You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘constitution’ tag.

This unofficial “czar” is one busy little bee since being approved to his office of administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Cass Sunstein has now drafted what is the equivalent to a new Fairness Doctrine. World Net Daily explains this “First Amendment New Deal”, “would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.” As we all know, the only lack in diversity exists on the side of the mainstream media not presenting any news that may conflict with the liberal or progressive agenda. So, this would undoubtedly be focused on what has been come to be known as conservative media.

But it is so far well disguised. Sunstein even has previously said, “It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech.” It is my opinion, that any restraints on media would prohibit the notion of free speech completely.
Given the wording of some of these documents like the Fairness Doctrine, and what Sunstein is calling his First Amendment New Deal, it can be misleading as to whether or not it would water down the information we are able to receive through the networks. One of the regulations, as reported by World Net Daily, says that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”
With Cass Sunstein’s radical past I find it hard to believe that all the regulations contained in the “First Amendment New Deal” is as meaningless as the one previously mentioned. I will be on the lookout for the remainder of the document so that I can see what else Mr. Sunstein has in store for our freedoms.

Resource:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109969

All I have to say is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech[…].” When is the ACLU and our judicial system going to stop this madness and remember what our founders put in the Constitution to protect us from something like what the ACLU just tried to do. What part of the “Congress shall make no law…..religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[…]” do they not understand?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108029

Here’s a link to the ACLJ website with a video of Jay Sekulow on the Glenn Beck show discussing the Constitution and the health care reform bill. Also has Judge Andrew Napolitano on as guest host.

http://www.aclj.org/OnTheTv/?aP=C36C9996-9E58-44CF-A539-E6694BEFF3E5&mmType=4

Have you ever wondered about what our country is going to do with all those illegal aliens that have entered our country once Obama’s health care plan goes into effect? Well, the answer is to, if the Democrats have their way, insure them. Yes, you heard me right, not too long ago Georgia Rep. Nathan Deal tried to pass an amendment that would have required the states to verify citizenship to every individual before enrolling them in “Obamacare.” The Democrats were outraged and narrowly defeated this amendment 29-28.

With 20% of the uninsured in this country not actually being legal American citizens it is no wonder our health care system is in the kind of trouble that it is in now. Anyways, this opinion is based on the article below and I thought that you might get a kick out of it:

http://minutemanproject.com/newsmanager/templates/mmp.asp?articleid=1053&zoneid=1

Is it true that the government should provide for the American people’s health care? Is it their responsibility? The answer to both questions is a firm no. There is nothing in the constitution that holds the President, Congress, or any other responsible for our health care. It is not considered necessary and proper. Now the states can, but not the federal government.  In fact, the 10th Amendment states this:

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.

The following article written by Chelsea Schilling and posted on worldnetdaily.com (wnd.com) explains it perfectly as to how the federal government does not need to or have the responsibility to interfere in the handling of the people’s health care.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106694

Posts By Category

Search Posts By Month