Author Archives: admin

Girls Illegal Lemonade Stand Busted By Midland Police, Saved by King Juice Company

WJCL News, Savannah Georgia, broke the news about police shutting down a Midland lemonade stand operating in Midland. The start-up business ran by three elementary age girls was shut down by police because they had no business permit. It turns out the permit would cost $50 per day with an annual fee of $180. At 25 cents a glass, the girls would have had to sell 202 glasses of the juice per day to break even. The report did not indicate how much the girl needed to raise to attend a regional theme park, which was their primary business goal.

With international pressure on the police and the unprecented move by King Juice Company to partner with girl’s defuncte business, the Midland lemonade stand has been reopened. King Juice Co. is now supplying their famous Calypso Lemonade products to the girls along with investment funding for start-up costs such as Midland business permit fees.

Now, is this entrepreneurial capitalism at its finest or what?

Sources: Family Security Matters, July 18, 2011.

Acceding to Rutherford Institute’s Demands, Ohio Dept. of Education Removes Letter of Admonishment From John Freshwater Record

(Mount Vernon, Ohio) The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has agreed to remove a “letter of admonishment” from the professional record of Christian teacher John Freshwater. In its letter, the ODE stated that it is investigating The Rutherford Institute’s charges that the admonishment against Freshwater was issued in defiance of Freshwater’s due process rights and in violation of the Department’s own rules. Institute attorneys insist that the ODE’s issuance of the admonishment violated Freshwater’s due process rights because the teacher was not given proper notice or an opportunity to defend himself against the charges. The Institute also argues that the ODE exceeded the scope of its authority by issuing the letter in violation of the prescribed statutory procedures. The Rutherford Institute came to Freshwater’s aid in the wake of a bitter and protracted legal dispute regarding Freshwater’s display of allegedly Christian posters in the classroom and his encouraging students to think critically about scientific “theories” such as evolution.

“I’m pleased that the Ohio Department of Education has decided to step back and review this situation,” stated John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The right to basic due process—especially the right to defend oneself against charges—is too important to be short-circuited by any government agency.”

John Freshwater was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board’s resolution claims that Freshwater improperly injected religion into the classroom by giving students “reason to doubt the accuracy and or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.” The Board also claims that he failed to remove “all religious articles” from his classroom, including a Bible. Throughout his 21-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, John Freshwater never received a negative performance evaluation. In fact, showing their support for Freshwater, students even organized a rally in his honor. They also wore t-shirts with crosses painted on them to school and carried Bibles to class.

However, school officials were seemingly unswayed by the outpouring of support for Freshwater. The Ohio Department of Education issued its admonishment against Freshwater on March 22, 2011, based on charges that a student was injured after Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, permitted students to touch a live Tesla coil. However, as Institute attorneys pointed out, the administrator who investigated the initial incident ultimately concluded that the allegations had been overblown and that there was “a plausible explanation for how and why the Tesla Coil had been used by John Freshwater.”

With the help of The Rutherford Institute, Freshwater is appealing his termination in state court, asserting that the school’s actions violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and constituted religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Greene County Healthy Lifestyles Coalition To Hold 8th Annual Family Fitness Challenge

(Xenia, OH) The Greene County Healthy Lifestyles Coalition is hosting its 8th Annual Family Fitness Challenge on Thursday, July 21st at Shawnee Park in Xenia 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. The event is FREE and open to the public. Families and groups are encouraged to attend.

The Fitness Challenge is designed to motivate youth and families to adopt healthier lifestyles—specifically in the areas of fitness and nutrition. Participants can visit fitness stations (including an inflatable bounce house) and health information booths, complete a fitness passport and receive a free prize (while supplies last). Healthy snacks will be available.

Partners for the Challenge include the Greene County Combined Health District; the Xenia YMCA and OSU Extension, Greene County.

For more information, call Shauna VanWinkle at 937-374-5661.

VIPR Searches and the American Citizen: ‘Dominate. Intimidate. Control.’

By John W. Whitehead

The transition to a police state will not come about with a dramatic coup d’etat, with battering rams and marauding militia. As we have experienced first-hand in recent years, it will creep in softly, one violation at a time, until suddenly you find yourself being subjected to random patdowns and security sweeps during your morning commute to work or quick trip to the shopping mall.

Perhaps you have yet to experience the particular thrill, and I use that word loosely, of being manhandled by government agents, having your personal possessions pawed through, and your activities and associations scrutinized. If so, not to worry. It’s only a matter of time before more and more Americans will experience such a military task force knocking at their door. Only, chances are that it won’t be a knock, and they might not even be at home when government agents decide to “investigate” them. Indeed, as increasing numbers of Americans are discovering, these so-called “soft target” security inspections are taking place whenever and wherever the government deems appropriate, at random times and places, and without needing the justification of a particular threat. Worse, not only is this happening with the blessing of the Obama administration but at its urging.

What I’m describing–something that was once limited to authoritarian regimes–is only possible thanks to an unofficial rewriting of the Fourth Amendment by the courts that essentially does away with any distinctions over what is “reasonable” when it comes to searches and seizures by government agents. The rationale, of course, is that anything is “reasonable” in the war on terrorism. And by constantly pushing the envelope and testing the limits of what Americans will tolerate, the government is thus able to ratchet up the level of intrusiveness that Americans consider reasonable.

The latest test of our tolerance comes from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the same agency that continues to make headlines with its intrusive airport searches of travelers. Thanks to TSA Chief John Pistole’s determination to “take the TSA to the next level,” there will soon be no place safe from the TSA’s groping searches. Only this time, the “ritualized humiliation” is being meted out by the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) task forces, comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams.

At a cost of $30 million in 2009, VIPR relies on 25 teams of agents, in addition to assistance from local law enforcement agencies as well as immigration agents. And as a sign of where things are headed, Pistole, himself a former FBI agent, wants to turn the TSA into a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.” To accomplish this, Pistole has requested funding for an additional 12 teams for fiscal year 2012, bringing VIPR’s operating budget close to $110 million.

VIPR is the first major step in the government’s effort to secure so-called “soft” targets such as malls, stadiums, bridges, etc. In fact, some security experts predict that checkpoints and screening stations will eventually be established at all soft targets, such as department stores, restaurants, and schools. Given the virtually limitless number of potential soft targets vulnerable to terrorist attack, subjection to intrusive pat-downs and full-body imaging will become an integral component of everyday life in the United States. As Jim Harper of the Cato Institute observed, “The natural illogic of VIPR stings is that terrorism can strike anywhere, so VIPR teams should search anywhere.”

For now, under the pretext of protecting the nation’s infrastructure (roads, mass transit systems, water and power supplies, telecommunications systems, and so on) against criminal or terrorist attacks, these VIPR teams are being deployed to do random security sweeps of nexuses of transportation, including ports, railway and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways. VIPR teams are also being deployed to elevate the security presence at certain special events such as the Democratic National Convention.

Incredibly, in the absence of any viable threat, VIPR teams–roving SWAT teams, with no need for a warrant–have conducted 8,000 such searches in public places over the past year. These raids, conducted at taxpayer expense on average Americans going about their normal, day-to-day business, run the gamut from the ridiculous to the abusive.

The question that must be asked, of course, is who exactly is the TSA trying to target and intimidate? Not would-be terrorists, given that scattershot pat-down stings are unlikely to apprehend or deter terrorists. In light of the fact that average citizens are the ones receiving the brunt of the TSA’s efforts, it stands to reason that we’ve become public enemy number one. And how does the TSA deal with perceived threats? Its motto, posted at the TSA’s air marshal training center headquarters in the wake of 9/11, is particularly telling: “Dominate. Intimidate. Control.”

Those three words effectively sum up the manner in which the government now relates to its citizens, making a travesty of every democratic ideal our representatives spout so glibly and reinforcing the specter of the police state. After all, no government that truly respects or values its citizens would subject them to such intrusive, dehumanizing, demoralizing, suspicionless searches. Yet by taking the TSA’s airport screenings nationwide with VIPR and inserting the type of abusive authoritarianism already present in airports into countless other sectors of American life, the government is expanding the physical and psychological scope of the police state apparatus.

VIPR activities epitomize exactly the kind of farcical security theater the government has come to favor through its use of coded color alerts and other largely superficial yet meaningless maneuvers. It’s an ingenious plan: the incremental ratcheting-up of intrusive searches (VIPR searches are not yet widespread), combined with the gradual rollout of VIPR teams permits the normalization of TSA activities while inciting minimal resistance, thereby muting dissent and enabling the ultimate implementation of totalitarian-style authoritarianism. And you can be sure that once VIPR has accrued a sufficient bureaucracy, it will be virtually impossible to eradicate.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Americans Want Spending Cut Not Increased to Pay Down National Debt (corrected)

By Daniel Downs

The current debate in Washington over increasing the debt ceiling is one of perspective. The federal government, like the rest of us, spends nearly twice as much as its income. The difference between the bureaucrats and us is many American don’t keep increasing their debt to pay for it. Washington bureaucrats apparently disagrees. Yet, it seems they also believe serious spending cuts are in order.

The confusion may lie in the political rhetoric. Washington bureaucrats want us to believe they believe spending cuts are necessary while they silently increase spending to compensation for the so-called spending cuts. In other words, politicians must raise the debt ceiling again to pay for the increases in spending in order to cut spending that will balance the national accounts. The end result thus will be tax and spend as per plan.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, most Americans would not like the above plan. “Republicans … tilt heavily in favor of reducing the deficit primarily if not exclusively with spending cuts (67%) as opposed to tax increases (3%). Fifty-one percent of independents share that preference. Democrats are most inclined to want equal amounts of spending cuts and tax increases (42%), though more favor a tilt toward spending cuts (33%) than tax increases (20%).”

The problem with the Gallup Poll is the deficit. The deficit is the difference between spending and income. Yet, the underlying problem is not the deficit. It is the continued borrowing to pay on the ever-increasing debt.

And, if Washington Bureaucrats would stop trying to tell us how to spend our money for such things as health care, televisions and light bulbs, the federal government could cut spending by hundreds of millions if not billions. One small example is light bulb regulations. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates a $30 million reduction in federal spending the regulation requiring only the manufacture and consumption of the new squiggle-looking, mercury containing, energy efficient light bulbs were eliminated.

Besides all that, Michelle Bachmann claims the government already has enough revenue to pay on its debt. Her logic is reasonable. The rest of us don’t seek more debt to pay for more debt. We are supposed pay down the debt before get new loans–Treasury I.O.U.s, Fannie Mae backed mortgages, and the like. As the position of those she represents, politicians and their professional cronies must quit trying to spend America’s money it does not have. Such behavior seems to approach something similar to taxation without representation about which the Feds are expert practitioners.

Speaking of Motherhood Provides a Counter-Cultural Look at the “Best Job in the World”

Jenn Giroux is a busy woman. Not only is she a proud mother of nine, she’s also brought together a dynamic and hardworking group of six women who have dedicated themselves to introducing a counter-cultural view of what they say is “the greatest profession on Earth”. And they know – between them, they have 44 children.

The group, who has been traveling to high schools, college campuses, and conferences across the nation to introduce their presentation, “Speaking of Motherhood”, is led by Giroux, who founded and served as the Executive Director of Human Life International America as well as Association of Large Families of America (ALFA). You can also add Registered Nurse and author to her list of impressive titles, but motherhood is her crowning achievement.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com last year, Giroux said that, “There is a huge need out there for us to show the positive side of motherhood and to once again elevate motherhood to the respect that it deserves. It is the greatest profession on earth for women and it has really been completely denigrated by the feminist movement.”

Since “Speaking of Motherhood” had its inaugural presentation at Notre Dame last February, the group has done sessions across the U.S. and continue to market themselves. The presentation seeks to show the beautiful and the positive aspects of motherhood lost in society, said Giroux. “We really need to show them the beauty of children, which is the actual positive message of showing them the beautiful fruits of accepting God’s gift of children.”

Originally received by email Student For Life of America, July 12, 2011. (www.studentforlife.org)

Republicans Are Inconsistent with Obama, But Democrats Are Hypocritical

By Daniel Pipes

While it is certainly true that Democrats cut Obama slack on policies where they would slam Bush or McCain, as a fair-minded Republican I note that the reverse holds true as well: Republicans slam Obama and go easy on Bush. I will establish both points in my areas of expertise, the Middle East and Islam.

Obama & Bush – sometimes it matters less what the policy is than who implements it.
Start with Democratic inconsistency: Although Democrats raged against American forces fighting in Iraq and muttered about their role in Afghanistan, there were more American troops in the combined Iraq-Afghanistan theater under Obama in late 2009 than had ever been the case under Bush – and Democrats were silent about this. Democrats derided Bush for damaging America’s reputation among Muslims and Obama placed huge emphasis on establishing a new tone vis-à-vis Muslims. But his efforts had precious little impact, with polls showing Muslims seeing him about the same as Bush; and Democrats are silent. Finally, Democrats bemoaned the clandestine CIA drone program operating in countries where U.S. troops are not based, such as Pakistan. But the Obama administration authorized more targeted killings in its first year than did the Bush administration in its final year. Specifically, there were thirty-six operations in 2008 and fifty in 2009.

Republicans, however, also are inconsistent: they mock Obama’s insistence on trying diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran, but Bush did the same, authorizing 28 meetings with representatives of Tehran at the ambassadorial level or higher. Republicans excoriate Obama for setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan but said not a peep when Bush did the same for the much larger undertaking in Iraq in the status of forces agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops by the last day of 2011. Conversely, Republicans give Obama little credit for keeping the Iraqi mission basically in place, only speeding up the timetable.

On a positive note, Republicans did stand with Obama on increasing troops to Afghanistan and they did applaud his taking out Osama bin Laden. In contrast, it is hard to imagine any comparable support by Democrats for a President McCain. Although Republicans have problems with consistency, Democrats are blatantly hypocritical.

Originally published by the Daniel Pipes Blog on July 11, 2011.

The Price of Being the Enemy

by Gary Palmer

The evidence is undeniable – global warming is now a major problem for practically every person in America, including the people of Alabama. If you don’t believe it, check your monthly utility bill or the price of gasoline to see that global warming is a big problem in terms of what it costs you.

Technically, the problem is not global warming. It began with cooked up statistics that leftist politicians and environmentalists used to push an agenda that will devastate our economy and do nearly nothing to impact the global temperature. A formidable array of politicians and scientists have bought into the proposition that human activity is bad for the planet.

This belief is not new. In their book The First Global Revolution published by the Club of Rome in 1998, authors Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider make the case for using predictions about worldwide environmental catastrophe to force nations to change economic and governing policies.

King and Schneider wrote, “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.” They concluded, “All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.”

Hmmm. Based on that statement it would be logical to conclude that, if people are the enemy, policies that punish people are not necessarily bad as long as the policies can be billed as helping save the environment.

Needless to say, that would not go over well with most Americans who are opposed to such schemes as Cap and Trade. Even though the Cap and Trade bill died in the U.S. Senate last year (after passing in the House), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the full support of the Obama Administration, is in the process of implementing it anyway. If the EPA succeeds in this effort, the impact on the American economy will be devastating.

A Heritage Foundation analysis of the Cap and Trade bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives projected that the GDP for the United States would decline by a cumulative $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. Heritage also projected that net job losses would approach 1.9 million by 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. The irony of the job losses is that they will hit manufacturing and mining particularly hard, eliminating thousands of union jobs.

Additionally, the Tax Foundation projected that the total burden of the Cap and Trade bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 would cost the average family of four over $1,200 per year. Moreover, this burden is regressive across income levels, consuming a significantly higher percentage of low income households’ income. According to the Tax Foundation, the Cap and Trade bill will cost households in the bottom 20th percentile of household income $617 per year or about 6.2 percent of their income.

Even though the U.S. Senate rejected the Cap and Trade bill, the Obama Administration is using the EPA to implement it anyway and at significant cost to low- to middle-income families. Perhaps as a way to justify new, more costly regulations, the EPA released a report earlier this year claiming that the Clean Air Act of 1990 will avert 230,000 premature deaths and add $2 trillion to our economy by 2020. The estimated economic benefits in the EPA report range from $250 million to $5.7 trillion, making it appear that the estimators could not come up with anything close to what the economic benefit might be, so they split the difference at $2.7 trillion.

Claiming that 230,000 lives were spared a premature death as a result of the EPA’s actions is in the same genre as justifying the billions of dollars wasted with the Stimulus Bill by claiming it saved an unspecified number of jobs. No one can prove that environmental regulations have saved lives any more than it can be proved that implementing cap and trade regulations will save the planet, but we can see the proof of the impact that these regulations are having on our household income.

High utility bills and the price of gasoline are just part of the price you pay for being the enemy.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Poll: Americans Want National Debt Paid Down, Not Increased Through More Spending

According to this McClatchy-Marist Poll, nearly six in ten American adults — 59% — want the federal government to make the reduction of the debt its priority even if the economy is slow to recover.

Capitol Hill politicians should get the hint that Americans are against raising the debt ceiling. They want a balanced budget. They need to find a way to reduce the debt by half in order leave with their means.

Every empire, the Roman Empire included, defaulted on its debt. Why should America be any different? Imperialists always spend more than a working public can afford, which is the reason why so many Americans went backruptcy or default on their loans during the great recession. The American government reflects its people. Well, the current politicians reflect about a third.

About one-third — 33% — want the government to stimulate the weak economy even if it costs more money.

“For the public, it’s all about the debt,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. ”For Washington, the devil is in the details.”

Looking at party, 79% of Republicans want the debt to be paid down while 15% think stimulating the economy should be the priority. There is less of a consensus among Democrats. Half — 50% — believe the government should focus on stimulating the economy while 45% say the national debt should top the government’s “to do” list. More than six in ten independents — 61% — think the priority should be the reduction of the debt even if the economy rebounds slowly. This compares with 32% who say the stimulation of the economy should be the main issue even if it costs more money.

The McClatchy-Marist Poll reported Americans are still pessimistic about the economy and for good reason: Three in four believe the U.S. is still in recession.

A majority of Americans — 53% — say that, when thinking about the U.S. economy, the worst is yet to come. However, 42% believe the worst is behind us. Six percent are unsure. When McClatchy-Marist last reported this question in April, 57% thought there was more bad economic news to come, 39% said better economic days were ahead, and 4% were unsure.

And, 75% of residents nationally still think the country is in a recession. This compares with one in five — 20% — who say the nation has come out of the recession. Five percent are unsure. In April, similar proportions held these views. At that time, 71% reported the recession was not over, 25% said it was, and 4% were unsure.

To read more, go to the Marist Poll.

Follow-Up News About Iranian Pastor Nadarkhani

According to more recent news sources, Pastor Nadarkhani’s death sentence was annulled on Sunday. The Iranian Supreme Court sent the case back to the pastor’s home town and asked the pastor to repent, meaning to renounce his Christian faith.

Christian and human right organizations believe Pastor Nadarkhani is still in danger of losing his life. Even his lawyer was arrested for working with the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights. (See articles by the Christian Post and the Christian Telegraph, and on FarsiNet).

Pastor Nadarkhani’s letter issued in October 2010. Click here to read.

How to help Pator Nadarkhani, visit the website Prisoner Alert.