How Can a School Teach About the Rights of People When They are Violators of Rights Themselves?

How will the Republic end? It's a question that many ask in many different walks of life. We are under threat now, but what problems could undermine it further?

I suggest that the public school system may unwittingly be conditioning our schoolchildren into sacrificing safety for security in the vain attempt to prevent any tragedy on any level anywhere. To me, that is a much, much larger tragedy than successfully finding out that Johnny smoked a joint last weekend. We are conditioning children to believe that their personal and private bodily fluids are subject to seizure without cause and without a court issued warrant as the Constitution demands. If they do not comply, they are barred from driving to school or participating in extracurricular activities. However, here is the bigger issue. If they get comfortable with this treatment, what will they tolerate as adults for the so-called public good? This is a Bill of Rights matter.

Here is the text of the 4th Amendment.

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.

The Bill of Rights is all that protects all of us from arbitrary tyranny where all our lives could be at stake, regardless of whether or not we make good choices in life. Law based in principle is all that protects us from the caprice of evil men and women. Children experimenting in drugs is bad, but it will not cause the downfall of the Republic. I do care if our government thinks it should take from us, examine us, follow us, all in the name of security, but eventually leading to the reality of control.

Obama's Most Pressing Problem, Apparently

Yes there is that War on Terror, I mean Conflict With People Who Kind of Disagree With US (name of war since January) and there is also an economic crisis. But Obama has bigger fish to fry.

Namely texting while driving.

The transportation secretary is calling a national summit on texting while driving. Law enforcement, industry representatives, and a partridge in a pear tree will be invited to talk about the latest grave threat to Western Civilization.

Here's the catch. Obama's Executive Branch cannot do it on their own.

Seat belt laws, the drinking age, and other issues cannot be forced directly upon the states. To get around the Bill of Rights provisions protecting state sovereignty, the federal government has to strong arm the states into passing the legislation on their own. With an amazing amount of work this year, it is doubtful that Congress will be able to act on this issue. Certainly the GOP and conservative Democrats will oppose this assault on states' rights.

Texting while driving is dangerous, probably more dangerous than taking three shots of whiskey and heading out directly onto the highway. Few people disagree with this. How about this for a solution? Instead of inviting a hundred or more nabobs to Washington to party on the taxpayer dime, send a representative to each state capital in the next year. Have them talk to each state legislature and quietly urge passage of a no texting while driving bill. Even better, instead of sending people, ask the congressional Democrats from each state to suggest passage of such a bill. I guarantee no one would fight it too strenuously. That would actually be easier than asking an overworked Congress to act on it.

But we have to do things the old Washington way. Get a lot of people drunk and fed, put them up in nice hotel rooms, and waste even more money. Meanwhile we strongarm the states and violate the spirit of the Constitution.

Blast from the Past: Fire Works

Excellent Op Ed in Times-News

Click here: Keep one locked and loaded, just in case

Obama Administration on Gun Rights

Should the affluent be allowed to rule the Middle Class?

Should the affluent be allowed to rule the Middle Class? I think we all subscribe to the notion that all men are created equal and would answer that question with a resounding; NO, the affluent should not be allowed to rule any class.

The founding fathers certainly felt this way when they wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those also sought to secure property rights. One of the original drafts of the Declaration stated in their list of grievances that the King incited the citizens with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property. The founding fathers in the Bill of Rights added the protection of the 5th Amendment in the states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and the 14th Amendment further defines the protection with "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Let's face it our property rights are what separate us from the 3rd world countries. Property rights are the foundation of our economy. Without solid property rights business cannot operate. In his book, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx stated, "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

The founding fathers were heavily influenced by the writings of Adam Smith. In his book, The Wealth of Nations he wrote, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

In Mineral County the Rich are on the offensive against not only the poor but the Middle Class. The evidence is piling up if you choose to look.

In the October 19th, 2007 issue of the News Tribune and article entitled "Zoning could be part of the Mineral Co. Plan" it states, " areas around Keyser and Fort Ashby need to be zoned, but places like Lakewood did not." Interesting comment about the Mineral County plan. Consider that the areas around Keyser and Fort Ashby are predominately middle class neighborhoods. According to the real estate website Trulia the average home price in the Keyser area is $182,522. This past year the Mineral County Planning Commission approved two building permits for $2 million, both of these homes are located in Lakewood.

On October 30th the Clean Up Mineral County Committee disbanded after handing a proposal for an ordinance to cover buildings that were abandon or had structural defects to the Planning Commission.

There are two interesting facts about this meeting. The first is; prior to this meeting the Clean Up Mineral County Committee had met the 4th Thursday of every month, but the final meeting was moved to the 5th Tuesday causing a schedule conflict for many property owner rights advocates. The second is; most of the protections for the Middle Class, Low Income, and Disabled home owners were removed from the proposed ordinance at this final meeting.

Had the meeting been held on its proper night, most likely the protections for the Middle Class, Low Income, and Disabled would not have been removed. The people that didn't want anybody but the rich to have their rights protected, simply would not have had the votes. No explanation for why the meeting date was moved was ever given, but the move worked to disadvantage of most Mineral County's citizens.

It is easy to see if you look at what is happening in the county that the wealthiest of the county are trying to impose their will on the rest of the population of the county. Adam Smith warned about his over 200 years ago. We are seeing ideas being put forth that will have an adverse effect on the middle class, low income, and disabled while having little to no effect on the richest citizens of the county.

Like the Declaration of Independence says; all men are created equal and if we do not act as equal partners in government, then we will only serve as surf's of the wealthy on our own land.

• Reference Link April 2, 2007 Post