Rightwing Extremist

The Department of Homeland Security put out an assessment of rightwing extremist. The definition of a rightwing is "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." The definition is on its face offensive and anticonstitutional.

The reason this definition is offensive is it lumps together hate-oriented groups with groups that are focused on a single issue. I doubt the the threat from a hate-mongering organization is the same as from a group that opposes abortion. The agenda of these two groups are diametrically opposed. One is for saving all innocent lives, one is to propagate hate. I know there are those of you saying, yeah but you can't claim the same innocence on the part of staunch immigration opponents. I believe you can easily make that argument as well. People who are for strong border security do not hate immigrants, they do not hate people based on race. These people believe that we should uphold our laws. Illegal immigrants should not be costing taxpayers millions of dollars every year, in welfare, education, and social security. Not to mention the cost of additional crimes. Security is an issue the government must be strong on. If we had better boarder control, we would have less drugs and cartel violence in our country. Putting these groups in with hate-oriented groups is offensive.

Secondly, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states, "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." Say that it is extreme to reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, seems to in direct violation of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers we're very clear, that unless an authority was granted to the Federal Government it belonged to the states. Apparently we have gotten so far of course that the Founding Fathers would be considered Rightwing Extremeist.

I am sure I will quickly be added to the Rightwing Extremist watchlist. I am opposed to abortion, the believe in strong boarder security, and believe the Federal Goernmant as usurped power that most definately belongs to the states. I fall into everyone one of those catergories, except being involoved in a hate-oriented group. I have never, not do I plan to act violently towards these ideals. My beliefs are such that I must work with in the system to peacefully promote the causes I hold dear. Yet by this definition I am a rightwing extremist. How said is it that traditional values are so under attack that we now call these values extreme!

Girl Sue Father Over Grounding and Wins

I do not know if you have seen this story yet but it is scary.

Read Story Here

For any judge to say what is too extreme of punishment for a rule broken in my home is absurd. This man was grounding his daughter from a class trip because she was not only spending time on websites he found inappropriate for his daughter she was also posting inappropriate pictures of herself. She is 12. This father was protecting his daughter and some screwball judge says that he can't enforce his house rules. This is a sad sick ruling. Now of course I am no advocating abuse, but grounding is certainly not abuse.

This ruling just points on the need for the Parental Rights Amendment. The UN is already trying to get the US to ratify the The Children's Bill of Rights. This sounds very innocent, however there are some disturbing, number 5 on the list is the right to media access. I am a firm believer that I am here to protect my children and not all media is appropriate for children. As a parent I am best able to determine what is appropriate for my child's maturity. Number 7, the right to privacy. I agree you need to give children some privacy, but once again in order to protect and teach my children they are not given the same amount of privacy as an adult. Anyone who has raised children realized privacy is something that increases with age. My favorite is number 10 freedom of association. This one is the most absurd. Taken to the extreme, if a child wants to be part of a gang or cult, the parents are just suppose to smile and let it happen. This is the most insane idea I have ever heard. As a parent it is my job to protect and teach my child. To say I should not have some say over who they associate with is ludicrous.

We need to stand with our leaders and encourage them to support the Parental Rights Amendment. We can not allow this craziness to move into the US. Anyone who has raised a child or taken even a single parenting class knows that children need boundaries. Without boundaries, there is no center. When children understand the rules and consequences they are more peaceful. It is crazy to say children should be able to do whatever he or she wants. Please talk to your legislators and share your support of the Parental Rights Amendment!

THE STEM CELL DEBATE IS DEAD!!

I am not sure Dr. Oz will be back on the Oprah show, even after being a long time guest of Oprah. Her face was priceless after Dr. Oz shocking announces that "I think, Oprah, the stem cell debate is dead."

Ans then goes on to say"The problem with embryonic stem cells is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, like all of us are made from embryos, and those cells can become any cell in the body, but it’s very hard to control them and so they can become cancer."

"I can take a little bit of your skin, take those cells (iPSC), get them to go back in time so they are like they were when you were first made, and then they will start to make that dopamine and I think those cels, because they won’t be as prone to cancer and because they’re your genes will be the ones that are ultimately used to cure Parkinsons."

"I think we are single digit years away from making a big impact in the lives of Parkinson’s disease but also diabetics, heart disease, people who have had a lot of problems."

The reason her face was so priceless is that she realized the political implication of his statement. It means that it is unnecessary to destroy human life to cure these diseases, which until now we have been told is the only way to find a cure. How exciting that we can protect the most innocent lives and still find cures for these disabling diseases. Now I am sure President Obama and his allies will not protect these lives, as his record on protecting innocent life is abhorrent. And since facts matter little to the left, I am sure the battle will remain. No more than ever we can stand for what is right, and protect all human life!

President Obama- Which Country does he Represent?

Have you heard excerpts of Obama's speeches from his trip to Europe? I find them quite disturbing. First of all you would think he hates this country and thinks we the great trouble makers of the world. I think it is sad that he thinks by disparaging our country across the world. He is suppose to be looking after our interests. I think he thinks that the Europeans with respect him more if he says exactly what they want to hear. This never works. It boss not work to suck-up to a crappy tyrannical boss, he does not respect you he walks all over you. Thank Obama, I know what the world to love us. I could careless, how they feel about us. Well, Maybe that isn't true, I would prefer they respect us out of healthy fear!

The even more disturbing part of his speeches his claim that the US will be the first to limit our nuclear weapons. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be the only country without nuclear weapons. I don't want the crazy tyrants in North Korea, Iran or any other company to have more weapons then us. Pacifism works on an individual level, it rarely works as a country. I don't want my children growing-up on under the rule of one of these dictators.