn’t have its own Solyndra on a federal level and our efforts against Radical Green have been more concentrated lately on the battle to thwart the adoption of PlanMaryland, we indeed have our issues and spend many tax dollars on alternative energy. Governor O’Malley is foursquare a believer in anthropogenic climate change and has connived the Maryland General Assembly into passing several measures ceding a significant market share to these alternatives without a clear market demand for them.

For example, we’ve passed and since tightened twice a solar energy portfolio utilities are mandated to meet or pay a penalty, entered the extortion of local utilities otherwise known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – a nifty model of wealth redistribution – and mandated a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (read: our standard of living), just to name a few. Aside from the original solar energy portfolio mandates, these bills were all introduced at O’Malley’s behest and rushed through without much thought about the impact on the state’s economy. On the other hand, even exploring for offshore oil is something O’Malley “can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to go forward with” and tapping into a proven source of energy such as the Marcellus Shale formation has to be studied to death before Marylanders can take advantage. Meanwhile, our state is a net importer of electricity because of its high density, small land mass, and unwillingness to build the generating plants to bring balance (a Calvert Cliffs would likely not be built today.)

Read more here.

Boy, 9, Suspended from School for Sexual Harassment After Calling Teacher ‘Cute’

A 9-year-old boy North Carolina boy was suspended for calling a teacher “cute,” WSOCTV.com reports.

The boy’s mother, Chiquita Lockett, said the principal of Brookside Elementary in Gastonia called her after the incident to say the comment was a form of “sexual harassment.”

“It’s not like he went up to the woman and tried to grab her or touch her in a sexual way,” Lockett said. “So why would he be suspended for two days?”

According to the station, a district spokeswoman said she could not go into detail, but said the boy was suspended for “inappropriate behavior” after making “inappropriate statements.”

The district’s Code of Conduct doesn’t list “inappropriate behavior,” but says “disruption of school” is punishable by five days of out-of-school suspension.

The news of the North Carolina boy’s suspension comes as a Massachusetts elementary school is investigating a first-grader for sexual harassment after the boy struck another boy his age in the groin.

The mother of the accused 7-year-old tells the Boston Globe that her son was fending off another child, who had choked him in an altercation on the school bus on Nov. 22.

“I think my kid was right to fight back,’’ said the mother, Tasha Lynch, 30. “He wasn’t doing anything except protecting himself.’’

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: