According to an article in the Huffington Post, Presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s wife allegedly plagiarized Michelle Obama’s speech using the following two lines:

Melania Trump: “From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect.”  

Michelle Obama: “You work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”

Melania Trump: “We want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.” 

Michelle Obama:“We want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

It is important to understand words in context. Michelle Malkin captured the real meaning behind Michelle Obama's words in an article Michelle Obama's America -and Mine.It is clear that the essence of the speeches were not even remotely similar.  Melania spoke for about 17 minutes on how proud she was of our country.  She highlighted the opportunities available to the citizens of the United States.  Contrast that with Michelle’s comments about how she was proud of our country for the 1st time in her life because her husband was the presidential nominee. These are two starkly different messages.  I wonder if Melania’s team of speech writers were trying to make a subliminal point…that the world seen through Melania’s eyes is much rosier than Michelle’s and that looking at the glass of water, Melania sees it as half full whereas Michelle always saw it half empty.  Regardless of whether or not this was a Freudian slip or a deliberate attempt to highlight two different meanings, to suggest that Melania plagiarized Michelle’s thinking is a far cry from the truth.  The words may be similar but coming out of Melania’s mouth they held strongly held beliefs, not just the possibility of these things happening because her husband was running for president.  

Parents and teachers may find this very disturbing.  Why have the education system, medical experts and parents not rallied on behalf of our most precious resource, our children? Why do we continue to disregard the full extent of their physical needs, when it is common knowledge that we need to address the whole child? Unfortunately, a two minute brain break isn't going to solve this development, nor will yoga balls.  ​  

When compared to children from the early 1980s, only one out of twelve children had normal strength and balance. Only one!Oh my goodness, I thought to myself. These children need to move!
​
Ironically, many children are walking around with an underdeveloped vestibular (balance) system today–due to restricted movement. In order to develop a strong balance system, children need to move their body in all directions, for hours at a time. Just like with exercising, they need to do this more than just once-a-week in order to reap the benefits. Therefore, having soccer practice once or twice a week is likely not enough movement for the child to develop a strong sensory system. To read more, click here.

Here is some fascinating footage of William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal arguing about the difference between offensive speech and provocative speech.  I'm wondering which justices on the Supreme Court changed between this debate and the Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois? How does this help us better understand feelings about Confederate flags?  More to come.

Why are soldiers at recruiting stations unarmed?  Here is an analysis put out by Cato Institute that provides some justification for the practice.  I believe it is time to reconsider, under the present circumstances.  I don't think this is our only concern at this time.  We should be worried about Iran, federal overreach, the blurring of powers between the branches, the erosion of our 1st amendment...some would even say this story is serving as a bright shiny thing because it has completely garnered national attention and so we've taken our eye off the other "balls" in the air.  In any event, if you want to understand and take a position, at least understand the history.

What it does is set a high bar for the use of federal troops in a policing role. That reflects America’s traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that’s well-justified.

There are good reasons to resist any push toward domestic militarization.

As one federal court has explained: “Military personnel must be trained to operate under circumstances where the protection of constitutional freedoms cannot receive the consideration needed in order to assure their preservation. The Posse Comitatus statute is intended to meet that danger.”

Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, commander of the federal troops helping out in New Orleans, seemed to recognize that danger when he ordered his soldiers to keep their guns pointed down: “This isn’t Iraq,” he said.

Soldiers are trained to be warriors, not peace officers — which is as it should be. But putting full-time warriors into a civilian policing situation can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.

It can also undermine military readiness, because when soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade. That’s what the General Accounting Office concluded in a 2003 report looking at some of the homeland security missions the military was required to carry out after Sept. 11, 2001.

According to the report, “While on domestic military missions, combat units are unable to maintain proficiency because these missions provide less opportunity to practice the varied skills required for combat and consequently offer little training value.”

The GAO also concluded that such missions put a serious strain on a military already heavily committed abroad.

American law calls for civilian peace officers to keep the peace, or, failing that, National Guard troops under the command of their state governors. So perhaps we should stop treating the National Guard as if it’s no different than the Army Reserve.More

The following is an excerpt from 
Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity

George Washington was married without a marriage license.  So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.”“Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.


Read More

“The endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.”

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights 

Think about what happened in both court cases.  1) a blatant disregard for the 10th Amendment, 2) blurring the powers of the legislative and judicial branches, 3) a disregard for the 9th Amendment, all of which work to centralize power and determine what we must believe, Progressives are so far ahead of us at creating a national government and socialist state. We need to walk away from the bright shiny thing and consider what has happened from a strictly constitutional lens. 

The following are more excerpts from the above link.

“When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.”

“Same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.”

“In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.”

“Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.”

“Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.”

“When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language.”

“Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.”