8th grade student suspended, arrested over gun t-shirt
When 8th grade Jared Marcum got dressed for school on Thursday he says he had no idea that his pro-Second Amendment shirt would initiate what he calls a fight over his First Amendment rights.
“I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don’t see a problem with this, there shouldn’t be a problem with this,” Jared said.
It was the image of a gun printed on Jared’s t-shirt that sparked a dispute between a Logan Middle School teacher and Jared, that ended with Jared suspended, arrested and facing two charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, on his otherwise spotless record.
Jared’s father Allen Lardieri says he’s angry he had to rush from work to pick his son up from jail over something he says was blown way out of proportion.
“I don’t’ see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn’t forbid it,” Lardieri said.
Cop at Suspicionless Checkpoint Starts Barking Orders, But Then Flees From Camera
Proving once again the necessity of his federal lawsuit and his new website, the owner of DontWakeMeUp.Org was ironically woken up on the very day that he publicly launched his new site and PR campaign. At the internal suspiconless border checkpoint on I-35N in Laredo, Texas, border officers once again woke up an off-duty sleeping truck driver and tried to demand that he step out of the vehicle. Once again, the motorist recorded the interaction.
A few lessons here: Always have your camera ready to record all interactions with law enforcement. You do not have to comply with illegal orders. You do not have to get out of a vehicle when there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If you’re not driving, you don’t have to show ID. As illustrated by Terry Bressi at the great website CheckpointUSA.Org, you are not obligated to answer any questions at internal suspiconless warantless checkpoints.
Just Say No . . . to Cops
Few of us like to interact with cops – like scabies, they are best avoided entirely. But when do you have a choice – and when don’t you have a choice about interacting with a costumed enforcer? When are you legally required to identify yourself? To produce ID? Laws vary, state to state, but here are some general things to know:
* The (so-called) “consensual” interaction –
This generally applies to pedestrians and so on – people out in public, but not operating a motor vehicle.
A cop may – like anyone else – approach you at any time and ask you questions. He is not required to have “reasonable suspicion” a crime has been committed – much less “probable cause” suggesting that a crime has been committed.
Most people – because they have been taught to defer to people wearing state-issued costumes – will answer a cop’s questions, even though they would rather not – and probably would not have, if the person asking were just an ordinary citizen as opposed to a costumed enforcer. They feel pressured. Some will show their IDs, if asked – and even grant permission to let the cop rifle through their possessions.
Freedom in Name Only: Statists Want To Control Our Children’s Names
In the year 2002, a baby girl was born into this world and her parents intended to name her Lucía. A classic Latin name meaning ‘light’, the parents decided on the name to honor the mother’s deceased grandmother. A beautiful name and a respectable homage to tradition.
Much to the couple’s surprise though, the name was refused by government authorities. The response from the state was that “Lucía” was “legally unrecordable” and therefore not acceptable as a name. The parents were given the recommendation to name the girl Lucia, without the accented í, in order to be deemed acceptable by the government gatekeepers. Unfortunately, that would have altered the pronunciation significantly. Taking the absolute freedom of naming a child for granted, one would think this story took place in China, Russia, or another country run by a totalitarian regime and infamous for government impositions on people’s liberties. Maybe one of the European Union countries would come to mind, where government routinely curbs people’s freedom in order to provide ‘general welfare’, or so they say. In either case, my fellow Americans, the guess would be wrong. The story originates in the United States of America – the cradle of freedom and independence, where the majority of population mistakenly believes that their constitutional liberties are still intact (or at least when it comes to raising their own children).
The Internet Sales Tax Rush – Harry Reid and Wal-Mart hope nobody will notice their online revenue raid.
Every time Congress has taken a serious look at proposals to boost Internet sales taxes, it has rejected them. That’s probably why pro-tax Senators are trying to rush through an online tax hike with as little consideration as possible.
As early as Monday, the Senate will vote on a bill that was introduced only last Tuesday. The text of this legislation, which would fundamentally change interstate commerce, only became available on the Library of Congress website over the weekend. And you thought ObamaCare was jammed through Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic House in a hurry.
U.S. Employees Set To Be Forced To Give Bosses Their Facebook PASSWORDS
*A last minute alteration to CISPA was defeated in a Congress vote.
*It would have protected user’s social media passwords from employers.
*The late amendment was put forward by Democrat Ed Perlmutter.
*An attempt to ban US bosses from asking employees to hand over their Facebook login details has been blocked by Congress.
A last minute alteration to the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that would have prevented employers demanding that prospective employees disclose social media passwords as a condition of employment was voted down in the house of representatives.
What’s Bad About a House-to-House Search? – Unless the search passes certain legal criteria, it is illegal.
The search in Boston set a precedent, which means that such searches can be generalized to other places in America and to other situations, unless whoever authorized the Boston search is reprimanded and sanctioned for having ordered it. That seems to be Governor Deval Patrick, at a minimum.
Unless this search is clearly labeled and understood as being illegal and wrong, it creates a precedent. This changes the law de facto, even if not de jure. A de facto change will become a de jure change if only by interpretation
But what’s bad about such a precedent? What’s bad about the police having the power to make house-to-house searches routinely?
Consider what sorts of searches were common in totalitarian countries. This provides an inkling of the results of such police power.
First of all, America is in some respects following a path that Nazi Germany followed. I quote from one account:
“Police manpower was even extended by the incorporation of Nazi paramilitary organizations as auxiliary policemen. The Nazis centralized and fully funded the police to better combat criminal gangs and promote state security. The Nazi state increased staff and training, and modernized police equipment.”
This has been happening in America for some time now. These are initial steps in creating a police state. The centralization is done through building authoritative organizations that control local deviations in behavior and through funding. The funding brings in militarization and central coordination, training, and routines.
Right of Revolution
The right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China. It has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
The right of revolution was perhaps first articulated as part of an official state philosophy by the Zhou Dynasty of China (1122 – 256 BC). To justify their overthrowing of the earlier Shang Dynasty, the Zhou kings promulgated a concept known as the Mandate of Heaven. This basically stated that heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would transfer to those who would rule best. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had passed on.
Boston and Freedom
The government’s fidelity to the Constitution is never more tested than in a time of crisis. The urge to do something – or to appear to be doing something – is nearly irresistible to those whom we have employed to protect our freedom and to keep us safe. Regrettably, with each passing violent crisis – Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine, 9/11, Newtown and now the Boston Marathon – our personal freedoms continue to slip away, and the government itself remains the chief engine of that slippage.
The American people made a pact with the devil in the weeks and months following 9/11 when they bought the Bush-era argument that by surrendering liberty they could buy safety. But that type of pact has never enhanced either liberty or safety, and its fruits are always bitter.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was written to create and to restrain the federal government. Every person who works for any government in the U.S. has taken an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, not unlike the presidential oath, which induces a promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
The chief and final interpreter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. One may not always agree with its interpretations, but they are, as legal scholars sometimes say, “infallible because they are final.” Those interpretations are particularly final when we have relied on them for generations.
One of those rulings underscores the primacy of constitutional protections, no matter the environment in which they are claimed. Indeed, after the Civil War had ended and President Lincoln was dead, the Supreme Court in a case called Ex parte Milligan (1866) rebuked and reversed Lincoln’s unilateral assaults on personal freedoms in the North and in so doing reminded us that the Constitution was written for good times and for bad, and its protections cover all persons at all times and under all circumstances who have any contact, voluntary or not, with the government.
Judge In Rich Paul Case Undermines Informed Jury Law With Misinformation In Jury Instructions
In 2012, New Hampshire passed HB 146, a fully informed jury bill, which guaranteed defendants the ability in court “to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” The measure took effect on January 1 of this year.
While the defense did make the case for jury nullification, the judge undermined the intent of the law through misinformation in the instructions he issued to the jury. An attendee at the trial reported on the Free Keene Facebook page that, “Judge John C. Kissinger is reading jury instructions, where he is emphasizing the word “I” in his claim that the jury “must follow the law as *I* explain it”.”
Teacher who showed garden tools to second grade students is suspended without pay for bringing ‘weapons’ to class
A teacher is suing his school district after he was reprimanded for showing wrenches, pliers and screwdrivers to his second-grade students during a presentation on garden tools.
The administration at Washington Irving Elementary School in Chicago suspended veteran teacher Doug Bartlett, claiming he exposed young children to potentially hazardous items.
Mr Bartlett filed a lawsuit against the district on April 17m claiming the educator suffered humiliation and embarrassment as a result of the suspension.
Mr Bartlett says the incident took place on August 8, 2011, when he brought garden tools into his classroom for a lesson on tool discussion. He said that all potentially hazardous items were kept out of the students’ reach and were meant only as visual aids. When he was not explaining the use of the tools, the items were stored in a secure toolbox on a high shelf, out of the student’s reach, the teacher said.
Big Brother Has A New Face, And It’s Your Boss
Recently, the CVS Caremark Corporation began requiring employees to disclose personal health information (including weight, blood pressure, and body fat levels) or else pay an annual $600 fine. Workers must make this information available to the company’s employee “Wellness Program” and sign a form stating that they’re doing so voluntarily.
CVS argues this will help workers “take more responsibility for improving their health.” At one level, this makes a certain sense. Because the company is paying for their employees’ health insurance, they naturally prefer healthier workers. But at a deeper level, CVS’ action demonstrates a growing problem with our current system of employer-provided health insurance. If our bosses must pay for our health care, they will inevitably seek greater control over our lifestyles.
‘We’re just average folks’: The family sending all ten of their home-schooled children to college by the age of 12
A mother who home-schools her ten children in Montgomery, Alabama, has opened up about how six of them began their college degrees by the age of 12.
Those of the Harding siblings who have already graduated from college have gone on to become a doctor, an architect, a spacecraft designer and a master’s student. Another two – 12 and 14-years-old – are still finishing up their degrees.
But despite the Hardings’ incredible achievements at such young ages, their parents – Mona Lisa and Kip – insist they are a family of ‘average folks’ who simply find and cultivate their children’s passions early on.