Sunday, July 5, 2015

Sunday 07-05-15

I thought this was profound and worth to think about, it was at Survival blog on Sat.

It’s July 4, 2015, and today’s festivities have a disappointing bittersweetness. Instead of a genuine celebration, they seem like more of a wistful memorial to the freedom that we once enjoyed. Just 239 years ago we won a hard-fought war of independence, but now we find ourselves under the thumb of globalists, statists, and internationalists. It is time to pluck a few chickens and warm up the tar pot. – JWR

http://survivalblog.com/

Support Grows for States to Ignore the Federal Courts

Following last week’s controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, voters believe more strongly that individual states should have the right to turn their backs on the federal courts.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February.  Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Perhaps even more disturbing is that the voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives - are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.
Voters are closely divided in their opinions of both of last week’s major rulings. Negative views of the Supreme Court are at their highest level in nearly nine years of regular surveying. Positive opinions are also up to a less dramatic three-year high.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 30-July 1, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Earlier this year, 26% of voters told Rasmussen Reports that President Obama should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Forty-three percent (43%) of Democrats shared this belief, while 81% of Republicans and 67% of unaffiliated voters disagreed.
The more a voter approves of Obama’s performance, the more likely he or she is to say that states should not have the right to ignore the federal courts.
Higher income voters are more likely to oppose letting states ignore federal court rulings than those who earn less.
Support for ignoring the federal courts is up among most demographic groups, however.
Most voters have long believed that the Supreme Court justices have their own political agenda,  and they still tend to feel that that agenda is more liberal than conservative.
A plurality (47%) of voters continues to believe the federal government has too much influence over state governments, and 54% think states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs that they don’t agree with.  Even more (61%) think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them.
The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.
Only 20% now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty.  Sixty percent (60%) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2015/support_grows_for_
states_to_ignore_the_federal_courts

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 6th Grade Without Their Parents Knowing

Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.
The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.
The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?

(excerpt the rest of the article is at)

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/02/schools-implant-iuds-in-girls-as-young-as-6th-grade-without-their-parents-knowing/

Here is an interesting article I know it the UK, but will be here soon also.

Teachers can 'seize and DESTROY' pupils' lunches in 'nanny state' crackdown

LunchboxGETTY
Teachers can take away the food parents give children for lunch
As part of an assault on childhood obesity, the Government allows school staff the power to seize children's meals they judge to be "unhealthy or inappropriate".

As part of guidelines on lunchbox searches, teachers are also expected to consult and discuss
healthy eating plans with pupils' parents.

The Department of Education claims schools and teachers should also seek out legal advice if they have worries over pupils'
food.

Education minister Lord Nash said: "Schools have common law powers to search pupils, with their consent, for items.

"There is nothing to prevent schools from having a policy of inspecting lunch boxes for food items that are prohibited under their school food policies.

"A member of staff may confiscate, keep or destroy such items found as a result of the search if it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances.
Tory Lord NashGOV
Lord Nash has backed the crackdown in a bid to fight childhood obesity
   
"If authorities and schools are concerned about their legal position, they should seek their own legal advice."

The wide-ranging powers for schools and teachers have led to a number of recent rows over pupil's packed lunches.

Parents have been outraged after reports emerged of items from pupils' lunch boxes being taken off them.

Mother Vikki Laws said her daughter Tori, six, had a Peperami sausage snack taken off her at Cherry Tree Primary School, in Colchester, until the end of the school day.

Parents at Manley Park Primary School in Manchester were also shocked when healthy snacks such as cereal bars were banned from children's packed lunches.

A packet of 100 per cent fruit chews was taken away from a child because of their 'hidden sugar' despite the school canteen offering pizza, chocolate fudge cake and fish fingers on its lunch menu.
Cereal barsGETTY
Even healthy snacks like cereal bars have been banned in certain schools
The Government intervention into children's lunches follows an NHS warning that childhood obesity is the biggest threat facing the nation's health.

A top NHS boss warned that many children are being failed by parents, with one in 10 obese by the time they begin primary school.

However, opposition MPs have criticised the Government guidelines as an interfering overreach.

Ukip MP Douglas Carswell said: "The Department for Education really must be missing Michael Gove.

"They are resorting to the kind of nanny state stunts that you would have expected from Tony Blair’s Labour government 15 years ago.

"Government should get out of people’s lunchboxes and focus on trying to fix the big things like immigration and the deficit."

Iain Austin, a Labour MP, added: "With Britain tumbling down the international league tables and with a generation entering the
work force with less literacy and numeracy than the generation retiring, you would have thought that teachers might have better things to do than rummaging through children’s crisps and fruit."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/588290/Teachers-powers-seize-DESTROY-pupils-unhealthy-packed-lunches-nanny-state-crackdown

No comments:

Post a Comment