Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Supreme Court Sets Precedent - Teachers Can Bully Students

 

Chad Farnan

These days we are more sensitive to the bullying that students dole upon one another in school. Apparently, the teachers can bully students with verbal assaults as long as the student is a Christian.

Nearly every day in class, James Corbett, who had taught at the school for the past 20 years, would ridicule and harass Chad Farnan about his Christian and creationist views.  One of the statements made by Corbett in the classroom in front of Farnan’s fellow students was,“When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

After repeated verbal abuse in front of his classmates, Farnan filed suit against the teacher in December 2007.  He accused the teacher of promoting hostility to Christians in the classroom and in promoting ‘irreligion over religion’ which is a violation of the First Amendment.

The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the most liberal court in the entire US.  In keeping with their liberal history, the Ninth Circuit Court overturned the District Court’s ruling declaring that the teacher had a qualified immunity since there was no precedent of any case where a teacher had been held liable for anti-religious statements and those statements been ruled to be unconstitutional.

Based on his belief that there was no justifiable reason for his attacks on his student, the judge ruled in favor of the student but the victory was short-lived as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals predictably ruled to the left of center and overturned the district judge.
 
The case then appealed to the US Supreme Court in hopes that they would make a precedent setting ruling to defend the religious rights of students in public schools.  In March this year, the US Supreme Court announced that they will not hear the case, thus making the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling will stand as the final decision.
 
A precedent in this case has been set, but not the one hoped for.  The precedent that was set allows teachers to verbally abuse, ridicule and harass the religious beliefs of any student and they can do so in the classroom in front of other students.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

US Constitution 1st Amendment




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pastor Goes to Jail for Hosting Home Bible Study

Michael Salman, the pastor from Phoenix who was fined and sentenced to jail for holding Bible studies in his home, started his 60-day jail sentence at 10 a.m. today.

The preacher asked for prayers as he left his wife and six kids to report to Maricopa County Jail.

"I have spent time with my family this morning praying, crying and saying our goodbye. My heart is broken, but glory to God," Salman wrote on his Facebook page this morning. "Our God wil take care of us and my family. Please pray for us! Until God opens the prison's door, I will be with you all in prayer and spirit."

Salman was found guilty of code violations for hosting Bible studies on his 4.6 acre property, which he has been doing for the past 7 years. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail along with three years probation and ordered to pay a $12,180 fine.




Town repents after threatening to shut down Bible study

An Apple Valley couple was in shock after they were told their home Bible Study was in violation of town law, according to a citation found on their front door.

“I was appalled when I read the letter,” said M. Sharon Rogone, who leads the weekly study with her husband, Phillip. “Soon we will be an underground movement. If this is America, then where is our religious freedom?”

The “courtesy” citation, posted Wednesday by a code enforcement officer, stated the town’s code and a complaint “that church services are being held at this address.”

The citation also gave the Rogones until June 27 to comply, or else the town would take legal action.

“I wrote to Bill O’Reilly, FOX News, Glenn Beck and to as many people as I could,” said Rogone, who attends High Desert Church in Victorville and has hosted the study in the couple’s Choco Road home for the last seven years.

“There are about 15 of us, and we have about seven cars here that all fit in our driveway, or in front of our property,” Rogone said. “We’re not rowdy or obnoxious. We even invited the entire neighborhood over to hang out.”

Monday, March 26, 2012

Panetta Claims International Permission Needed for Military Action, Not Congress

It is no surprise that the Obama administration believes that they do not need congressional approval to use the military. We seen and discussed this when the Libyan attacks commenced. This time under questioning from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing March 7, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that “international permission,” rather than Congressional approval, provides a ‘legal basis’ for military action by the United States.
Sen. Jeff Sessions:  Do you think that you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, without Congressional approval?
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta : Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this.  Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.
Sen. Jeff Sessions:  Well, I’m almost breathless about that.  Because what I heard you say is, “we are going to seek international approval, and then we will come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we ‘might’ seek Congressional approval.”
Panetta then goes on to explicitly state that the President has the authority to “act in the defense of the nation” without Congressional approval and that a NATO resolution would be all the legal justification the administration needs in order to wage yet another foreign war.
The War Powers Act prohibits the US President from engaging in war unless the Congress authorizes:
1. A declaration of war,
2. Specific statutory authorization, or
3. A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
This makes it illegal for the US President to wage a foreign war of aggression without Congressional authorization.
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution remands the power to declare war specifically to the Congress.  This power is distinct from raising and funding an army, which is also a separate declared power of Congress.  The US Constitution and the War Powers Act make it clear that President may not initiate an undeclared war without the consent of Congress.
Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives which reads:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Remember a year ago we reported that in a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011, President Obama cited the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and his "constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."
However, as a candidate the president held a different view. The Boston Globe interviewed then-Senator Obama in 2007 on the use of unilateral military action:
Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”
Rep. Burton of Indiana said regarding the calls for strikes in Syria and Panetta’s admission that congress and the constitution are subservient to the UN, “I would respectfully remind Senator McCain and the President that they do not have the power to unilaterally start a war. The authority to initiate war is vested by the Constitution exclusively in Congress. The War Powers Act was enacted into law over a Presidential veto--not an easy thing to accomplish--to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States in requiring that the President has to seek the consent of Congress before the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostile action.
“Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act provides that no attempt by the President to introduce the United States Armed Forces into hostile action may be made under the War Powers Act unless, number one, there is a declaration of war; number two, a specific authorization; or, number three, a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possession, or its Armed Forces.
“The Constitution and the War Powers Act are not a list of suggestions; they are the law of the land, the law the President of the United States and every Member of Congress swears to protect and defend. Contrary to Defense Secretary Panetta's assertion before the Senate Armed Services Committee the other day, international permission does not trump congressional permission”

OK House Disapproves of HHS Contraception Mandate

Oklahoma democrat Rebecca Hamilton and republican Paul Wesselhoft authored House Resolution 1041 which reads:
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), under the direction and influence of the Obama administration, issued a final rule that requires that health insurance plans, including those of religious institutions, “cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co pay, coinsurance or a deductible”; and
WHEREAS, HHS’s rule further states that plans must cover the “full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception”; and
WHEREAS, the FDA’s list of approved methods of contraception includes abortifacients, which are abortion drugs prescribed to kill life in the womb after conception; and
WHEREAS, this new mandate sets a dangerous precedent for American democracy and undermines the U.S. Constitution; and
WHEREAS, this mandate is a wholesale assault on the specific protections of religious liberties afforded to all Americans by the First Amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 53RD OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives disapproves of the final rule issued by HHS on January 20, 2012, that requires that health insurance plans, including those of religious institutions, cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a copay, coinsurance or a deductible.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives urges Congress to adopt laws which would nullify the effect of such rule.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to President Barack Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

American Pride not Allowed in USA

Chanting the name of your own country is now prohibited.
Basketball players at Alamo Heights High School defeated San Antonio Edison in Texas on Saturday. In jubilation, Alamo Heights students began chanting “USA, USA!”
School officials immediately stopped the chant because they believed it was disrespectful.
According to the San Antonio Independent News, the chant of “USA” lasted about five seconds before being silenced by the coach of Alamo Heights.
School officials of both districts immediately condemned the students. According to Mylar, San Antonio Independent School District spokeswoman Leslie Price stated, “It is surprising and it’s disappointing to hear that anyone would be out there making those kinds of remarks.”
Is it also “wrong” to fly the American flag in the area? Keep in mind this happened in San Antonia, Texas. That is within the every fading borders of the United States of America.
Remember in 2010 at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, students were told they could not wear bandannas or t-shirts with an American flag on Cinco de Mayo. Morgan Hill is in California, still part of the United States of America.
Daniel Galli said he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.
"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said.
The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they're angry they were not allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their children, "total nonsense."
I wonder what flag flies at their City Hall and Schools.
In September of 2011 The Daily Mail reported that parents of children at an elementary school in Colorado are furious after the American flag was lowered at the multi-cultural school and replaced with a Saudi Arabian flag.
As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approached, someone at Bauder Elementary School in Fort Collins appears to have lowered the American symbol while raising that of the Muslim country in its place.
The flag is thought to have initially been hung at the school as one of many posted around the site in recognition of the various nationalities represented by the young students.
The school’s principal insisted the flag was not raised by a member of staff in order to disrespect the American flag – and said the American flag immediately was returned to its prominent position when the issue came to his attention.
But parents argue the display was a direct violation of federal law, which states: ‘No other flag or pennant should be placed above, or, if on same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America.’
We see in the picture that the flag is on the left. We see know the answer to which flag is flown in Colorado. Are these unique incidents?
A middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District is where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.
Tracy Hathaway, of Salinas, CA, told FOX News Radio her 13-year-old daughter was ordered to stop drawing the American flag by an art teacher at Gavilan View Middle School.
“She had drawn the flag and was sketching the letters, ‘God bless America,’ when the teacher confronted her,” Hathaway told FOX. “She said, ‘You can’t draw that – that’s offensive.’”
Even more striking, another student in the same art class drew a picture of President Obama and was praised by the teacher.
Hathaway said the teacher told the girl that she should not have gotten her parents involved in the matter. 
Residents of an Oregon apartment complex were outrage when Jim Clausen, whose son is in the military and on his way back to Iraq, was told he couldn't fly an American flag from the back of his motorcycle.
If he didn't take the flag down, he was told he'd face eviction, the station reported on Monday.
The complex reversed its ban prohibiting residents from flying American flags from dwellings and parked vehicles after the property manager decided she didn't have the legal standing to do so, KATU in Portland reported.
This reminds us that we are the instruments of change.
 "If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight!"  Patrick Henry

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

OK Senate Approves Bill Requiring Presidential Candidates to Present ID

The Senate today approved legislation that would require candidates in presidential primaries to provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold office.
Sen. Ralph Shortey, author of Senate Bill 1569, said critics of similar legislation filed last year claimed the measure was an attempt to capitalize on criticism of President Barack Obama, but his proposal is a matter of common sense reform.
“Even in the absence of any controversy, this is a proposal that makes good sense,” Shortey said. “We require people to present ID to board a plane, use credit cards, purchase alcohol and tobacco and even to enter certain buildings. Requiring candidates for public office to prove their identity is not a hardship – it’s common sense.”
SB 1569 would require candidates in presidential primaries to present to the Election Board photo identification and proof that they satisfy all requirements for office.
“Given that we require Oklahoma voters to provide proof of identity when they vote, it only makes sense we ask the same of candidates when they file for office,” said Shortey, R-Oklahoma City. “As a believer in federalism, I think it is important that states have the ability to fully vet candidates and ensure they satisfy all requirements for eligibility. This is simply an effort to preserve the integrity of the election process.”
The bill states that candidates shall be required to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board.  A candidate shall present current state or federal government-issued photo identification or a copy thereof to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural-born citizenship:
1.  An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;
2.  An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;
3.  An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad; or
4.  An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States.
Copies of these documents shall be made by the State Election Board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

SB 1629 is on hold pending Supreme Court action

The Legislature will wait until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the federal health care law before proceeding with Senate Bill 1629, legislators announced Thursday.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer, perhaps as early as June, on a legal challenge brought by several states alleging the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.
Should the high court overturn the law, the possibility exists that health insurance exchanges would not be necessary. And should the high court uphold the federal law, nuances within the majority opinion could help legislators craft the most effective Oklahoma-based marketplace possible to defend against the imposition of a federal exchange.
Given these dynamics, legislative leaders and the chairmen of the Joint Committee of Federal Health Care Law have opted to wait until the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings before moving further forward with SB 1629. If the court upholds the law, the Legislature is already prepared to continue defending against federal intervention into the Oklahoma health care market.
“There are many common-sense solutions conservatives can agree on to lower the cost of healthcare, expand access and choices to more individuals, and increase the quality of our care – all through tried-and-true principles of the free market,” said Sen. Gary Stanislawski, R-Tulsa, co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Federal Health Care Law.
“These are ideas worth pursuing, and we eagerly await the Supreme Court’s repeal of ObamaCare so we can begin the very serious business of addressing our healthcare challenges with solutions that expand freedom instead of government,” Stanislawski said.
The Joint Committee on Federal Health Care Law met five times throughout the interim to determine the effect the law will have on Oklahoma. Among its recommendations was to craft a state-based marketplace in order to prevent the federal government from imposing a federal exchange in Oklahoma.
“If the court doesn’t reject this law as we hope, developing a state-based exchange remains our best defense against unwanted federal intervention,” said Rep. Glen Mulready, R-Tulsa, the committee’s other co-chairman. “We think we have fashioned a good plan. We are willing to wait to ensure we have the best possible solution to protect Oklahoma from federal intervention.”
Legislative leaders supported the committee co-chairmen’s decision.
“Republicans in the state Senate will do everything in our power to block ObamaCare in Oklahoma. When President Obama rammed through a trillion dollar unconstitutional assault on the healthcare freedom of Oklahomans, he proved his values are fundamentally at odds with ours,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, R-Sapulpa. “The fight to preserve healthcare freedom is far from over.”
“Developing a state-based solution has always been and remains the best, most realistic way to defend against a federal exchange. The reality is we’re not yet at the point where we absolutely have to deploy that defense,” said House Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee. “Should the time come, we’ll be prepared to act thanks to the groundwork the committee has laid for us.”

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Police Given Direct Line to Cell Phone Searches

Amendment IV – United States Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Think about all the personal information we keep in our cell phones: It’s something to consider after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled it is now legal for police to search cell phones without a warrant.
The decision stems from an Indiana case where police arrested a man for dealing drugs. An officer searched the suspect’s cell phone without warrant.
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit rejected that argument, finding that the invasion of privacy was so slight that the police's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.
"Lurking behind this issue is the question whether and when a laptop or desktop computer, tablet, or other type of computer (whether called a 'computer' or not) can be searched without a warrant," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel.
He raised the example of the iCam, which allows someone to use a phone to connect to a home-computer web camera, enabling someone to search a house interior remotely.
"At the touch of a button, a cell phone search becomes a house search," he wrote.
Posner compared the cell phone to a diary. Just as police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy an owner's address, they should be able to turn on a cell phone to learn its number, he wrote. But just as they're forbidden from examining love letters tucked between the pages of an address book, so are they forbidden from exploring letters in the files of a phone.
The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device.
Paul Coggins is the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Coggins says the court’s ruling pushes the envelope on privacy issues and wonders if it opens the door to more extensive searches down the road. “Does that mean officers now have the right to search through your phone, search through your search history, your photographs, your e-mails and the rest, because it could all be wiped clean,” Coggins asked.
Many critics are asking the same question. They call the ruling an invasion of privacy that far outweighs the needs of law enforcement.
Both Defenbaugh and Coggins agree that the case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme court.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Attorney General Pruitt Joins Six Attorneys General in Lawsuit Defending Religious Liberty

Seven states are asking a federal judge to block an Obama administration mandate that requires birth control coverage for employees of religious-affiliated hospitals, schools and outreach programs.
The lawsuit in U.S. District Court of Nebraska alleges that the new rule violates the First Amendment rights of groups that object to the use of contraceptives. The suit argues, “The First Amendment has for centuries, served as a rampart against government interference with religious liberty.”
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement, “Any rule, regulation or law that forces faith-based institutions to provide for services that violate their free exercise of religion, or that penalizes them for failing to kneel at the altar of government, is a flat-out violation of the First Amendment.”
Attorney General Scott Pruitt was among seven attorneys general to file a lawsuit Thursday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the federal government’s requirement that religious employers offer health insurance coverage for sterilization services that conflict with their religious beliefs.
The complaint, filed today in U.S. District Court in Nebraska, challenges the constitutionality of the federal government’s impending mandate, claiming the requirement would be an unprecedented invasion of First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and free association.
“Any regulation that requires a religious group to violate their lawful beliefs and practices goes directly against the ideals that our Founding Fathers set in place to protect Americans from an overbearing and intrusive government,” Pruitt said. “It conflicts with the most basic elements of freedom provided to all Americans to practice their lawful religion wherever, whenever and however they choose. For that reason, we have filed a lawsuit asking the Court to find the regulation unconstitutional.”
Earlier this month, the AGs sent a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warning of a possible challenge in court if the mandate wasn’t withdrawn.
The states joining Nebraska are Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (S. 2043), which would block the requirement that religiously affiliated universities, hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions offer health plans that cover birth control — including abortion-causing “contraception” drugs such as RU-486 — without a co-pay or deductible. While churches, synagogues, and other places of worship have been exempted from the ObamaCare mandate, the President has decreed that religious employers must concur, giving them until August 2013 to comply.
“In effect, the President is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
In announcing the bill, Senator Rubio said that President Obama’s “obsession with forcing mandates on the American people has now reached a new low by violating the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people. Under this President, we have a government that has grown too big, too costly, and now even more overbearing by forcing religious entities to abandon their beliefs.”
Rubio called his proposed measure a “common-sense bill that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so.” Under the legislation, language in Obama’s 2010 healthcare law would be amended to stipulate that “no guideline or regulation … shall require any individual or entity to offer, provide, or purchase coverage for a contraceptive or sterilization service, or related education or counseling, to which that individual or entity is opposed on the basis of religious belief.”
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) has introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3897, in the House; it has 8 cosponsors at present. In a similar vein, Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has introduced the Religious Freedom Protection Act of 2012, S. 2092.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Sykes responds to federal appeals court ruling on State Question 755

Sen. Anthony Sykes today offered the following comment on the Court ruling upholding an injunction against SQ 755, which would prohibit state courts from considering Sharia law.
“On Tuesday the federal appeals court in Denver attempted to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of by and for the judges, or of by and for the people. How far will the people let them go? This ruling is right along with legalizing abortion and forced busing of school children.”
“The issue raised by this constitutional amendment is very simple – you are either for Sharia law or you are against it.”
“This is just the first battle in an ongoing effort. Although the courts have attempted to silence the voice of the people, I won’t let that happen. I’ll continue fighting to restore government to the people.”

Usurpation of the Constitution

On December 23, 2011 President Obama sent a letter to congress titled Statement by the President on H.R. 2055. In the letter he writes “The Congress has also included certain provisions in this bill that could interfere with my constitutional authorities in the areas of foreign relations and national security. Section 113 of Division H requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress 30 days in advance of "any proposed military exercise involving United States personnel" that is anticipated to involve expenditures of more than $100,000 on construction. Language in Division I, title I, under the headings International Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, disallows the expenditure of funds "for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national," unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress. In approving this bill, I reiterate the understanding, which I have communicated to the Congress, that I will apply these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”
According to the United States Constitution Article1 Section 8 Congress alone has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years".
With respect to authority as Commander in Chief, Article 2 Section 2 states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”.
The constitution is clear that the congress has the power to send the military to war and to make appropriations for the military, not the president. I fail to see how this could interfere with his constitutional authorities.
However, in 2001 John Yoo wrote an opinion titled "THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM". in it he concluded "In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. (32) In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make." This claim gives the president the power to use military force whenever he deems necessary. Is this what the constitution says?
John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”
James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.
The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.
We have heard a lot lately about the president making statements about usurping congressional authority, including items on youtube. In recent remarks he said “Now, I’ve said I will continue to look for every opportunity during the course of this year to work with Congress to move this country forward and create jobs.  But we can’t wait. When Congress -- whenever this Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, I’ve got an obligation as President to do what we can without them. I’ve got an obligation to work on behalf of you and the American people. I’m not going to let members of Congress put party ideology ahead of the people that they were elected to serve -- not when there's this much at stake.”
Again at Shaker Heights High School in Ohio on January 4th 2011 he said “But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. “ This is clearly in response to his appointment of Richard Cordray without the approval of congress.
"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."
John Adams
"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."
President James Madison (1751-1836) speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

Senate Task Force on Comprehensive Tax Reform completes final report

OKLAHOMA CITY –The task force charged with recommending reforms in Oklahoma’s tax system has completed its work. Copies of the report were given to Gov. Mary Fallin, President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman and Speaker Kris Steele on Friday.
Senator Mike Mazzei served as Co-chair of the task force. He told the governor and legislative leaders that as they and members of the Legislature consider the panel’s proposals, it was his hope that the taxpayers of Oklahoma would be the main priority throughout the process.
“The non-partisan Tax Foundation has rated Oklahoma’s overall tax structure 30th in the nation when rating our job creation environment,” said Mazzei, R-Tulsa. “We must transform the tax code; it is simply wrong when a special interest group benefits from an obsolete or ineffective tax preference at the expense of hardworking Oklahomans who deserve to keep more of their hard-earned income.”
The report includes recommendations on reforms which will enable reductions in the top income tax rate from 5.25 to 4.75 percent over a two-year period as well as reducing corporate income taxes from 6 to 5 percent. Additional recommendations would offset those reductions through the elimination of select tax credits and a thorough review of existing tax preferences with an expectation of reduction or elimination of a number of tax credits.
Sen. Rick Brinkley, R-Owasso, served as Vice-chair of the task force.
“These reforms are aimed at simplifying tax law and reducing rates for individuals and businesses,” Brinkley said. “The overall goal is to grow our economy while continuing to make crucial investments in core government services such as education, transportation and public safety,” Brinkley said.
The final recommendation of the task force stresses that other important reforms must be examined should the Legislature consider making Oklahoma a no income tax state.
Throughout the interim, the task force heard from a variety of speakers, including representatives from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, the Oklahoma Policy Institute, the National Conference of State Legislatures, state and local chambers of commerce, economists, specialists in tax and business law and the National Federation of Independent Business.
“I want to thank the members of the task force and all those who participated for their hard work throughout this process,” Mazzei said. “This report is a blueprint that will benefit Oklahomans while attracting the jobs and businesses that will result in the kind of economic development necessary to boost per capita income and quality of life throughout our state.”

Federal Government Overreach Setting Record with Proposed Talking & Texting Ban

Terrill: Federal Government Overreach Setting Record with Proposed Talking & Texting Ban

OKLAHOMA CITY (December 15, 2011) – Federal efforts to force states to ban all forms of talking and texting while driving, regardless of circumstances, disrespects the ability of citizens to govern themselves, state Rep. Randy Terrill said today.
“The U.S. Constitution makes clear that the federal government has specifically enumerated and limited powers with all other issues relegated to state governments,” said Terrill, R-Moore. “If this talking and texting initiative stands, then is there anything out of bounds for the federal government?”
Terrill’s comments came in response to reports that the National Transportation Safety Board is attempting to coerce all states into imposing total bans on texting, emailing or chatting while driving.
“States certainly have the power to take up this issue and enforce those laws within their borders,” Terrill said. “However, the federal government’s recent efforts to bully, harass, intimidate and threaten states into taking particular actions must stop.”
According to the Associated Press, 35 states and the District of Columbia already ban texting while driving, and another nine states ban hand-held cell phone use. In addition, 30 states ban all cell phone use for beginning drivers.
“Clearly, this issue is not being ignored by state lawmakers, and it obviously is not a proper function of the federal government, so I have to ask why the current federal administration would prioritize texting bans over its actual duties, such as national security.”
It is believed the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations could ultimately be imposed by withholding federal road funds from states that do not comply with the federal edict.
Terrill noted the proposed talking-and-texting ban follows passage of the deeply unpopular federal health care law, which independent studies have shown will increase consumer costs and reduce access to quality health care.
“In my adult lifetime, I have never seen the federal government overreach to the extent we are seeing today,” Terrill said. “From the passage of ObamaCare, to the federal government suing states that enforce federal immigration laws within their borders, to this national talking and texting ban, it seems there’s no area of our lives that the federal government is not trying to control – all at the expense of our personal freedom and liberty as well as states’ rights.”

Thursday, October 27, 2011

TSA Releases VIPR Venom on Tennessee Highways

If you thought the “Transportation Security Administration” would limit itself to conducting unconstitutional searches at airports, think again.  The agency intends to assert jurisdiction over our nation’s highways, waterways, and railroads as well.  TSA launched a new campaign of random checkpoints on Tennessee highways last week, complete with a sinister military-style acronym--VIP(E)R—as a name for the program.
As with TSA’s random searches at airports, these roadside searches are not based on any actual suspicion of criminal activity or any factual evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever by those detained.  They are, in effect, completely random.  So first we are told by the U.S. Supreme Court that American citizens have no 4thamendment protections at border crossings, even when standing on U.S. soil.  Now TSA takes the next logical step and simply detains and searches U.S. citizens at wholly internal checkpoints.
The slippery slope is here.  When does it end?  How many more infringements on our liberties, our property, and our basic human rights to travel freely will it take before people become fed up enough to demand respect from their government?  When will we demand that the government heed obvious constitutional limitations, and stop treating ordinary Americans as criminal suspects in the absence of probable cause?
The real tragedy occurs when Americans incrementally become accustomed to this treatment on the roads just as they have become accustomed to it in the airports. We already accept arriving at the airport 2 or more hours before a flight to get through security; will we soon have to build in an extra 2 or 3 hours into our road trips to allow for checkpoint traffic?
Worse, some people are lulled into a false sense of security and are actually grateful for this added police presence!  Should we really hail the expansion of the police state as an enhancement to safety?  I submit that an attitude of acquiescence to TSA authority is thoroughly dangerous, un-American, and insulting to earlier freedom-loving generations who built this country.
I am certain people will complain about this, once they have to sit in stopped traffic for a few extra hours to allow for random searches of cars.  However, I am also certain it merely will take another "foiled" plot to silence many people into gladly accepting more government mismanagement of safety.
Vigilant, observant, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens defend themselves and stop crimes every day before police can respond.  That is the source of real security in America:  the 2nd Amendment right to defend oneself.  The answer is for people to be empowered to protect themselves.  Yet how many weapons might these checkpoints confiscate?  Even when individual go through all the legal hoops of licensing and permits, the chances of harassment or outright confiscation of weapons and detention of citizens when those weapons are found at a TSA checkpoint is extremely high.
Disarming the highways and filling them full of jack-booted thugs demanding to see our papers is no way to make them safer.  Instead, it is a great way to expand government surveillance powers and tighten the noose around our liberties.
Ron Paul

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

NATO’s Humanitarian Effort in Libya

Number Killed or Wounded
On September 8, Naji Barakat, the Health Minister of the National Transitional Council, stated that about 30,000 people were killed during the war. At least 50,000 war wounded, about 20,000 with serious injuries, were currently estimated, but this estimate was expected to rise. However, there was no independent verification of the opposition claim.
Barakat said that at least 1,700 former rebel fighters died in the battle for Tripoli, along with about 100 civilians.
Human Rights Violations
Amnesty International found recent unlawful killings "perpetrated by organized groups who operate freely, openly and with impunity". Victims' families were generally unwilling to protest for fear of reprisals and to avoid the stigma of being labeled Gaddafi loyalists or "anti-revolutionary". In addition, opposition groups have detained hundreds of people in areas they control since the end of February, Amnesty says. These include people accused of "subverting the revolution," who say they were never shown an arrest warrant or any other document.
"In most cases, the manner of detention is better described as abduction rather than arrest," the report argues. "They were seized by groups of heavily-armed men, some of them masked, who did not identify themselves. They were then taken away in unmarked vehicles, usually pick-up trucks with anti-aircraft machine-guns mounted at the back."
It continues: "None of the detainees, whether Libyan or foreign civilians, or Libyan soldiers, have had access to a lawyer, been formally charged, or been given the opportunity to challenge their detention before a judicial authority."
The report states: "Victims are subjected to beatings and other abuses seemingly to extract confessions and to punish them for their alleged 'crimes'. In some cases, detainees are forced to sign or thumb-print statements under torture or duress without being allowed to read them. In fact, several detainees told Amnesty International that they were interrogated while blindfolded."
The al-Qaeda Connection
There’s more evidence that many of the men engaged in fighting against the Gaddafi regime have ties to an organization that killed 3,000 Americans 10 years ago:
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited “around 25″ men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya”.
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad’s president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, “including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries”.
Chad, of course, lies to Libya’s south, and there are fears that a collapse of the central government in Tripoli could allow groups sympathetic to al Qaeda to set up camp in the vast deserts of Southern Libya:
The fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might see the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups filling up the void, US analysts have said.
The Obama administration finally acknowledged Wednesday, Aug. 31 that al Qaeda elements had been fighting in Libyan rebel ranks in last week's capture of Tripoli. This came about in a cautious remark from the office of President Barack Obama's terrorism adviser John Brennan: "Some members of the LIFG [Al Qaeda's Libyan Islamic Fighting Group offshoot] in the past had connections with al Qaeda in Sudan, Afghanistan or Pakistan. Others dropped their relationship with al Qaeda entirely. It seems from their statements and support for establishing a democracy in Libya that this faction of LIFG does not support al Qaeda. We'll definitely be watching to see whether this is for real or just for show."
CNN reported hundreds of Islamist militants were among the prisoners freed from a notorious Tripoli prison this week, according to a former Libyan jihadist.
The freed militants had been imprisoned in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison by Moammar Gadhafi’s regime during the height of the insurgency in Iraq, according to Noman Benotman, once a senior figure in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Benotman said he believes as many as 600 militants may have been among the prison population at Abu Salim.
It’s not known how many prisoners were held in the vast facility. Human Rights Watch said Gadhafi’s prisons “have been filled to the limit in the last few months with thousands of people who were arrested for taking part in the anti-Gadhafi protests, or because of their suspected support for Libya’s democratic opposition.”
In a blog on al Jazeera a person stating he is Abdullah Al-Snousi stated, “What we are facing now in this war is NATO led by al-Qaeda. The European and western officials are lying to their people when they say they are fighting terrorism. In fact they are fighting with terrorism against the Libyan nation and they are following al Qaeda’s orders.
What we find really strange that the same people who brought to us these terrorists elements are the same people now supporting these very terrorist elements. Now the international coalition is not against terrorism but between the west and terrorism. And my colleagues, the heads of intelligence services all around the world know what I am talking about. Libyan head of security services Abdullah Al-Snousi.”
A Matter of Money
CNN reported that the rebels have started selling oil to the US. The rebel government in control of the eastern part of Libya has made its first sale of oil from territory it controls, the State Department confirmed Wednesday.
Tesoro, a U.S. oil refiner, entered into a deal May 25 with the Transitional National Council based in Benghazi, Libya for 1.2 million barrels of Libyan crude oil, the State Department said in a written statement. The shipment was scheduled to arrive aboard the MT Equator, a Liberian-flagged tanker, at the Single Point Mooring in Hawaii on Wednesday. The dollar value of the deal is not known.
The rebels have also established a central bank. In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the “designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
The Gadhafi regime’s central bank — unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is owned by private shareholders — was among the few central banks in the world that was entirely state-owned. At the moment, it is unclear exactly who owns the rebel’s central bank or how it will be governed.
The so-called Interim Transitional National Council, the rebels’ self-appointed new government for Libya purporting to be the “sole legitimate representative of Libyan People,” also trumpeted the creation of a new “Libyan Oil Company” based in the rebel stronghold city of Benghazi. The North African nation, of course, has the continent’s largest proven oil reserves.
However, the creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.”
Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place. And other analysts agreed.
Even mainstream news outlets were puzzled. “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”
But some observers are convinced that the central bank issue was actually the primary motivation for the international war against Libya‘s dictatorship. In an article that has spread far and wide across the web, entitled “Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,” author Eric Encina maintains that the world’s “globalist financiers and market manipulators” could not stand the Libyan monetary authority’s independence, explaining:
“Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.”
And when Gadhafi is gone and the dust has settled, according to Encina, “you will see the Allied reformers move in to reform Libya’s monetary system, pumping it full of worthless dollars, priming it for a series of chaotic inflationary cycles.” The future of Libya’s vast gold stockpiles could also be in jeopardy, he noted.
Numerous other analysts and experts have also pointed to the central banking issue as one of the top factors leading up to the Western backing of Libyan rebels. Monetary historian Andrew Gause, for example, recently shared his concerns about the matter publicly.
Ground Troops
Remember no ground troops would be used? An unnamed NATO official admitted that Britain and France have deployed ground troops inside the Libyan territory, but said it would be "unfair to call them NATO forces."
Meanwhile, the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said there is "direct evidence" that British and French Special Forces were carrying out ground operations in Libya in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973.
Additionally a plan for Libya by The United Nations has leaked out to the media. The plan proposes 200 military observers to begin with a multi-national force and 190 UN police. Also in the report the UN plans to have Libya’s elections within a nine month time frame. Matthew Lee, a journalist for InnerCityPress.com, broke the story.
The 10-page document, apparently written by a special UN team led by Ian Martin, the former British head of Amnesty International, was obtained and published by Inner City Press, the UN watchdog website.
"It's a very detailed plan really spelling out [roles for] military observers, UN, police; it says things like NATO has an ongoing role and there's some things the UN can do without a mandate from the Security Council," Matthew Russell Lee said.

Are Senators and Legislators Immune from Prosecution?

The bribery scandal of Rep. Randy Terrill and former Democratic state Sen. Debbe Leftwich and thrust the argument of Speech and Debate clause into the headlines. Attorneys for a former state senator accused of felony bribery maintain their client is immune from prosecution because her activities as a legislator are protected under the state constitution.
That clause is part of Article V, Section 22, which reads as follows:
■Senators and representatives shall, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and for any speech or debate in either House, shall not be questioned in any other place.
Lawyers with the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office allege that Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, offered Leftwich an $80,000 job with the Oklahoma Medical Examiner’s Office if she would not seek another term in the Senate. Bribery charges were filed against Leftwich and Terrill in December.
26 O.S. 16-108, one of the statutes under which Leftwich was charged, reads as follows:
■Any person who shall solicit or accept from another anything of value for withdrawing from any political contest as a candidate or nominee for any office at any election shall be deemed guilty of a felony.
In June of this year, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied a petition from Leftwich to have the case against her dismissed, affirming an April trial court ruling.
Leftwich’s attorney based the dismissal motion in part on the argument that the court lacks jurisdiction under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Oklahoma Constitution. However, in its order, the appeals court said the clause includes an express exception for felonies.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5 - 4 ruling on September 19 said it will not take up a case involving a former state senator accused of bribery so that the parties could "seek the appropriate relief in the Court of Criminal Appeals."
Article 1 Section 6 Clause 1 of the United States is similar in wording. "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
The U.S. Supreme Court has gradually defined and redefined the Speech or Debate Clause in several cases over the years. The first case concerning the Speech and Debate Clause was Kilbourn v. Thompson 103 U.S. (13 Otto) 168 26 L. Ed. 377 (1880). The Court has interpreted the Speech or Debate Clause to mean that members of Congress and their aides are immune from prosecution for their "legislative acts." This does not mean that members of Congress and their aides may not be prosecuted. Rather evidence of legislative acts may not be used in a prosecution against a member of Congress or a congressional aide. This view has been upheld by a number of rulings since the 1880 case.