About Me

My photo
United States
I despise the left wing liberal attempts to change America. I support FREEDOM, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, religious freedom and protecting the rights of Americans, including the unborn. Close the border, round up illegals and send them home. Welcome them back with a green card. I believe in preserving the visions of our founding fathers which did not include Socialism or Sharia Law. This IS STILL America.....at least for now.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Khadafy: "I Share Obama Vision"! Obama PRESIDENT FOEVER!

Tell me, President Obama, do YOU wish to remain President forever?

Khadafy: I Share Obama Vision!

Of course he wants Obama to be President forever. Obama just gave him a boat load of money. Yep....for the charities run by the Khadafy children.

Let's Celebrate 60 Years of The Peoples Republic of China! Yea, Right Here in America!

Since when did America take part in celebrations of communism? Let's raise the flag of COMMUNIST China in DC! Don't stop there....gotta light the Empire State Building in the colors of the COMMUNIST flag of China.



Is this a joke? Wait...I know...I must be on Candid Camera!

Empire State building to glow communist red, yellow
Skyscraper to blaze Chinese colors in honor of 60th anniversary of regime

Get To Know Your "Science Czar", John Holdren!

Now we all know that NONE of the CZARS believe these things anymore now that they are in the White House, right? He is also an advocate of mass sterilization by means of our drinking water so there would be no need to seize so many babies. Whew! Scared me for a moment.

How did we get to the point to where these people are in The White House? Could you imagine the ramifications of putting birth control into the public water supply? This means putting DRUGS in the water. Drugs have side effects. Children drink this water.

This is one of the scariest men yet.

Holdren: Seize babies born to unwed women
Proposed government force adoption if mother refused to get abortion

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

In Your Heart, You Know He Is Right



Even liberals....know he is right.

Deliver us, OBAMA?



What else can I add to this?

Get To Know Your "Diversity Czar", Mark Lloyd!

So Obama's handpicked "diversity czar" says that the revolution in Venezuela was important; that the Fairness Doctrine doesn't go far enough and that we need to look at who's going to step down so someone else can have power.

How are you possibly going to convince the American people this is right?



Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New Attack-Free-Speech Czar

'Diversity czar' takes heat over remarks.
Lloyd lauded Chavez's rise




Mark Lloyd: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down'

'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down'? Is this, could this possibly be.... a racist statement? Oh no, it can't be....because he is a progressive not a conservative. Now if a white person had said: 'Black People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' it would not only be racist but probably hate speech AND a hate crime.

Mark Lloyd: Redistribution of Wealth Czar at the FCC

Monday, September 28, 2009

Get To Know Your "Safe School Czar", Kevin Jennings!

EDITORIAL: At the president's pleasure

Just when I think it cannot get any worse....guess what? It just gets worse and worse. Get to know your safe school czar, Kevin Jennings. He not only failed to report an illegal homoesexual relationship of one of his underage students with an older man, but he wants to educate YOUR children in the art of homosexuality. I guess after Van Jones, nothing should surprise me. It only renews lack of faith in Obama.

'Safe schools' chief encouraged child sex with older man
Washington Times: Kevin Jennings should 'come clean'


You know, Mr. Jennings, you will never teach my children about homosexuality. I decide when and how that is done. That is MY job as the parent of MY children.

I strongly suspect they will learn it as part of our religion. It is a sin, you know.

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job

Friday, September 25, 2009

Million Med March

I say to the vast majority of the Doctors of America, I support you!

MillionMedMarch

Doctors fed up with Obama, massive march planned 10/01/09!
by DefendUSx September 25, 2009 01:49
From MedScape:

Physicians Are Talking About: The Million Med March on Washington

"I'm tired, mad as hell, and just not going to take it anymore," says Richard Chudacoff, MD, a gynecologist from Las Vegas. "I am going to Washington, DC. At noon, on Thursday, October 1, 2009, I will be on the Mall with a few other physicians."

Dr. Chudacoff is not talking about vacation plans. Rather, he intends to unite with other physicians in what he calls the Million Med March.

"We simply decided that we will not work that day and perhaps the day before and maybe even the day afterward," says Dr. Chudacoff. "Perhaps we will show the country that physicians are worth more than a $5 copay; that physicians are more important than a mid-level healthcare worker; and that our profession is needed, our services are required, and our practice is a calling to be respected, not a trade that is to be negotiated to the lowest bidder."

A letter posted by Dr. Chudacoff on www.obgyn.net in June has been spreading like wildfire across the Internet, finding its way to personal blogs, discussion groups, and professional forums. On June 23, it was posted to Medscape's Physician Connect (MPC), a physician-only discussion group, where it sparked a flurry of responses. A number of MPC postings suggest that Dr. Chudacoff will have plenty of company on October 1.

"Finally, something constructive," says a dermatologist. "I'll see you in DC on October 1. Some of the office staff, including our nurse, expressed a wish to be there too. Bring spouses and friends and anybody else who actually cares about healthcare in the US."

"I have cleared my schedule and plan to attend," responds a vascular surgeon. "I think this type of grassroots action, unaffiliated with hospitals, insurance companies, or the AMA, is likely to get the most sympathetic attention."

"This is the best proactive effort I have heard from physicians," says an MPC family medicine physician. "Actions speak louder than words."

"I can be there without changing my schedule," adds an anesthesiologist. "I was just terminated from my office-based practice where I have been for 7 years."

One physician's decision to take a stand and unite with his fellow colleagues has given doctors a simple way to show the public and elected officials that healthcare, for them, is not a political agenda. It is their life and livelihood. And in recent weeks, the partisan discussions in the Senate and House of Representatives on healthcare legislation have seemingly marginalized -- and at times even maligned -- physicians.

"I was for nationalized healthcare," says a family medicine physician, "but I thought that meant providing a safety net for needy Americans. But this monster of a bill is something quite different."

"Politicians and payers have turned our profession into a political football," retorts an anesthesiologist.

President Obama's recent tonsillectomy remark, in which he insinuated that doctors make medical decisions based on what they would be paid for a procedure rather than the best treatment for the patient, has further incensed physicians. "As a hard-working, conscientious physician, I am offended. It's like racial stereotyping. Only now it's about a group that is mostly overworked, tired, and saving people's lives," retorts a family medicine practitioner.

If the president is looking for greed within the healthcare system, Dr. Chudacoff suggests that he not take aim at primary care physicians. Chudacoff adds, "Medicine is going corporate, and we physicians are just flipping burgers so corporations have an improved bottom line."

Although fair compensation is an important issue among the organizers of the Million Med March, it is not the only issue. Medicine has become a toxic environment in which to work. Dr. Chudacoff underscores the situation. "Quality of care suffers with less time to see patients and less reimbursement received when we do see patients. We cannot do pro bono work as we have in the past because we have to see an ever increasing number of patients. This extra work is forced upon us when insurance companies, especially Medicare and Medicaid, constantly refuse to pay us in a timely fashion for our time and efforts. And then once we do see patients, our clinical acumen is stifled as we must follow a cookbook approach to patient care. It is time that we stand up for ourselves."

A vascular surgeon comments, "We can lead the way to real reform. Now is clearly the time to act, not just type."

On July 10, an MPC contributor and one of the supporters of the Million Med March launched a Website, www.millionmedmarch.com, to build support for the October event. The site announces a physician grassroots movement to re-establish honor, dignity, and worth to the medical profession. "The Million Med March movement has taken off, on so many sites, and within so many communities. Why now? The debate on national healthcare has forced this conversation, and this conversation has pushed us over the tipping point."

The mandate as stated on the Million Med March Website includes the following points:

•Services must be adequately reimbursed so that we may spend more time with our patients and not be forced to see an unsafe number of patients to pay for increased business costs.
•Less money must go into the hands of insurance companies' administrative costs, and more money must go towards patient care and medical research.
•We must abolish third-party payers or prevent a single-payer system for office visits and medical services; these services are costly to the patient, physician, and society as a whole.
•Our patients need access to brand-name drugs that are as affordable in the United States as in Canada and Mexico.
•We must have medical malpractice reform, with caps on all damages, so that we can practice without the fear of needless and unwarranted lawsuits that only benefit attorneys.
Some MPC contributors voice concern that the Million Med March scheduled for October will occur too late to have any meaningful impact on healthcare reform. "The health reform bill is going nowhere," says an anesthesiologist. "Let's make a major statement between its failure and the next attempt to marginalize the docs."

A plastic surgeon adds, "Stand up for our profession and come to DC."

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Liberal Media Hypocrisy Test

Listen AND watch! See if you can spot the hypocrisy! Ready, Set, GO!



Just a little side note...there was not ONE arrest during the Tea Party on September 12.

Live Free or Die Fighting, A Letter from Jerry Wilson



Friends & Fellow Americans,

When the storm finally hits (and it will), those of you who supported the Obama administration will be affected as well. It won’t just be us gun owners or Fair Taxers, or Pro-Lifers that get hit. You’ll be right there next to us.

You see, you all thought the Conservatives were nut cases. You know, all of us who believe in God, small government, the Second Amendment, etc. And you thought you could just go back to sleep after the election was over. In your world, America will continue as before. You’ll still have the same rights, the same nice house, the same big screen television – it’s all good. After all, your high school football team won and the other team lost – go team! Even if you have bothered to look up from the daily grind since Nov 4th, you dismissed everything that has occurred as “politics as usual” – “the same old stuff”.

In the end, it’ll all be OK won’t it?

Not this time. There are a growing number of citizens in the US that are ready to fight to shut down the government’s grab of personal freedom, it’s blatant abuse of the constitution, and it’s attempt to replace the American way of life with socialism. You have to listen carefully to hear them, but they are there. I won’t start that fight, but when it goes down I will join it.

As for you, why… you’ll be shocked because you didn’t see it coming. And eventually you’ll be saddened when you see that we have truly lost the way of life with which you grew up. You’ll be saddened that your children and grandchildren live in a socialist, government-controlled gulag where their every movement from cradle to grave is tracked by the government. But most of all, you’ll be saddened by the death of friends and relatives who are brave enough to fight and die for something they believe in.

You know, McCain wasn’t much of a candidate. I’ll give you that. He was the lesser of two evils for most of us. I don’t blame you for not voting for him since, at the time, you didn’t know what we all know now. But at least John McCain was an American. He was a supporter of the American way of life and he understood that you can’t negotiate with terrorists. He understood and appreciated the sacrifice made by my father and other members of the Greatest Generation.

Mark my words friends. All across America groups are forming. They are forming out of anger and out of desperation at the thought of losing America. They’re not militia groups, terrorists as the Department of Homeland security would have you believe; they are Americans, loyal to the constitution. They are mothers and fathers and grandparents. They belong to groups like the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, the Patriotic Resistance, the Constitution Party, the Young Conservatives, the 9/12 Project, and Grassfire. Right now they are fragmented, each focused on their own cause. But sometime in the next two years, our government is going to do something really stupid and these groups will come together. Watch for it, wait for it…get ready. It will happen.

When that event happens, whatever “it” is, our great country is going to plunge into chaos for a while. I pray to God that we make it through that time and emerge a stronger, smarter country.

Jerry Wilson
Ozark, Missouri
Live Free or Die Fighting
jerrywilson@centurytel.net

Black Republican History

Black Republican History

Drenched in blood of slavery

Abraham Lincoln (Republican) and Freed Slaves

Now you tell me who is Racist? It sure isn't the conservatives!

Democrats Reject Putting Pre-vote Health Bill Online

Transparency at its finest!

I guess if they are not going to read it, we must not be allowed to.

Democrats nix putting pre-vote health bill online

Pelosi: I "Absolutely" Support Putting Health-Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote

Un huh...sure. You were brave to say that since you knew it would be voted down by your fellow Democrats.

WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY?

Conservatism -vs- Liberalism

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

I am not sure who wrote this...but they really summed it up.

"A democracy is where 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49."
Thomas Jefferson

The Government Can! Sing it with us....The GOVERNMENT CAN!

Think they will show this one in the schools? I think I might just demand it!

Didn't Deserve This

Life....it is a beautiful thing!

School Kids Taught to Praise Obama

It is said that this took place at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in New Jersey. They will not confirm this...in fact they will not even respond. Lyrics can be found under the video.

If this was my daughter's class, I would be looking for the finest civil rights attorney in America. This is clearly indoctrination. They are even taking words from children's Christian hymns and changing them to fit a liberal perception of Obama as the Messiah. My family will reserve our singing of praises...for The Lord.

His Classroom's Marchin' On!




Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama



Are we still in America?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

End Federal Gag Order on Medicare Cuts

"It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent."
Barack Obama

Obama, define "transparency"!

Walk the Streets in Anger

Monday, September 21, 2009

Liberals Against The Patriot Act

I remember the outrage from Liberal America when along came The Patriot Act under the Bush Administration. Obama's congressional vote was "nay", yet he is pushing for the reauthorization of The Patriot Act today.

Where are the screams from Liberal America? Where is the outrage? If it was a bad thing under Bush, isn't it bad under Obama?

If liberals were outraged then and not now, isn't that hypocricy?

Frankly, under the Obama Administration, we really no longer need the patriot act because Obama has the Black Widow. The Black Widow gives far more syping capability than The Patriot Act ever did.

I find it interesting that the bill, S.1686, for The Patriot Act is described as "a bill to place reasonable safeguards on the use of surveillance and other authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act, and for other purposes".

I guess the Liberals believe this.....Go figure.

So I wonder how they feel about "The Black Widow"? Oh wait, that's right...CNN, ABC, MSNBC and CBS never reported on that. I guess the liberals just don't know about it.

I also find it interesting that we have breaking news of preventing a terror attack just before voting to reauthorize The Patriot Act. Great timing, huh?

I was against The Patriot Act then....and now. I am also against The Black Widow.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

50,000 Muslims To Hold Islamic Prayer Service On Capitol Hill

50,000 Muslims To Hold Islamic Prayer Service On Capitol Hill

Islam on Capitol Hill

"I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Barack Obama


Please take time from your day...on 9/25/09 at 1pm ET.....to pray to Our Heavenly Father through his son Jesus Christ. You do not have to be anywhere special.....just stop what you are doing and pray. Set your online reminder service....mark your calendars....do whatever it takes for you to remember the time and date.

Our country is on the verge of something very sinister. Let's outnumber them in prayer....and ask the Lord to lift up our nation and protect us.

Share this with your friends, family and church leaders. If your church has bells, ask that they be rung at that time.


We can make 50,000 Islamic prayers......a drop in the bucket. Let's shoot for MILLIONS!

Thanks!

ACORN? How much STIMULUS money did they get?

This is your stimulus money at work. I am not going to tell you how much "STIMULUS" ACORN received until the bottom of this post. If you are outraged by that answer...please call The White House and ask them why. I am certain they will be happy to divulge this information. Obama has quite a long history with ACORN....despite what ACORNS website says tonight after this recent development. Then I challenge you to check out the FOX News Website then go to CNN and ask yourself why CNN is not covering this. Even liberals should be OUTRAGED! ABC and MSNBC gave it a little blip...with somehwat of a slanted edge against the, you know, CONSERVATIVE journalist.

What is wrong is wrong. There is a whole lot wrong here.





ACORN received 52,000,000 from 1994 until the Stimulus package. With the Stimulus...they received 8.5 BILLION dollars. EIGHT-POINT-FIVE BILLION DOLLARS!

National Debt Limit

Can you take a guess at what the interest is on 13 TRILLION dollars? The new national debt limit? What would you think?

Go ahead guess.......really! Give it your best shot!

I cannot keep a secret so I am going to tell you.

650 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Yep...that is what we pay in interest on our debt. Wonder how much of that goes to China?

Our country is trying to nationalize health care.....when we just asked for our debt limit to be increased.

Can you say....AMERICA....BANKRUPT?

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Cass Sunstein Quotes

Let's get to know Cass Sunstein!

But first, let me tell you....if there were a rat in my house, expulsion would be moot, it would die. Hell, I might even use a shotgun to kill it. Kidding on the shotgun but rest assured the rat would die.

"Those who emphasize suffering have a simple answer to this objection:
Everything depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering. If rats are able to suffer, then their interests are relevant to the question of how, and perhaps even whether, they can be expelled from houses."
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 12

For more lovely Cass Sunstein sentiments....click below. Read them and weep.

These were originally on the internet and I had a link to them in a .pdf. They were removed...but I had saved them so here they are. Sorry for the formatting.

Cass Sunstein Quotes
Second Amendment
Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns.
The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on
various grounds. As late as 1980, it would have been preposterous to argue that the
Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, and no federal court
invalidated a gun control restriction on Second Amendment grounds until 2007. Yet
countless Americans politicians, in recent years, have acknowledged that they respect the
individual right to bear arms, at least in general terms. Their views are a product of the
energetic efforts of meaning entrepreneurs – some from the National Rifle Association,
who have press a particular view of the Second Amendment.
--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton University Press,
2009, p. 172-173
The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests
typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle
Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as
jurisprudential twins. The National Association of Broadcasters is prepared to make selfserving
and outlandish claims about the First Amendment before the public and before
the courts, and to pay lawyers and publicists a lot of money to help establish those claims.
(Perhaps they will ultimately succeed.) The National Rifle Association does the same
thing with the Second Amendment. In both cases, those whose social and economic
interests are at stake are prepared to use the Constitution, however implausibly invoked,
in order to give a veneer of principle and respectability to arguments that would
otherwise seem hopelessly partisan and self-interested.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Republic 2.0, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 173
“[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right,
then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to bear arms. ”
- Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, “Radicals in Robes”
In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was
interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second
Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second
Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word
'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my
lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't
guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second
Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for
the defense of the state."
It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering
over Burger's words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and
the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a
constitutional question in an interview on national television. (Chief Justice John Roberts
is not about to go on Fox News to say that the claimed right to same-sex marriage is a
fraud on the American people perpetrated by special interest groups.) Should we
therefore conclude that Burger had a moment of uncharacteristic recklessness? I do not
think so. Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus within the culture of
informed lawyers and judges—a conclusion that was so widely taken for granted that it
seemed to him to be a fact, and not an opinion at all.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
…[T]he Second Amendment seems to specify its own purpose, which is to protect the
"well regulated Militia." If that is the purpose of the Second Amendment (as Burger
believed), then we might speculate that it safeguards not individual rights but federalism
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
…[T]he Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the Second Amendment
creates an individual right to own guns. There is a decent chance that the Court will say
that it does. Whatever the Court says, we have seen an amazingly rapid change in
constitutional understandings--even a revolution--as an apparently fraudulent
interpretation pushed by "special interest groups" (read: the National Rifle Association)
has become mainstream.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
Even if the Second Amendment does confer an individual right, and therefore imposes
limits on national gun-control legislation, a further question remains. Does the Second
Amendment apply to the states? By its plain terms, the original Bill of Rights applies
only to the national government. To be sure, most (but not all) of the listed rights are now
understood to have been "incorporated" in the Fourteenth Amendment and made
applicable to the states through that route. But is the Second Amendment incorporated as
well?
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
How did the individual rights position, so marginal and even laughable among judges and
lawyers for so long, come to be treated as a respectable view--and even to be described as
the standard model by 2007? It is certainly relevant that the National Rifle Association,
and other like-minded groups and individuals, have sponsored and funded an endless
stream of supportive papers and research. The Second Amendment revolution has been
influenced by an intensely committed social movement with political and legal arms. But
it is also true that for many decades lawyers and law professors paid hardly any attention
to the Second Amendment.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
But whatever the founding generation may have thought, the Second Amendment has
become a shorthand, or a rallying cry, for a deeply felt commitment on the part of tens of
millions of Americans. There would be not merely prudence, but also a kind of charity
and respect, in judicial decisions that uphold reasonable restrictions without rejecting that
commitment, and without purporting to untangle the deepest mysteries about the meaning
of the Constitution's most mysterious provision.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
In the context of use of guns, it might be helpful to emphasize that the National Rifle
Association is funded in large part by gun manufacturers, and that manufacturers of guns
are often behind efforts to claim that the Constitution guarantees rights of gun ownership.
In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that the Second Amendment confers
an individual the right to own guns for nonmilitary purposes. In doing so, the Court was
greatly influenced by the social setting in which it operated, where that judgment already
had broad public support. In recent years, there has come to be a general social
understanding that the Second Amendment does protect at least some kind of individual
right; and that understanding greatly affects American politics. The Supreme Court’s
ruling in favor of an individual’s right to bear arms for military purposes was not really a
statement on behalf of the Constitution, as it was written by those long dead; it was based
on judgments that are now widespread among the living.
--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton University Press,
2009, p. 5
But there is a radically different reading of Heller. The constitutional text is ambiguous,
and many historians believe that the Second Amendment does not, in fact, create a right
to use guns for nonmilitary purposes.8 In their view, the Court’s reading is untrue to the
relevant materials. If they are right, then it is tempting to understand Heller not as
Marbury but as a modern incarnation of Lochner v. New York, in which the Court
overrode democratic judgments in favor of a dubious understanding of the Constitution.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “Second Amendment Minimalism,” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 122: 246
Hunting & Animal Rights
"We ought to ban hunting"
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University
“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a
form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination
of human beings.”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University
But I think that we should go further. We should focus attention not only on the
“enforcement gap,” but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In
short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments,
entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It
is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed
European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
If we understand "rights" to be legal protection against harm, then many animals already
do have rights, and the idea of animal rights is not terribly controversial... Almost
everyone agrees that people should not be able to torture animals or to engage in acts of
cruelty against them. And indeed, state law includes a wide range of protections against
cruelty and neglect. We can build on state law to define a simple, minimalist position in
favor of animal rights: The law should prevent acts of cruelty to animals.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). Introduction
“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are
persons, or that they are not property. A state could certainly confer rights on a pristine
area, or a painting, and allow people to bring suit on its behalf, without therefore saying
that that area and that painting may not be owned. It might, in these circumstances, seem
puzzling that so many people are focusing on the question of whether animals are
property. We could retain the idea of property but also give animals far more protection
against injury or neglect of their interests.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 11
Do animals have standing? To many people, the very idea seems odd. But several cases
suggest that the answer might be yes.
In a remarkably large number of cases in the federal courts, animals appear as named
plaintiffs.
…Indeed, I have not been able to find any federal statute that allows animals to sue in
their own names. As a rule, the answer is therefore quite clear: Animals lack standing as
such, simply because no relevant statute confers a cause of action on animals.
It seems possible, however, that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to
protect their own rights and interests. Congress might do this in the belief that in some
contexts, it will be hard to find any person with an injury in fact to bring suit in his own
name. And even if statutes protecting animal welfare are enforceable by human beings,
Congress might grant standing to animals in their own right, particularly to make a public
statement about whose interests are most directly at stake, partly to increase the number
of private monitors of illegality, and partly to bypass complex inquiries into whether
prospective human plaintiffs have injuries in fact. Indeed, I believe that in some
circumstances, Congress should do just that, to provide a supplement to limited public
enforcement efforts.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 259-260
In the future, legislative decisions on such questions will have considerable symbolic
importance. But they will not only be symbolic, for they will help define the real-world
meaning of legal texts that attempt to protect animal welfare – statutes that now promise
a great deal but deliver far too little.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 261
Do animals have rights? Almost everyone believes in animal rights, at least in some
minimal sense; the real question is what that phrase actually means. By exploring that
question, it is possible to give a clear sense of the lay of the land—to show the range of
possible positions, and to explore what issues, of theory or fact, separate reasonable
people. On reflection, the spotlight should be placed squarely on the issue of suffering
and well-being. This position requires rejection of some of the most radical claims by
animal rights advocates, especially those that stress the “autonomy” of animals, or that
object to any human control and use of animals. But this position has radical implications
of its own. It strongly suggests, for example, that there should be extensive regulation of
the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture. It also
suggests that there is a strong argument, in principle, for bans on many current uses of
animals.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
…[R]epresentatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that
anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. If, for example, a farm is treating
horses cruelly and in violation of legal requirements, a suit could be brought, on behalf of
those animals, to bring about compliance with the law.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
Now turn to some quite radical suggestions. Suppose that we continue to believe that
animal suffering is the problem that should concern us, and that we want to use the law to
promote animal welfare. We might conclude that certain practices cannot be defended
and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be
insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal
suffering will remain very high. To make such an argument convincing, it would be
helpful, whether or not necessary, to argue not only that the harms to animals are serious,
but also that the benefits, to human beings, of the relevant practices are simply too small
to justify the continuation of those practices. Many people who urge radical steps—who
think, for example, that people should not eat meat—do so because they believe that
without such steps, the level of animal suffering will be unacceptably severe.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
Of course the largest issue involves eating meat. I believe that that meat-eating would be
acceptable if decent treatment is given to the animals used for food. Killing animals,
whether or not troublesome, is far less troublesome than suffering. But if, as a practical
matter, animals used for food are almost inevitably going to endure terrible suffering,
then there is a good argument that people should not eat meat to the extent that a refusal
to eat meat will reduce that suffering. Of course a legal ban on meat-eating would be
extremely radical, and like prohibition, it would undoubtedly create black markets and
have a set of bad, and huge, side-effects. But the principle seems clear: People should be
much less inclined to eat meat if their refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
We should increase the likelihood that animals will have good lives—we should not try
to ensure that there are as many animals as possible.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
Every reasonable person believes in animal rights. Even the sharpest critics of animal
rights support the anticruelty laws. I have suggested that the simple moral judgment
behind these laws is that animal suffering matters, and that this judgment supports a
significant amount of reform. Most modestly, private suits should be permitted to prevent
illegal cruelty and neglect.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
Less modestly, anticruelty laws should be extended to areas that are now exempt from
them, including scientific experiments and farming. There is no good reason to permit the
level of suffering that is now being experienced by millions, even billions of living
creatures.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago
Those who emphasize suffering have a simple answer to this objection: Everything
depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering. If
rats are able to suffer, then their interests are relevant to the question of how, and perhaps
even whether, they can be expelled from houses.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 12
The idea here is that animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant
respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings.
Sometimes such arguments posit general rights held by living creatures (and natural
objects) against human depredations. In especially powerful forms, these arguments are
utilitarian in character, stressing the often extreme and unnecessary suffering of animals
who are hurt or killed. The Animal Welfare Act reflects these concerns.
--Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory
State, Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 69
Free Speech
…[M]any discussion groups and websites, less and often more extreme, that can be found
on the Internet. Discussion groups and websites of this kind have been around for a
number of years… On the National Rifle Association’s ‘Bullet N’ Board,’ a place for
discussion of matters of mutual interest, someone calling himself “Warmaster” explained
how to make bombs out of ordinary household materials. Warmaster explained, “These
simple, powerful bombs are not very well known even though all the materials can be
easily obtained by anyone (including minors).”
--Cass R. Sunstein, Republic 2.0, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 47
To the extent that they weaken the power of the general interest intermediaries and
increase people’s ability to wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would
prefer to avoid, emerging technologies, including the Internet, create serious dangers.
I don’t want government regulation of the blogosphere in the form of mandated links or
mandated civility or, you know, if you’re doing liberal ideas on your site you have to
have conservative ideas too. I don’t want any of that stuff… But I do have some ideas
and they’re about private voluntary solutions. One is that blog providers, either writers or
those who operate them should, if they are involved in opinion – at least most of the time,
work hard to obey norms of, let’s call them, civility and diversity. So not complete
diversity. You’re entitled to have a point of view. But to think that some of the time if
people are reading you its good to catch their eye with something that might irritate them
a bit.
-- Bloggingheads.tv, Cass R. Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School and
Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA Law School video debate,
recorded May 27, 2008 and posted June 2, 2008.
A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should
not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. 92
I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of
the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring
greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views. The First Amendment
should not stand as an obstacle to democratic efforts to accomplish these goals. A New
Deal for speech would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in
promoting political deliberation and citizenship. It would reject Justice Holmes’
“marketplace” conception of free speech, a conception that disserves the aspirations of
those who wrote America’s founding document.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. 119
Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and
television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether,
as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving
democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of
the First Amendment in the democratic process.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. xi
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not
necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137
[M]any people all over the world have become even more concerned about the risks of a
situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another…Democracy
does best with what James Madison called a ‘yielding and accommodating spirit,’ and
that spirit is at risk whenever people sort themselves into enclaves in which their own
views and commitments are constantly reaffirmed… [S]uch sorting should not be
identified with freedom, and much less with democratic self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p. xii
Civil Liberties
[C]ourts should ordinarily require restrictions on civil liberties to be authorized by the
legislature, not simply by the executive.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004
The availability heuristic and probability neglect often lead people to treat risks as much
greater than they in fact are, and hence to accept risk-reduction strategies that do
considerable harm and little good. Civil liberties may be jeopardized for precisely this
reason. And when the burdens of government restrictions are faced by an identifiable
minority rather by the majority, the risk of unjustified action is significantly increased.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004
Taxes
Sunstein scolds readers like small-minded, selfish children for opposing the size, scope,
expansion and skyrocketing expense of government:
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn
it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of
probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it
if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the
community in which we live?... Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes
there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth
defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without
placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without
dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes,” The Chicago
Tribune, April 14, 1999
Second Bill of Rights
My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s
heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect
both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and
clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 1
Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious
form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of
contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust “government intervention”
and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is
incoherent, a tangle of confusions.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 3
Those of us who have plenty of money and opportunities owe a great deal to an active
government that is willing and able to protect what we have.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 4
In a nutshell, the New Deal helped vindicate a simple idea: No one really opposes
government intervention. Even the people who most loudly denounce government
interference depend on it every day.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 19
For better or worse, the Constitution’s framers gave no thought to including social and
economic guarantees in the bill of rights.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 115
The Judiciary
[I]t is reasonable to suggest that the meaning of federal statutory law should not be based
on whether a litigant has drawn a panel of judges appointed by a president from a
particular party—or on whether the Supreme Court is dominated by judges of any
particular ideological stripe.
--Thomas J. Miles & Cass R. Sunstein, Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An
Empirical Investigation of Chevron, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies, Working Paper 06-15, May 2006
Government Regulation
No institution in the executive branch, moreover, is currently responsible for long-range
research and thinking about regulatory problems. It would be highly desirable to create
such an office under the President, particularly for exploring problems whose solutions
require extensive planning, most notably the environment. Nor is there an office charged
with acting as an initiator of as well as a brake on regulation. Some entity within the
executive branch, building on the ombudsman device, should be entrusted with the job of
guarding against failure to implement regulatory programs. Such an entity would be
especially desirable in overcoming the collective action and related problems that tend to
defeat enforcement.
--Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory
State, Harvard University Press, 1990, p. 108
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has been entrusted with the
power to coordinate regulatory policy and to ensure reasonable priority-setting. In the
Clinton Administration, OIRA appears to have become an advisory body, more limited in
its power than it was in the Bush and Reagan administrations. In view of the absence of
good priority-setting, and the enormous room for savings costs and increasing regulatory
benefits, this is highly unfortunate.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 315
OIRA should see, as one of its central assignments, the task of overcoming governmental
myopia and tunnel vision, by ensuring aggregate risks are reduced and that agency focus
on particular risks does not mean that ancillary risks are ignored or increased.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 315
Congress should add to existing legislation a general requirement that agencies consider a
range of risks to life and health, including substitute risks, to the extent that this is
feasible. Finally, OIRA should undertake the process of scrutinizing risk regulations to
show that agency action does not suffer from the kind of tunnel vision exemplified by so
much of modern risk regulation.
Problems of selective attention, interest-group power, and myopia have created a range of
irrationalities and injustices in modern government.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 316

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Trial Ordered for Obama Eligibility

You know, I am not a "birther", per say...but....with people trying to get Obama to prove his eligiblity to be the President of the United States of America and Obama spending MILLIONS in legal fees to avoid proving eligibility, kinda makes me wonder WHY he is so adamant on avoiding a showdown on proving he is really an American Citizen.

Who is paying for Obama's legal fees? Is he paying or are WE paying...you know...remember us? We the People? Knock knock...hello, we are still here.

There have long been questions about his eligibility and in the beginning I really paid little attention. That being said, the longer it drags on with Obama racking up millions in legal fees, the question has sort of entered my mind.

First of all, anyone running for office should be proven eligible by non-partisan panel. That sure makes more sense than posting a short form birth certificate the internet.

Whether the allegations of his citizenship are legitimate or not, this issue could be put to rest quite easily. All college records have been sealed, his birth records sealed (and more listed in the article below) and it appears that the President has gone to great lengths to prevent having to show records? Why? What is he hiding?

Today, the birthers received a victory. It appears there is a judge in this country that believes in upholding The Constitution of the United States.

Why should a trial have ever been orderd? He could just show the damn proof and get on with his agenda of destroying our country.

If there is one thing I know....if it were a conservative in office....and he were white....he would have had to prove it long ago.

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue
Arguments planned Jan. 11 for major Obama challenge


But don't get excited yet...and that goes for birthers and non birthers:

President Obama's defenders also said they would file a motion seeking to block any discovery of evidence at this point.

Any true American and defender of freedom should ask themselves why he does not just show the proof. What could he possibly have to hide?

Even more so if he has nothing to hide.

Impact of the Waxman–Markey Climate Change Legislation on the States

Take a look at how Cap and Trade will affect utility and gas prices in YOUR state. Ehh...what is another $1500.00 per year for utilies you ask?

Add it to this:

Increased taxes due to the ever increasing national debt.

Another increase for a government run public option for health care.

Oh wait...plus the actualy cost you must incur for health insurance. (Gee...paying twice for it)

Impact of the Waxman–Markey Climate Change Legislation on the States

Monday, September 7, 2009

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Hey Obama....Leave the Kids Alone!

Our county has decided today that they are going to show the children of our county the Obama broadcast to the students of our nation. Earlier in the day it was decided by my daughters teacher NOT to show it. Sadly, the seem to have overruled our teacher.

I have made it clear that my children will not view the broadcast. The school is very cooperative in the matter, thankfully. I have included in this post my email to the school administration regarding this broadcast. If you have children and do not want them to view it either, feel free to use my letter in part or whole:

I am very saddened by the decision to allow this broadcast. I am assuming it will be shown to all grades?

President Obama has goals for our communities and our country that are in direct conflict with the Constitution of The United States of America, and the political and religious beliefs of our family. The idea of using government schools to force students to bond or unite with the country's highest leader might be appropriate for North Korea, China or Cuba, but it has no place in The United States of America, a Constitutional Republic. The President of the United States will not use my children to move forward his goals for community and country to "come more readily".

From the teachers lesson plan provided by The White House:

"It might make sense to focus on personal and
academic so community and country goals come more readily."


If you plan to use the teachers planning form provided by The White House for activities following the broadcast, I would like to know if this will be a graded activity? If so, will our children be given alternative activities to do for the grades.

I do appreciate being informed of this change in plans. I will try to get appointments for the dentist made for all three children. If that is not possible at this point, we can figure something else out to make it so that it is not a burden for our teachers. I have no problem sitting with the children in a school location where there is no audio or video of the broadcast during that time and then having them return to class after this event and any activities or discussion that follows.

I guess by now you have guessed that we are a very conservative, Christian family. I cannot apologize for that, but I will apologize for any trouble this situation creates for our teachers. They are wonderful, we appreciate them and we certainly do not want to create any extra hassles for them.

Thank You,

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

I Pledge to be of Service to Barack Obama? What? Huh?

First....watch this video.



Most all of these sounds so warm and fuzzy they almost make you want to puke. Sadly, the reality is that is just the packaging. It is just an agenda wrapped so beautifully you cannot see it for what it is. By the time you get through all the wonderful things these people are going to do....you forget that Obama does not even do one of them. He does not represent America with patriotism or pride. Instead he goes around kissing the asses of our enemies and apologizing for our country.

Most of all people fail to see that he is asking people to serve HIM. The way I understood it, Obama was in servitude to US! My family will never SERVE Obama. My family will serve the Lord.

Next, we have Obama entering the classrooms via live broadcast from The White House. Again, I can assure you that his speech will be eloquent and moving, but please look deeper.

http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

On the second page of the lesson, you will see:

"It might make sense to focus on personal and
academic so community and country goals come more readily."
.


Goals? Who's goals? Obama's goals? What if our goals for the country differ with the great leader's goals?

Clearly, this is about Obama's agenda.

I make my case here (again from the lesson plan provided to teachers):

"Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the PRESIDENT". These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals".

Then...we have to have the speech interpreted by teachers. If they support the socialist movement in America, our children are nothing more than political pawns in a child indoctrination movement in America.

My family will never SERVE Obama. My family will serve the Lord and the Lord alone.
My children will not participate in this "revolutionary" event hosted by a President that I have fundamental differences with.

Go ahead, ask me. Ask me outright WHY my children will not watch the President address all of the students in our nation. Go ahead, ask me!

This is my answer:

"President Obama has goals for our communities and our country that are in direct conflict with the Constitution of The United States of America. The idea of using government schools to force students to bond or unite with the country's highest leader might be appropriate for North Korea, China or Cuba, but it has no place in The United States of America, a Constitutional Republic. The President of the United States will not use my children to move forward HIS goals for community and country to come more readily"

That is my answer, and I am sticking to it.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Walk the Streets in Anger

This is a remarkable video by Anne Harpen. Thank you, Anne. It spoke right to my heart.



This is written and performed by John Pickle. Washington, We are Watching YOU!

Teaching Masturbation to Kindergarteners MANDATORY?

U.N. Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds

Another sound reason to get the UN out of America. Our country gives the UN BILLIONS of dollars...and this is what they produce?

International Guidelines on Sexuality Education

It will be a cold day in hell before my children are taught this at five years old. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will likely be intruding into our lives soon as Obama will likely ratify this treaty. I will admit there are some really good things in it to protect children from sexual abuse and more. That being said, if you go and read the convention, you will see the word State Parties. State Parties shall, State Parties shall, State Parties shall.....basically tell you HOW to raise your children.

As I have said before, we the people, do not need to be told by the UN how to raise our children. I decide what morals to instill in them as children, not the UN.

Take a read:

Convention on the Rights of the Child