Calif. Lawmakers Want to Radically Change Legal Definition of “Parents”

California lawmakers are considering an unusual bill that would legalize, in certain cases, more than two parents for a child.

The bill – SB 1476 – proposed by state Sen. Mark Leno, San Francisco Democrat, has passed the Senate but has not come up for a vote in the Assembly.

The bill would allow judges to recognize more than two individuals as parents when separation and custody battles arise in court.

Mr. Leno hopes to override a California appellate court ruling that limited parenthood to two individuals.

That case involved a lesbian couple and their child’s biological father. With one mother hospitalized and the other incarcerated, the biological father wished to gain custody to remove the child from California’s foster care system.

Read more from this story HERE.

Video: Obama is going to impose gun control by treaty . . . on July 27?

Without any national debate — and after secret negotiations — Obama is going to sign the Arms Trade Treaty which will lead to UN imposed gun control.

Iran Threatens to Destroy US Bases Across Middle East, Israel if Attacked

Iran has threatened to destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes of being attacked, Iranian media reported on Wednesday, as Revolutionary Guards extended test-firing of ballistic missiles into a third day.

Israel has hinted it may attack Iran if diplomacy fails to secure a halt to its disputed nuclear energy program. The United States also has mooted military action as a last-resort option but has frequently nudged the Israelis to give time for intensified economic sanctions to work against Iran.

“These bases are all in range of our missiles, and the occupied lands (Israel) are also good targets for us,” Amir Ali Haji Zadeh, commander of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace division, was quoted by Fars news agency as saying.

Haji Zadeh said 35 U.S. bases were within reach of Iran’s ballistic missiles, the most advanced of which commanders have said could hit targets 2,000 km (1,300 miles) away.

“We have thought of measures to set up bases and deploy missiles to destroy all these bases in the early minutes after an attack,” he added.

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit:

Allen West: The Balkanized States of America

The 56 rebels knew they very well might be hanged for what they were about to do. As lawyers, merchants, farmers and landowners, they had plenty to lose. Fighting against an imperial ruler, they had everything to gain.

They were embarking on an adventure – not only because they were revolting against their own government and fighting outmanned and outgunned against a superior military – but because they were creating a radical approach to self-governance.

The 56 men who signed our Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, knew the only way they ever would be successful in their audacious plan was if they stood together. As Benjamin Franklin said at the signing, “if we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”

Our founders shared a unified vision for our nation. They understood that unity of the many was necessary to uphold the sovereignty of the individual and the fundamental, unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To ensure the sovereignty of each individual American, our Founding Fathers knew the country would have to be unified on certain principles and values: a limited constitutional government, a free market, a respect for “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and a strong national defense.

Read more HERE.

Photo credit: Richard Loyal French

Does the Declaration of Independence Still Matter?

The Declaration of Independence was partly intended as a list of grievances against a distant monarch. And both George III and the colonists who disagreed with his rule are long dead. But so are many of those who’ve argued that the Declaration is obsolete. In fact, this is exactly what those who called themselves “progressives” were saying a century ago.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the most famous early progressives, argued during the 1912 presidential campaign that “all that Progressives ask or desire is permission…to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle,” meaning that it should promote an ever-expanding set of powers for an ever-expanding government. The problem, he declared, was that pesky Declaration of Independence: “Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence,” he remarked. “The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.”

But in fact the Declaration is more than a litany of complaints. Its greater meaning is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government. It proclaimed that political rule would, from then on, reside in the sovereignty of the people. “If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence,” wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, “it would have been worthwhile.”

The ringing phrases of the document’s famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are inherently superior and deserve to rule or inferior and deserve to be ruled.

Because all are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. Government’s purpose is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends.

Read more HERE.

DHS Study: People “Reverent of Individual Liberty” may be “Extreme Right-Wing” Terrorists

Are you “reverent of individual liberty?“ Are you ”suspicious of centralized federal authority?“ Do you think there is a ”grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty?”

Well, then you fall into the category of “extreme right-wing” terrorist, according to a new study out of the University of Maryland, which was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security.

The study, titled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008,” was conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the university. The organization has received roughly $12 million from DHS and is set to get another $3.6 million in future funding. It is also listed as one of DHS’s “Centers for Excellence” on the agency’s website.

The study says right-wing extremists are “groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.”

Further, right-wing extremist groups “believe in the need to be prepared” by taking part in “paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism.“ Groups may also be ”fiercely nationalistic“ and ”suspicious of centralized federal authority.”

Read more HERE.

DNC member forced to resign over “shocking” anti-Israel emails

President Barack Obama’s Democratic party has been accused by many sources of being overly cozy with anti-Israel cranks. It is perhaps because of this reputation, fair or unfair though it may be, that the DNC ended up choosing the Jewish Floridian Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be its leader just in time for this year’s Presidential elections. Schultz is certainly loathed among the Democratic party’s anti-Israel base for her outward support of the Jewish state, perhaps best exemplified by this video:

However, noble though Schultz’s own convictions may be, they scarcely excuse those held by members of her own party. Indeed, they might even look suspect, especially if one of Schultz’s close longtime allies were shown to harbor extremist anti-Israel sentiments.

Oh, wait. One of her longtime allies does. Meet Evelyn Garcia, who until yesterday was the Palm Beach representative to the Democratic National Committee:

Garcia, who the Washington Free Beacon has already fingered as an ally of Wasserman-Schultz, sits at the center of a local scandal in Florida which is going nationwide due to her connections to the DNC Chair, and her abrupt resignation. The scandal originates with a series of emails between Garcia and several unnamed recipients, who express reservations with her decision to forward a Code Pink Email attacking AIPAC, a major pro-Israeli lobby organization. Garcia’s defense of Code Pink gets ugly very quickly. All screenshots of these emails are credited to Bizpacreview.

See the Emails HERE.

America’s Ability to Overcome Abuse

The history of America is one of overcoming abuse. Our nation began with a legal document, the Declaration of Independence, listing a “train of abuses,” which violated the colonists’ God-given rights and required them to found a new nation.

Whether it was during the Revolution War by defeating the lawless power exercised by the King and Parliament, or the Civil War ultimately correcting the abuse inherent in African American slavery, or the Women’s Suffrage Movement righting the wrong of keeping women as second class citizens, or World War II facing down fascist regimes intent on subjugating the world, America has consistently overcome tyranny and the abuse of power. Once again, there is a need to stand up for liberty and the rule of law.

One of America’s most fundamental beliefs, which Thomas Paine articulates so well in Common Sense (published January 1776, six months before the Declaration of Independence) is that we are a government of laws, grounded in God-given rights, and not of men. Paine writes, “But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

The United States followed Paine’s counsel and brought forth a founding charter, the Declaration of Independence, and a day was solemnly set apart for proclaiming it, the Fourth of July. The Declaration identified certain God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and laid out in the plainest of terms the list of abuses by the King and the Parliament. They included in addition to overt violent acts of war, imposing taxes on the colonies without their consent (a violation of one of the most basic tenets of being an English citizen), taking away the protections guaranteed in the colonies founding Charters, and perhaps most incredulous of all “declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Clearly the British government had taken upon itself authority it did not have.

The Tea Party rose up in 2009 as a response to government authority run amuck. Americans realized then, as now, their most basic rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness were being jeopardized by the reckless actions of the federal government. When Barack Obama and the Democratic majority set about to “fundamentally transform America,” they did so in one clearly measurable way: tripling the previous record deficit to $1.5 trillion. The National Debt will rise over $6 trillion dollars during Obama’s four years in office. During the entire history of the nation, the accumulated Debt prior his Presidency was only $9.98 trillion. Then came Obamacare with the takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy with vast new government agencies and bureaus, and yet another multi-trillion dollar entitlement program, which the United States can in no way afford.

Read more HERE.

New Zimmerman Evidence “Removes all Doubt”

Several months ago, after a review of the then-available evidence, I concluded that George Zimmerman was innocent. New evidence, recently released by the trial judge, supports the fact that George Zimmerman is the victim of a liberal racist lynch mob.

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is the main victim here and that President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton, special prosecutor Angela Corey, Sanford detective Chris Serino, and a host of others are prominent members of this shameful multiracial lynch mob.

In my previous article, I pointed out that I have investigated many cases of racial violence and police brutality, and have documented, in official federal reports, that many such awful events have indeed taken place in this country. Yet Zimmerman’s case did not have any of the features of those other incidents of racial brutality.

Zimmerman’s recently released statements have no hint of bias or racial animosity on his part. It is significant that the first mention of race in the new evidence was brought up by Sanford detective Chris Serino. Initially Serino had been quite supportive of Zimmerman’s trauma, but then within a few days he started to openly doubt the reasons why Zimmerman decided that Martin was suspicious.

He asked, “Had this person been white would you have felt the same way?” Zimmerman responded, “Yes.”

Read more HERE.


Rep. Steve King: “Obama governing like a King”

Pointing to the Health and Human Services regulation that will require virtually all health care plans to cover sterilization, artificial contraception and abortifacients for free, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that President Barack Obama is governing like a “king.”

The mandate, which goes into effect on Aug. 1, requires nearly all health insurers to provide sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortifacients free of charge. President Obama announced the finalized rule on Feb. 10, during a press conference at the White House.

“The rule that was published by [HHS Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius directed even our religious institutions that are health care providers to provide abortifacients, sterilizations and contraceptives free of charge as part of every health care policy that they would offer, even though it violated the deep religious convictions, especially of the Catholic Church, but many others as well,” Rep. King told

“And when [President Obama] took two weeks of heat over that and realized that he had earned the enmity of the entire Catholic Church and many other faith organizations — when they read the letter of the bishops in my church, which said, ‘We cannot, we will not obey this unjust law’ — the president then held a press conference at noon on a Friday about two weeks from the time this rule was issued.”

“They didn’t change the rule at all,” he said. “Not a single letter, not an ‘I’ dot or a ‘T’ crossed differently, the same rule exists today that existed when they first ruled it out. The president then stepped up at noon on a Friday and he said, ‘I’m going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations and now I’m going to require the insurance companies to do this for free.’ And he repeated himself, ‘for free.’”

Read more HERE.