President Obama is Seriously Overstepping His Bounds

via

The Constitution gives the United States president six, and only six, responsibilities. Today he has thousands of duties, overseen by mammoth bureaucracies.

Why? Because Congress has piled massive responsibilities upon the American President.

Who should have stopped Congress from doing this? We, the People should have.

Why didn’t we? We weren’t paying attention!

The following is an excerpt from my recently published book,

Promises of the Constitution: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow

which outlines the duties of the chief executive. Organized into short, 1½ page vignettes, each topic in Promises gives you a clear, simple explanation which can easily be read in 3-5 minutes.

The following is from section 10: The Constitution: Enforcing and Interpreting the Lawand it is titled What the President Does.

The office of chief executive was originally intended to be one of limited responsibility, as the Constitution assigns only six duties to the president. Over the last 225 years, the executive office has changed dramatically.

Today, the president has thousands of duties connected to hundreds of government departments. Innumerable current problems can be traced to this fact. The Founding Fathers feared that enlargement of this office would tend to transform the president into a king, and they tried to prevent it. By following their counsel and constitutional system, we could have avoided massive bureaucracy and regulation, as well as a monarchical president.

 The chief executive’s six constitutionally sanctioned duties, as found in the original Constitution, are listed below.

• Chief of state over all Americans, which now number over 330 million.

• Commander-in-chief over the military, which now numbers 3 million.

• Chief executive officer over the executive branch of government. The president also appoints Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, and consuls, who are then confirmed by the Senate.

• Chief diplomat in handling foreign affairs, with power to enter into treaties with the consent of the Senate. If the treaty involves commercial transactions, the House must also ratify it.

• Chief instigator of needed legislation. The president may recommend but may not draft or lobby for legislation.

• Conscience of the nation in granting pardons or reprieves when justice requires them, although he cannot pardon for impeachment.

 A partial list of just the major categories of presidential responsibilities today is almost incomprehensible. He is responsible to maintain full employment of the work force, ensure a high level of economic prosperity, and develop a national housing program. He supervises the underwriting of billions of dollars in private loans and insurance programs and administers Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He is responsible for the education of our children and the settlement of major union-management disputes. He administers national health care, the environmental protection programs, and 30 percent of the nation’s

land area. He is responsible for our energy resources, our industries, our communications networks, and the production and distribution of our food and drugs.

 This gives us a clear definition of bloated government. Because it is impossible for one person to perform even minimal oversight in all the above-mentioned categories, the government has developed a massive bureaucracy to fulfill these responsibilities through a maze of regulations.

This represents a far cry from limited government and shows what has gone seriously wrong.

 This grand scale of government overreach is expensive. Every tax-paying American today contributes thousands of dollars annually to maintain this massive bureaucracy. It is also inefficient. Any voluminous organization tends to be sluggish, wasteful, and disorganized. Finally, it is susceptible to corruption. It places huge amounts of money in the hands of government appointees nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate who can use it to purchase programs, manipulate alliances, and influence the will of the people. Bureaucrats and politicians alike benefit as Congress participates or looks the other way. Incoming presidents replace bureaucrats from the outgoing administration with their own appointees as political payoff for services rendered. This political largess to a favored few adds further expense and imbalance to government.

 The current system is expensive, inefficient, and fundamentally compromised.

The original system designed for America worked very well for over one hundred years.

 

We need it back.

 

See www.promisesoftheconstitution.com for further information and samples of the book.

 

- Pam

Legal Gay Marriage: Finding Esau

The upcoming judgment by the Supreme Court concerning gay marriage could wipe out the protections given to traditional families under the law. America’s legal system is based on family law, the protections given to parents and children in the family system known throughout every successful society in the history of the world. Should the Supreme Court rule against the biological family by ruling for equalization of gay marriage we would see chaos down the road.

Changes to marriage began over a hundred years ago. As women entered the workforce, the norms of society changed--about sexuality, sexual practices outside of marriage, and sexual values, including homosexuality, which was often paired with prostitution in society’s view. The divorce rate rose as sex became casual, recreational, and commercialized. Our sexual values and practices continue to change, usually to our detriment.

Currently the Supreme Court is debating the legalization of same sex unions—a practice punishable by death in primitive societies whose survival depended on a sustained birthrate and whose freedom depended on the morality of its members (as does our own). The Supreme Court ruling could take several different directions, ruling against gay unions or ruling only on states that have legalized the practice. It could also legalize gay marriage nationwide and declare same gender and traditional marriages equal. Any decision will have effects on our culture but a judgment of “equality” would alter society to its core in destructive ways.

The drive to legalize same sex marriage has arisen from materialistic motives--the determination of gays to get government benefits given to married partners. Marriage is not rightfully about government benefits, and we should grow pale at the potential to destroy the traditions of our society to give “government goodies” to gay partners.

American law came from God, as our constitutional system is patterned after the law God gave Moses thousands of years ago. Legalization of gay marriage will redefine family law, destroying its Christian foundation, replacing it with secular humanism’s changing civil law rooted in man’s current wants. Christianity speaks irrevocably against the unnatural union of those of the same flesh, making Christianity and gay marriage incompatible opposites. Christians who believe God has changed His perfect will, gone back on His previous commandments, and now condones gay marriage because He “loves us all and wants us to be happy” are straddling two different worlds—professing Christian values while embracing secular, anti-Christian philosophies—the philosophies of Men.

Same sex marriage is on a collision course with basic human rights, such as free speech—Christians who oppose the practice cannot say so. It collides with the rights of parents—schools and society will, by government decree, teach children that gay marriage is natural and good despite parents’ objections. (This begs the question: how can gay marriage be “natural” when the physical process is unarguably unnatural?) Businesses, teachers, even churches are being forced to offer services contrary to their moral beliefs. In effect, to grant lawful status to gays, those who dissent will lose their rights—certain proof of tyrannical practices.

Another danger lurks: if gay and traditional marriage become “equal”, the law will require equal treatment of both. Two methods produce equality: give rights to those perceived as unequal, or take rights from those perceived as favored. Gay couples cannot biologically reproduce. Therefore, to equalize the two unions, rights connected to procreation—rights offered under family law--would likely be taken from traditional marriages. Under family law, society agrees that a sexual relationship is part of marriage, and is for the primary purpose of bearing children. Therefore there exists a legal presumption that the husband is the biological father when a married woman conceives, so she and the child have legal claim on him for support and the child has legal parentage established. Both parents have legal rights to the child they created—this is especially important to the father, who is less involved biologically in the pregnancy. All this could disappear. Even the definitions of father, mother, and child could change. These rights are already being struck down in states that have legalized gay marriage.

Equalization of gay marriage with traditional marriage would change the historic purpose of marriage and sexual union. Marriage would no longer be about children; sexual exclusiveness would no longer be a legal and public assumption, and the reason for the sex act would be fundamentally skewed. Marriage would become a legal registry of associations rather than the foundation of society. The New Jersey Supreme Court found it self evident that because “the shared societal meaning of marriage . . . has always been the union of a man and a woman, to alter that meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin.”

Stated simply, legalizing gay marriage will upend the entire history of human relationships. This movement is worldwide. We will, as a society and planet, have embraced a global experiment rejected by every surviving society in world history. We will jeopardize the survival of the human race to give government benefits and self-gratification to a few. Surely we will have found the bane of Esau—our birthright for a mess of pottage! Our Founders debated long, as they considered war with Great Britain, whether the colonists had the” public virtue”--the strength of character to put public well-being above personal wants--to obtain and hold freedom. Only after concluding that the colonists were ready for the responsibilities of freedom did they move for independence. They would surely mourn for our loss of public virtue today.

In 1982 the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated when it failed to win ratification in a sufficient number of states. The amendment was not defeated because we didn’t want equality between the genders; the amendment was rejected for reasons very similar to those raised here—that legal equalization has fundamental, unintended consequences. Men and women are different for biological reasons unrelated to equality. Their differences must be preserved if society is to benefit from the strengths of both. Both are equally important, both contribute to society’s wellbeing—like two halves of a grapefruit. The differences of two genders—in society, in marriage, and in childrearing—are a cause for rejoicing, rather than a battleground, a whim, or an antiquated relic.  We must retain the authority of traditional marriage as our legal standard to protect the foundations of society.

- Pamela Romney Openshaw

Author and speaker

Promises of the Constitution: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow

Common Core: Is it Good or Bad?

Must read for the parents of all school age children

 

I received an article, excerpts of which appear below in my condensation of the article, from Oak Norton of Utah County, who heads the movement to restore Utah’s educational integrity. Common Core, a movement sweeping the states, has backers and detractors galore.

 

Read below as Dr Gary Thompson, Doctor of Clinical Psychology, share his concerns over unproven, invasive testing in the schools, the worrisome use of test results, and the privacy issues surrounding them.

 

In an ever-increasing regulatory state where freedoms are rapidly vanishing, the results of these tests could be used to the detriment of families, parents and children in a wide variety of situations: economic, occupational, educational, political, and social.

Common Core: A Mental Health Professional & Parent’s Perspective

Dr. Gary Thompson

Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy Services

Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center, Inc.

 

I am writing to address issues concerning the Common Core State Standards Act (CCSS) that is currently in the process of being implemented in the vast majority of our public school systems in the country.

 

By way of background, I’m an African American Doctor of Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.) currently serving as Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy at a private child psychology clinic in South Jordan, Utah. I completed undergraduate education at both the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. In addition to my personal experiences involving my four children in public schools, I have completed multiple thousands of hours in training/therapy/assessment/legal advocacy work with children in both the private and public school settings in multiple western states. I am also the author of a award winning doctoral project/dissertation which tackled the ago old problem of why many African American school aged children underperform in public schools titled, “Cracking the Da Vince Code of Cognitive Assessment of African American School Aged Children: A Guide for Parents, Clinicians & Educators” (Thompson, G. 2008).

 

I have an ethical obligation to our community at large to provide unbiased opinions regarding issues that affect education experiences I have devoted many hours reading commentaries and studies, both pro and con, regarding the overall efficacy of Common Core standards.

 

In a nutshell, the (mostly) progressive public education community speaks highly of Common Core standards; the (mostly) conservative opponents of Common Core claim that involvement in public school education should be primarily a local/statewide process, and that federal intrusion into public school education is not effective. Both sides cite multiple sources of research claiming their point.

 

There are many issues raising alarm about Common Core: the curriculum, its implementation, federal financing and involvement, the political ramifications, ect., which I cannot address. I am, however, an expert in psychological and educational assessment/testing, as well as privacy issues surrounding the use of these tests. My comments will focus on these two issues as they are addressed by Common Core.

 

Educational Testing

 

According to the U.S. Department of Education, CCSS will authorize the use of testing instruments that will measure the “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes and intra personal resources” of public school students. In a nutshell, CCSS simply states that it will develop highly effective assessments that measures….well….almost ”everything.”

 

Our clinic performs these comprehensive tests, which measure “attributes”, “dispositions”, “social skills”, “attitudes” and “intra personal resources”, as well as state of the art neuro-cogitive tests that measure the informational process functioning of children in school. The level of information provided about a particular child is both highly sensitive and extremely personal in nature. They are also extremely accurate. In a private clinic such as ours, we follow strict guidelines regarding patient privacy. If a client’s records get into the hands of anyone besides the parents without their written consent, or a court order, our clinic would be shut down and the clinicians who released unauthorized information would lose their licenses or be immediately dismissed from graduate schools or internships or residencies.

 

The accuracy of psychological testing has grown in the past 10 years to astonishing levels. The same tests used in our clinic for assessments, are used in part by federal law enforcement agencies, the military, local police departments, and the Central Intelligence Agency. (These agencies are also interested in finding out about alleged terrorists, serial killers, or airline pilots “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes and intra personal resources”). When placed in the “right” hands of trained mental health professionals, psychological testing can save lives. Placed in the “wrong” hands, psychological testing can ruin lives or cause psychological trauma to people if they have knowledge that their results were used for nefarious purposes.

 

There are many issues regarding “testing” policies that have not been addressed by Common Core.:

 

What types of tests will be used on our children?

Who is developing these tests?

Will the tests be subjected to the rigorous peer review process so necessary for testing instruments used in the private sector? Will parents be able to review the tests?

Who will administer or interpret these tests? They must be done by experienced, trained professionals.

Will the tests take into account cultural differences in ethnic groups?

Who will have access to records obtained by this national/state database?

For what exact purpose will this sensitive data be utilized?

Why is identifiable information (race, age, gender and geographic location) accessible for test results?

Why were changes made to exempt educational privacy rights?

Common Core DOES address the privacy issue and it is the subject of the next section.

 

Privacy

 

I mentioned above that our private clinic is subjected to multiple federal, state, and professional association regulations when it comes to protecting and releasing mental health records. Records do not leave our clinic unless the guardians of the children instruct us, or a District Court judge orders the release of the records. In some cases, we are even ethically obligated to fight court orders that request private mental health records.

 

Common Core State Standards radically changes this game.

 

Prior to CCSS, public school districts were required to adhere to the same rules and regulations regarding private records as our clinic: how and where to store records and who to release them to. Educational testing records are highly sensitive and it makes sense to protect these sensitive records.

 

Buried in all of the fine print of the CCSS is a provision that allows participating school districts to ignore previous government privacy protections. The newly revised laws grant school districts and states privacy waivers. This “information” may be distributed to “organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to develop, validate, or administer predictive testing.” (CCSS (6)(i).

 

In summary CCSS allows the following by law:

1. Grants school districts a waiver from deleting identifying information on their records.
2. Allows school districts to give these identifiable records to anyone who they deem to have a viable interest.
3. Ignores ethical procedures, guidelines, or institutional controls.
4. There is no provision for written parental consent.

 

I spent two hours pouring over this Act to see if there were any further guidelines to Federal or State officials on privacy issues. None could be found.

 

Proponents state that our children’s data will be private and protected. Because CCSS does not specify who can have access to their records, or for what specific purposes this sensitive data will be utilized there are no guarantees. The CCSS contains abundant, generalized, non-binding “legal speak”.

 

Conclusion

 

I would implore every Governor, state Superintendent, and state School Board member in the country to honestly and openly explore the issues cited above and provide accurate answers to these issues to the public in “plain speak”.

 

Given the gravity of these issues, I cannot professionally endorse the Common Core State Standards as currently written until pointed clarification is provided by politicians and educators from both parties endorsing CCSS. Nor in good conscience can I enroll my toddler in a public school system that utilizes CCSS until these issues are clarified to my satisfaction.

 

These issues should be of concern to every parent with a child enrolled in public school. The power granted federal and state education administrators via the regulations of CCSS are unprecedented in nature. Parents deserve to be clearly informed about these and other issues surrounding CCSS in a clear and straightforward manner so that they can make educated choices regarding their children’s educations.

 

On a final note, I wish to publically show my support to the underpaid and overworked public school teachers nationwide. If I had the power, I would elevate their status to that of a medical doctor in terms of pay and prestige. What they do with the limited resources available, and with the burden of bureaucracy following their every professional move is simply nothing short of amazing.

 

There are answers to most of the perplexing questions facing public school officials. I believe these answers can be readily found in multiple peer-reviewed journals in neuropsychology, clinical psychology, education and public policy. Answers can also be found by mining the experiences, wants and needs of our hardworking public school teachers on the local and statewide ground level, as well as local parenting organization of various stripes. Once science and cultural based solution are found and implemented, I believe even cynical conservative lawmakers nationwide would be more willing to pony up additional tax payer money when presented with imaginative, science based educational models in public school systems. On the other hand, simply adding billions of dollars towards a 150-year old foundational system of education in crisis without implementing massive changes is irresponsible, unimaginative, and most likely politically and monetarily motivated.

When politics and money are taken out of the public school education policy arena and replaced with common sense and culturally sensitive science, mixed in with local value systems, I believe we, as a nation will make great strides in the goal of educating our children.

 

Until that time comes, it is my wish that regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliations, our country will join together at the grass roots to amicably reach “common core” grounds of restoring our once proud public education system.

 

Best regards,

Dr. Gary Thompson

Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy Services

Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center, Inc.

www.earlylifepsych.com

 

Dr Thompson can be reached for comment at drgary@earlylifepsych.com

 

Eric Holder's Justice Department Refuses to Act

One of the responsibilities of government is to protect its citizens from debauchery.

This allows them to live in an environment where they can reasonably surround themselves with what is normal. When pornography is inescapable, children are scathed and indoctrinated by it, family values are offended, and basic morality so essential to freedom, declines. Our inability to escape pornography destroys our agency—the right to make our own choices about our environment.

Below are excerpts from an email I received from Morality in Media on March 12, 2013 concerning pornography and our Justice Department. Also listed are suggested actions you can take.

• Contact Eric Holder at the U.S. Department of Justice to register your disapproval at www.askdoj@usdoj.gov
• Call the DOJ – Ask for the Criminal Division – (202) 514-2601
• Write the DOJ – U.S. Department of Justice / 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW / Washington, DC 20530-0001
• Post to the DOJ’s Facebook and Twitter accounts
• Tell your friends and family about existing obscenity laws and encourage their involvement in insisting these laws be enforced again, as they were successfully enforced in the past.

 

Morality in Media
 Attorney General Eric Holder has disbanded the Department of Justice Obscenity Prosecution Task Force and refused to prosecute obscenity cases during his four years in office.

 

The European Union has voted on a resolution to ban the advertisement of pornographic products and sex tourism. Iceland also plans to ban access to online pornography. The widespread harm from pornography is the driving force behind this development.

 

It is not at all surprising that the EU, Iceland or any other country is taking measures to curb the devastation resulting from pornography. Consumption of pornography is causing a worldwide pandemic of harm. Morality in Media maintains an extensive online database of peer-reviewed research on the harm from pornography, PornHarmsResearch.com, (cut and paste into your browser) accessed and used by people in every country in the world.

 

In the United States, our Congress, state legislatures and our courts have long recognized the harmful nature of pornography and banned most of it. In fact, it is currently a violation of federal law to distribute "obscene" or hardcore adult porn on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops, through the mail, and by common carrier such as UPS or FedEx.

 

U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder disbanded the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force in the Department of Justice and has refused to initiate even one new adult obscenity case since he became attorney general four years ago, despite the fact that these laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively enforced by previous attorneys general.

 

Patrick A. Trueman
President & CEO
Morality In Media

 

- Pam

 





The Damages to Children in Gay Marriages

The facts are in: gay marriage hurts children.

 

In a mounting clash of opinions, supporters of same sex marriages frequently tout research that proves children of gays suffer no disadvantages over children of traditional couples—that they are as well-adjusted as their peers.

 

This position has been shattered in two recently released studies. The first analyzed the research used to “prove” the health of children under gay lifestyles. The second reports on a thorough, rigorously engineered research study that validates the need for a father and mother for every child.

 

First, How Good Is the Research?

 

Loren Marks of Louisiana State University analyzed the 59 research studies used by gays to prove their point. Here is Mark’s summary: “[N]ot one of the 59 studies…compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children”, the only credible way to obtain valid research data.

 

All 59 studies are scientifically flawed: samples too small to give accurate data, conducted by pro-homosexuals whose bias invalidates the study, or conducted under questionable procedures. Some of the studies measured children from gay homes against children from divorced homes rather than intact families. Some gathered information only by asking homosexual parents if they thought their children were disadvantaged—a method very prone to bias and hardly scientific.

 

Thus, the studies that laud the well-being of children raised in gay homes are defective in their methods and scientifically inconclusive.

By contrast, a recently released study by Mark Regnerus of University of Texas at Austin (Published in Social Science Research in June 2012) employed the highest research standards to produce results so scientifically and statistically valid they are largely irrefutable. The data are statistically significant after controlling for variables that might change the results—meaning that the results can be trusted.

In addition, the study was very thorough, measuring 40 variables and polling adult children rather than young children still in the home—a much more valid technique.

 

The Regnerus study also separated information about children raised by lesbians and those raised by gays, which sheds further light on this volatile subject.

 

Second, What Do the Studies Say?

 

The results between children of gay families and traditional families are striking. The Regnerus study, titled the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) offers a summary of its study on its website, “ [T]he data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.”

 

In 37 of the 40 areas studied, children of gay homes fare worse than children raised with a father and mother who live together, and in some areas the disadvantages are serious and dramatic. In the following 8 areas the NFSS study provided conclusive evidence that children of homosexual parents:

• Are much more likely to have received welfare growing up
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners-both male and female

Compared to children from intact biological families, children of lesbian mothers:

• Are much more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 11 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" in childhood (not necessarily by the homosexual parent)
• Are 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will at some time
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Smoke and use marijuana more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

The study was unable to compare "stable homosexual families" with "stable heterosexual families," because there were so few stable homosexual families available to study. Of the 248 children with homosexual parents who were surveyed, only two lived with their homosexual parent and partner during their entire childhood from birth to age 18. The study did include less stable heterosexual families, such as one parent families and step families.

 

As can be expected, the liberal left and the pro homosexual forces are attacking the NFSS research. The results, however, are conclusive.  The New Family Structures Study validates the pro-family principles that pro-homosexual activists consistently deny.  First, children do better when raised by their own married mother and father. Second, children suffer when raised by homosexual parents in comparison to all other family structures. Third, homosexual relationships are more inclined to be unstable. Fourth, public policy should continue to encourage the raising of children by a married mother and father.

 

Pro homosexual advocates rarely, if ever, focus their arguments on the well-being of the children involved in their unions. This study allows those children a voice. Throughout human history it has been an accepted fact that children deserve both a mother and a father. In a gay union every child is denied one of those parents—every single one. The children from these unions reinforce the universal lessons of history: both a father and a mother matter.

 

- Pam