You can't say Happy Easter you can only say Happy Bunnies Day !!!!
A School Bans Easter
Alabama School Bans Word 'Easter'
“We had in the past a parent to question us about some of the things we do here at school,” said Heritage Elementary School principal Lydia Davenport. “So we’re just trying to make sure we respect and honor everybody’s differences.”
Television station WHNT reported that teachers were informed that no activities related to or centered around any religious holiday would be allowed – in the interest of religious diversity.
“Kids love the bunny and we just make sure we don’t say ‘the Easter Bunny’ so that we don’t infringe on the rights of others because people relate the Easter bunny to religion,” she told the television station. “ A bunny is a bunny and a rabbit is a rabbit.”
There’s nothing religious about big bunnies toting colorful plastic
eggs, but an Alabama elementary school is doing what they can to make
sure they don’t offend anyone with an upcoming “academic egg hunt.”
Teachers at Heritage Elementary School in Madison, Ala., were informed Monday (March 25) their plans to have an “academic egg hunt” with their kindergarten and second grade students would need to be scrapped, according to a report from WHNT.com.
School Principal Lydia Davenport informed staff no activities related to or centered around any religious holiday would be allowed in the interest of religious diversity among students.
The change has some parents upset.
“I don’t get upset about too many things, but this upsets me. What is this world coming to? I am a Christian and proud to announce it. But even non-believers enjoy a good egg hunt. Kids need to enjoy being kids,” one parent wrote in an email.
Teachers had originally planned to participate in a ‘quiz bowl’ egg hunt where students would chime in to answer with egg buzzers and search for answers to quiz questions in “Easter eggs,” WHNT reports.
The activity will go on, but with some changes. Teachers are being asked to use other different kinds of shapes besides eggs and to not mention the word “Easter.”
“Kids love the bunny and we just make sure we don’t say ‘the Easter bunny’ so that we don’t infringe on the rights of others because people relate the Easter bunny to religion; a bunny is a bunny and a rabbit is a rabbit,” Davenport said.
Davenport said the school’s religious diversity among students prompted the decision to change the quiz bowl.
Teachers at Heritage Elementary School in Madison, Ala., were informed Monday (March 25) their plans to have an “academic egg hunt” with their kindergarten and second grade students would need to be scrapped, according to a report from WHNT.com.
School Principal Lydia Davenport informed staff no activities related to or centered around any religious holiday would be allowed in the interest of religious diversity among students.
The change has some parents upset.
“I don’t get upset about too many things, but this upsets me. What is this world coming to? I am a Christian and proud to announce it. But even non-believers enjoy a good egg hunt. Kids need to enjoy being kids,” one parent wrote in an email.
Teachers had originally planned to participate in a ‘quiz bowl’ egg hunt where students would chime in to answer with egg buzzers and search for answers to quiz questions in “Easter eggs,” WHNT reports.
The activity will go on, but with some changes. Teachers are being asked to use other different kinds of shapes besides eggs and to not mention the word “Easter.”
“Kids love the bunny and we just make sure we don’t say ‘the Easter bunny’ so that we don’t infringe on the rights of others because people relate the Easter bunny to religion; a bunny is a bunny and a rabbit is a rabbit,” Davenport said.
Davenport said the school’s religious diversity among students prompted the decision to change the quiz bowl.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Sometimes Government Should “Infringe on Your Freedom”
Morgan recently agreed with the Mayor, saying that sometimes we need to have a nanny state tell us what we should or should not eat or drink. They know best for us, since we lowly civilians are just too stupid to make those decisions for ourselves. Are there going to be a lot of people who make bad decisions for themselves? Of course, but that is their responsibility. Once people accept the idea that the government should be everybody’s nanny, where does it stop?
On Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked the Mayor where the line is. How far is too far? Here was his response:
“I do not think that we should ban most things. I do think that there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom
and that is, for example, if you’re drinking we shouldn’t let you
drive, because you’ll kill somebody else. If you’re carrying a gun we
shouldn’t let you on an airplane. There’s a lot of things that we do. If
there’s asbestos in the classroom we should remove the kids from the
classroom until you clean the air. But in terms of smoking, if you want
to smoke, I think you have a right to do so. I would protect that. If
you want to own a gun, I certainly think that it’s constitutionally
protected. You certainly have a right to own a gun if you want. If you
want to eat a lot and get fat, you have a right to do it, but our job in
government is to inform…”
He’s saying that placing restrictions on sugary sodas is like
outlawing drunk driving or not allowing potential terrorists to board a
plane. It’s like making sure there isn’t any asbestos in school
buildings to harm children. So, if we’re opposed to Nanny Bloomberg’s
soda ban, then I guess that means we are in favor of children
breathing dirty, toxic air; drunk drivers killing other people,
including children; and terrorists killing passengers, including
children, with their assault weapons. See? It’s about the children. And
sometimes, to protect the children, the government has to infringe on
people’s freedoms. Except a woman’s absolute right to murder her unborn child (remember, her body, her choice).Should there be a government regulation limiting how many alcoholic drinks a person can imbibe on a daily basis? How about a limit on how many prescription drugs a person can take or how many hours of TV a person should be allowed to watch? If this is about making sure people don’t end up morbidly obese, what’s to stop them from regulating, monitoring and tracking everything we eat and drink on an individual basis and mandating a certain amount of weekly exercise? Wouldn’t that help with people’s health?
Maybe, but these government-mandated diet restrictions are like gun control laws that limit magazine size, number of rounds, type of gun, etc. They claim they just want to prevent crime. So, what’s to stop them from giving every citizen his own prison cell, a straightjacket and a feeding tube through which people would be fed a government-approved diet? In that society, there would be no gun murder, no thefts, no rapes, no unplanned pregnancies, not even suicides. Crime and morbid obesity would be eliminated. Isn’t that what liberals say they want?
I’d rather have freedom with all its dangers and responsibilities than slavery with all its safety and security.
Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/mayor-michael-bloomberg-government-infringe-freedom-piers-morgan/#ixzz2OgaAjsKF
Obamacare to Cover Electronic Devices With Artificial Intelligence
(PP)- After decades of empty promises and continued frustration over failed attempts at designing robots that can think and feel like a real human being, artificial intelligence (AI) is finally beginning to deliver on some of its early promise and has met a timely benefactor with the recent enactment of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
Scientists
developing the vast array of electronic devices carrying capabilities
of human level intelligence got a leg up from President Obama’s
legislative maneuvering after it was discovered that deep inside the
massive health care law was a provision to pay for all necessary repairs
and maintenance for non-human forms of artificial intelligence.“This news is a huge boost for the AI industry that is starting to gain traction with cars that park themselves and computers smart enough to beat Jeopardy champions,” said an IBM intern. “Repair and maintenance costs were driving our prices up, but now that the American taxpayer will pay those costs through Obamacare, consumers will be able to buy all the smart electronics they can find.”
Because Congress passed the massive bill with difficult to decipher language in such a hurry, few legislators knew about the provision that provides for costly repairs to devices with even the smallest form of artificial intelligence.
“If I understand this correctly, Obamacare will cover repairing everything from iphones to home security systems,” said a Congressional copy repair man. “This is good for me because my job security will be solid since most copiers can detect when the paper is jammed, and that’s a form of AI covered by Obamacare.”
Tha Palookaville Post has learned that many analysts disagree with how far the law extends in providing repairs for devices with AI, noting that even a toaster knows when the bread is toasted.
Experts are also saying that the cost for repairs and maintenance for AI devices was not included in each of Barack Obama’s or Nancy Pelosi’s original estimates, either because no one had read that far into the bill before it passed, or perhaps because the copier was jammed and the page including the costly provision was destroyed. Thus, the costs for Obamacare will continue to skyrocket well beyond all expectations.
12,356 Psychiatrists Can’t be Wrong: A Peek into the Mind of Barack Hussein Obama
(PP)- Friday the American Psychiatry Association, APA, published a study asserting that President Barack Hussein Obama is mentally ill after examining factual incidents from his public and private life, and that he was was psychologically unfit for high office.
After polling 12,356 psychiatrists and sifting through 2,417 comments from it’s members, the APA concluded that President Obama is suffering from several mental disorders which affect both his personality and his behavior.
“There is so much going on inside that brain of his that it has taken us over four years to pin down all of his issues,” said APA president Philip Jester. “But the facts are conclusive after such a thorough investigation, and we are confident intelling the American people that their President is very ill, and that he should seek psychological treatment immediately.”
The significance of releasing the study on Good Friday was not lost on those who have followed the President’s career, and have assumed for some time that he suffers from a Messiah Complex, which is a state of mind where an individual holds a belief they are, or are destined to become, a savior.
“President Obama’s behavior obviously indicates that he sees himself not only as a savior to America, but also the world,” said Jester. “Travelling around the world trying to fix every little problem is not something meant for one man, and is only a task achievable by God. Unfortunately for the American taxpayer, Obama’s attempt at creating his version of Utopia takes a big chunk out of their paycheck and only makes things worse for those he thinks he is helping.”
President Obama’s long history of illegal drug use may have contributed a role in him developing Paranoia, which is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.
“We’ve all seen the pictures of the President smoking marijuana day after day, year after year until somehow he graduated from Harvard Law School,” said Jester. “So after years of abusing his mind with Paranoia inducing drugs, Obama mistakenly believes that Republicans want to harm him, but conservatives really just want him to leave them alone. All that any thoughtful conservative would ever do is say a prayer that he gets the help that he obviously needs.”
“If you think about it, Paranoia is the only reason why any American President would even consider infringing on the second amendment, and the fact that he does it at the same time as he orders the federal government to buy all of the ammunition they can get their hands on indicates a deep seeded fear and anxiety. Add to the equation all of the new drones he recently ordered to spy on the American people and it’s obvious… this man is Paranoid.”
Within the study there was some evidence that not all psychiatrists were in agreement regarding every one of Obama’s mental problems, and that a significant number of doctors clashed over the President’s having an Obsessive-Compulsive disorder, versus simply being a Kleptomaniac.
“Stealing from the taxpayer’s wallet has been well documented by everyone but those in the liberal media,” said one doctor who actually examined President Obama while playing golf with Tiger Woods. “So if a psychiatrist gets his news from MSNBC, NPR or CNN, then he probably thinks the President is just obsessing over things like Obamacare and tax increases, and being compulsive with knee-jerk reactions to school shootings and hurricanes.”
“But if a doctor gets his news from truthful sources, then he knows deep down that the President just likes to take things that aren’t his, and this of course indicates a simple case of Kleptomania.”
The
Palookaville Post has learned that although President Obama’s mental
illness is a major problem for the future of America, that one man alone
could not have caused the enormous amount of damage to this formerly
free and prosperous society, and a that large segment of the American
population suffers from the same mental disorders.The Post has looked further into the psychiatrist’s study and found that all of the notes leading to the doctor’s conclusions regarding President Obama’s mental illness contain words like liberal, Utopia, progressive, Reverend Wright, socialist, Top 1%, communist, Chris Matthews, fair share, New World Order, Karl Marx, redistribution, marijuana, Big brother, mulligan, and many more from the Democrat Party platform.
Doctors warn that anyone using those words in a positive way should seek an immediate psychiatric evaluation.
Ace Cub Reporter Jimmy Olsentwins
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
1 Comment on "12,356 Psychiatrists Can’t be Wrong: A Peek into the Mind of Barack Hussein Obama"
“Conservative” Senator Mike Lee Advocates Trashing The Constitution and Bill of Rights As Long As The Senate Has 60 Votes
“Conservative” Senator Mike Lee Advocates Trashing The Constitution...Senator Mike Lee ( R-Utah) was a guest on Greta Van Susteren’s On The Record said:
“What we’re insisting on, Greta, is a sixty vote margin. We think that any time Congress wants to take away the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens, it ought not do so for light or transient reasons; and it ought not do so with one party, the party in control of that party.”
I was stunned when I heard him utter those words On the Record. Senator Lee somehow believes that having procured a “Super Majority” that the proper threshold has been crossed to begin trashing the Constitution and trashing the God-given, constitutionally protected rights of “We the People!”
I hate to be the one to break this news to Senator Lee but I don’t care if every long eared j****** and every horned RINO in the Senate, even if it is rises to 100% unanimity, votes to steal the rights of “We the People,” it is still an act of sedition, and in the case of gun control, I believe an act of treason inasmuch as we are mandated to be the Militias of the several states and to “infringe” on the right of the people to keep and bear arms would leave us defenseless.
There are two key phrases in Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. The first is: “The right of the people.” Senator Lee, that phrase is also found in the 1st Amendment. It is a carefully crafted phrase letting Congress know that these are the unalienable “Rights of the People” and they are not to be touched.
The second is the word infringed. Infringed means that even the dirtiest part of the garment which hangs on the ground and collects mud and filth cannot be touched. That means no matter how undesirable you believe it is for me to be armed, you cannot tough my right to be armed.
Senator Lee, you have apparently misread the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They do not bind down “We the People”. They are there to place chains on the government … to keep them from the insanity of which you spoke so highly during your misguided appearance with Greta Van Susteren.
First, Senator Lee, let me begin by defining the American government. According to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the American government is tri-partied. It consists of We the People, the States, and the Federal Government (not national, which implies power over the people instead of a federal government which is assigned certain tasks to complete on our behalf).
This is an important concept as concerns both U.S. and biblical law. Government is not just the federal government or the state government. It, above all and most importantly, includes and is comprised of at every level of “We the People”.
Therefore, all duties of government belong to all Americans. However, we tender to the federal government and sovereign 10th Amendment States certain duties to be carried out on behalf of the whole government, which includes, most importantly, Americans. With that understanding, when the ignorant, unlearned, or leftist traducers suggests that only government should have guns, it is the job of Constitutional Americans to remind them that We the People are one-third of the government structure in this country and comprise the other two thirds.
Further, we are the first nation in the history of this earth which had no subjects. Every other nation considered their heads of state as rulers and the people as its subjects. Even Great Britain had—and still has—as a basis of government, the concept of their people as subjects. As Americans we have never been subjects. We are free men and women who are citizens and government is subject to us and to our designs … not the other way around.
Our history includes numerous wars with Great Britain, beginning with the Revolutionary War. That war was fought for a number of reasons, including religious persecution. However, the catalyst for the commencement of hostilities was the British hubris believing they could simply march in and take our guns. Men bled and died; fortunes were committed and lost; families destroyed and lives forever changed, but in the end, America prevailed and history was forever changed.
This land remained free for a number of spiritual reasons, but also because we believed that every man should be armed. We the People were the government and to disarm us was to disarm the United States.
Now, with the same imperial hubris, the strutting peacocks calling themselves our “representatives” fire about legislation that pretends as if we have no history and blithely assumes that the rights of We the People are light, transient and easily changeable. They assume to themselves the position of royalty—not loyalty—in assuming they can pass gun control or confiscation legislation and steal the rights of We the People, granted by God, and therefore removable only by Him and protected unconditionally under the Second Amendment which uses the iron clad phrase “shall not be infringed.”
How would the nation feel if we decided tomorrow to regulate, not end, but regulate, their rights under the First Amendment? What if government declared tomorrow that everybody has to be a Mormon and no one is allowed to criticize the President, the Congress or the Courts? What if government decided that from this point on public speech would not be ended, just regulated? What if before one could speak in public one would need to undergo a national background check, be told on what subjects they could speak and what they could say and one would have to agree to these “regulations” before they would be granted a license to speak in public? Would the gun grabbers on the left still say that this is not an infringement, merely a defining or perhaps regulatory measure to protect the public, or would there be an outcry of censorship that would bring down the great walls of the great halls of Washington D.C.? I suspect the latter.
The Militia Act of 1792
Passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act. Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders. (Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792)
Further, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The definition in Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines infringed as “broken, violated: transgresses. Clearly the Founding Fathers believed that everyone should be armed.
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty’s teeth.” - George Washington
I will proceed no further with the hundreds of quotes that could be applied, but suffice it to say, both history and the law support our unabridged right to keep and bear arms – of any sort – without limitation. We the People are the government.
We are not subjects of the government that may be stripped of our rights. We The People are one-third of the American government. You cannot strip this third of government of guns while allowing the other two-thirds armaments. Such actions would be as unlawful as Congress attempting to control the executive or judicial branches of the federal government.
What breath-taking ignorance and arrogance you displayed, Senator Lee, while weakly attempting to make a protest on gun legislation. It is, of course, laudable that you were trying to make it more difficult for the left to pass gun control legislation. But the choice isn’t between 51 votes or 60 votes to authorize a change in the Constitution or to purloin our sacred and God-given rights. One cannot by an act of Congress, no matter the vote-change, disavow the Constitution or the Bill of rights.
The federal branch of American government attempting to disarm one-third of the American government is not government, but tyranny.
Therefore, I must conclude that any attempt to disarm the people in any way, is sedition because it is in violation of our history, deprives one-third of the government—We the People—of a right inherent to all, and despotically limits armaments to only two parts of government to the diminishment or even enslavement of the other.
Further, it nullifies the ability to carry out the divine command to one-third of the American government— We the People —to deliver the poor and oppressed from the hand of the wicked. Additionally, such a disarmament dramatically reduces or eliminates one’s ability to protect their family, home and nation.
As citizens we are bound to protect this nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Any attempt to disarm We the People of this country is a denial of our history, immoral, and illegal and therefore violates the Second Amendment which in a de facto sense nullifies all of the rest of both the Constitution and the Amendments. To disarm the people is at once an act of war, and, in fact, a coup d'état. It is treason and sedition against the government of the United States, comprised of We The People.
Therefore, Senator Lee, no matter how well intentioned your comments On The Record were, they were−and always will be− tragically wrong-headed and contentiously flippant of those things we as Americans have held dear for hundreds of years.
We the People, have not and will not give the United States Senate the power to void the Constitution, overturn the Bill of Rights or disarm “WE THE PEOPLE”, whether the vote be a simple majority or a one hundred percent emersion into a such seditious folly.
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content
and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
twitter 364,889 followers