The School Administration, Parental Rights, & The Letter
Last night, I attended a meeting at my kids' school with the intent of discussing the principal's decision to go to school uniforms in the middle of the school year. The problem is that the principal didn't want to hear our concerns. She tried to shut me up and I think you all know what happens when someone tries to shut me up. Not only that, but she scheduled this meeting on the same evening as the school board meeting, so parents had no opportunity for recourse. About 10 parents tried to make it to the meeting before it ended, but we were too late as the school board is located on the opposite side of the city from the school.
"....One parent tried to explain to other parents how much these uniforms cost, but couldn't be heard because no microphone was set up. When she went to approach the microphone after other parents wanted to hear what she said, Mrs. Williams said it "wasn't necessary" and didn't allow the parent to be heard...."
Read More...
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaks at Minnesota Free Market Institute
On October 14th, 2009 Lord Christopher Monckton gave a speech in St. Paul, MN. to feature the national premier of a new documentary, "Climate Chains," from the Cascade Policy Institute. Lord Christopher Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher and has challenged Al Gore on several occasions to a debate, and as of this date Al Gore has refused every invitation. Lord Monckton also instituted legal proceedings against Gore in a High Court in London to preclude his movie from being shown in British schools. The presiding judge found in favor of Monckton, citing 9 serious errors within the film that required correction. To peruse Lord Monckton's findings click here.
Lord Monckton's October 14th speech contained a dire warning that signing the United Nations Climate Change Treaty could lead to the United States ceding its Sovereignty. The treaty is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Below is a small excerpt from Lord Monckton's speech and that is followed by the actual video footage. In accompaniment is Monckton's slide show, which should be utilized to follow along with his presentation.
"Now, 40 years ago, DDT, the only effective agent against the malaria mosquito was banned. And you saw in that film [Cascade Policy Institute film "Climate Chains" was shown prior --ed] what the effect of that ban was. Before the ban, the inventor of DDT got the Nobel Peace Prize because he had saved more lives than anyone else in the history of the planet. Malaria, one of the greatest killers of children in the Third World had all but been eradicated. There were still 50,000 deaths per year. But when DDT was banned by exactly the same faction, that is now trying to tell us we must close down five sixths of the United States economy that figure is actually in the Waxman- Markey bill. That same faction banned DDT worldwide. The consequences are on the slide there."
Read More...
Click here to see a draft copy of the U.N. Treaty.
Further evidence that our individuals rights are descending into absolute nihility has surfaced with a case of invasion of privacy and Joe the Plumber. Brett A. Gerke, a former contractor for the Ohio Association of Chief of Police, has been charged with the unlawful usage of state computers for the sole purpose of acquiring confidential information on "Joe the Plumber." This specific charge is a first-degree misdemeanor that is punishable by up to six months in jail.
Read More....
Click to read the following legal documents pertaining Joe the Plumber's lawsuit:
Ohio Inspector General's Report
New legislation that pertains to ammunition regulation was signed into law this passed Sunday in California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, after vetoing similar legislation (3 times) since 2004, finally capitulated under the guise of "promoting public safety" and signed AB962 into law. AB962 was authored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon, a Democrat from Los Angeles, and it enforces the following;
Read More....
Click to read AB962.
Written by Madsen Pirie
A judicial review of Britain's liberties would give the Conservatives a programme of reforms and help David Cameron establish his pro-liberty credentials, says Madsen Pirie.
Over the last few years, many traditional liberties which protected our way of life have been removed or compromised by the Government's initiatives. In the name of taking more effective action against terrorists, drug dealers or paedophiles, customs and practices that shielded the citizen from arbitrary abuse by authority have been over-ridden or subverted.
We used to enjoy the protection of habeas corpus, and no detention without trial. We used to have the right to remain silent without it counting against us, or be forced to testify against ourselves. We could demand trial by jury, and once acquitted, need not face the ordeal of a retrial. We enjoyed the presumption of innocence, and could not be punished or have our property seized without conviction in a fair trial.
All of those liberties and many more have been eroded or abolished in a flurry of government and official zeal to crack down on possible law-breakers. Almost every day we read of incidents in which people are bullied or harried by police, not for criminal activity, but basically for doing things the authorities dislike. It will be difficult to regain ground lost for liberty, given a now-entrenched official culture unsympathetic to it.
It is fanciful to suppose that a consolidated repeal bill could be passed to reverse at a stroke all of the illiberal measures of recent years. There is, however, an effective measure that an incoming government could take. David Cameron should announce his intention to establish a year-long judicial review into the state of British liberties. Presided over by a senior and respected judge, the review body would hear evidence in public concerning the degree to which traditional liberties have been eroded.
Crucially, the review body would be empowered to make recommendations at the end of its enquiry, recommendations of measures to restore and entrench the freedoms needed to protect citizens from abuse at the hands of an arbitrary and oppressive authority. While the Conservative Government would not be compelled to implement its findings, there would be a moral pressure on it to do so. Through its year-long inquiry, the review body would raise awareness of liberty issues, and publicize the degree to which it has been lost or threatened. A culture of liberty would gradually supplant the illiberal culture that currently prevails. It would be difficult for government to resist its recommendations.
The announcement now of such a review would enable Mr Cameron to establish the pro-liberty credentials of himself and his party. It would not impose any great costs, nor commit his government to any specific pledges. What it would do it establish a momentum of liberty, and secure carefully thought-out and well-drafted proposals to restore our freedoms to their respected place at the heart of British law and tradition.
Dr Madsen Pirie is President of the Adam Smith Institute and author of the newly-published '101 Great Philosophers'.
Published on telegraph.co.uk here.
by Edwin Meese III WebMemo #2616 September 16, 2009 An excerpt from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution The
Constitution of the United States has endured for over two centuries.
It remains the object of reverence for nearly all Americans and an
object of admiration by peoples around the world. William Gladstone was
right in 1878 when he described the U.S. Constitution as "the most
wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose
of man." Part of the reason for the Constitution's enduring
strength is that it is the complement of the Declaration of
Independence. The Declaration provided the philosophical basis for a
government that exercises legitimate power by "the consent of the
governed," and it defined the conditions of a free people, whose rights
and liberty are derived from their Creator. The Constitution delineated
the structure of government and the rules for its operation, consistent
with the creed of human liberty proclaimed in the Declaration. Justice Joseph Story, in his Familiar Exposition of the Constitution (1840), described our Founding document in these terms: We
shall treat [our Constitution], not as a mere compact, or league, or
confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the
States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to
be) as a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people
of the United States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is
altered, amended, or abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out
in the instrument itself. By the diffusion of
power--horizontally among the three separate branches of the federal
government, and vertically in the allocation of power between the
central government and the states--the Constitution's Framers devised a
structure of government strong enough to ensure the nation's future
strength and prosperity but without sufficient power to threaten the
liberty of the people. The Constitution and the government it
establishes "has a just claim to [our] confidence and respect," George
Washington wrote in his Farewell Address (1796), because it is "the
offspring of our choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full
investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its
principles, in the distribution of its powers uniting security with
energy, and containing, within itself, a provision for its own
amendment." Edwin Meese III
is Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of
the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. This essay is excerpted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, a
line-by-line analysis of the original meaning of each clause of the
United States Constitution, edited by David Forte and Matthew Spalding.
Sterling v. California Coastal Commission
Summary:
This case involves the California Coastal Commission’s attempt to require a family to dedicate an agricultural easement to the State requiring 143 acres of their land to be farmed forever (with no other use allowed) in return for a permit allowing a home on a 10,000 square-foot building pad.
Read More at the Pacific Legal Foundation ....
Pacific Legal Foundation's Verified Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP 1094.5) and Complaint for Declaratory Relief
DownsizeDc.org
Nearly all of the specific, "enumerated" Legislative Powers of Congress are spelled out in Article of I Section 8 the Constitution. By our count, there are twenty listed in Article I, Section 8, and plus two others found in other parts of the Constitution. You can read the list for yourself on our Background page.
Because these powers are delegated from the people, they are the only Legislative Powers Congress has. But our Founding Fathers went further -- trying hard to make enumerated powers so obvious that even a politician couldn't miss the point. They passed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to shut the door to claims of additional power . . .
DownsizeDC.org
Let's be clear about what civil asset forfeiture is not:
Civil asset forfeiture instead refers to legal property or cash owned by individuals not charged with any crime, which is nevertheless seized by law enforcement agents who merely suspect it was used in a crime.
Unfortunately, federal courts have used twisted logic to uphold civil asset forfeitures. They have contended that since the property itself is condemned, and not its owner, norms like "innocent until proven guilty" do not apply. But if the government can seize your life savings, or your house, or the car you need to get to work, the effective punishment is as bad or worse than the penalties imposed upon conviction of a crime – yet the owner of the seized property possesses no due process rights.
OVERCRIMINALIZED.COM
George Norris, an elderly retiree, had turned his orchid hobby into a part-time business run from the greenhouse in back of his home. He would import orchids from abroad--South Africa, Brazil, Peru--and resell them at plant shows and to local enthusiasts. He never made more than a few thousand dollars a year from his orchid business, but it kept him engaged and provided a little extra money--an especially important thing as his wife, Kathy, neared retirement from her job managing a local mediation clinic.
Their life would take a turn for the worse on the bright fall morning of October 28, 2003, when federal agents, clad in protective Kevlar and bearing guns, raided his home, seizing his belongings and setting the gears in motion for a federal prosecution and jail time.
Read More...
