Home Improvement Criminals

Have you heard the one about the guy who was finally tracked down by the authorities, arrested and jailed for the heinous “crime” of premeditated home improvement inactivity?

The criminal wantonly, deliberately and knowingly, with malice aforethought for lack of funds, failed to timely finish a siding project on his house.

For this unforgivable criminal omission of his duty to society and proper observance of the law Mitch Faber was arrested by the Burnsville, MN police on his way to work, locked up behind bars without bond for two days, and then subjected to electronic home monitoring surveillance following his eventual release.

The statist city leaders of Burnsville insist that they had no choice but to enforce their municipal home improvement code violation by the extreme method of bodily incarceration; this, despite the fact that the man had encountered financial problems because of the poor economy but was doing his utmost to finish the job. “We were in the process of finishing,” he said. “This wasn't something that we were trying to avoid doing.”

"You must complete the siding of your home," the Burnsville city authorities told Faber and his wife in a 2007 letter. Two more warning letters followed in 2009, and in 2010 they received a letter ordering an appearance in court where he got an ultimatum from a judge -- finish the siding or go to jail.

“I was expecting maybe a $700 fine,” said Faber. He and his wife then spent some $12,000 to finish the job with a stucco façade which they thought for sure put them in compliance with the ordinance. The City of Burnsville thugs thought not and put out a warrant for his arrest. Their inspectors ruled that the work was still not satisfactorily completed.

Faber was then taken into custody in November 2011. “I'm walking around in a green and white jump suit, I had to shower in front of a sheriff, I was shackled; my wrists were handcuffed to my waist — for siding,” said Faber.  “It was insane,” said his wife, “absolutely insane.”

After two days in stir, a judge let him out, but required him to submit to electronic home monitoring.  Dakota County requires participants — no matter what their crimes -- to blow into a drug and alcohol device every time an alarm goes off. “They could call me at 2 in the morning and they did,” said Faber.

This case presents an excellent example of why the United States of America has locked up in prisons and jails more people per capita than any other nation in the world and that includes China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, and all the rest of the worst statist oriented countries on the planet.

Prisons are necessary to protect us from real criminals – not petty scofflaws who aren’t the least bit dangerous to society. This case most definitely should have been handled as a civil matter. The city should have been required to go to court and get a judgment against Mr. Faber for violating their ordinance. If he could not abide by the terms of the judgment they could attach his property, garnish his wages, or pursue other appropriate remedies under the civil laws.  Putting him in jail punishes not only him but the rest of us as well who are forced to pay the bill.

And what makes these statists think that such “offenders” can eventually comply with the ordinance if they are in prison?

In Charles Dickens time, merry old England was famous for its ubiquitous debtor’s prisons.  Unfortunate souls caught in circumstances beyond their control that couldn’t timely pay their debts were forced to rot in jail as punishment.

I thought these kinds of prisons and those types of punishments were abolished long ago, but it appears they are alive and well right here in the United States of America today.

What a shame that in the land of the free and the home of the brave we still incarcerate home improvement criminals.

Education Animal Farm

Public school education systems, methods and procedures today are bad enough to make George Orwell’s Animal Farm read like a Libertarian themed novel. Any semblance of personal freedom, individuality, critical thinking and human dignity has been thrown out the school house window.

Herewith is just a tiny sample of the proof:

An 11-year-old Lancaster, Pennsylvania girl – 11 years old, mind you -- has been denied her right to participate in her elementary school choir, chorus and orchestra, as well as every other extracurricular activity available to her sixth grade peers, both academic and athletic.

Is that because she’s a vicious unmanageable problem child, a bully perhaps, who presents a clear and present danger to fellow pupils at her school?  

Not at all; it’s solely because she and her parents refuse to allow the statist administrators in her school district to force her to piss into a bottle so they can test her body fluids for the presence of illegal drugs.

They have the temerity to complain that the district’s scheme to randomly drug test students in this manner is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and a violation of the child’s Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights against unlawful searches and seizures, not to mention her Fifth Amendment due process rights.

But what do local school districts in America today care about constitutional rights? They think they can force kids to attend school and make them give up all their rights in the process. That’s the American way these days.

A ninth grade Australian schoolboy was suspended from classes because he shaved his head as part of an effort to raise funds for a cancer charity and support a friend who is battling leukemia.

Going beyond a "number two" haircut is against the school's uniform and grooming policy, explained his school principal. After his suspension he’ll be allowed back only if he agrees to wear a cap until his hair grows back.

"He took it on himself to shave his head for a very good cause, he didn't go through school procedures and deal with us first," said the statist principal. "I've always told students who wanted to support World's Greatest Shave it was OK, as long as hair length was within acceptable levels -- a number two. Then we can also then support them with publicity."

The kid took it upon himself to decide his hair style. That’s something kids today can’t do without official permission from the educational authorities. I suppose the kid with cancer was suspended too after all his hair fell out from the chemotherapy and he could no longer comply with the “number two” hair code policy.

A Chicago sixth-grade writing and social studies school teacher at Murray Language Academy was suspended for leading a class discussion about the "N-word," race relations and racism.

He explained that, using advice given by the Southern Poverty Law Center to help guide discussions about the word, he turned a bad classroom situation - in which one student wrote a rap calling another student the (n-word) - into "a teachable moment."

The problem here, of course, is that the teacher is a white guy, and white guys are not supposed to utter that word under any circumstances in public schools nowadays. Black teachers, yes; white teachers, no.

So forget about his First and Fifth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and due process of law; white people are prohibited from using the n-word even when it is done in language and social studies class for the purpose of teaching students why the n-word is bad.

I myself don’t even feel comfortable articulating that particular word in my blog for fear that the American language police will come crawling down my back. I’m white and that word is a no-no for me.

Republicans in the United States Congress are proposing a new School Lunch Bill in which pizza and French fries would stay on school lunch lines, and they’re fighting the Obama administration's efforts to take “unhealthy foods” out of schools.

The bill aims to circumvent Agriculture Department school lunch standards limiting the use of potatoes, putting new restrictions on sodium and boosting the use of whole grains. It would also keep counting tomato paste on pizzas as a vegetable.

Are all these die hard statist politicians doing this out of caring magnanimity, and altruistic desire to enhance the health and welfare of all the little school bunnies of America?

Hell, no! They’re doing it because American food companies that produce frozen pizzas for schools, the salt industry and potato growers requested the changes and have lobbied Congress. You see, school lunches in America that are subsidized by the federal government must include a certain amount of vegetables, and USDA's proposal could have pushed pizza-makers and potato growers out of the school lunch business.

The USDA and congress have taken on the responsibility to reduce childhood obesity and thereby future health care costs. The government wants to decide what kids can eat at school. Tomorrow it will be decisions about what they can eat at home if the politicians have their way.

"While it's unfortunate that some members of Congress continue to put special interests ahead of the health of America's children, USDA remains committed to practical, science-based standards for school meals," sniffed a USDA spokesperson.

Meanwhile, a group of retired generals, called Mission: Readiness, advocating for healthier school lunches, also criticized the bill, calling poor nutrition in school lunches a national security issue because obesity is the leading medical disqualifier for military service.

"We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program," the director of the group, said in a letter to lawmakers. "It doesn't take an advanced degree in nutrition to call this a national disgrace."

Yes, French fries and pizza in school lunches is a matter of national security these days – not because the little school prisoners are adversely impacted – but because if they get fat they won’t qualify for military service. That’s truly a national disgrace. America wants its slaves when they’re kids, and later when they’re adults too. It wants its slaves for all their miserable lives. That’s why the government is telling us what we can eat.

If all this isn’t enough, now there are several school districts all across the U.S. suing their respective state governments, asking courts to order more spending on public education, and contending they face new pressures as states cut billions of dollars of funding while adding more rigorous educational standards.

In Washington State, the Supreme Court recently ordered the state legislature to come up with a plan for additional funding. Democrat Gov. Christine Gregoire agreed, explaining that without ample funds it is "difficult for students to gain the skills and knowledge needed to compete in today's global economy."

School districts everywhere need more and more cash so they can perpetuate the statist Education Animal Farm.

Jury Dodging Felony Fiasco

A Denver Colorado woman was recently charged with two felonies after calling a local radio station talk show host to boast about posing as a mental case in a courtroom so she would be excused from jury duty.

Called to a courtroom for a stint of involuntary servitude, i.e. jury duty, Ms. Susan Cole dressed and acted oddly telling prosecutors during a jury selection process that she had post-traumatic stress disorder from being in the military, was the victim of domestic violence and had been homeless.

The judge excused her immediately from the case.

"For about two weeks after when my roommate and I would think about it, or I would tell my clients about it, we would cry we would laugh so hard," said Cole describing the incident during a call in to Denver’s "Dave Logan Show."

"I put black eyebrows on, red lipstick on, left my hair in curlers and wore a tee shirt that read 'Ask Me About My Best Seller,'" she added, calling herself "Char from Denver." "I put my lipstick on like someone who really didn't know how to put lipstick on."

Unfortunately for Cole, An investigator from the District Attorney's office, who didn't find the stunt as hilarious as she did, was listening to the show, and tracked her down with an arrest warrant. She was charged with perjury and attempting to influence a public servant, both felonies.

This sorry tale begs the question: Where in the United States Constitution does it provide that persons may be forced by conscription against their will to drop their lives, suspend their freedom, give up their valuable time, and report to a judicial tyrant for a fixed term of slavery?

The short answer is: nowhere.

Compulsory jury service amounts to a deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the due process and unlawful takings provisions of the Fifth Amendment. It also violates the freedom of speech and association provisions of the First Amendment and the prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

No person should be compelled by law to report for jury duty against her will. No person should be compelled by law to be put under oath in a courtroom against her will. No person should be persecuted by the law for seeking to avoid involuntary jury service.

Jury service in the United States of America should be voluntary. If the legal system would simply compensate voluntary citizens adequately for their time and service, they’d be clamoring at the courthouse doors to be chosen for the privilege.

That being said, this poor woman need not have gone to such ridiculous lengths to get what she wanted. She didn’t have to dress and act like a lunatic. She didn’t have to lie. All she had to do was tell the lawyers and the judge straight out that she was angry about being dragged into the courtroom against her will, was uncomfortable about serving on a jury, and could not therefore in good conscience be fair, objective, and unbiased if chosen as a juror. One won’t be charged with perjury for being honest.

A bit of honesty in this unfortunate situation would have resulted in her dismissal just as quickly, and she would have been out the courthouse door on her way back to her home and her life.  No lawyer on either side of a case wants a loose cannon serving on his jury.  If they think you are biased or unsettled about the process, bang, you’re gone. It’s that easy.  

Anyone can honestly avoid a jury dodging felony fiasco.

TSA Assaults and Batters Toddler at Airport

Another three year old disabled and wheel chair bound terror suspect on his way to Disney World with mom, dad and young siblings, endured his own horrific terror experience at the hands of TSA Chicago Midway International Airport security goons when he was manhandled, searched, frisked, patted down, swabbed and groped like a common criminal while his mortified father looked on videotaping the entire outrage.  

The videotape shows, among other assaults, the uniformed thug lifting the terrified child suspect’s shirt to swab his back.  Typically, the federal goons with badges will swab a suspect’s hands, articles of clothing or items they are carrying while looking for telltale signs of explosives potentially smuggled onto the plane by baby terrorists.

Matt Dubiel, the father of toddler Rocco Dubiel, posted the 2010 video after rediscovering it last week, saying he became enraged anew when reviewing it. "There is another human being putting their hands on my child. That is not acceptable," he said. "If he was putting his hands on my child at McDonald's or anyplace else, we would immediately have him arrested and call the police."

"I tape recorded it because I wanted to let the gentleman know that was examining my son that there was a camera on him, and anything that he was going to do, that he needed to be comfortable doing on camera. And if he wasn't, he needed to stay away from it."

He was told he could not stand next to his son during the search. "I was told I couldn't comfort or hug my son. I couldn't hug him. I couldn't hold his hand," said dad. "And I tried to make the best out of it. But as I'm standing there as a parent doing this, I'm thinking about, should I do something more; should I not?"

Though Dubiel was angry over the incident he didn’t object because he feared the consequences. "My fear was, if I made a bigger deal out of it, then I could be detained, or we could miss our flight, or we could miss our vacation. All of these things are dancing around in my head," he said. "There hasn't been one instance in the United States of a 3-year-old carrying explosives onto an airplane or doing ill will to anyone."

His fears were well founded.

Under new TSA policy, screeners can work with parents to resolve alarms at the checkpoint. They can make the children go through metal detectors or body scanners multiple times or swab their hands to test for traces of explosives.

"The new modified screening measures have greatly reduced, though not eliminated, pat downs of children," TSA spokesman Greg Soule explained. "While recognizing that terrorists are willing to manipulate societal norms to evade detection, our officers continue to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family at the checkpoint."

But there is no such thing as a respectful assault and battery of an innocent human being, especially a young toddler who is beyond suspicion of any wrongdoing. That’s the problem with the TSA at airports. Screening – reasonable screening -- is one thing. Putting hands on innocent persons without probable cause is another. That’s the freshman law school textbook definition of assault and battery.

The risk of a typical American family wiring their 3-year-old son with explosives and sending him aboard an airplane along with mommy, daddy, grandma, grandpa, baby brothers and sisters is so infinitesimally small as to be nonexistent. Not only has it never happened once in the entire history of aviation, there is absolutely no likelihood that it will ever happen.

So the imaginary risk clearly does not justify such extreme measures. There are far better and more efficient ways to screen passengers for potential terrorists without laying hands on them.    

It is long past the time to stop TSA assault and battery at our airports.

Flouting the Establishment

Government agencies everywhere are making a habit of flouting the United States Constitution First Amendment Establishment Clause, and far too many bureaucrats, politicians and elected officials either can’t or won’t even try to understand what it is they are doing wrong. They have no problem proselytizing religion in their official capacity as if no one should object.

The State of Kentucky has a law on its books requiring all homeland security documents to recognize humanity's dependence on God. The law of the Commonwealth commands the state's Department of Homeland Security to prominently display a plaque outside its offices that says: "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God," and all department literature must state the same.

"The safety and security of the state cannot be achieved apart from recognizing our dependence upon God," explains state Rep. Tom Riner, an ordained Baptist minister who supports the 2006 law. "We believe dependence on God is essential. ... What the founding fathers stated and what every president has stated, is their reliance and recognition of Almighty God, that's what we're doing," says he.

Riner insists Kentucky is on firm legal ground. "Every one of your presidents has stated that it is impossible to govern our nation without the assistance of Almighty God," he maintains, "and that has been part of our American creed." "Trusting God is our heritage. We will not surrender that heritage, which is a heritage of looking to Almighty God for His blessing."

He deduces his opinion from the Declaration of Independence. "In that document, it sets forth the need for men to understand that our protection, our rights come from God, not government," he said. "That's why our national Motto is 'In God We Trust' -- because (God) is our ultimate source of trust."

If ever there were a person in need of a crash course on the U.S. Constitution, it’s Rep. Riner.

"It's outrageous," retorts Edwin Kagin, an atheist who is suing Kentucky over the law. "It is something that is specifically prohibited by the constitutions of both the United States and Kentucky." "The Constitution states that there shall be no attempt by the government respecting an establishment of a religion and that's precisely what (Riner's law) is doing," he said.

In the State of Alabama, Roy Moore, the former Alabama Justice made famous by a Ten Commandments monument, is one step closer to getting his old job back, having won the Republican primary for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Moore was Chief Justice for three years but was forced out in 2003 by a unanimous 9-member Alabama judicial ethics panel after he defied a federal court order to remove a 2.6 ton stone monument of the Ten Commandments he had placed at the courthouse because it constituted a government endorsement of religion in violation the Establishment Clause.

The ethics panel said they made their decision because Moore had put himself above the law by "willfully and publicly" flouting the order to remove the monument from the state judicial building's rotunda.

“God has chosen this time and this place so we can save our country and save our courts for our children," Moore proclaimed at the height of the controversy, and he still maintains today that the monument's placement was constitutionally appropriate.

"We need leadership in the legal branch," he says. "There's nothing in the first amendment that prohibits the display of religious objects." "I don't have any intention of bringing [back] the monument because that will confuse the issue, [but] "I will continue to acknowledge the sovereignty of God."

Some people just never learn, and sadly that includes Supreme Court Justices.  

Republican Indiana congressman Todd Young is looking into possible “misinterpretation" of federal guidelines after a local food pantry was cut off from federal aid for asking clients to pray. He’s contacted state officials regarding Community Provisions of Jackson County, a food pantry in his district, whose director, Paul Brock, insists he will not stop asking clients if they want to pray with him or one of its 45 volunteers when they receive food.

Can you imagine being asked if you want to pray by Department of Motor Vehicle bureaucrats when you show up to renew your driver’s license? Suppose state election officials at your local precincts ask if you want to pray with them when you come to vote; or public school administrators and teachers are asking students if they want to be led in prayer before a big test.  

It’s patently ridiculous and a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. But some people out there just refuse to understand.

"It certainly appears there is a misinterpretation of some rules," Congressman Young's spokesman told reporters. "We want to make sure that no one is being denied the public assistance that they need."

Never mind that they expect people to run through the Christian proselytizing gauntlet first. That thought never occurs to those who insist on using their government authority to promote their religion.   

Food pantry director Brock explains that he never requires anyone to pray in order to receive nourishment they need. "We ask them if they want to pray with us; if they say no, then we just let them go on through," he said. "We're not a church. My job is to feed them and if I can pat them on the back and pray for them and lift them up somehow, that’s what I'm going to do." He claims that 98 percent of those asked ultimately pray with Community Provisions volunteers.

It’s just a little friendly religious coercion as far as he’s concerned. What’s the big deal? His First Amendment rights are being "trampled upon" by state officials, he whines.

How about that?

It’s HIS First Amendment rights which are being violated if someone objects to his using his government authority to proselytize. "People know what we stand for in this community," says he. "People tell us what's wrong with them and ask us to pray for them. I don't want the state of Indiana to take that right away from me."

He doesn’t seem to care that, even aside from the First Amendment, the national Emergency Food Assistance Program has a regulation which states explicitly that no "political, religious, or any other non-related activity can be conducted as a condition of, or in conjunction with, receiving commodities or prepared meals" containing commodities.

It’s as simple as this: If a church or religious organization wants to distribute food to the needy while offering prayer as part of the deal, that’s just fine, but when they want to distribute food paid for by the taxpayers; when they want the government to be involved, then it’s not fine because it violates the Establishment Clause.

But when it comes to religion some government officials enjoy flouting the Establishment.

President Santorum: American Sex Police Commander in Chief

I suppose it was inevitable that sooner or later Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum would come around to start harping on the horrible social “problem” of pornography in our society. He just can’t help himself.

Of the four rival primary candidates, Santorum is the only one to address the topic of pornography on his website, as if that is part of the job description of President of the United States. The others stick mostly to stating their more infinitely mundane positions on economic, domestic, foreign, and social policy.

America is "suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," including “profound brain changes in both children and adults," Santorum told CNN last week; and if elected president, his administration will most certainly so something about it.

Brain changes, really? Profound brain changes, even? He’s talking about pleasure responses, right?

No; not a chance.

"Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children," says Santorum's website. "The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

Gratuitous sex – that is, sex outside of marriage and for the procreation of children – sex just for fun and satisfaction of the itch – is sinful; that’s what he’s talking about.  

"Current federal 'obscenity' laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier," he continues. "Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced."

"I said that as president I would enforce the law which is not being done now," he told reporters last week. "If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," he declares on his web page, which also criticizes the Obama administration for failing to prosecute the law.

"The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws," it continues. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families -- that will change under a Santorum Administration."

Rick Santorum believes that Satan has his sights on America and that his mission as president will be to lead our nation on a crusade of spiritual warfare. "This is not a political war at all, this is not a culture war at all, this is a spiritual war," he once declared. Satan attacks us as a nation "using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."

Rick Santorum, you must understand, just doesn’t think much of the First Amendment unless it’s about protecting his own freedom to exercise his religion. Otherwise, he could care less about freedom of speech and expression. He doesn’t want you looking at sex movies.

This guy is obsessed with sex and wants to make policing sex a top priority of his presidential administration. America should go to war over sexual and “moral” values, he believes.

"[The] right to privacy…doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution." he says. “The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions; I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,”

“We have a right in the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.” Santorum once declared.

Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control. “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” he preached recently.

“I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young.”

“Life begins at conception, no exceptions for incest, rape, or the life of the mother, and doctors performing abortions should be criminally charged,” says Rick Santorum.

He believes that police should have the power to search marital bedrooms for contraceptives, which, if he had his way, would be illegal. “[t]he state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right; the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

Rick Santorum signed the ultra socially conservative Family Leader's pledge supporting a ban of pornography. Sensible candidate, Mitt Romney refused to sign that same pledge - which also contained provisions on gay marriage - because his campaign said the oath "contained references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign."

“Gay people should stop being gay,” Santorum once said. “Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” “[Gay marriage] threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.”

He simply doesn’t believe in a secular government. He is an unabashed Christian theocrat. Of President Kennedy’s solemn secular promise made in 1960 to the American people, Rick Santorum admitted recently that it makes him “want to throw up.”

My earlier posts discuss numerous reasons supporting the conclusion that Rick Santorum personifies the term “religious bigot,” and why his criticism of President Obama for leading America based on a so-called theology different from that in the Bible, amounts to clear evidence of his own intent if elected president to govern us by his Catholic Biblical theology.

If elected President of the United States, Rick Santorum surely will lead this nation on the theology of the Holy Bible and impose his own anal retentive brand of Christian religious values on us.

He can’t wait to become the first American sex police commander in chief.

Statists in the Doctor’s Office

Virginia recently became the eighth state in the nation to pass a law requiring doctors to administer ultrasound scanning procedures on women before performing abortions.

The state’s conservative Republican Governor, Bob McDonnell, backed off from an original version of the law which would have required women to undergo physically invasive transvaginal ultrasounds. The final version allows women to opt out of that and choose an abdominal ultrasound instead.

The new law will provide additional information that "can help the mother make a fully informed decision" about having an abortion, touted his statist Majesty, the Governor. "This bill does not legally alter a woman's ability to make a choice regarding her pregnancy … It does, however, put Virginia in line with 23 other states that have some type of requirement that a woman be offered a view of an ultrasound before an abortion can be performed."

"This law is a victory for women and their unborn children. We thank Gov. McDonnell and Virginia's pro-life legislators for their work to ensure that women have all the facts and will no longer be kept in the dark about their pregnancies," crowed ultra-conservative Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

"Ultrasounds are vitally important to doctors when determining the health of an unborn baby. Women considering whether to have an abortion should be just as informed as doctors about the child they are carrying. This law ensures that they are," he gushed.

I’m old enough to remember a time in the far off distant past when the relationship between a patient and her doctor was totally private and privileged. Patients could consult doctors in strict confidence that their private health status would remain secret and there were no laws invading doctor patient advice and treatment. The state had no presence and no business whatsoever in the examination and consultation rooms.

Those days are long gone. At a minimum, these laws will require doctors to report to the state the intimate details of their patient’s medical conditions, and also dictate the form and manner of treatment whether the doctor and patient want it or not.

These laws are no victory for women; far from it. They violate the United States Constitution Fourth Amendment rights of women to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches. They constitute unlawful searches into private medical records without probable cause. They amount to an undue and unconstitutional invasion of privacy and state intrusion into the doctor patient relationship.

These laws clearly alter a woman’s ability to make medical choices affecting her own body. They deprive women of their due process rights to life, liberty and property in violation of the Fifth Amendment as well. They constitute a deprivation of a woman’s liberty right to make her own private medical decisions in consultation with her doctor in confidence. They also increase the cost of her care unnecessarily, thereby unconstitutionally depriving her of property.

Lawyers and legislators aren’t doctors. When a woman makes a decision to terminate her pregnancy that decision hardly requires additional facts about the potential health of the developing embryo. Such women are not “in the dark about their pregnancies.” Their doctor is available to answer every question they have.

They don’t need the state to think up questions, advice, and treatment. They’re as fully informed as they want to be. They don’t need to view an ultrasound. An ultrasound is entirely unnecessary unless she wants to rely on one to help her decide. That decision should be entirely up to her. She doesn’t need the state to make that decision for her.

These laws amount to an undisguised attempt by the state to interfere with a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. Governor McDonnell and the so-called “pro-life” anti-liberty lawmakers of the State of Virginia should be ashamed of themselves.

They are nothing more than unwelcome statists in the Doctor’s office.

American School House Penitentiary Tales

A 13-year-old Albuquerque, N.M. boy is handcuffed and taken from his school room to a juvenile detention facility for the “crime” of burping in PE class. On another occasion, the same kid was forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched after he was accused of selling pot to another student. No pot was found.

Another seven year old autistic Albuquerque child is handcuffed to a chair after he became agitated in class despite the fact that New Mexico law prohibits officers and school officials from restraining children under 11.

An 11-year-old Colorado sixth-grader is handcuffed and taken to a holding facility at her school for being rude to the assistant principal. When the administrator tried to question the kid about why she was walking in the hallway during lunch she reportedly "turned and walked away saying, 'I don't have time for this." The local County Sheriff's Office claims that handcuffing students in such a manner is standard procedure.

An Atlanta Georgia seventh-grade middle school student is humiliated and traumatized when he’s brought to a vice Principal's office and forced to strip in front of classmates who said he had marijuana. Now those same classmates taunt him mercilessly calling him Superman because of the underwear he was wearing during the strip search. No drugs were found.

A 9-year-old North Carolina boy is suspended at his elementary school for engaging in “sexual harassment” after commenting to another student that his teacher was “cute.”

A Massachusetts first-grader is suspended for “sexual harassment” after he hit another kid in the groin while defending himself in a scuffle during which he was being choked.  

A private New Mexico high school will soon begin conducting random drug tests of its students in a move to curb drug use. "The random drug test isn’t intended to target or punish anyone; our goal is to support our students by, hopefully, preventing them from developing drug habits that can affect their health, safety, intellectual development, and athletic performance,” say school officials.

“Implementing a random drug testing program will give our students an easy excuse to say ‘no’ when their peers pressure them to experiment.” “We are trying to be proactive. We don’t want to stick our heads in the sand,” explained the Principal. “This will build up student’s refusal skills.”

The school plans to hold a "lottery" in which 10 to 15 percent of the student body will be selected to have hair samples sent to a California lab to be tested for marijuana, opiates, PCP, and methamphetamine. Students who test positive will get 90 days before a second test will be taken. If they fail again they will be kicked out of the school.

Many public schools in the United States are now drug testing all students who want to participate in athletics or extracurricular activities.

In Detroit, Michigan, a 14-year-old public middle school student is forcibly administered four vaccinations without her mother's permission. 'They gave me shots, and they took blood, and they took urine," explained the child to her mother when she came home from school with an envelope.

School officials just pulled the hapless kid out of class while Health System nurses gave her vaccinations for hepatitis A, seasonal influenza, meningitis, and HPV (Gardasil), despite her parent’s previously-stated opposition in writing to her daughter receiving medical treatments from the school.

All young school children in West Virginia and in Mississippi are mandated to receive multiple vaccines, including vaccination against a sexually-transmitted disease (hepatitis B) prior to being allowed to attend daycare, Head Start, or public or private school.

The parents of a seven-year-old Vermont girl who died in December 2011, just four days after receiving a flu vaccine, have retained New York attorney Patricia Finn to represent them. For her efforts in representing a parent’s rights group, Ms. Finn was served with papers, threatening to strip her of her license to practice law.

“I am being ordered to disclose the names of people I represent who do not vaccinate their children. I refuse. If it takes my license to get attention to this issue, then so be it. I’ve done nothing wrong,” says Ms. Finn.

A Texas school district has filed a complaint alleging that students from a rival school engaged in racism by chanting “USA, USA” at a basketball game. The students involved in the incident were reprimanded and forced to apologize to the defeated team whose members are predominantly Hispanic. The school now faces a whole range of possible sanctions — from probation to suspensions.

According to local news accounts, the chanting lasted about five seconds before the head coach ordered the students to stop. The school district’s athletic director told a newspaper that the chant cannot be ignored. “Our community is fed up,” he said. “It’s really frustrating that kids work so hard to get to this level and there’s another group of kids degrading them.”

“That might be chanted at international soccer games,” chirped another school official. “But this is not a chant that these students chant at all of their basketball games. It was selective.” “We just hope that people know that that’s not who we are and we’re not going to let it happen again.”

Let’s see; I absolutely hate that “USA, USA” chant, no matter when or where it is performed. It makes my skin crawl. But I also absolutely care about the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which supposedly guarantees freedom of speech. If school administrators have their way, innocent speech will be punished if and when it is arbitrarily deemed “selective.”

School houses in America are no longer places where children are educated. They’ve become penitentiaries where kids are forced to attend and parents have no say in regard to what is done with them while they are there; even when they aren’t there. The Bill of Rights is ignored when it comes to kids at school.

These are prisons where child prepubescent inmates are handcuffed for the “crimes” of being children; handcuffed and detained for being “rude;” forced to strip in front of classmates and administrators so they can be searched on suspicion instead of probable cause; punished for expressing opinions deemed inappropriate by their jailers; for defending themselves against bullies; and for simply behaving like the young children they are.

Somehow, school officials in the 21^st century have come to the idea that they have the right to take their charges blood; test their bodies for evidence of behavior at home; vaccinate them against the will of their parents; monitor their speech, morals and manners as they see fit; and deal with them as they like without the nuisance of constitutional restrictions getting in their way.

School kids aren’t convicted criminals serving hard time. So what makes these school officials think they have such unbridled power over them, not to mention their parents as well?

The United States of America has become a police state; that’s what.