Hat tip to Allahpundit that who says:

A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.

Please! This is one of the main reasons that you need to vote against Obama when it is time. I don’t want him to have the chance to appoint another justice as liberal as this one! Perhaps she should recuse herself from any rulings based on Constitutional grounds since she isn’t so fond of our Constitution. Or maybe she should move to South Africa!

Others: Jeff Goldstein

Skip ahead on the video to 9:28.

(Washington Post) The National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that all states and the District ban cellphone use behind the wheel, becoming the first federal agency to call for an outright prohibition on telephone conversations while driving.

Distracted driving, some of it due to cellphone use, contributed to an estimated 3,092 deaths in highway crashes last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

So, only some of the deaths can be attributed to distracted driving. We should ban looking at scenery, since that is dangerous. And passengers. Listening to the radio. Drinking coffee. Eating. Brushing hair. Putting on makeup. Those mirrors that allow parents to look in the back. Kids. Oh, and CAFE standards, which increase the risk of death on the road.

The NTSB has no regulatory power, but

It would be up to state legislatures, which already have banned text messaging while driving in 35 states and the District, to decide whether cellphone use should be illegal. But in the past, Congress has not been shy about leveraging its control of the federal purse strings to bring states in line on issues such as seat belts and the legal drinking age.

“The NTSB recommendation may be a game-changer,” said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association. “States aren’t ready to support a total ban yet, but this may start the discussion.”

A bunch of states ban texting/messaging in vehicles, which is, IMO, a good idea. People have their eyes off the road, two hands on the device. I spent well over a decade dealing with wireless devices, and I’m pretty darned good at sneaking a peek, but, I usually avoided any sort of messaging, including email, while driving. Many states also require the use of handsfree devices, which I have no problem with, since this keeps both hands free. I use a Bluetooth headset 98% of the time or so when in the car.

But, we shouldn’t ban the use of phones completely (one thing to note, the ban wouldn’t include emergency personnel). Los Federales could print a few good ideas for the use of electronic device use in vehicles, like

• use a handsfree device
• don’t stare at your GPS
• don’t use the phone in traffic
• avoid long and/or deep discussions
• avoid heated discussions
• can the call wait? Tell the person you’ll call them back

They could urge companies to put in place rules where employees are urged to stay off the phone while on the road, and won’t be in trouble if they do not answer calls from the bosses while on the road. Back at AT&T, that was the rule. There were many times when I didn’t answer when a superior was calling. But, they won’t. They’ll nag you and try and get Congress to pass some rules, or have the White House do it by executive fiat. It’s For Your Own Good.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Apparently Politico does not like the new concealed-carry reciprocity law recently passed in Congress. They must not like it. After all, aside from covering it in a negative light, the newser so badly misstated the law that it could easily turn its readers against the whole idea. But perhaps that’s the idea?

The law, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, would allow gun owners that have a concealed-carry license in their home state to carry their firearm in another state if that state also has a carry law in place. The law, however, does not allow someone to carry a firearm in a state that does not currently allow its own citizens to enjoy concealed-carry rights.

All this law does is standardize the lawful status of interstate gun carriers so that law-abiding citizens are not confused by and in fear of violating the many different state statutes concerning their firearms when traveling.

But that isn’t what Politco said on Nov. 15 in its overwrought and badly fact-checked piece. Not only is Politico spectacularly wrong, but it leads with a false reading of what the bill does. (My bold for emphasis)

If congressional gun-rights stalwarts get their way, a firearms owner with a concealed-weapons permit issued in Utah could be allowed to carry that gun in New York — regardless of the gun laws in the Empire State.

Politico is simply wrong that the bill would allow concealed-carry regardless of the gun laws in any state.

Politico goes on to report how critics of the bill are trying to use states’ rights claims against the bill to prevent its passage. One would think that this is not a very reliable tactic in this case. After all, the Second Amendment is a Constitutional issue so it’s a bit harder to claim that all gun laws are local issues. If it’s a guaranteed right in the Constitution, that makes it a bit hard to claim that it shouldn’t at all be a federal issue!

Another false claim of those that oppose this law is that state laws are nullified and replaced by some national concealed-carry law. This is also bunk.

Politico gives space to a New York State Attorney who claims that his state’s stricter laws on who can and cannot carry would be nullified by forcing New York to accept the concealed-carry rights of other states. But this is not a true statement.

The law only pertains to travelers, not residents. The law clearly says that the new concealed-carry reciprocity only affects a traveler who is in any State “other than the State of residence of the person.”

Therefore, New York’s laws still pertain to New Yorkers and the new reciprocity law only pertains to someone from another state when he is traveling through New York, not if he becomes a resident.

Amusingly, lefty gun-banners have in the past insisted that there be a nationalized gun law, a sort of national license to have a gun. But, all of a sudden, now they are against it. Naturally, Politico doesn’t mention that fact.

Another fact that Politico doesn’t seem to mention is that we currently have over 7 million Americans with licenses to carry a firearm yet there is little evidence of “blood in the streets” — as the fearmongering of lefty gun-haters is stated — due to these many lawful gun carriers.

Politico also cites four supporters of the new law in four paragraphs, yet gives 8 paragraphs to five opponents of the bill, including a representative of the extremist Brady Campaign. The National Rifle Association is not quoted, curiously enough.

It should be a no-brainer this law. After all, every state but one (the anti-Constitution state of Illinois) has one kind of carry permit allowance or another. And we have reciprocity laws already in most states as it is. Pennsylvania, for instance, already allows the citizens of 25 other states to concealed-carry and there has been no widespread problems doing so in Pennsylvania or any other state.

In any case, the Politico coverage is decidedly more negative than positive on the law not to mention characterizing it incorrectly. It is obvious that Politico’s reportage was meant to dissuade not inform.

–Also see Al American Blogger

(Politico) If congressional gun-rights stalwarts get their way, a firearms owner with a concealed-weapons permit issued in Utah could be allowed to carry that gun in New York — regardless of the gun laws in the Empire State.

But as the House prepares to vote on a bill Wednesday that would allow that and please a core GOP constituency, critics are throwing another core Republican belief back at the party: states’ rights.

GOP backers of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act — which would allow those with a concealed-weapons permit in one state to carry their firearms elsewhere as long as that state also allows concealed carrying — say they don’t see that as an issue.

“It’s kind of like having a driver’s license,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a vocal supporter of the bill who penned an op-ed in USA Today this week on the measure. “There are some states that have stricter driving laws than others.”

But their opponents — including one prominent Republican — are crying foul over the measure, arguing that the bill goes against the Republican Party’s core belief in states’ rights.

Rep Dan Lungren is the only Republican who was against the measure, and it’s weird that anyone on the left would all of a sudden start discussing states’ rights, what with their huge mega giant central politboro government ideas.

The legislation, which Stearns introduced with Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), appears on track for swift passage. It has 245 co-sponsors, including several moderate Democrats, and the rule for the bill passed Tuesday 271-153, indicating that it should pass easily when it comes up for a final vote Wednesday. Thirty-five Democrats voted in favor of the rule.

So, it is more bipartisan than just about everything passed while the Democrats had control of Congress. Good to know. But, is it legal? Is it Constitutional? Does it violate the Bill of Rights and States’ Rights? Obviously, we all know what the Second Amendment states, but, what of the 10th?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States have long had different laws on guns, and, in particular, concealed carry. The Politico has a handy dandy reference graphic on the subject. And, certainly, Conservatives do not appreciate Los Federales gaining more power and passing laws which takes States’ powers unto themselves. Yet, consider, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2

(1)Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

(2)The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This is what makes your drivers license valid when traveling to another state. So, if you are from, say, North Carolina, and posses a concealed permit, you should be allowed to travel to New York and carry said weapon as a visitor already, without need of a new law from Congress. This does not affect states rights, because said “reciprocity” was already encoded in the Constitution. The federal government would not be taking on any powers not already delegated to them. The law would simply be upholding the language of the Constitution.

Of course, if you move to New York, then your concealed carry, much like a drivers license, would be null within a specified time period, and you would have to apply for a new one. If you moved to Illinois, well, they have no concealed carry. That’s their choice. Your NC permit would not carry over, as their laws would have to be respected for Illinois citizens.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Before Barack Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic, early warnings were pinging about like signals off a cell tower. Predictions: 1.) The economy would nosedive and 2.) America would have a renewed military presence in Africa before the end of Obama’s first term. What was not foreseen was the Obama administration’s fixation on “snitching.” They are for it. Obama brazenly initiated his report-on-your-neighbor, big brother initiative via a White House run “snitch website” called “flag.”

Detecting the distinctively foul objective of creating an Obama enemies list, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of attempting to shut down political opposition. Cornyn also sent Obama a letter demanding to know the intent of the White House’s snitch site where Obamatrons could routinely rat-out their neighbors who disagreed with Obama’s policies. Main targets were those in opposition to Obamacare, the socialist medical overhaul that will wreck the American economy for decades if implemented. In the face of fascist-laden, unspoken threats of reprisal, red-blooded patriots from across the nation emailed the snitch site and turned themselves in as overt acts of defiance.

Yet, Obama tried it again. With sliding ratings and talk from neighborhoods to water coolers about his failed policies and socialist agendas eroding his base, “snitching” was resurrected. Snitches are now directed to “Attack Watch.” The Obama campaign essentially put Americans on notice: Written criticism or verbally attacking Obama under your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech is an affront to the regime and could get you reported. Again, patriots across the land mocked the site by reporting “themselves” in further defiance of the site’s intended intimidation and implied retribution.

Attempts to snuff out political dissent have a long history. Obama’s propensity for it puts him in an unsavory club of notorious politicians turned tyrants who cast fear into their opposition and ran their nation by edict or currently, in Obama’s case, by executive order. Politician-turned-tyrant occurs when the people allow the usurpation of power to go unchecked. Obama’s radical abuse of the U.S. Constitution and overriding of the legislative authority of Congress would have our founding fathers boldly decrying a tyranny in the making. Snitching coupled with President Obama wanting his own militia, as well-funded and as powerful as the U.S. military, must give all Americans pause. Weakening America’s military is a standing Socialist goal. The coup d’état is that the Obama militia and U.S. military would report to the same Commander-in-Chief. Prediction #3: Action to establish a presidential/civilian militia will be fast-tracked — should Obama and a majority of his Progressive Democrat Party be reelected in 2012.

In tandem with #3, is Prediction #4 for 2012. Informed minds know that John Kennedy entered the Vietnam War with advisors, a pattern Obama now repeats in Africa. The U.S. military can be weakened or bled-out of funding and personnel in areas of the world such as Africa, where no security threat to the U.S. currently exists. If reelected, Obama’s expansion into Africa is imminent. Having American troops in the region makes Africa a magnet for America’s enemies.

Political leaders turned tyrants, that are armed with civilian militias and legions of snitches used to subdue dissent from the people, fill the history books with names like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others who began as benign Socialist or Marxist politicians. It is history that exposes or demands comparisons with Obama’s policies. Those tyrants started with civilian militias loyal to them and not the citizenry. Snitching or informing was first encouraged and then government mandated. For some, snitching on their neighbor meant survival for themselves and their families — for a while. In the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, pages 54-56, there is a telling account by Russian Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the brutal results of “snitching” that denied the Soviet citizenry’s’ right to criticize its government.

Prediction #5: The mainstream media will continue to ignore such threats until they realize that their rights to freedom of the press have also been overrun by government edict. Historically, it is the fate of all journalists in Socialist countries worldwide. Snitching is an equal opportunity offender. Though the Black community faces ostracizing by other Blacks if they speak negatively about the destructive policies of the first Black President, many have rejected what they call un-American activities and an assault on freedom and have also turned themselves in to “Attack Watch” in defiance and defense of their Constitutional freedoms.

A government that asks its citizens to snitch on one another cannot itself be trusted. Snitching is about controlling the opposition and eventually the entire populace. The end result is that a penalty is levied whether through suppression of speech or oppression of a people. It is divisive and ultimately dangerous, especially in the hands of leaders with delusions of grandeur or narcissistic personality disorders. Snitching is the worm that decays and weakens a society in preparation for the rot of Socialism and tyranny. Why is it again, that Obama wants Americans to snitch?

“Residents in thinly populated Dixie County on Florida’s Gulf Coast are battling the American Civil Liberties Union over a Ten Commandments monument at their county courthouse.

The ACLU of Florida has sued on behalf of an anonymous non-county resident who wants to remove the five-foot tall, six-ton monument, which was paid for and is being maintained by a local businessman.

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, says Dixie County commissioners violated the First Amendment when they allowed the monument’s placement outside the courthouse. The case, he said, “is about the Dixie County Commission essentially endorsing a sacred religious document on a monument on the steps of the county courthouse with nothing else around it.”

Horatio Mihet, an attorney for Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty law firm defending Dixie County, counters that the county did not endorse the Ten Commandments, but simply created a forum in which residents could exercise their First Amendment free speech rights.

He charges that the ACLU is not defending constitutional liberties, but is silencing free expression. “Instead of promoting free speech, instead of trying to have as inclusive a forum as possible, what the ACLU is trying to do is come down and squelch, censor, speech that they don’t agree with,” said Mihet.

A federal judge sided with the ACLU in July and ordered the monument removed. Dixie County appealed and the monument remains in place pending the outcome.

Source

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

During his dedication speech at the Martin Luther King Memorial, Barack Obama could not resist doing some politicking. With the day of remembrance and dedication to Dr. King now rooted in the history of this nation, it is important not to let current political agendas commandeer his memory or purpose.

Dr. King was not only a great leader for black Americans, but for civil rights for all Americans. King was a visionary. King foresaw the day when prejudice was so subdued and irrelevant in America, that a black man would rise through the ranks of opportunities to become President of the United States. What Dr. King could not foresee is that that very first Black President would use race to divide the nation and call on Americans to “snitch” on neighbors who opposed his socialist rooted agendas. (See: LEFT INSULTS BLACK AMERICANS – http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=111.) It was King who stood in defiance against leaders of the Democrat Party that voted against equality for Blacks. It was Dr. King who cheered on Republican President Dwight Eisenhower for not only pushing through the Civil Rights Act of 1957 over Democrat opposition, but also for sending troops into Arkansas to desegregate schools that cleared the way for national school desegregation. As a life-long member of the Republican Party, Dr. King fought for the republic, its Constitution and its Bill of Rights that formed the very foundations of this great nation.

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King made no extra-Constitutional guarantees, nor did he seek a circuitous route around hard work and education as goals toward a step-up and not a hand-out. That Black Americans or any Americans should expect a free ride from the labors of their neighbors stood against King’s ethics, his faith and his vision of the American Dream. It stood against all he dedicated his life to and against his vision of individual freedom.

King said: “I have a dream that is deeply rooted in the American Dream.” King valued capitalism and free enterprise and could foresee the day when Blacks were not only part of America’s middle class, but were people of wealth and prosperity due to their own merits, education and hard work. That day has dawned in America, but due to the current economic policies of the Obama administration it is quickly slipping away for people of all colors. Barack Obama made it clear in one of his books that he does not identify with the fates of whites, Hispanics, Asians or other peoples of color.

“I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” Barack Obama – from his book, Dreams From My Father

The catch for Obama is that his anti-capitalist policies equally impact and devastate the Black worker along with all other Americans. Unlike Obama, King sought justice through equal rights for all through civil law and opportunity and not through the enslavement and nihilism of Socialism. Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” socialist scheme holds all people reliant on and under the control of government. Martin Luther King would find Socialism an anathema to freedom: freedom of will, freedom of aspirations, freedom of self-reliance and freedom of expression whether conservative or liberal. King had a dream and it was not the socialist dream that so consumes Barack Obama. King would note that the poorest cities in the United States have continuously elected Democrats, many of which are Black, who have been the overseers that have plunged Black Americans into ever deepening poverty under Democrat rule. It is Obama and the Democrats’ recklessness that destines this nation into third world status if it is allowed to go unchallenged.

King would be against labor unions crossing the line from being an important organization in support of workers to a corrupt, bloated thuggery that breaks the financial backs of companies that provide jobs for all people — as those unions demand extravagant pensions for its members and labor bosses that most Americans could only dream about. King would be horrified at the heresy of some Democrat Black leaders who wanted the educationally disabling dialect of Ebonics or Black English integrated into course study for black children as a second language posing a clear danger to their futures as productive Americans. He would be horrified that Blacks would accuse educated Blacks of not “being black enough” or “not talking like a black” as if not doing so is a cultural or political impediment. He would admonish a president who told an opposing party that they could ”sit in the back of the bus,” and who, as a political maneuver, threatened vulnerable Seniors of all colors that he might withhold “their social security checks” unless he got his way. King would vehemently oppose a government that ignored threatened violence by Black Panther Party members at the polls. Martin Luther King moved mountains and minds through peaceful means. He, like Rosa Parks (a personal hero) stood up against the wrong thing in the right way.

As all visionaries who are pragmatist at heart, King knew that the government as master came with disheartening and demeaning controls over the lives of individuals. King saw the path to equality through self-determination, getting up and going to work every day, raising families as man and wife, respecting education and seeking God’s wisdom and guidance.

King’s greatest disappointment would be the first Black president’s denigration of people of faith as “clinging to their guns and religion.” King could not foresee a strategic move by a government under Obama to hijack Christianity by attempting to “transform” it into a community-organized, Marxist collectivism based on a substitute gospel of “social justice” of forced seizure of your neighbors’ goods and property. (See: CHRISTIAN PURGE: THE OBAMA FACTOR – PART ONE at http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=155)

Today, a living reflection of King is his niece, Dr. Alveda King. Though portions of Alveda King’s history is in my book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, her full story is one of deep abiding Christian faith, higher education, an unfailing work ethic, love of country, a strong Constitutionalist and an advocate for people of all colors and backgrounds who are willing to do their share by contributing to the American Dream. It is the same dream her Uncle Martin had of an America where everyone is judged by their character and not the color of their skin. America elected its first Black President. That, America has lost confidence in Obama is not based on his skin color, but the failing of his character and his determined destruction of the American Dream that Martin Luther King lived and died for.

A tactical maneuver was in place as Barack Obama took office. It was the political version of Fast and Furious without guns, but yet a clear and present danger. Obama’s strategy, along with the Progressive-Democrat Party, was to unleash a blitzkrieg of legislation on the U.S. economy and its citizens before the opposition could grasp who and what had been voted into office. Much like a military “kill box area,” congressional authority and government agencies were sectioned off, targeted and undermined with a deluge of legislation and executive orders. The goal: Obama’s “transformation of America.” The free-enterprise economy was flooded with a strangle-hold of regulations that took over health care, corporations, housing, insurance and banking. Obama unleashed his “change” with such a fury that opponents experienced a political version of “shock and awe.” With the system overwhelmed, moderate and conservative members of Congress were blind-sided and ineffective to stop the “transformation” being thrust upon the American people.

For two years, Barack Obama had free reign as he appointed over three dozen, unelected Czars to advise him and oversee government policy and agencies. Among the Czars were admitted Socialists, Marxists and radical environmentalists seeking to “transform America” to meet Obama’s Liberal-Progressive agenda. In 2010, the American voter became wise to the destructive governmental changes that usurped their Constitutional freedoms and ravaged their pocketbooks. The conservative base of American voters abruptly woke up the GOP by voting compromising enablers out of office followed by warnings to clean house even further.

Warning number two is now in play for the GOP. With the Progressive-Democrat’s game plan unveiled and its raw corruption exposed, Congress is again on notice as the nation faces elections in 2012. Republicans must now take the offensive and formulate a blitzkrieg of policies and investigations of their own. Every GOP member of the House and Senate, in parity with their committees, must be assigned direct oversight of Obama’s Czars and department heads. Every move, every piece of legislation, every regulation and every request for funding must be tracked and brought out of the shadows and into the light. Obama’s shadow-government of Czars is embedding itself and is being paid by taxpayer dollars to sit in government offices while deconstructing America’s founding policies and principles. The Czars primary targets are free-market capitalism, Constitutional freedoms and U.S. sovereignty. The call to action and accountability by members of Congress has never been greater. Pick a czar or department head, expose their agenda and defund their fiefdoms. If Obama and a Progressive-Democrat majority are elected in 2012, expect the full fury of Obama’s Czars to be unleashed on America in 2013.

American voters need to understand that whether Obama is re-elected or replaced by Hillary Clinton, Progressive-Democrat goals are the same. Both Obama and Clinton are advocates of radical Socialist/Marxist Saul Alinsky whose goal was to radicalize then socialize America and its government. Clinton’s college thesis praised her socialist professor, Saul Alinsky. One of Alinsky’s guiding principles, to all his disciples, was that in order to gain real power and overthrow capitalism it is necessary to crush the middleclass. As a Chicago street activist, Alinsky taught that class and race warfare are the most effective ways to bring about “change.” As the race-and-class-warfare-in-chief, Obama demonstrates he learned Alinsky’s lessons well.

PS – Partial plan of action for the GOP: 1.) Block Obama’s so-called “infrastructure labor union bank” that is a replacement for Obama’s planned money-funneling, climate-change bank in Chicago that was put on-hold by the man-made global warming scandal. 2.) Rein in the unelected National Labor Relations Board that is wielding unauthorized fascist authority. 3.) Assign additional oversight teams to prevent potential election fraud and vote tampering in 2012. Fecklessly investigating voter fraud after the fact does no good. Al Franken, anyone?

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we mourn our losses. We mourn the loss of fellow Americans who died at the hands of a sworn enemy and we mourn the loss of those in the ranks of our military who have since fought a righteous fight to protect us from that enemy.

In a weekly radio address, President Barack Obama called for unity as the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001 draws near: “We were united,” said the President, “and the outpouring of generosity and compassion reminded us that in times of challenge, we Americans move forward together, as one people.” Obama’s words are a brazen reminder of how far apart on ideas and ideals most Americans are from the current government. Americans recognize that it is the Obama government itself that has created “times of great challenge” that threaten our nation’s safety and sovereignty.

On 9/11, terrorists attacked our people and our nation. Knowing who the enemy was, and still is, is itself a uniting force in the battle to protect this great nation. Once in office and well-knowing that extremist Muslim terrorists were behind the attacks, overt efforts were made to diffuse public awareness. The Obama administration attempted to rename terror attacks as “man-caused disasters” and classify the global war on terror as “Overseas Contingency Operations.” Failure to identify one’s enemy unifies no one. 9/11 survivors well know who their attackers were. Osama Bin Laden proclaimed on video tape that his terrorist group Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

The Obama White House has issued guidelines for the 9/11 ceremonies. Al Qaeda’s threat is to be downplayed and the impact of America’s 9/11 tragedy is to be diminished by equating it with all other terrorists’ attacks globally. What will go unmentioned by Obama is that the Muslim Brotherhood, that is making power gains in Egypt and the Middle East, is allied with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the jihadists. An earlier affront to and “de-unification” of the American people came when Obama tried to transport accused terrorists, housed at Guantanamo Bay, into our American cities and courts to grant them the same Constitutional rights allowed for U.S. citizens. Americans stood “united” and stopped the outrageous proceedings by Obama and his Justice Department. The first step in Obama’s reunification should be to call the enemy what it is — terrorists.

What cannot be overstated in the healing and reunification of America, after the 9/11 attacks, was the importance of prayer. Prayer and the call to God to protect and guide the nation were at the heart, the core, of bringing Americans together with compassion and determination. This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian faith and principles. Today, a reported 95% of Americans are people of faith in various religions. Yet, prayer and clergy have been banished from the 9/11 state run day of remembrance by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. By eliminating God, the state steps into the role of God with its ceremonies devoid of prayer. Politicos will direct attention to themselves as the guiding lights of national healing, looking to reflect a god-like glow as benevolent caretakers of the masses.

Historically, Socialist/Fascist regimes that diminished God and circumvented clergy began in seemingly benign ways. Today, faith is under siege in America. (See: Christian Purge – The Obama Factor: http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=155). Politicians supplanting prayer with their own verbiage and public spectrum, lessens us as a nation. A major factor in America’s exceptionalism is that America is the preeminent nation in the world that turns to God and prayer for healing and guidance. America may elect an Obama or a Bloomberg, but it does not worship them. The current American President and Mayor of New York will ceremoniously memorialize “sacred” ground and memories of our lost as long as God is excluded despite the fact that “sacred” by its very definition means “connected with God.” To misconstrue an ambiguous moment of silence as “sacred” is itself a sacrilegious dodge. Public office is transient and any glory derived from it is short-lived. These politicians may learn that what really “unites” Americans is political leaders going against the people’s will by imposing state censure on religious expression. The ban on clergy should immediately be reversed.

Presidents nor mayors can separate God from His people. So, there will be prayer, there will be open tribute to their Creator by the faithful across the nation for the healing and “unifying” of this great nation on this important day of remembrance. May God bless the survivors, the families, our first responders and our military warriors. May God bless America as long as its people know that those blessings come from the Creator God and not from transitory politicians.

Yesterday, California lawmakers took an important step towards updating reader privacy for the digital age. The California Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the Reader Privacy Act of 2011 (SB 602) with a bipartisan vote of 8-2.

The Reader Privacy Act would update California state law to ensure that government and third parties cannot demand access to Californians’ reading records without proper justification. It would also provide greater notice and transparency about when and how often government and third parties are demanding reading records.

Reader Privacy Act Passes California Assembly Judiciary Committee With Bipartisan Support… read the rest – ACLU of Northern California
ACLU’s write up on the Reader Privacy Act of 2011

It’s important to note when we agree. Protecting privacy may be the most important thing we can teach our children, who, growing up in this digital age, often have no clue what it means, or what it means to lose it.