This post made by a friend on facebook is 100% correct. I couldn’t have said it better! Thus, I am sharing it with the world.
THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BACK IN MARCH, before Pastor Jones decided to demonstrate in Dearborn, Michigan, yet the contents apply directly to the complete trampling of his Constitutional Rights of Free Speech and Free Assembly. He only said he was going to exercise these rights and he was arrested, went to court and ultimately put into jail WITHOUT EVER HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME! And the whole system KNEW he had committed no crime! This is the USA, not Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, any Islamic Government country. Here, we are SUPPOSE to be guaranteed the GOD GIVEN rights of Freedom. There is no footnote that says, “Except in Dearborn, Michigan”.
In one of the more memorable passages in Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith contemplates the inevitable doom that will follow from the first entry which he is preparing to make in his diary. The act was not illegal, he reflected — there were no laws in Oceania — but its discovery would nevertheless result in ten years in a forced labor camp.
If your tastes tend more to the lowbrow, there’s that great line from National Lampoon’s “Vacation”: “It ain’t illegal. Hell, I oughta know — I’m the sheriff!”
We see an increasing number of instances in the United States and the “Free World” in which citizens can be punished without any specific legal pretext.
To take one example which has been around for a while, there is no written law against carrying large amounts of cash on one’s person, nor any specific statutory definition of the threshold at which the amount of money one carries becomes a criminal offense. Nevertheless, anyone stopped by a police officer and found to be carrying thousands of dollars in cash will be presumed a drug trafficker of some sort, and their money seized according to the usual procedure of “civil forfeiture.”
When ballot measures to decriminalize or liberalize marijuana laws clear all the hurdles and are voted into law, as often or not the cops just quietly ignore them. For example, last October Los Angeles County, California Sheriff Lee Baca baldly stated that he would continue to arrest pot users even if Proposition 19 (which would have legalized it) passed. Baca’s “argument” was that it is still criminalized by federal statute, and that federal law supersedes state law.
Even as explained by the state’s own pet jurists, of course, this was utter nonsense. The functionaries of a state are not bound to enforce federal law. The practical effect of a measure legalizing pot, had it passed, would simply have been to tell the feds to enforce their own law. It would have withdrawn California’s state and local cops from the enforcement effort and dismantled the whole apparatus of interjurisdictional drug task forces. But none of that matters. Because if a cop wants to enforce a “law” badly enough, he’ll make one up.
Just about every week, Radley Balko reports on someone being arrested for filming cops, on the pretext that they’re “hindering apprehension,” “interfering with police business,” or “violating the wiretap laws,” or some such bull-hockey. Never mind that there’s no actual law criminalizing the act of recording public functionaries performing public duties in a public place, or that there’s even a law on the books specifically exempting such activity from the wiretap statutes.
If you’re willing to fight it out before judges or police commissioners, for weeks or months, you may or may not get a decision overruling the cop’s actions. But in the meantime you’ve had your camera (and maybe your nose) smashed, spent time in a holding cell, had your name dragged through the dirt, and maybe lost your job. And meanwhile, the cops just keep on doing it anyway. I mean, seriously, they can kill innocent people and wind up on paid administrative leave pending a wrist-slap, so how worried do you think they are about breaking a camera and roughing up some dirty effing hippie?
As I write, functionaries within the US national security apparatus are busily looking for any pretext on which Julian Assange — an Australian citizen — can be extradited from the United Kingdom. All three are ostensibly countries which share the common law tradition’s procedural protections of the accused, and which pay a great deal of lip service to the “rule of law.”
Yet nobody can state, in anything resembling clear terms, a plausible explanation of just what law Assange is supposed to have violated. Treason? He’s not a U.S. citizen. Espionage? If publishing classified documents leaked by someone else is a crime, please explain the difference between Wikileaks’ publication of the leaked diplomatic cables and the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. So far they’ve failed to torture Bradley Manning into testifying that Assange suborned the leaked documents from him.
But if one expedient doesn’t work, they’ll try something else. The law doesn’t really matter. If the spooks, cops and prosecutors want to get somebody bad enough, they’ll come up with a bespoke “law” tailored to their needs. The custom manufacture of pretexts is a cottage industry for them.
In practice, the law is whatever they say it is.
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.
- Admonish One Another
- Comment on Son’s Facebook regarding ObamaCare
- Can We Stop This Creeping Jihad?
- Terrorism in Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood is being rejected
- Baby Jihad or Jihad by birth rate
- Our Wives Are In Charge HVAC Service
- The Arab World Fears the ‘Safavid’ | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- Report: EU Backing Away from Blacklisting Hezbollah | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- The not defendable borders of lesser Israel
- Allah and Muhammad quote Babylonian Talmud instead of Hebrew Scriptures
- Prominent U.S. Imam: New Caliphate Should Wage Jihad
- Yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a Muslim Terrorist
- Business Services – Temporary Posts
- Christianity / God
- Daily Gospel
- Just Because :-)
- Pending Classification
- Societal / Cultural Issues
- Understanding Islam