The Tea Party’s Uphill Battle
by Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
The Tea Party movement and its millions of supporters have high hopes that the recent elections will rein in runaway government. While I endorse this objective, accomplishing it will be far more difficult than most people realize.
The Tea Partiers will have to contend with more than just a Big-Government president and Senate. They also face well-funded, well-connected, and well-entrenched special interests, plus a public that expects the officials they elect to shrink government and balance the federal budget only if it’s the other guy’s programs that get cut. Would-be reformers will also have to deal with the larger, permanent, unelected powers that aren’t accountable to the people.
The fact is that the United States isn’t as democratic as we’d like to think it is. We cherish the idea that the vox populi (the voice of the people) predominates over the will of privileged elites; that government is subordinate to the people (that it serves the people, rather than ruling them); that those in positions of governmental power should be accountable to the people from whom they derive their authority; that government is, essentially, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Is that the kind of system we have today? Let’s see:
Congress delegated its constitutional prerogative to be the guardians of our money to the Federal Reserve System. As I’ve previously discussed, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke & Co. exercise extraordinary discretionary powers that affect us all, yet Bernanke—arguably the second most powerful person in America—is unelected and unaccountable to the people.
Key rules by which we live—most notably, the right to legal abortion—were created by the Supreme Court, instead of by Congress. Regardless of your opinion about the Roe v. Wade decision, it doesn’t seem very democratic that five unelected, unaccountable justices should have the power to establish the rules by which we live.
Perhaps the greatest damage to democracy has been the tremendous amount of power amassed by “the permanent government,” the unelected federal bureaucrats.
Consider:
Although the Constitution confers the legislative prerogative on Congress, in a typical year federal agencies will adopt more than 10 times as many legally binding rules as Congress passes laws (3,830 final rules compared to 285 laws in 2008, for example).
The Obamacare bill grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to determine or define what the legislation means no fewer than 1,697 times, according to a tabulation by Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
This year’s Dodd-Frank financial reform bill gives power to unelected officials to decide which financial institutions live and die. It also adds power to the 115 federal agencies that already shared regulatory supervision over the financial system, and guarantees high-paying federal jobs to all employees of those agencies, despite their failure to protect us from the financial meltdown of recent years.
The EPA has a long tradition of exceeding its statutory authority and seems determined to further cripple the generation of electricity by imposing heavy penalties for carbon dioxide emissions, despite the crack-up of the global-warming myth and the refusal of Congress to restrict CO2 emissions.
Nobody seems to be able to stop the National Labor Relations Board from helping unions to avoid conducting business in a way that is transparent to rank-and-file workers.
These are just a few examples of the power wielded by unelected officials. They are part of what the late economist Milton Friedman termed an ”iron triangle:” Congress appropriates funds for federal agencies, who, in turn, give grants to citizen-activist groups that then actively lobby Congress for expansions of those programs. Thus is maintained what Friedman and his wife, Rose, labeled “the tyranny of the status quo.”
The influx of some new, Tea Party-supported legislators in Congress should make government marginally more democratic. At least we can count on an end to the imperial speakership of Nancy Pelosi, which was characterized by major legislation written behind closed doors (in the middle of the night), ram-rodding bills along partisan lines (before even Pelosi’s allies could read them), and refusing to heed the concerns of millions of Americans (by excluding their elected representatives from even having a perfunctory say in Congress’ proceedings). That is significant, though incremental, progress.
Will the Tea Party movement be able to tame Big Government in all its undemocratic manifestations? That isn’t likely on the strength of just one strong mid-term election. The task ahead is daunting.
http://floydreports.com/the-tea-partys-uphill-battle/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=8d59ddcf79-EO_12_27_201012_27_2010&utm_medium=email
Monday, December 27, 2010
Mexico is Angry!
Three cheers for Arizona! The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico, don't like it.
Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.
The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico.
It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off. A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money. The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States.
Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license. The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government.
"How can Arizona pass a law like this?", asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales." There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," she said, speaking in Spanish.
" Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs," she said. "We are one family, socially and economically," she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona . Wrong!
The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.
It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.
Too bad that the other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona . Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!
One final issue. Polls show that over 80% of our population supports Arizona 's new laws. Certain businesses and states want to Boycott Arizona because of these new laws. I say, let them do so, but let's get that 80% who agree with Arizona to boycott those states and those businesses. Then we will see who wins this debate.
Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.
The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico.
It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off. A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money. The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States.
Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license. The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government.
"How can Arizona pass a law like this?", asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales." There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," she said, speaking in Spanish.
" Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs," she said. "We are one family, socially and economically," she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona . Wrong!
The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.
It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.
Too bad that the other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona . Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!
One final issue. Polls show that over 80% of our population supports Arizona 's new laws. Certain businesses and states want to Boycott Arizona because of these new laws. I say, let them do so, but let's get that 80% who agree with Arizona to boycott those states and those businesses. Then we will see who wins this debate.
Five Rinos
As we look at 2012, there are five RINO Senators the Tea Party needs to send into retirement.
http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/five-rinos
http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/five-rinos
Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans?
President believes nation can spare some sovereignty
Posted: December 26, 2010
By Eugene J. Koprowski---© 2010 WorldNetDaily
President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan.
The issue is causing alarm among legal experts.
In recent remarks at the White House during a "tribal nations conference," Obama endorsed the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People," which includes a sweeping declaration that "indigenous peoples have a right to lands and resources they traditionally occupied or otherwise used" but that later were acquired by occupying forces.
Read the scoop on the United Nations, in "The Beast on the East River"
http://superstore.wnd.com/books/International-News/The-Beast-on-the-East-River-book
"U.N. resolutions like this claiming amorphous rights can be a stalking horse for future attempts to have international courts enforce broad interpretations of those rights at the expense of American sovereignty," Theodore Frank, a fellow with the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, a leading public policy think tank in New York City, told WND.
Academic legal experts indicate that American Indians during the Carter era first drew up plans for reacquisition of lost tribal lands, setting the stage for the U.N. resolution that Obama is embracing. The feasibility study, eyeing 650 million acres of federally owned land in the U.S., was conducted by the Indian Education Institute at Eastern Oregon State, one expert recalled for WND.
Re-purchase would restore land back to its original owners thus strengthening tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction over its people and land," Julianne Jennings Nottoway, a professor of anthropology at Pima Community College in Tuscon, Ariz., said. "Also, it would allow tribes the opportunity to develop socially, politically and economically as competitors as nation-states within a global context under the act of self-determination."
The Bush White House refused to support the U.N. resolution. But last year, the Democrat-majority House and Senate passed a resolution that, in Obama's words, acknowledges "the sad and painful chapters in our shared history – a history too often marred by broken promises and grave injustices against the First Americans."
The president said, "No statement can undo the damage that was done. But it is only by heeding the lessons of our history that we can move forward."
Obama's interest is personal. He noted during the 2008 presidential campaign he was officially adopted by the Crow Nation, an Indian tribe in Montana, and he was given an Indian name.
"My Crow name is 'One Who Helps People Throughout the Land,'" Obama said.
The U.N. policy that Obama wants the U.S. to embrace would enact the following measures on behalf of his adopted peoples, including repatriation of land and regulations forcing the media to reflect the values of indigenous cultures:
Article 26 states that nations "shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources" which were once owned by indigenous people.
Article 21 indicates that nation "states shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their (indigenous people's) economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities."
Article 16 compels nations to "take effective measures to ensure that state-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States … should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity."
There are 47 articles in the U.N. resolution.
The international agreement is very serious business, one legal expert tells WND, and could cause problems for the U.S. long after Obama is gone from the White House, if made part of U.S. law.
"One can anticipate that some tribes will seek to use this resolution to re-litigate centuries-old land disputes that courts have already rejected," said Frank at the Manhattan Institute.
The litigation process, according to the roadmap drawn up during the Carter era, would seek, however, to create a "non-hostile environment" in which tribes could repurchase lands and "extinguish the rights of current occupants," Jennings Nottoway told WND.
The anthropology professor reckons that 30 percent of aboriginal land was not ceded to Americans through the process of treaty, "but assumed – false premise or without proof – ownership and subordination," she added.
"Tribes are not asking New Yorkers to leave Manhattan and leave their homes, memories and the lands on which they are built upon, but to make available open lands/spaces for repurchase that would be used exclusively for tribal affairs."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been softening the ground for this Obama policy for some months. The U.S. Department of State indicates on its website that it has completed a "policy review" and "tribal consultation" on the indigenous peoples treaty in recent weeks.
During the White House conference, Obama said it is his aim to ensure that American Indians "had a voice in the White House … so long as I held this office, never again would Native Americans be forgotten or ignored."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=243153
Posted: December 26, 2010
By Eugene J. Koprowski---© 2010 WorldNetDaily
President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan.
The issue is causing alarm among legal experts.
In recent remarks at the White House during a "tribal nations conference," Obama endorsed the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People," which includes a sweeping declaration that "indigenous peoples have a right to lands and resources they traditionally occupied or otherwise used" but that later were acquired by occupying forces.
Read the scoop on the United Nations, in "The Beast on the East River"
http://superstore.wnd.com/books/International-News/The-Beast-on-the-East-River-book
"U.N. resolutions like this claiming amorphous rights can be a stalking horse for future attempts to have international courts enforce broad interpretations of those rights at the expense of American sovereignty," Theodore Frank, a fellow with the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, a leading public policy think tank in New York City, told WND.
Academic legal experts indicate that American Indians during the Carter era first drew up plans for reacquisition of lost tribal lands, setting the stage for the U.N. resolution that Obama is embracing. The feasibility study, eyeing 650 million acres of federally owned land in the U.S., was conducted by the Indian Education Institute at Eastern Oregon State, one expert recalled for WND.
Re-purchase would restore land back to its original owners thus strengthening tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction over its people and land," Julianne Jennings Nottoway, a professor of anthropology at Pima Community College in Tuscon, Ariz., said. "Also, it would allow tribes the opportunity to develop socially, politically and economically as competitors as nation-states within a global context under the act of self-determination."
The Bush White House refused to support the U.N. resolution. But last year, the Democrat-majority House and Senate passed a resolution that, in Obama's words, acknowledges "the sad and painful chapters in our shared history – a history too often marred by broken promises and grave injustices against the First Americans."
The president said, "No statement can undo the damage that was done. But it is only by heeding the lessons of our history that we can move forward."
Obama's interest is personal. He noted during the 2008 presidential campaign he was officially adopted by the Crow Nation, an Indian tribe in Montana, and he was given an Indian name.
"My Crow name is 'One Who Helps People Throughout the Land,'" Obama said.
The U.N. policy that Obama wants the U.S. to embrace would enact the following measures on behalf of his adopted peoples, including repatriation of land and regulations forcing the media to reflect the values of indigenous cultures:
Article 26 states that nations "shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources" which were once owned by indigenous people.
Article 21 indicates that nation "states shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their (indigenous people's) economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities."
Article 16 compels nations to "take effective measures to ensure that state-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States … should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity."
There are 47 articles in the U.N. resolution.
The international agreement is very serious business, one legal expert tells WND, and could cause problems for the U.S. long after Obama is gone from the White House, if made part of U.S. law.
"One can anticipate that some tribes will seek to use this resolution to re-litigate centuries-old land disputes that courts have already rejected," said Frank at the Manhattan Institute.
The litigation process, according to the roadmap drawn up during the Carter era, would seek, however, to create a "non-hostile environment" in which tribes could repurchase lands and "extinguish the rights of current occupants," Jennings Nottoway told WND.
The anthropology professor reckons that 30 percent of aboriginal land was not ceded to Americans through the process of treaty, "but assumed – false premise or without proof – ownership and subordination," she added.
"Tribes are not asking New Yorkers to leave Manhattan and leave their homes, memories and the lands on which they are built upon, but to make available open lands/spaces for repurchase that would be used exclusively for tribal affairs."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been softening the ground for this Obama policy for some months. The U.S. Department of State indicates on its website that it has completed a "policy review" and "tribal consultation" on the indigenous peoples treaty in recent weeks.
During the White House conference, Obama said it is his aim to ensure that American Indians "had a voice in the White House … so long as I held this office, never again would Native Americans be forgotten or ignored."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=243153
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: Nancy Murdoch, CCTA Member, Havelock, NC
USA no longer capitalist
2010-12-24
Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Just when did socialism become cool? Recently some members of Americans for Prosperity were attempting to hand out bumper stickers stating “Socialism Isn’t Cool” at the University of Virginia. There were no takers, and in fact, some people stated emphatically that socialism is cool. Thomas Jefferson, the founder of UVA, must be spinning in his grave.
There have been Marxists, communists and socialists in our country for years, but their numbers seem to have increased and they are vocal in their disdain for capitalism, the free market system and a republican constitutional form of government. Apparently they are either unaware or disdainful of the pitfalls of socialism. It’s become quite fashionable to sport clothing with depictions of Mao or Che. Most would not think of wearing a T-shirt with a picture of Hitler, but Mao killed more people than Hitler, and Che was certainly no choirboy. Historical facts seem irrelevant to some.
History has shown that eventually socialism always fails. As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, “Socialism is great until you run our of other people’s money.” We can see in the recent news that other people’s money seems to be in short supply in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Many other countries that have been socialists for decades are beginning to see the error of their ways, including Germany and the United Kingdom. Both are moving away from their old government ideas as they are finding it difficult to pay the bills. At the same time we continue to spend money that doesn’t exist while increasing the size of government and entitlements.
Although socialism can be defined in many ways, one of the most important differences is how the individual is considered. Capitalism values the power of the individual; socialism is all about the collective group. The elite in this country, including the media, some academics, and many in our government, love to bash capitalism, declaring it dehumanizing, crass and self enslaving.
The truth, in my opinion, is that socialism is evil. Bureaucrats and social engineers tell the rest of us what is good for society and through regulation and the tax system manage to redistribute the wealth. By playing on the envy of those who have less, poor and middle class people decide to despise the wealthy and begrudge them the fruit of their labors. We presently have an administration that prescribes to that theory.
Capitalism rewards self sacrifice and hard work and punishes vice. Free enterprise cannot flourish without free trade, private property and the rule of law. Frugality, creativity, and morals are the foundation of capitalism. Greed, envy and sloth are the standards of socialism. Compassion and charity are the products of capitalism; socialists expect the state to care for the unfortunates with someone else’s money.
The United States of America is no longer a capitalist country. It’s a mix of capitalism and socialism, with the state having more power than the people. We have trashed the Constitution and ignored the rule of law. In order for us to restore a constitutional republic we must restore ourselves to a moral and just nation or we will remain serfs to the tyrannical overly powerful government and eventually enslaved.
Nancy Murdoch, CCTA Vice Chairman
Havelock, NC
© Copyright 2010 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
2010-12-24
Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Just when did socialism become cool? Recently some members of Americans for Prosperity were attempting to hand out bumper stickers stating “Socialism Isn’t Cool” at the University of Virginia. There were no takers, and in fact, some people stated emphatically that socialism is cool. Thomas Jefferson, the founder of UVA, must be spinning in his grave.
There have been Marxists, communists and socialists in our country for years, but their numbers seem to have increased and they are vocal in their disdain for capitalism, the free market system and a republican constitutional form of government. Apparently they are either unaware or disdainful of the pitfalls of socialism. It’s become quite fashionable to sport clothing with depictions of Mao or Che. Most would not think of wearing a T-shirt with a picture of Hitler, but Mao killed more people than Hitler, and Che was certainly no choirboy. Historical facts seem irrelevant to some.
History has shown that eventually socialism always fails. As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, “Socialism is great until you run our of other people’s money.” We can see in the recent news that other people’s money seems to be in short supply in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Many other countries that have been socialists for decades are beginning to see the error of their ways, including Germany and the United Kingdom. Both are moving away from their old government ideas as they are finding it difficult to pay the bills. At the same time we continue to spend money that doesn’t exist while increasing the size of government and entitlements.
Although socialism can be defined in many ways, one of the most important differences is how the individual is considered. Capitalism values the power of the individual; socialism is all about the collective group. The elite in this country, including the media, some academics, and many in our government, love to bash capitalism, declaring it dehumanizing, crass and self enslaving.
The truth, in my opinion, is that socialism is evil. Bureaucrats and social engineers tell the rest of us what is good for society and through regulation and the tax system manage to redistribute the wealth. By playing on the envy of those who have less, poor and middle class people decide to despise the wealthy and begrudge them the fruit of their labors. We presently have an administration that prescribes to that theory.
Capitalism rewards self sacrifice and hard work and punishes vice. Free enterprise cannot flourish without free trade, private property and the rule of law. Frugality, creativity, and morals are the foundation of capitalism. Greed, envy and sloth are the standards of socialism. Compassion and charity are the products of capitalism; socialists expect the state to care for the unfortunates with someone else’s money.
The United States of America is no longer a capitalist country. It’s a mix of capitalism and socialism, with the state having more power than the people. We have trashed the Constitution and ignored the rule of law. In order for us to restore a constitutional republic we must restore ourselves to a moral and just nation or we will remain serfs to the tyrannical overly powerful government and eventually enslaved.
Nancy Murdoch, CCTA Vice Chairman
Havelock, NC
© Copyright 2010 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Pilot Posts Video Exposing Airport Security Flaws
The airline pilot who was reprimanded by the TSA for posting videos showing security flaws at a major airport is speaking out exclusively for the first time, saying that it was the “fallacy of the system” that inspired him to take this action.
Late last month a 50-year-old pilot, who asked that his name and the airline he works for not be made public, took a series of videos with his cell phone to show major flaws he says still exist in airport security systems. The videos show how easily ground crews at San Francisco International Airport were able to access secure areas. “As you can see,airport security is kind of a farce. It’s only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here,” the pilot says on one video.
The pilot says he has worked for his airline for over a decade, and was also an Army reserve helicopter test pilot. He was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit. But he said he’d had enough, and wanted to do what he could to draw attention to what he says is still a major problem in airport security.
http://patriotupdate.com/629/pilot-posts-video-exposing-airport-security-flaws
Late last month a 50-year-old pilot, who asked that his name and the airline he works for not be made public, took a series of videos with his cell phone to show major flaws he says still exist in airport security systems. The videos show how easily ground crews at San Francisco International Airport were able to access secure areas. “As you can see,airport security is kind of a farce. It’s only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here,” the pilot says on one video.
The pilot says he has worked for his airline for over a decade, and was also an Army reserve helicopter test pilot. He was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit. But he said he’d had enough, and wanted to do what he could to draw attention to what he says is still a major problem in airport security.
http://patriotupdate.com/629/pilot-posts-video-exposing-airport-security-flaws
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Merry Christmas from NC Freedom!
Merry Christmas
The United States Code, section 5 USC 6103 declares ten national, legal, public holidays:
(a) The following are legal public holidays:
New Year's Day, January 1.
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
Washington's Birthday, the third Monday in February.
Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
Independence Day, July 4.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
Veterans Day, November 11.
Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
Christmas Day, December 25.
Christmas Day is a Christian religious holiday so how can the federal government justify this holiday under the current political correct definition of the separation of church vs. state? We see retail stores, banks and government offices outline a policy for Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas in order to not offend some ethereal "patron".
Cincinnati attorney Richard Ganulin filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in August, 1998 by filing a lawsuit asking the federal government to stop declaring December 25th as a holiday.
"Christmas is a religious holiday and the Congress of the United States is not constitutionally permitted to endorse or aid any religion, purposefully or otherwise, or [promote] entanglement between our government and religious beliefs."
The lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Susan Dlott who stated:
"that Christmas can be observed as a federal holiday because non-Christians also mark the holiday by celebrating the arrival of Santa Claus. Since nonreligious people also observe the holiday, giving federal workers a day off for Christmas does not elevate one religion over another."
Judge Dlott preceded her ruling with the following poem:
"The court will address plaintiff's seasonal confusion erroneously believing Christmas merely a religious intrusion.
Whatever the reason constitutional or other Christmas is not an act of big brother!
Christmas is about joy and giving and sharing it is about the child within u.s. it is mostly about caring!
One is never jailed for not having a tree for not going to church for not spreading glee!
The court will uphold seemingly contradictory causes decreeing "the establishment" and "santa" both worthwhile "claus(es)!"
We are all better for santa the easter bunny too and maybe the great pumpkin to name just a few!
An extra day off is hardly high treason it may be spent as you wish regardless of reason.
The court having read the lessons of "lynch" refuses to play the role of the grinch!
There is room in this country and in all our hearts too for different convictions and a day off too!"
I personally do not need a court case to justify the spirit of Christmas. The decision concerning how individuals celebrate the birth of Jesus is just that: an individual decision. With that thought in mind, the staff and directors of NC Freedom wish you and your families a very Merry Christmas.
David DeGerolamo
NC Freedom
You can join their mailing list at: http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=0013yYWxIr3lUGnCroR4gD3wQ%3D%3D
The United States Code, section 5 USC 6103 declares ten national, legal, public holidays:
(a) The following are legal public holidays:
New Year's Day, January 1.
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
Washington's Birthday, the third Monday in February.
Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
Independence Day, July 4.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
Veterans Day, November 11.
Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
Christmas Day, December 25.
Christmas Day is a Christian religious holiday so how can the federal government justify this holiday under the current political correct definition of the separation of church vs. state? We see retail stores, banks and government offices outline a policy for Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas in order to not offend some ethereal "patron".
Cincinnati attorney Richard Ganulin filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in August, 1998 by filing a lawsuit asking the federal government to stop declaring December 25th as a holiday.
"Christmas is a religious holiday and the Congress of the United States is not constitutionally permitted to endorse or aid any religion, purposefully or otherwise, or [promote] entanglement between our government and religious beliefs."
The lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Susan Dlott who stated:
"that Christmas can be observed as a federal holiday because non-Christians also mark the holiday by celebrating the arrival of Santa Claus. Since nonreligious people also observe the holiday, giving federal workers a day off for Christmas does not elevate one religion over another."
Judge Dlott preceded her ruling with the following poem:
"The court will address plaintiff's seasonal confusion erroneously believing Christmas merely a religious intrusion.
Whatever the reason constitutional or other Christmas is not an act of big brother!
Christmas is about joy and giving and sharing it is about the child within u.s. it is mostly about caring!
One is never jailed for not having a tree for not going to church for not spreading glee!
The court will uphold seemingly contradictory causes decreeing "the establishment" and "santa" both worthwhile "claus(es)!"
We are all better for santa the easter bunny too and maybe the great pumpkin to name just a few!
An extra day off is hardly high treason it may be spent as you wish regardless of reason.
The court having read the lessons of "lynch" refuses to play the role of the grinch!
There is room in this country and in all our hearts too for different convictions and a day off too!"
I personally do not need a court case to justify the spirit of Christmas. The decision concerning how individuals celebrate the birth of Jesus is just that: an individual decision. With that thought in mind, the staff and directors of NC Freedom wish you and your families a very Merry Christmas.
David DeGerolamo
NC Freedom
You can join their mailing list at: http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=0013yYWxIr3lUGnCroR4gD3wQ%3D%3D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
