Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle... But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

(If you are not up on this issue… follow the thread here from the bottom up)

Update: Religious organizations are already saying that the Obama’s announced compromise is hollow. Catholic Bishops and other religious organizations are moving forward with their protests. The political fallout from this issue could be huge in the 2012 Election among religious groups and Independents. Remember Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008.

But in reality:  Obama Didn't Cave on the HHS Mandate; He's Making an Unprecedented Power Grab and this is why, if people realize, this could be Obama’s Waterloo!  And if not, we are in big trouble!!

Don't Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!

Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience!

Do not be suckered by the “accommodation” announced today by President Obama and spokeswoman Kathleen Sebelius!

*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

Under the guise of making room for religious conscience, the President has actually made the policy worse—far worse.

Here’s how . . .

RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here.

Snip

So everywhere I'm reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches -- well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. "What's happened here is that Obama's caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he's gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!"

Snip

Obama is not doing what he's doing to make Barbara Boxer happy or the pro-abortion crowd happy or the Democrat Senate Caucus happy. He knows that's gonna happen. What he's doing is violating the Constitution. He is coalescing extra-constitutional power. He is making a power grab here that is unprecedented in the history of the presidency. (interruption)

Thomas Edsall, that's right. Thomas Edsall wrote that piece in the Nuev Orc Times, former Washington Post columnist. So I don't think... This has been my if you then argument with the Republican establishment from the get-go with Obama. I don't think this is traditional politics at all. I don't think traditional politics has anything to do with why Obama's doing this. This is about fundamentally transforming this country from a representative republic to a pure, straight democracy with the president assuming he's the majority and therefore can do whatever he wants to do. We're not dealing with the average, "Okay, the Democrats won the White House. They're gonna have it for four or eight years. We gotta try to stop 'em however we can and we'll get power back."

There's something unprecedented going on here.

Woodrow Wilson dreamed of this.

FDR dreamed of this.

Obama is doing this.

The White House will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women!!!

by order and proclamation of...

BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate

They're Using Insurance for Communism' Ann Coulter Rocks CPAC

· Obama Didn't Cave on the HHS Mandate; He's Making an Unprecedented Power Grab

Friday, February 10, 2012 2:13:55 PM · by Kaslin · 13 replies  -  Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | February 10, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here. Great to have you. It's Friday. Let's go to! JOHNNY DONOVAN: Live from the Left Coast at our satellite studios in Los Angeles,...

· BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate  -  Friday, February 10, 2012 1:28:01 PM · by unique1 · 50 replies

Lifesitenews.com ^ | Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 EST | Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change...

· Contraceptive “compromise” worse than original mandate: Eliminates any exceptions

Friday, February 10, 2012 1:36:19 PM · by Qbert · 14 replies  -  Jill Stanek.com ^ | 2/10/2012 | Jill Stanek

UPDATE, 12:14p: More evidence the “compromise” stinks: Planned Parenthood likes it. UPDATE, 12:02p: From a House source: This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference.  The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway.  Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell...

Health insurers question Obama birth control plan

Friday, February 10, 2012 5:39:10 PM · by Oldeconomybuyer · 1 replies - Reuters ^ | February 10, 2012 | By Lewis Krauskopf

(Reuters) - U.S. health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine. "We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group. "As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process." Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that...

Obama Still Poised to Takeover Churches and Eliminate First Amendment

With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.

Obama's Big Compromise With The Catholic Church Is An Accounting Trick Catholics can't pay for it: morally it isn't much different than paying a Quaker in hand-grenades. The Church can't directly subsidize sin without being guilty… Read HERE

Pro-Abortion Planned Parenthood And NARAL Come Out In Support of Obama’s Contraception “Compromise,” Catholic Bishops Already Shot It Down… – You know this is bad!!

Let us all ask ourselves  again… Was the Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention? and let us not forget that a compromise now does not mean there is a change of ideology in the White House that will continue without compromise if Obama is re-elected.

AP Source Now Says Obama to Compromise

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Blaze has covered the religious freedom issues surrounding the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate extensively. President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.

(Related: 5 Reasons the Obama Admin May Be Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle – See Posted Below)

Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday. ABC has more regarding what sources are saying the president is poised to present:

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. [...]

One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.

In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception.

CBS News corroborates:

The exact nature of the clarification remains unclear, but any accommodation could largely follow what exists in a majority of states, like in Illinois where DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the country, offers an employee health plan that does cover contraception. Georgetown University offers a similar plan.

The shift is aimed at containing the political firestorm that erupted after Obama announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventative care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by Aug. 2013.

Video: A Compromise on Contraception 

Republican leaders and religious groups, especially Roman Catholics, responded with intense outrage, saying the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.

The issue also pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that had been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama‘s health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans’ conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.

Republicans vowed to reverse the president’s policy, with House Speaker John Boehner accusing the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country’s most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals.

The measure also sparked an internal debate at the White House. Vice President Joe Biden, then-chief of staff Bill Daley and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, all Catholics, raised concerns about how the administration proceeded on the policy. On the other side, senior White House advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle, Pete Rouse and David Plouffe argued for the need to ensure coverage for all without exception, as a matter of women’s health and fairness.

'>'>'>Stephanie Cutter on CNN

The person with knowledge of Obama’s decision requested anonymity in order to speak in advance of the official announcement.

This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.

5 Reasons the Obama Admin May Be Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle

The Obama administration clearly underestimated the response it would receive from Catholics and non-Catholics, alike, after implementing a universal mandate on health plans that requires coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

As the Blaze has extensively documented, the response has been swift and hard-hitting. Many liberals who traditionally support these options for women have been jumping ship to side with Catholic leadership in agreement that the administration has overstepped its bounds — an event that so rarely happens in theological and political circles.

But it’s important to note that, despite very boisterous outcries, Obama does have support from some liberals on this issue; many of them are pointing to the fact that nearly all Catholic women use contraceptives as a defense. Using this argument, those who favor the mandate claim that the Church is out of touch and not accurately speaking for its followers on this important women’s health issue.

But is this the proper lens through which to view the issue? Free and religious speech advocates would argue that usage has little to do with views on government intervention in church affairs. In the end, it’s a complicated scenario with political capital for whichever side wins the public over. At the moment, the situation may not be as favorable for Obama as he would like. In an article published on Wednesday, Religion News Service’s David Gibson provides five reasons that the president may be losing the battle.

First, the debate, despite what the mandate’s supporters say, is about religious freedom — not contraception. Regardless of where one stands, the main issue at hand is whether the government has the right to interfere in church affairs and dictate what will be covered in health care plans. Gibson writes:

The bishops don’t have as much credibility with the laity as they used to, thanks to the clergy sex abuse scandal, among other things. But Catholics are still a potent tribe, and if outsiders are seen as attacking the church, Catholics can get defensive – and they can get even.

Then there’s the fact, as mentioned, that some liberal Catholics have abandoned the president on the issue. Regardless of where these individuals stand on use of these health care options, forcing Catholic institutions (among other faith-based groups) to violate their conscience just isn’t sitting right.

Now, let’s talk about those other faith groups. Many times, people of different religious traditions have a tough time coalescing, but on this issue, individuals with varying theological ideals are coming together. After all, it’s one thing to sit back and watch an attack on a rival faith group unfold, but when considering what could happen, should this mandate go unchecked, many religious people are fearful: “What’s next?,” they’re wondering. Gibson continues:

Even though evangelicals and other conservative Protestants generally don’t have religious objections to contraception, they do have a big problem with “big government” and with perceived infringements on religious freedom. Evangelicals – both their leaders and their troops – have never been big Barack Obama supporters anyway, so they were happy to provide any electoral and rhetorical muscle the Catholic hierarchy could not muster.

Video: Obama Administration, Catholic Leaders Clash Over Contraception Mandate

The fourth reason Gibson highlights is the fact that the “attack on religion” frame the issue is being explored through is an appealing one for Republicans. While many conservatives are wondering why Obama would approach this subject in an election year to begin with, others are noticing just how effective religious freedom rhetoric will be for the GOP nominee.

The rhetoric is already ratcheting up. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier this week.

And, of course, there’s the overwhelming fact that the president will need to secure the Catholic vote to ensure re-election. “While Obama won the overall Catholic vote 54 percent to 46 percent in 2008, he lost the white Catholic vote, 47 percent to 53 percent,” Gibson writes. It‘s hard to imagine the president won’t lose a portion of this important cohort as a result of his refusal, thus far, to compromise.

As GOP Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have both said, “Obama has shown his hand and if he is re-elected, even if they walk this back now, this is the road that his administration will go down!”

Sure, he’s shown “openness” to the ideal of coming up with a viable solution that appeases both sides, but to those so staunchly opposed, such a notion isn’t good enough. The president will need to admit wrongdoing and back away from the mandate, should he wish to appease many of those individuals who feel wronged by the government’s newfound regulations. So far, there’s no evidence that he will take such a course.

Click here to read Gibson’s RNS article.

Related:

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said!

Rubio Crushes Obama and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC; says it is a Constitutional issue!

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

CONQUERING AMERICA

CONQUERING AMERICA

By: AJ

Have you ever watched “House”, the TV series about a team of brilliant doctors who take on the most perplexing, complex and life-threatening medical cases?

In every episode, the known symptoms of the patient are written on a white-board and the doctors need to determine the diagnosis/disease causing those symptoms so that they can administer the proper treatment.  Based on the known symptoms, a diagnosis is determined and treatment ensues… but – for dramatic purposes – invariably the treatment brings on more problems for the patient.  The doctors return to the drawing board with additional knowledge about the patient’s condition and, ultimately, they’re able to determine the cause and proper treatment to save the patient’s life.

“Problem Solving” is what the team of doctors do in each episode of “House”.  They know that multiple components can, and most often do, relate.  Looking at all of it together helps them define what’s really going on. 

In fact, we employ this problem-solving strategy nearly everyday.  Think of all the times you do this with your kids; piecing together related facts, issues and information to determine what’s really going on at school, with friends, when they’re sick, etc.

Now let’s problem-solve this set of related components to determine what’s really going on…

• ACLU warns about legislation that could authorize military force within the U.S. ;
•  Obama and Soros’ “Responsibility To Protect” doctrine is used against Libya under UN authority, which means it can be used by the UN against any country, including the U.S., for whatever they consider to be “humanitarian violations”;
• The Soros-supported RAND Corporation devises a method to institute a Stability Police Force within the U.S. that gets around the constraints imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act;
• The Supreme Court upholds a lower court decision which violates the 4^th Amendment by allowing police to enter anyone’s home without a warrant;
• Obama’s Executive Orders grant full immunity to International Police (Interpol) when on U.S. soil;
• Obama enacts a DoD Directive and legislation to create Civilian Forces and Commissioned/Ready Reserve Corps;
• Obama’s DHS defines patriotic Americans as terrorists.

Perhaps we need a little more information about each of the above items because it appears our own President – our own government – has laid the groundwork to attack Americans now or in the future and that just can’t possibly be the case, right?  Here are brief descriptions of each with links:

ACLU: National Defense Authorization Act permits ‘worldwide war without end’

“A little noticed provision in the House Armed Services Committee’s National Defense Authorization Act would authorize the United States to use military force anywhere there are terrorism suspects, including within the U.S. itself, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Section 1034 was added to the bill [PDF] by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA).

“Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies,” the ACLU warned in a statement. “A ’sleeper provision’ deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.”…”

THE GLOBALISTS’ TAKEOVER OF AMERICA: Part 3 – WEAKEN MILITARY & CIVILIAN DEFENSE

“President Obama placed our soldiers under UN NATO control for his war in Libya without consulting the United States Congress.  Using our soldiers and our military assets according to what the “international community” global elites decide is clearly what Obama is interested in doing…

The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine employed by the UN and advanced by Obama is beyond dangerous.  Within the globalist’s charter is the ability to deem civil rights violations an offense warranting military action against the offending country.

No U.S. President in their right mind would ever condone R2P because of the simple realization that, at any time, R2P could be used against America .  Obama is well aware that America is hated by other countries and their intent is to destroy our free market system and our way of life; numerous videos provide irrefutable evidence of this, as well as Middle East countries calling for “Death to America !”  What would stop the UN global elites from claiming U.S. violations to warrant international military action?...”

RAND Corp Report - A Stability Police Force for the U.S. [text excerpt from report “Conclusions”]

"Weighing all considerations, the researchers concluded that the best option would be a 6,000-person hybrid force headquartered in the U.S. Marshals Service. The personnel in reserve status could be employed in state and local police forces so they would be able to exercise police functions in a civilian population daily and could be called up as needed. The Marshals Service was deemed to have many of the requisite skills. However, its training and management capabilities would need to be expanded to take on this large mission, and it would have to recruit additional personnel as well. The annual cost, $637 million, is reasonable given the capability it buys. The cost savings in relieving military forces of these duties could be greater than required to create the SPF.

The Military Police option was attractive for a number of reasons, especially its capacity, training, and logistical capabilities, but its inability to engage in policing activities when not deployed was a major stumbling block. The Posse Comitatus Act precludes military personnel from exercising police functions in a civilian setting, and legislative relief might be difficult to get. Even if such relief were forthcoming, it is unclear where and how routine police skills might be honed.

Creation of a civilian SPF would not affect the roles that other elements of the U.S. government would play. Rather, it would complement other agencies such as the departments of Defense and State. But the SPF would provide a necessary capability, and the U.S. Army should support its creation.

Evil Precedent – Indiana Invalidates Fourth Amendment

“So, now a policeman can just enter your home for any reason or no reason at all and you cannot protest it? Legality be damned, you must submit? You are kidding right? And if you just happened to be shot by the officer who just committed an unlawful entry, no one can hold the officer liable I presume. You’ll still be dead of course. Oopsie… Or how about this: the ruling creates a reasonable expectation on the part of false flag home invaders that they will not receive resistance when they assert they are the police. Feel safer now?

Incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? Excuse me, but the Constitution is not a “living, breathing document.” It says what it means and means what it says, just as the founding fathers intended – period. No judge or other person of authority has the right to interpret the Constitution in light of what they consider to be “modern” jurisprudence. And telling the victim of the illegal entry that they have plenty of opportunities to protest said illegal entry in the court system is not only arrogant and asinine, it borders on the judicial form of ‘let them eat cake.’

This not only is judicial activism at its horrific worst, it sets a really evil precedent for other states. Let’s look at the Fourth Amendment, shall we:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”…

Supreme Court gives police leeway in home searches

“In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.
"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and …forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.
An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake "knock and talk" raids.
"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock , Ark …”

EO 12425

An international police force is authorized to act within the U.S. and is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.

EO 13524

Gives International Police privileges, exemptions and immunities on US soil.

DoD Directive 1404.10: “DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce”

This Directive builds and authorizes a civilian force to operate within the DoD. The 1992 directive mentions the term “overseas” no fewer than 33 times. Obama’s 2009 directive does not mention the term “overseas” even once.

HR 1388: Recruit youth for the “National Civilian Community Corps”

Creation of a Commissioned Corps and Ready Reserve Corps is in the Healthcare Reform legislation

On page 1,311 of the healthcare legislation a new army is created – a Commissioned Corps and Ready Reserve Corps.

DHS Report defines church goers, ex-military, gun owners, tea party protesters as the terrorists

If Obama, Soros and their comrades haven’t laid the groundwork to enable international and civilian forces to take action against Americans, then why have they put these legal instruments in place and recruited kids at public schools to build the ranks of Obama’s Civilian Force?

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Does anyone have answers as to why these things have been put in place?  Why they’re directed specifically at and against the American people?  Where is the media!?  Why isn't Obama being held to account (i.e. impeached) for establishing a framework to conquer America whenever he may choose to do so?

Obama supporters shut down Atlanta tea party

A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA - Obama supporters shut down Atlanta tea party
Wait until days before event to object to 'political' nature

---

President Obama may restrict his reaction to the nationwide tea party movement whereby tens of thousands of people are objecting to the spending spree on which the U.S. government has embarked under his leadership, but some of his supporters are taking more direct action: using an easement agreement to cancel a July 4th event scheduled on private property in Atlanta.

Jason Lee at the American Thinker blog describes the situation that has developed for the 20,000 people expected to meet in Atlanta on July 4.

There, organizers had been working since March with officials to set up the tea party event in a parking lot of an old Macy's building at Gwinnett Place Mall, owned by Simon Properties Group.

Then only days ago, mall officials objected, giving organizers no opportunity to find a replacement location and no choice but to cancel.

On its website, the Atlanta tea party organization said it was an "objection" from Gwinnett Place Mall that triggered the collapse of its plans.

"It is unfortunate the event had to be canceled," said Julianne Thompson, event co-organizer.

She continued, "The old Macy's building is on private property, and not owned by Simon Malls, however the mall manager asked the property owner and [me] to come in the office on Thursday of this week, and told us Simon does not want political events on its property. They were also concerned about the fact we were using the term 'protest.' Although the event was on private property, the mall was able to assert authority on the matter due to reciprocal property easement agreements."

Event co-chair Debbie Dooley stated, "Our Atlanta Tea Party team tried for the next day and a half to find an alternative location large enough for the event, and with the proper layout for our vendors, children's activities, and fireworks show, but we could not find anything suitable that would have been available on July 4th."

Added Lee, "With just a few days left until the Fourth of July Tea Parties begin, this is very unfortunate timing! One wonders why Simon Property Group waited until now to interfere."

But he also connected the dots for those who really wonder:

1. Gwinnett Place Mall shut down the Atlanta Tea Party.
2. Simon Property Group owns Gwinnett Place Mall.
3. Melvin Simon (a Forbes 400 billionaire) is co-chairman of Simon Property Group, Inc.
4. Melvin Simon has provided large political contributions to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken, John Edwards, the DNC and many other Democrats and Democrat organizations.
5. Melvin Simon was a major contributor to Barack Obama's inaugural committee and has given at least $1 million to the William J. Clinton foundation.
6. Melvin's wife, Bren, personally donated almost $100,000 to various political candidates, was a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid and contributed to President Obama's inaugural committee.

According to Bob Owens at Pajamas Media, the evidence of the motive also was clear.

"The apparent plot was uncovered when blogger and radio talk show host Andrea Shea King noticed an unusual amount of traffic coming to her site earlier this month," he wrote.

"On June 16, Andrea Shea King e-mailed me, questioning a heavy burst of Sitemeter traffic coming from Simon.com. She included screencaps of the traffic," he wrote.

One screen shot has been embedded, revealing extended visits from Simon.com:

Owens said the computer readouts showed the Simon.com visitors were looking at anywhere from 20-44 pages on King's site and remained there 22-55 minutes.

"Obviously, they were very interested," he wrote.

He said King reached out to him because one of the pages the Simon.com visitors were watching on her site was a March 1 commentary that linked to one of his own – a story about the shortage of certain firearms and ammunition in the U.S.

Among his closing comments there was, "An increasing number of people are openly expressing that the reason they are stocking up on ammunition is that they fear the actions of our federal government. These are people who have never been radicals, most could generally care less about politics, and many have never even dreamed of owning guns until now.

"And while it will no doubt come as a surprise to those who would like to perpetrate the stereotype of gun owners as rural and uneducated — the kind that bitterly cling to their guns and Bibles as someone once scornfully said — anecdotal evidence suggests many new gun owners are minorities, and all social classes are purchasing firearms and ammunition," he said.

"While we seem to have a tea party movement growing nationwide as people voice their dissatisfaction with our power-mad, spending-crazed government by calling on the symbolism of the acts of Patriots in Boston Harbor more than two hundred years ago, I suspect those protests are hiding a deeper resentment and fears about the competency and goals of our federal leaders."

After the first round of tea party events, on Tax Day April 15, Obama displayed indifference toward those concerned about spending, as shown in this YouTube video:

He referenced "folks waving tea bags around" and said, "Let's not play games and pretend the reason is because of the Recovery Act (federal spending plan)."

Kim Priestap at the Wizbangblog wasn't convinced that he was as aloof as he tried to appear.

"When you watch the video, pay close attention to the tension in his face and the tone of his voice when he talks about the tea party protesters and 'certain news channels.' This massive tea party protest really got in his craw. Don't believe it when others say he didn't know about the protests. He knew. And he didn't like it one bit," Priestap wrote.

On a blog forum page, a participant wrote: "It is again a very scary example of the lengths the left will go to silence the voices that don't agree with the people in power. Be very afraid of your government. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to light that the owners are personal friends of someONE."

At FaultlineUSA, Jim Simpson wrote, "Please urge everyone you know to participate in this boycott. Please contact Simon Properties to express your outrage and urge those of your friends who care about freedom to do the same. Following is the contact information for Gwinnett Place Mall and a form letter you can use in whole or in part if you wish."

Les Morris, a spokesman for Gwinnett Place, released the following statement to WND about the plans for adjacent private property:

"Gwinnett Place Mall is not public property, but is privately owned. In order to preserve the shopping experience for all guests, it is our standing policy not to permit political protests or rallies on mall property. To clarify the timing of our decision, mall management was not notified of the event or contacted for approval on event plans until just last week."

Posted: June 26, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WND readers have been sending information on upcoming tea parties. Tea Party Patriots lists events by state on its website. Most of more than 400 following protests are planned by national organizer Amy Kremer and her Tea Party Patriots team. Or go to World Net Daily for full listings.

Source: Fox Nation

California District Creates Primary School Gay Curriculum

Many parents are condemning the lesson plan as sex education in disguise and are angered

Elementary school teachers in Alameda, Calif., will introduce lesson plans to their educational curriculum beginning next year that address gay and lesbian issues, KCBS News in San Francisco reports.

Kindergarten through grade 5 students throughout the county will be exposed to same-sex educational material aimed at promoting tolerance and inclusiveness.

The curriculum –– which will include lessons to introduce students to  GBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) issues –– will be designed to discourage bullying and teasing based on gay and lesbian stereotypes. The plan will be implemented despite objections by parents who complain children are too young to be exposed to the material.

Many parents are condemning the lesson plan as sex education in disguise and are angered that they will not be allowed to exempt their children from the lessons. Opponents decry the curriculum plan as an effort to advance the gay, lesbian and transgendered agenda.

Those opposed to sexual orientation lessons for children are so upset they are threatening to sue the school board, ABC News reports. Promoting gay, lesbian and sexual orientation should be a parents' rights issue, parents say, and is not an appropriate topic for school children.

The Alameda school district's legal counsel, however, recommended the plan because the curriculum does not deal with health or sex education, which are topics that do require opt-out provisions.

“It was the opinion of our legal counsel that this curriculum was not health or sex education curriculum,” school board president Mike McMahon told CNS New.

“If a student responds that one family in the book is made up of a mother, a father, and two children and a cat, you may acknowledge that some families look like this, but ask students for other examples of what a family can look like.”

School Board Member Trish Spencer, who voted against the plan, said she worries that its implementation could lead to the harassment of students who have religious objections to homosexuality. She cited that bullying due to religion is a bigger problem for the district than bullying based on homosexuality.

Also adamantly opposed to the plan is Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

“This will be done whether parents like it or not, and it shows the hostility against parental rights and traditional family values,” Thomasson, told CNS New.

Last month, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal that passed in November.

The Alameda school board said it will review its decision to implement the curriculum at the end of next year’s school session.

By: Rick Pedraza - Newsmax

Related Resources:

• ParentalRights.org
  
• Michael Farris - United Nation’s Convention on Rights of a Child Material   
  
• Parentalrights press conference
  
• 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family - Book Review

Man Detained by Police for Displaying Patriotic Bumper Sticker

The Department of Homeland Security Strikes Again
A Special Report by Archie Jones, American Vision Staff Writer

A customer service representative at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemary in Ball, Louisiana alerting him that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker from The Patriot Depot and displayed it on his car.

The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden.  The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it.  Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights.  By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake   was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights.  The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty.  Those threats included—and include—illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law. 

MAY SPECIAL: Pick Any 5 Bumper Stickers for ONLY $10!

The mission of The Patriot Depot is to rescue our country from the tyrannical clutches of the Left. One way we can do this is to send powerful conservative messages to our fellow citizens. These bumper stickers rally the conservative base and might convince fellow Americans duped by Liberals to rethink their beliefs. That's why we are offering this very special deal...Pick any of five bumper stickers for ONLY $10! — We have several more from which to choose!

Retail: $25.00 • ONLY $10
ORDER TODAY!

The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.”   Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration.  But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election. 

The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion.  Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition—and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough.  Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse.  They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!

Order your 2-pack of these stickers today for only $9.95 and get FREE SHIPPING!

OR...

Get a FREE 4" x 5" Mini "Don't Tread on Me" Bumper Sticker!

(We've added just $.97 to cover our costs for postage, the envelope, and credit card/PayPal transaction fees. There's no profit for us -- we just want to get the word out!)

The Destruction of Miss California… And Freedom of Speech

Checked on your freedom of speech lately? If not, consider the plight of 21-year-old Carrie Prejean, a student at San Diego Christian College who was selected first runner-up in the Miss USA pageant last month. During the question and answer part of the competition, Prejean was asked whether every state should legalize gay marriage. Smiling brightly, the young woman said: "I think that I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there."

Most polls show that the majority of Americans agree with Prejean, including the president of the United States. Yet since she made that statement as Miss California, the woman has been persecuted in the media.

MSNBC allowed a guest to call her vile names, and the far-left cast of characters on that cable network has delighted in mocking and demeaning Prejean almost nightly. The left-wing blogs have been especially vicious, and now, even her own pageant is turning against her: She's being investigated for possibly violating pageant rules by giving unapproved interviews. Of course, she gave those interviews trying to defend herself against media assaults.

This is a disgraceful exposition with wide implications for all of us. Here we have an American citizen answering a direct question respectfully and honestly and being punished for it. You don't get more un-American than that. Where is the American Civil Liberties Union on this? That great defender of free speech has been totally silent. Once again, the ACLU displays its biased hypocrisy like a giant float-balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

And where is the National Organization for Women? A young woman is being victimized by hate speech, actually being called a "b*tch" on a variety of television programs, and NOW has no comment? Again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Finally, where is the homosexual community? Do they not respect freedom of speech? They don't want to be punished for their expression, right? It would be incredibly smart for a gay leader to pull a Voltaire and publicly state, "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it." So, who's going to be courageous and step up on this one?

Gay marriage has been defined by some of its supporters as a civil rights issue. Isn't freedom of speech a civil rights issue? Therefore, let's call this Miss California deal exactly what it is -- a gross violation of the spirit of America. If a 21-year-old pageant contestant can be persecuted for uttering an opinion based upon a sincere belief, then all of us are at risk, as well.

By Bill O'Reilly - Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?"

Related Articles:

Trump Says Miss California Can Keep Her Crown - Good Man... Good Job... Good For Freedom of Speech