more on the "Safe School Czar's" admirations

So, we know that Kevin Jennings made a serious mis-step when he was a teacher. Lets talk about who he admires, Harry Hay.

Harry Hay started the Mattachine Society in 1948, the Radical Faeries and advocated for NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association. He had to leave the Communist party because they do not allow homosexuals.

The Mattachine Society is not a big issue. It is a gay rights activist groups which is no longer in existence.

The Radical Faeries, where do I start. Here is a quote from a member

"Being radically (at the root) decentralist and anti-authoritarian, we have no leaders. Each Faerie is divine and speaks for himself. We join together with each other in mutual aid and love for play, work, self-discovery and nurturing. To be a Faerie is an act of self-definition."

Wikipedia says:

Originally consisting of gay men, the movement has spread throughout the world over the past decades since, in tandem with the larger gay rights movement, challenging commercialization and patriarchal aspects of modern LGBT life while celebrating pagan constructs and rituals.[2] Radical Faeries today also embody a wide range of genders and sexual orientations, and most sanctuaries are open to all.[3] They adapt rural living and environmentally sustainable concepts to modern technologies as part of creative expression.[2] Radical Faerie communities are generally inspired by aboriginal, native or traditional spiritualities, especially those that incorporate genderqueer sensibilities.[4]

Faeries tend to be fiercely independent, anti-establishment and community-focused.[2]

The Faeries were a contributing influence to John Cameron Mitchell's film Shortbus.[5]

I did not see any picture that show minors, nor did their site show any parades of them half naked. Though with the issues with authority and the over willingness to accept and be non-judgmental I have to question what all they do accept.

The third group that garnered Mr. Hay's attention was NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). Once you get away from the acronym and read the full name, I think that says it all.

Now let's go back to Obama who says

"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."

Now apply it to Kevin Jennings

Safe School Czar, isn't

In this article it talks about how a 15 year old male student approached him admitting to having a sexual relationship with a much older man. But, Kevin Jennings not only failed to report it, but encouraged the relationship.

Our past is a beautiful and powerful thing. Few others than BO can make it disappear, and even his is slowly appearing. It tells people who we are, what we stand for and where we have been. Yes, we all make mistakes. Hopefully we learn from our mistakes...

forced abortion is supported by the constitution???

I know, I know, it is just too good to be true. Can we start with all the druggie welfare crack whore mothers who have children just to get more money? Can we then move to people that have had children taken away but still continue to spawn?

Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook he co-authored that in conditions of emergency, compulsory abortion would be sustainable under the U.S. Constitution, even with Supreme Court review.

WND has obtained a copy of "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," published in 1977 and co-authored by Holdren with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Ann. As WND reported, the authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."

To prevent ecological disasters, including "global warming," Holdren argued the U.S. Constitution would permit involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children as steps justified under the banner of "sustainable well-being."

I'm sorry if a conservative suggested this it would automatically be deemed unconstitutional. Though, since a liberal nut job is suggesting it you know that they will aim it at religious families that can actually support their children. Part of the joke is on them because many conservatives choose not to let their reproductive organs run on overtime and choose to only have as many children as they can support and raise responsibly. By raise responsibly I mean devote proper attention to and actually parent, something that is rapidly becoming illegal.

"First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine"

I absolutely love this....

President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves, WND has learned.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

He goes on to say that this is within the spirit of the 1st Amendment. This document would also require purely commercial stations(probably only ones that disagree with the current governments agenda) to subsudize public or less profitable commercial stations that provide "higher quality programming".

Quite honestly I don't know where to begin with this, other than suggesting you read the entire article. I do however believe I know exactly how this will shake out...
I see anyone who does not agree with the current communist regime, being forced down our throats, being punished finacially and forced to air opinions that they have no desire to pay for. So guess who gets the bounty from this? I think it will be the communist supporters that are trying to get on the Obama gravy train.

the "NEW" or "2nd" bill of rights

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:

Among his mandates are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

• The right of every family to a decent home;

• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

• The right to a good education.

On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."

I guess I should have seen this coming....

Yes these are all ideals, but as the government interferes more and more we see less hard working americans able to succeed in all of this. As far as the right to a decent home, define a decent home. Are people required to work for a decent home?