Home » Articles posted by admin (Page 201)

Conservatives: where does it say in the constitution that business enterprise has the same rights as a citizen?

because that’s what every corporation is allowed to do here: if one forms a corporation, than that corporation, for legal purposes, can act as a citizen.

now where is that protected in the constitution? or is this more typical capitalist/conservative vitriol in adding stuff to the constitution that isn’t there?
NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY COMPANIES CAN HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS CITIZENS!!!
@anthony: but at the same token, the government can’t just grant citizenship to non-living entities.
@mark: it’s a private institution, they can give aid to whoever they feel, if it’s non-profit.

Posted on June 7, 2010 by , 15 comments

Should Religion Stay in the Pledge?

Can you still remember all of the words to the Pledge of Allegiance? Most of us recited the pledge every single school day from Kindergarten all the way through the sixth grade. Some junior high and high schools also required a daily flag salute and the recitation. This being the case, can you remember all of the words? Can you still rattle it off without thinking like most of us could do by the middle of our kindergarten year?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Hey! I can do it!

It’s funny how those two little worlds “under God” have caused such a ruckus. Many people insist that our country was founded on the idea of the freedom of religion. Others insist that forcing children to recite the words “under god” is forcing a single religion down school children’s throats—a religion that might not be taught or encouraged at home.

A few years ago a Congressperson caused quite a stir when he recited the entire pledge—without the words “under God.” Suddenly people were screaming that he wasn’t patriotic at all.

What do you think? Do you think that religion should play a part in our politics, or should the two be kept completely separate? Would it surprise you to learn that the original pledge did not contain religion at all? It was added in the 1950s as homage to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The Washington Post’s website has published an article that claims it is time to take the phrase back out of the pledge.

When the phrase was added to the pledge, the primary religion in the United States was one of the Protestant Sects and only five percent of the population did not claim any single religion. Today the United States has a much larger variety of religions within its borders. Today, there are people who claim Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Muslim and Wicca (among a few others) as well as those who claim traditional Christian and Jewish sects as their religions.

The Washington post agues that “under god” and religion be stricken from the pledge because the greatest threat to the United States is not those who are “godless” but those who are “fundamentalist” in their religion—willing to harm or kill anyone who does not subscribe to their exact belief system. The Post argues that our beliefs about religion are not what set us apart from other nations, but that our tolerance of each religion is what makes us unique.

What do you think about the topic? Do you think that the pledge should acknowledge religion and, if so, how should that acknowledgement of religion happen? Not everyone is of a monotheistic faith. How do you incorporate each religion without the pledge taking five or six hours to recite?

For more information on religion, visit http://www.religionmicroblog.com and http://www.jewishmicroblog.com.

Posted on June 6, 2010 by , Reply

Is national security a concern when it comes to electing a president?

It seems that a few of the Higher ups have some concern about Obama because of his lack of experience regarding national security. He actually has no experience when it comes to this. What do you think?

Posted on June 6, 2010 by , 1 comment

Courthouse becomes church headquarters

Courthouse becomes church headquarters
HAMMOND — The stately building at the corner of Oakley and State streets is back in full operation after being shuttered in 2002. The former federal courthouse, built in 1906, now houses the administration offices of First Baptist Church of Hammond. “We desperately needed a central hub of operations,” said Eddie Wilson, the church’s media and public relations director. “First Baptist Church …

Read more on Post-Tribune

Posted on June 6, 2010 by , Reply

The Drug Enforcement Agency and the Freedom of Information Act

The DEA undertook a detailed analysis of the effect of the Freedom of Information Act on DEA’s investigative operations. Since 1977, reports had been received from various DEA field offices suggesting that the Freedom of Information Act was adversely affecting various types of DEA investigations. Nearly all of these reports indicated that the Freedom of Information Act-related effect on criminal investigations, on DEA’s relations with the private sector, and on the relationship between DEA and state and local police departments was primarily the result of the inability of the Federal government to offer credible assurances of confidentiality.

The Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1966 to allow any person to request any record from a Federal agency. The statute, however, included nine exemptions which were intended to serve the protectable interests of the Federal government, private financial interests, and individual privacy rights. In 1974, the law was significantly amended to require Federal agencies to comply with strict procedures in the administrative handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and to make available certain previously exempt information relating to national defense and foreign policy as well as Federal law enforcement operations.

As currently written, the Freedom of Information Act allows Federal law enforcement agencies to withhold information if it is part of an investigative record compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that its disclosure would:

* Interfere with enforcement proceedings.

* Deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial Juris- diction.

* Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

* Disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source.

* Disclose investigative techniques and procedures.

* Endanger the life or physicsd safety of law enforcement personnel.

However, reports received from DEA field offices suggested that the law was having a detrimental effect on enforcement efforts. DEA then initiated a study to measure the impact of the Freedom of Information Act to the agency’s overall enforcement efforts.

DEA Agents participating in the study clearly indicated that information disclosures made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act are adversely affecting their investigative efforts. Agents reported that intelligence information is not nearly so forthcoming as similar information prior to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act.

Sammy is constantly researching interesting information and writing articles to make it easy for his readers to understand.


To see more of his writing, visit his articles about social security number search sites.

Posted on June 5, 2010 by , Reply

The Freedom To Eat!

The Freedom To Eat! – The Ultimate Guide To Gaining Control Over Your Weight And Your Life. Discover The Ten Steps To Lose Weight Forever, Have The Freedom To Eat What You Want, Discover And Love Who You Are, And Love Your Life.
The Freedom To Eat!

Posted on June 5, 2010 by , Reply

JFK on the Separation of Church and State


Senator John F. Kennedy speaking before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas on September 12, 1960. Copyright: Kennedy Library Foundation

Posted on June 5, 2010 by , Reply

Diana West Archives

Diana West Archives
06/04/10: The Left and Islam: A love story 05/28/10: Clemency for the enemy, but not our soldiers? 05/21/10: Protecting our American identity 05/14/10: Do we deserve a mosque at Ground Zero?

Read more on Jewish World Review

Posted on June 5, 2010 by , Reply

Dr. Chuck Baldwin Discusses Freedom Of Religion


Dr. Chuck Baldwin Discusses Freedom Of Religion

Posted on June 5, 2010 by , 25 comments

A question on complete comfort vs. complete freedom?

I thought I’d ask this again here for more diversity of opinion; it seems everyone in the government section is right leaning.

I am going to describe two scenarios and I want you to tell me which scenario you would rather live in and why. Also please include your age, gender, country and political affiliation.

Scenario A:

Your government (and its citizens through a majority vote) has decided that all citizens should be given the basic necessities. Every citizen is given a car and a home to suit their needs. The car is one that is safe, reliable and gets the best gas mileage. You are allowed limited options such as color and whether you want a convertible, two door or four door, and other options are allowed for those who need them such as pickup trucks for farmers, minivans for large families and handicap accessibility features. The homes you get are also suited to your needs with few options, and if the home doesn’t fit your needs you may be asked to move (but in the same town) such as if you have children you can move to a larger house, when they grow up you must move to a smaller house. You also get free healthy food and you have the option of buying junk food with your own money if you so choose. You are not however allowed to buy larger cars or houses due to the environmental impact. You also get your utilities provided for up to a certain limit as well as gasoline and car maintenance (you are free to buy more utilities and gasoline from your own earnings if you wish). Healthcare and education is also provided to each citizen as well as clothing for work and job interviews (other clothing may of course be bought by the individual) as well as free school uniforms for school children. Childcare is covered for everyone and so is care for the elderly, sick and disabled such as home health, hospice, nursing homes and retirement homes.

There are no taxes for anyone making less than $250k per year, and subsidies to get incomes up to 250k for families and 200k for individuals who are working full time and not making that much. People making over that will be taxed, and very wealthy who have more than one million dollars will be taxed heavily.

Scenario B:

You live in a system with total freedom and complete individual responsibility. The government exists only to curb serious crime (murder and rape – there are no more laws against drugs, prostitution or other such crimes and private property is the individual’s responsibility to protect) and to provide a military. Everything is owned by the private sector including schools, roads and fire departments. You must pay for children to go to school, you must subscribe to the fire department to use their services, even emergency room care is not provided to people with no insurance. There are no more public libraries – there are privately owned book rentals instead. You must also pay tolls on every road you drive because they are all privately owned. However, there are no taxes other than a sales tax to fund police and military.

Posted on June 5, 2010 by , 6 comments
First « 199200201202203 » Last