Homeland Security Mobile Malcontent Pre-Crime Screening System

U.S. FLAG offensive in Orange Massachusetts classroom

Butterfield Elementary School
94 South Main Street
Orange, Massachusetts 01364-1700
(978) 544-6136
If you have any questions or comments for us,
please email us at: butterfield@orange-elem.org

Original Facebook Support page

Islam By Their Law Shall We Know Them

The ideology of Islam fully implemented under Sharia Law, consistent with the koran, sira and hadith, condemns freedom (speech, conscience, religion association, press, petition of government), forbids equality (between men and women, muslims and non-muslims) and denies traditional sovereignty (national boundaries, secular law, native culture). Any form of sharia, implicit (in mosques and ‘at home’) or explicit (as practiced in UK civil courts, as promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations), denies human rights to women, children and non-muslims. Therefore, allowing sharia in this Constitutional Republic or any non-islamic nation violates our basic laws of freedom, including freedom of choice. The tenets of islam as codified in sharia are supremacist, discriminatory and misogynist; they invite or encourage deception toward non-muslims and mandate perpetual hostility to that which is not islamic. Sharia must be banned as being unConstitutional and its promotion labeled seditious, as it calls for the replacement of man-made law with “divine” sharia.

Whatever in islam that may be spiritual and promote the salvation of the soul is of little interest to me, unless and until it affects non-muslims, at which point it becomes political doctrine. And if this political doctrine calls for harm, subjugation, taxation, terrorizing and death, it is a free-people’s right and obligation to resist.

Speak about islam and sharia in this way. Challenge your listeners not to believe anything about islam that is not consistent with the foundational texts of islam and its body of law, for to do so is to be deceived and ignorant.

ORIGINAL POSTING Website:

Arrested for Being Christian Preachers in Dearborn

NH Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school

New Hampshire Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school
Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 8/26/2009 4:45:00 PMBookmark and Share

Updated 8/27/2009 3:00 PM (Central)

A Christian homeschool girl in New Hampshire has been ordered into government-run public school for having “sincerely held” religious beliefs — and the Alliance Defense Fund is troubled by the ruling.

The case involves divorced couple Martin Kurowski and Brenda Voydatch and their 10-year-old daughter, Amanda. The couple split in 1999 when they were living in Massachusetts, and the proceedings moved to New Hampshire after Voydatch relocated to that state with her daughter in 2002.

Although Voydatch has primary custody over Amanda, both parents agreed to a parenting plan that included joint decision-making responsibility. A court-appointed guardian served as a mediator.

A source of contention between the parents has been the mother’s decision to home school Amanda since first grade. Amanda’s father believes she should be sent to public school, while the mother is adamant about home schooling. Since both parents have failed to reach common ground, the issue moved to the court.

The situation was then analyzed by the court-appointed guardian, who made a recommendation to the court. During the evaluation process it was determined that Amanda was excelling in her schooling and used curriculum that was approved by her school district. The curriculum used in her home schooling was created by certified teachers, and Amanda routinely took standardized tests.

Furthermore, Amanda attended her local public school to take art, Spanish, and P.E. classes. Her public school instructors also commented on the fact that Amanda was well-rounded in her social skills. But a sticking point arose concerning Voydatch’s Christian faith.

The court order stated: “According to the guardian ad litem’s further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeard to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith.” The guardian noted that during a counseling session, Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared “visibly upset” when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention.

The guardian also noted that Amanda’s relationship with her father suffered because she did not think he loved her as much as he said he did due to the fact that he refused to “adopt her religious beliefs.”

According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda’s “interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and…Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”

Furthermore the court order states that despite Amanda’s mother insisting that her daughter’s religious beliefs were her own, “it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.”

Although the court noted that it “is extremely reluctant to impose on parents a decision about a child’s education,” it ruled that Amanda must attend public school.

Alliance Defense Fund-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons has filed a motion to reconsider. He says this ruling is dangerous to home schoolers because it will set a precedent for other cases.

“Every time you have a court order that uses a wrong standard or misapplies constitutional law, everyone’s rights are eventually at stake,” the attorney explains. “Because what happens with precedent is it gets expanded — it gets cited in other cases.”

Simmons believes this case goes beyond the initial divorce and custody battle with this ruling because the standard used in the decision contained in the court order is troubling. He contends that the child’s religion should not have played a role in the decision, and that the court should have focused solely on the academic merits of Amanda’s education which proved to be excellent.

Constitutional Rights

Let it be known that we, the people of the United States of America, stand in recognition of the true principle that whenever a government abandons the purpose for which we have created it and even becomes hostile towards that which it was once a defender of, it is no longer a fit steward of the political power that is inherent in the people and lent to this government with strict conditions.  These conditions are clearly defined in the United States Constitution and understood by the common man.  Furthermore, to the extent that our government violates these conditions, they nullify their own authority, at which point it is our right and duty, not as subjects but as sovereign Americans, to entrust this power to new stewards who will not depart from the laws we have given them.

 

This being the case, let it be known that should our government seek to further tax, restrict infringe on or impose on the rights given by God and the US Constitution, that the duty of us good and faithful people will not be to obey them but to alter or abolish them and institute new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to us shall seem most likely to effect our safety and happiness.

 

The Big Ideas Presented:

All power rests inherently with the people so logically as a government moves further and further away from the people their power is subsequently diminished.  This would mean that the federal government, being the furthest away from the people would also be the least powerful. This is recognized by the 9th and 10th amendments.  However, the “totem pole” of power, which is supposed to have the people on top, gets inverted when the federal government controls all the money.  This is why the Federal Reserve is so bad for America.  They print trillions of new dollars causing the money you have to become worth less, and you feel this in rising prices.  So, you are broke and the federal government has all the power. At this point they treat our rights as privileges that they can revoke.  Article One, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution addresses this problem and offers the solution (gold backed currency).  If we are going to successfully defend our rights, we must understand how the federal government became so powerful that they are now a threat to us.

ADAPTED FROM the “Second Ammendment Task Force” of Fairbanks, Alaska