No Free Speech For Students On The Web

UPDATE:

Apparently the student in question attempted to publicly apologize to the principal for the comments, but the principal wasn't adult enough to accept.


While I await Blogger's response to the template problems I figured I might as well still keep the site somewhat updated. The following story should never have gotten so far as to be discussed, because it is nothing short of ludicrous.

This story conjures up memories of the school that banned their students from going to Myspace ... while at home. Yep, you heard me. A school banned their students from any Myspace activity at school, or at home. The truly sad part is how some parents supported the school being able to tell their kids what they could, and could not, do in their own homes. That was clearly an abuse of authority on the school's part, and severely crossed the line.

As hard as it might be to believe, I think this latest story goes even further in illustrating just how far schools will go to seize control of your children. Especially when your kids are not at school.

AP:

A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn't have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court.

But a lawyer for the Burlington, Conn., school told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that administrators should be allowed to act if such comments are made on the Web.

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school's annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: "'Jamfest' is canceled due to douchebags in central office," and also referred to an administrator who was "pissed off."

After discovering the blog entry, school officials refused to allow Doninger to run for re-election as class secretary. Doninger won anyway with write-in votes, but was not allowed to serve.

Since when is speaking your mind a disqualification to run for public office? I don't know how many student elections these administrators have witnessed, but every one I've seen has always had students complaining about the administration, and advocating fighting for student's rights to face down the school faculty. At the end of the day ... a school should not be allowed to punish a student for comments made off school campus. The only exception would be threats of violence. Can you imagine your kid coming home with detention and an RPC because they called the principal a douche the night before at the dinner table? This is no different, and to make matters worse the school has found support in the equally corrupt courts.

A lower federal court had supported the school. U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz, denying Doninger's request for an injunction, said he believed she could be punished for writing in a blog because the blog addressed school issues and was likely to be read by other students.

Her lawyer, Jon L. Schoenhorn, told the appeals court Tuesday that what students write on the Internet should not give schools more cause to regulate off-campus speech.

We don't even punish our own politicians for what they write on blogs, and many of their postings (i.e. Murtha) are traitorous at best. Yet we do not punish them for making traitorous statements that are proven to be lies, but we'll punish a kid for exercising her first amendment right?

Another "Non Hate Crime" Against A White Guy

Click Picture To Watch

Yet another video to be used for recruitment by white supremacists.

There was apparently a dispute because of the small walk way in this store. We all know how that went down, but I'll leave it to your imagination. As this white guy was paying for his merchandise he was surrounded by a group of young black people. They were continuing to yell things at him while he was at the counter until he was finally sucker punched by a punk coward.

WCBSTV:

The unbelievable images show a shopper just trying to pay up at a corner deli, when out of nowhere he is laid out with a haymaker that conjures memories of a young Mike Tyson.

I don't know if it is more disturbing that the attack took place without any cries of this possibly being a hate crime, or the fact that the news seems so enamored with the way this guy was attacked. Why don't they use terms with a negative connotation like savage, cowardly, or vicious. Instead they use glorifying terms like comparing the attacker to a professional boxer, walloped, the pain, and fierce. Those are all terms we use for endearment ... not to describe a mugging. Which is exactly what this was ... a mugging.

The victim takes the brunt of the blow to the head and neck and goes sprawling to the floor. The assailant leaves, but some in his posse go over to the prone victim and take his money.

Absolutely disgusting that the media isn't portraying this for what it really is. A punk coward was too damn chicken to face this guy honorably, and decided to sneak around him to attack from behind. There wasn't any skill displayed here, and as a fighter I can say that with absolute moral authority. It was an amateur punch that was thrown sloppily. The only reason it was effective was that the victim didn't know it was coming, and it is easy to knock someone out when you attack them from behind and hit them on the side of the jawline. This attack hardly deserves to be compared with the skill of a former heavyweight champion.

Then there is this little tidbit which puts the worst of white racism on display as well. The difference is that they will call this racist, but they won't even investigate if the attack above was based on race.

If You Send White Powder In The Mail Do You A) Get Charged With Terrorism B) Get Prison Time Or C) Get Probation?

If you answered A or B you didn't get the memo that common sense is dead.

Smoking Gun:

The California man convicted of sending threatening letters containing a white powder to public figures like David Letterman and Jon Stewart has been sentenced to probation and ordered to check into a halfway house, where he will be required to take medications recommended by doctors. Chad Castagana, 40, will remain in the Gateways Community Corrections Center for as long as staff at the Los Angeles facility deem appropriate, though his stay there cannot exceed his five-year probationary term, according to the below U.S. District Court order.

Sheriff Deputy Who Threw Cripple Onto Floor Wants Your Sympathy

What an f---ing bitch!  

If you don't know what's been happening with the two recent police videos ... I wrote about them here, but here is an interview with the victim that plays the assault over and over again. Sorry about the cheesy production stuff.


Now here is today's article on the matter, and the deputy playing the victim.

As outrage spread nationwide over a Hillsborough County jail inmate being tossed from his wheelchair onto the floor, the detention deputy at the center of the controversy has been getting nonstop phone calls, many racist in nature.

"It's not even just in Florida," said Beverly Crecy, the roommate of suspended Deputy Charlette Marshall-Jones.

"These calls are from out of state," she said, with tears in her eyes. "People calling her 'n---' and 'fat' and all kinds of stuff. Seven o'clock in the morning and all through the night."

Uh, she brought it upon herself. So don't give me this boo-hoo crap.

I have no idea if her assault was racially motivated, but I would like to point out that there were 4 black people standing around while one of them threw this white guy on the floor. Shortly after it happened a white coworker came into the camera's view. This is not evidence of a hate crime, but white supremacists will use this as evidence of such. Hence the n-word calls.  Plus, she is fat.

CNN Producer Fired For Blogging

Here's the thing, you are not allowed to embarrass your employer with a personal blog.  I walk this fine line with my company every day my blog is public.  If you work for a news outlet that has to maintain the appearance of being unbiased ... you can't have a personal blog on the side telling the public that you hate people of a certain political affiliation as this guy has done. As a blogger he knows that other bloggers will expose him for who he is. Which would be extremely embarrassing to his employer, and damage their credibility as a news source.

He doesn't see it that way.

Chez Pazienza, a senior producer for CNN’s “American Morning,” says the network fired him on Tuesday on the grounds that he violated its standards for journalists through his blog, Deus Ex Malcontent.

Mr. Pazienza announced that he had been fired through — what else — a blog post on Wednesday. “What was the reason for my abrupt and untimely dismissal?” he wrote. “You’re reading it. More to come soon.”

It continues ...

A few months ago, Mr. Pazienza was invited to start blogging on The Huffington Post, the group blog founded by Arianna Huffington.

Mr. Pazienza said he has never identified himself in his writing as a CNN producer or as a representative of CNN and has never written about what goes on at work. “I will write about the media in general and, at times, the very sorry state of it, including the TV news media,” he said. “I think I have the right to.”

I'll stop here to address his statements that he thinks he has a right to talk about the media in general. This may be true depending on his conduct policy given to him by CNN, but the moment you begin to show bias that may undermine your employer's credibility, you're in trouble. Writing for the Huffington Post does just that. If conservative bloggers chose to make a big deal of CNN having a producer of one of their programs writing for the Huffington Post ... CNN's reputation would be severely damaged. Given that CNN already has a bad reputation, and has been scrambling to repair it for several months now doesn't help this guys case.

It's not just his affiliation with the Huffington Post that was the problem. It was his venemous writings on his site that sealed his fate.

Deus Ex Malcontent makes no effort to hide its author’s strong views. “I wake up every morning baffled as to why America hasn’t thrown George Bush and Dick Cheney in prison.

He also criticized some other famous people such as Oprah. While I applaud his attacks on Oprah, there could issues with advertising by going after some of the people he wrote about. Nonetheless, CNN can't have one of their producers running around talking about imprisoning people without them knowing about it. Especially since they are in full fledged damage control mode over at CNN.

Mr. Pazienza acknowledges that he did not ask permission from CNN to blog, either on his own Web site or on The Huffington Post. He contends that the policy had not been made clear to employees and was overly vague. “It’s purposely set up so they can be subjective,” he said. “Does that mean I can’t post on a MySpace blog that my friends read? Does that mean I can’t post something online to my wife?” He added that he believed he had been dismissed because of his views.

Here is where he completely missed the point, or didn't read his employee handbook. It doesn't matter if he thinks it was not made clear to him. As someone who works for one of the big media corporations I knew I had to ask permission to have a blog. At the time it was a Myspace page like this guy is talking about. When you work for these companies they make sure you understand what you need permission for. My boss told me what I can and can not write about. If I violate that ... I get fired.

He tries to take it too far by talking about personal posts to his wife and friends. That will not get him fired because it is personal, and won't embarrass CNN. His calling for Bush and Cheney to be imprisoned will draw negative attention to CNN, and that can't stand. He's right that he was dismissed because of his views, but it had nothing to do with how he believes. It's because he put them in aggressive writings that could harm CNN, and he should have known better.

Teacher Molests Three Girls ... Only Gets 90 Days

I have long been saying that our children will rebel against us one day because we have flat out refused to protect them. Why would they take care of us when we are old and decrepit if we didn't take care of them? The biggest failure of society to protect our children is to allow sexual predators to go free with little to no punishment.

I have lost all faith in judges to adequately punish child predators. Many have said that judges refuse to punish these predators because the judges themselves are predators. Perhaps these people are right. Maybe NAMBLA membership is chalk full of judges, and they are looking out for their own. After all, that is what secret societies do.

Nevada is widely recognized as having a horrific judicial system ... especially when it comes to protecting kids. Frankly, it would take too long to explain, but you locals know what I'm talking about.

A couple of days ago Don Smith, a former music teacher at Tate Elementary, was sentenced to 90 days behind bars for touching the breasts of a little girl in his class who was under 14 years old. Now I should preface this by saying that this comes from Channel 13 News' website, and they are notorious for not giving you details.

A former Clark County school teacher will spend 90 days behind bars for touching a student's breasts.

A judge also sentenced Don Smith to up to four years probation and extensive counseling.

The sentence is part of a plea deal Smith agreed to in December.

Smith was teaching music at Tate Elementary School.

His attorney said he was just counseling the girl, but the prosecutors say he touched her inappropriately and on purpose.

Smith was warned several times over the years by the Clark County School District not to hug students.

They also have a video on their website.

You'll notice that the school district had to "warn" Smith several times over the YEARS to not touch the children. Just so you know ... the Clark County School District is one of the worst in the country. No that's not opinion ... it's a proven fact year after year.

If you have to warn a teacher to stop hugging children several times over the years, but he continues to do it, why wasn't he removed from the classroom. Clearly, if you are repeatedly told to not touch children yet you continue to do so ... you have a compulsion. It is blatantly obvious that Smith could not control his actions, but the district and school didn't act to remove him from the classroom. Therefore, I hold them responsible, and I hope the victim's family does as well.

Remember, Channel 13 doesn't give good details on their website. So I went back to the local newspaper to review the case, and found extremely disturbing information. Smith didn't accept a plea for touching one student's breasts ... it was three students he violated.

Review Journal:

A Tate Elementary School music teacher accused of molesting three students told a judge Tuesday that he intends to accept a plea deal in District Court.

Don Kevin Smith is expected to make an Alford plea to one count of attempted lewdness with a minor under 14, which carries a potential prison sentence of two to 20 years.

An Alford plea does not involve an admission of guilt but acknowledges that prosecutors could prove their case if it went to trial.

So the plea deal he received holds a sentence of 2-20 years. Why did he get only 90 days? Even if the charge is probational as expressed by the paper ... the judge has an obligation to give a sexual predator more than 90 days for violating 3 girls.

It gets better:

According to his arrest report, Smith admitted to investigators that he touched the breasts of three students.

He originally was charged with two counts of lewdness with a minor under 14.

Prosecutor Lisa Luzaich said she agreed to drop the other charges in exchange for his plea to attempted lewdness because it keeps open the possibility of Smith receiving as much as two decades in prison and it also would ensure that Smith receives a felony on his record and never teaches again.

"If I can do all that without making three young girls testify than that's a good thing," she said.

This is when I got really pissed talking about this on my show.

The prosecutor did the right thing by guaranteeing a felony charge while not requiring the three victims to relive the assaults. The reason the prosecutor even accepted the plea is because Smith would face a tougher sentence than with the other charges. So the prosecutor positioned herself to get a guaranteed conviction with a stiffer sentence for the child predator than she may have gotten with a trial. That's good lawyering, and she should be commended with her efforts.

Unfortunately, her plan backfired on her when Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo decided that the 2 year minimum for Smith's plea deal was too harsh, and only sentenced him to 90 days behind bars.

To summarize:

• We have a teacher who admitted to molesting not one, not two, but three elementary school girls.
• The prosecutor only accepted the plea deal because the predator would receive a felony with 2-20 years in prison.
• The judge felt two years was too harsh for a child predator who assaulted a minimum of three young girls, and gave him a mere 90 days with probation and counseling.

Now that's justice.

Democrats Create 51st State To Vote In Primary

With 22 delegates I might add. If I were a Democrat living in the US I would be pissed off right now.

AP:

This year, for the first time, US expatriates who are Democrats can cast their ballots on the Internet in a presidential primary for people living outside the US.

Democrats Abroad, an official branch of the party representing overseas voters, will hold its first global presidential preference primary from Feb. 5 to Feb. 12, with expats selecting the candidate of their choice by Internet as well as fax, mail and in person at polling places in more than 100 countries.

So far so good right? No problem with citizens being able to vote from abroad. While voting in the primary is new ... voting in the general election is not. I assure you, this will get very good real soon.

"The online system is incredibly secure: That was one of our biggest goals," said Lindsey Reynolds, executive director of Democrats Abroad. "And it does allow access to folks who ordinarily wouldn't get to participate."

Incredibly secure? Online? As a network admin I can attest that this is a near impossibility. However, my co-host decided to take it one step further and really test the "security" of the Dems online system.

She was able to register with the party using the information of a 14 year old, and the address and phone number of a restaurant in another country. So far she has been accepted into the program. I wouldn't call that secure at all.

We did this live on the air during our broadcast tonight. They still may ask for additional information before she is finally approved so I will keep you updated over the next few days.

Meanwhile, it gets better.

Members get a personal identification number from Everyone Counts, the San Diego-based company running the online election. They can then use the number to log in and cast their ballots.

Their votes will be represented at the August Democratic National Convention by 22 delegates, who according to party rules get half a vote each for a total of 11. That's more than US territories get, but fewer than the least populous states, Wyoming and Alaska, which get 18 delegate votes each.

That's the main issue with this program. By allowing 22 delegates representing around 6 million Americans outside of the US to participate in the national convention the Dems have effectively created a 51st state thats delegates will cast their votes at the national convention. That's a big problem, and completely unfair to other Democrat voters here in the US.

In the current atmosphere of our electoral process this could sway a whole election.

If you aren't familiar with politics ... delegates are the most important part of the primary process. They were selected to go to the national convention to choose which candidate will represent the party.

Rather than allow the expats votes to be counted with their home state's ... the Dems have created a previously nonexistent third party that will behave in every way as a 51st state. Thus, potentially tipping the scales in favor of one candidate over the others when that advantage has never existed before. With the hotly contested race the Dems have on their hands right now the 11 votes the 22 delegates get could be the difference.

In case you were wondering ... people can vote in the Dem primary from Iraq and Afghanistan. Given how easy it was for my co-host to sign up for the program with false information, how can we be sure some unsavory people won't screw with our elections from other countries?

For those of you worried about globalism ... this figurative 51st state will represent the rest of the world. It doesn't get more globalist than that.

The Government Wants Seniors To Come Out Of Retirement, & Work Off Their Tax Debt.

This is one of the most twisted stories circulating right now. The disgust will be compounded by the attitude of the article's author towards seniors losing their well deserved retirement.

AP:

The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for $7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.

"People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," said Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.

He envisions retired doctors mentoring schoolchildren, retired accountants helping with the town's finances, retired lawyers offering their services for a discount. But there are plenty of less-skilled jobs that need doing, he said.

Some of the "less-skilled" jobs just happen to be manual labor in some of the other states with programs like this.

You'll notice the tone of the article is one of compassion for seniors who are overburdened by their taxes. That tone is prevalent throughout the whole article, and is an attempt to seem compassionate for the poor seniors. Did anyone else catch the fact that they are only looking to pay the seniors $7 an hour. Isn't that less than minimum wage?

Naturally, several seniors were featured who thought the idea was a good way to pay down their debt. Hell, even the National Council on Aging said it was a good idea. How heartless, and moronic are all of these blithering idiots?

The entire article was how the seniors can't afford to pay the property taxes on the pittance they receive from social security, and therefore must be FORCED out of retirement to pay off the government. NOT ONE TIME was it even considered that the taxes was too damned high to begin with. Nor was it mentioned that it was the very same government charging excessive taxes to the seniors that also decimated those seniors' social security funds which put them in this bind to begin with.

Here's a suggestion to go: reduce the taxes on the seniors, and put a cap on the taxes so that the seniors can afford them with the funds they currently receive from social security. This is tantamount to slave labor. How dare they back seniors into a corner that leaves them with no choice but to come out of retirement and work for less than minimum wage. Seniors have worked their whole lives to be able to retire in peace. Not to forced into indentured servitude.

Music Industry Goes Too Far In Saying Music You Buy Is Not Yours

Figuratively of course.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is saying it is illegal to copy music you've paid for. Problem is ... there is no such law. The record industry is trying to win a precedent case in order to go after millions of people who have transfered their CD's to their MP3 players by saying we've violated copyright law. I disagree.

WaPo:

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

Well slap my ass and call me Suzy! Since when has it been illegal to make a backup of your personal possessions? As long as you aren't distributing the material to others there should be no controversy.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

Any statements on the RIAA's website are irrelevant, and they should face charges for making false statements.

The bottom line is that MY music is MY property. Once I pay for it, it is mine to do with as I wish so long as I don't distribute it. Using the RIAA's logic ... one day it will be illegal for my wife to listen to my MP3's.

Whole Foods: Shoplifters Are Customers Too. Leave Them Alone.

Notice I didn't use quotes in that title. Whole Foods didn't literally say that, but they essentially said that when they fired an employee who stopped a shoplifter in Ann Arbor.

MLive.com:

John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

There are several factors that need to be considered for this man's future lawsuit against Whole Foods. Let's examine the first one here in this paragraph. He was fired for "physically touching a customer." Since when are shoplifters customers? A customer is someone who pays for a good or service. You don't pay ... you aren't a customer.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store.

Point two is that he had clocked out. In other words ... he was not on company time. If he doesn't get paid for that time ... he isn't on the job. Things get sketchy when you fire someone who wasn't on the job.

He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

The third point is that he was assisting the manager (his boss) after being requested to do so. What's the point in chasing someone down, and asking others to help you chase them down if you won't do anything when you catch up to the crook? Now his manager becomes liable for his actions because he requested assistance.

The final point is that this did not happen on Whole Foods property. How can you fire an employee for stopping a shoplifter, while not on the clock, and not on company property?

With this logic, an employee could be fired for stopping a bank robber after work because the bank robber was in Whole Foods earlier that day. I smell a windfall in this man's future.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across Washtenaw Avenue and toward a gas station at the corner of Huron Parkway.

Before the man could cross Huron Parkway, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied, and the shoplifter got away.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.

Again, he didn't touch a customer at all.

So what was Whole Foods' response to the firing?

Kate Klotz, a company spokesperson, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Schultz said he acted as a private citizen on property that isn't owned by Whole Foods, but Klotz said where the incident happened doesn't change the policy.

"He is still considered an employee of Whole Foods Market regardless of where he was and what was happening," she said.

I would love to see the company policy that this man signed when he was hired 5 years ago. Does it really say that shoplifters are customers? I doubt it.

If merely touching the shoplifter was grounds for termination then why even chase him out of the store? Keep in mind that the store's manager gave chase, and asked for assistence which this man provided while on his own time.

As for the Whole Foods rep saying that he is considered a Whole Foods employee "regardless of where he was and what was happening" is ludicrous, and the worst kind of stupid. I refer you to my argument above about him preventing a bank robber from getting away because he was in Whole Foods earlier that day.

Schultz is right on by saying he acted as a private citizen on his own time while not on company property. He is given the right to make a citizen's arrest by the Constitution. Whole Foods has no authority to remove Schultz's constitutional protections.

What would you expect from a store run by a bunch of hippies. Physical violence won't be tolerated ... even in self defense of the store's bottom line.

Peace, Love and Masturbation!

ACLU Violates Civil Rights Of Death Row Inmate

That would be his desire for the execution to go forward.

You should know about the debate on executions going on right now, and whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" punishment. If you aren't aware ... it's time to read up.

Start with the José Ernesto Medellín case, and then read the Heliberto Chi case.

Essentially what we have is 51 foreigners , that have been convicted and sentenced to death in the US, may not have their sentences carried out because of the 1963 Vienna Convention. President Bush is also throwing his weight around in the matter, and Texas seems to be standing alone in fighting for their right to execute convicted criminals.

The Vienna Convention states that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. Many of the foreigners (illegals) are arguing that they were not granted access to their country's consular officials. Keep in mind that many have confessed to their crimes of rape and murder.

As a result of these cases we have the ACLU, and other groups opposed to the death penalty, challenging the Constitutionality of lethal injections. Many executions across the country have been halted until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of lethal injections.

Obviously we have several problems with the current situation. State's rights are being violated, this is not a Constitutional issue, and we have international law infringing upon American sovereignty.

The Vienna Convention has no power over internal US affairs, and foreign nationals are NOT permitted under US law access to their consular officials. The US Supreme Court ruled on this very matter last year.

Stating that American law outweighs an international treaty, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that foreign criminals held in state prisons did not have a right to reopen their cases if their rights under the Vienna Convention had been violated.

The 6-3 ruling spares state prison officials a major headache. If the high court had ruled the other way, thousands of state inmates who were not U.S. citizens could have sought to have their convictions reversed.

The international treaty, drafted in 1963, seeks to protect foreigners, including Americans traveling or living abroad. It requires that officials notify the home-country consulate when a foreigner is arrested or held for "pending trial."

Despite its clear terms, police and prosecutors in the United States have failed to notify foreign criminal suspects that they have a right to the help of their nation's consulate.

Two years ago, the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, took up an appeal from the governments of Mexico and Germany. The court, based in The Hague, ruled that the treaty gave individuals a right to reopen their cases if they did not get the proper notification.

But the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was not bound to follow that ruling.

As you can see ... the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, and they ruled that US law trumps an international treaty ... as it should.

Why this case is being reheard is beyond me, but Phyllis Schlafly thinks it has something to do with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Now for the ACLU (NV chapter) violating the rights of a death row inmate.

William Castillo was sentenced to death in 1996 for bludgeoning to death an 84 year old retired teacher as she slept. He then robbed her house, left, returned, and burned it down. He would later confess to the murder, and was sentenced to die this month by lethal injection. We waived his right to appeals, and accepted his fate. Castillo requested that the ACLU and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty not stop his execution, but his request was ignored for pure ideology.

Nancy Hart of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty and Richard Siegel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada said the Pardons Board has the authority to halt Castillo's lethal injection pending a U.S. Supreme Court review of such injections.

Nevada uses the injection method being reviewed by the court, Hart and Siegel wrote, adding that executing Castillo might put the state "in the untenable position of having to explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution before the Supreme Court was able to rule."

"The state of Nevada should not be executing any of its prisoners, 'voluntary' or not, while the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the method violates the Constitution," they wrote.

As you can see, they didn't give a damn about what Castillo wanted. It's even more laughable that the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty asked people to "write to Gov. Jim Gibbons on behalf of William Castillo!" Even though he opposes their stance on capital punishment.

Their assertion that NV uses the same method under review by the US Supreme Court is false. Nevada uses double the formulation strength being challenged in the Supreme Court.

State Corrections Director Howard Skolnik said that Castillo will get double doses of the three drugs normally used in executions. He said that the change ensures that Castillo should "go out instantly" and not experience "any kind of discomfort."

Skolnik also said the double dose makes the Nevada method different than the Kentucky method of lethal injections, which is the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court review.

That means that if the US Supreme Court rules that the Kentucky method of lethal injections is unconstitutional ... it would not apply to Nevada anyway. The Supreme Court has not issued a halt to all executions in the US anyway, and therefore Nevada would not have to "explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution."

Their arguments are insensitive and false, but they worked.

Convicted killer William Castillo was 90 minutes away from death by lethal injection Monday night when the Nevada Supreme Court stepped in and issued a stay to allow more time to consider legal issues raised by the ACLU of Nevada.

Castillo had his final meal, and was sedated already when the order came down. Also, two of the victim's family members had come to town to witness the execution. I doubt the ACLU will reimburse them for the time and cost of their trip.

Something else had already taken place as well. Castillo's mom had said her final goodbye to her son ... only to be called later that he was not executed. You'd think Castillo and his mom would be relieved, right? Well, you'd be wrong.

News 3's Jesse Corona spoke exclusively to Castillo's family and found they are not happy about the execution being halted.

His family says he had already refused any more legal action on his behalf and that he was ready and willing to die.

"Not that I want my son to die, but I had to accept my son's decision," said Castillo's mother.

Mrs. Castillo says her son told her that he would refuse any more appeals filed on his behalf to stop his execution two months ago. She says it was the most difficult thing she's ever had to do but her son told her he wanted to take responsibility for his actions and die like a man, so she agreed to respect his wishes.

"I had to accept this, and these people come along and yank that from us?" she said.

Now I don't have sympathy for Castillo, but I do for his mother. It is impossible to imagine what she is going through. Not only does she discover that her son is a monster, but she had to come to terms with his death. Now she has to get a lawyer and fight for her son's right to be executed.

"When I hung up that phone, my son died. According to the state he was going to die 8:30 but my son died at 7 when I said goodbye," she said.

Castillo had already ate his last meal and taken the pre-execution sedative and was ready to die.

"His first words were, mom this ain't right. Get a lawyer, get someone out there to help us that was not right they had no business being here."

On top of all that ... she says that the ACLU is far more cruel than the methods they are arguing against.

Mrs. Castillo says what the ACLU did to her family was itself cruel and unusual.

She's right, and I hope she sues the hell out of the ACLU.

Mrs. Castillo, like me, is convinced the ACLU's move was a publicity stunt.

Mrs. Castillo also said that she thinks the last minute stay of execution by the ACLU was really a publicity move for the organization, and not about the issues they say it was about. She says if the ACLU's motivations were pure, they would have requested a hearing last week.

Again, she is right. Requesting a hearing the week before would have saved a lot of grief for the Castillo family, and the victim's family. Instead of requesting that hearing, however, the ACLU was polluting every news agency with their rhetoric on the situation.

The ACLU told News 3 Thursday that they have a lot of sympathy for everyone affected by what happened, but they say the issue was not about any one particular individual on death row, but instead was about the constitution.

Oh really?

So Castillo's desire to die after being convicted, and sentenced to death, was about the Constitution? Even though the Constitution gives states the right to enforce capital punishment, and even though the method of execution being used for Castillo is not the method being constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court? Give me a break!

This is further illustration of the ACLU's hypocrisy. Why, you ask. Because the ACLU has long fought for the right to die, and they've used constitutional arguments to support their efforts.

"Each of us should have the right to die in a humane and dignified manner. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director.

That was in 1997.

• In 2001 the ACLU supported the right of Robert Wendland's wife to take him off of life support.
• 2005 showed another case when the ACLU supported the right to die for Harold Folley in New Mexico.

You get the point ... I don't need to go on.

So why is it that the ACLU supports the right to die for some, but not those who were sentenced to death? The answer ... their political agenda. The ACLU has an agenda to get rid of the death penalty, and in their list of priorities that agenda is more important than the right to die or state's rights.

Thus, the American Civil Liberties Union violated the civil liberties of one William Castillo even though they swear they exist only to uphold such civil liberties.

NAACP Says Halloween Display Is Racist, Family Forced To Remove It

Warning: The following post will contain some strong language not usually present in my writing, but I am super pissed about this. I have removed letters of certain words, but felt it was appropriate to warn those of you who are regular readers. I'm usually not this personal or confrontational, but given the past couple of weeks with similar stories an aggressive response was warranted.

Update: I have added a poll at the top right of this site. Let us what you think of the display. Is it racist, or not?


Photo Courtesy Of The Daily Record

So much for the NAACP actually becoming a respectable organization again. I had hope for a while there because they had been settling down a bit. The NAACP "seemed" to be getting away from the Jackson/Sharpton ideology. Oh well, it looks like they are back in full force.

The NAACP, along with a couple of oversensitive neighbors, blew a simple Halloween decoration waaaay out of proportion.

The Star Ledger:

Chesla Flood couldn't believe her eyes. A hangman's noose circled the neck of a black-hooded, jeans-clad dummy suspended from the chimney of a house in Madison.

Flood called her mother, Millie Hazlewood, who reported the Halloween display to police. She wasn't the only one. Police went to the property at least three times starting Sunday, and even the mayor asked the homeowners to take down the figure.

The police took time out of their day to harass a family for Halloween decorations, multiple times? The mayor even requested the family take down the decoration? What in the hell is this world coming to that you can't put a commonly used Halloween display up? I can't count how many times I've seen a hangman's noose as part of Halloween decorations, haunted houses, and even my own decorations. These people are acting like this is the first time this has been done. When, in fact, it's somewhat of a traditional display.

So is this the first time this family has used the noose?

D.J. Maines, the 27-year-old son of Cheryl and David Maines, has bedecked the house for seven Halloweens using $5,000 worth of decorations he has collected. He has used the hanging dummy each year.

Nope. He's used the display for 7 YEARS with no incident! Why no incident? Because it's a common display used by thousands of homes across the US!

Finally, the pressure got the family, and they removed the display because they feared for their safety.

At 8 last night, the family relented, saying they feared for their safety.

"It's no more like freedom of speech anymore," Cheryl Maines said. "My son had to take this down because these people have blown this thing out of proportion."

Hell, it doesn't even really have to do with freedom of speech because it is a Halloween decoration!

Here is what the mayor (a white guy) had to say:

Before the figure was removed yesterday, Madison Mayor Ellwood "Woody" Kerkeslager said "the appearance and the suggestion (of racism) is there, and it's inappropriate."

What? How? They didn't show a black person being hung. They showed a person in a black hood being hung. When we used to hang people in this country guess what we did? We put a black hood over their heads!

Now listen to how everyone is trying to tie this story in with other noose stories in the news lately in an effort to paint this family as racist.

At least four recent noose displays -- one each in Jena, La., and Philadelphia and two in New York City -- are drawing renewed attention to a potent symbol of racism, lynchings and the era of Jim Crow segregation.

Unlike those incidents, the Madison figure was part of a Halloween display, and for two days, homeowners Cheryl and David Maines, the borough's superintendent of public works, refused to budge. They said they had done nothing wrong.

ARE YOU F___ING SERIOUS!?

Credit goes to the author for pointing out the obvious ... this was a decoration, at a home, for Halloween. To draw correlations to Jena, La. is insane at best.

Here's where the NAACP jump in, and make complete fools of themselves.

Meanwhile, the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People denounced the display as offensive, racist and insensitive.

"I think there are many people who understand the significance of a noose as it relates to the history of African-Americans," said James Harris, president of the NAACP's state chapter. "We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display."

"As it relates to the history of African-Americans?" F__K YOU!

There is another population that has a history with the noose James ... COWBOYS! And most cowboys were what? White!

Why don't we just make the argument that the display was inappropriate because it might offend criminals. After all, we used to hang criminals exactly as the display is shown ... black hood and all.

"We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display?" What era are you talking about James? The era when we used to hang people as capital punishment? We HAVE lived beyond that era James. That's why your argument makes no damned sense! We DON'T hang people anymore ... white, black or any other race for that matter. Hence, it was only a Halloween decoration!

The only people who haven't lived past that era is you, James. You and your supporters want old feelings from another time to surface. That way you can foment hate, prove the NAACP is still needed and maybe make a quick buck while you're at it.

To top it all off ... not only are you still living in the past, but you are projecting a falsehood upon this family. You keep talking about racism when there was no part of this display that could be construed as racist by any sane, logical person. So are you fomenting hate James, or are you just lacking sanity and logic?

The family has sworn off holiday decorations for good because of this fiasco. I assume that was the goal all along as there is a concerted effort to remove holiday displays in this country.

Last night, the Maines family said they would be replacing their Halloween display and erecting a sign reading: "Thanks to the assistance of Millie Hazlewood and her friends, Halloween and Christmas decorations will no longer be celebrated here."

This is very sad.

Authorities also said that the display was not illegal, and couldn't be ordered down. If that is the case ... then why did the police harass this family on three separate occasions? I hope the family sues the department for harassment, and I hope they sue the people who complained and the NAACP for violating their civil rights. The mayor should also be a target for lawsuit for his interference.

Read the rest of the article and you'll see a bunch of people who lived through the horrific time where lynching was common, and were offended by the display. The south is featured prominently in the article, but this is taking place in New Jersey so don't be fooled.

The Maines family also responded to those who have a history with lynching.

"Don't bring your ancestors into this -- it's something that happened; you've got to get beyond it or you're going to make yourself sick," she said.

She is right. To bring up history having nothing to do with her or her decorations in an effort to demonize her family is completely uncalled for.

Had the display featured a black person being lynched, I would have supported it being taken down. However, there was no racial undertones at all in the display. This was just another excuse by racists themselves to attack white people.

Here is another picture of the display for you to decide yourself.

The Daily Record

So You Want To Use Dope, But Not Get Arrested ... Go To San Fransisco!

That's right everybody. San Fransisco has finally decided to move forward with a very controversial plan that will allow intravenous drug users to shoot up without fear of arrest.

Why would they do such a thing you ask. Well, to prevent overdoses of course.

SF Gate:

On Thursday, an all-day symposium - co-hosted by the city Department of Public Health - will examine the idea of creating safe injection centers where users could bring their drugs, shoot up and leave, without fear of arrest.

The idea is to decrease overdoses, keep dirty needles off the street, and cut the risk of spreading HIV and hepatitis C. Those are all good things. It is the idea of providing addicts with their own injection clinic that riles people up.

Naturally, people are riled up over something like this (which has been in the works for years now). The article even quotes one reader as saying:

"What's next? Giving them the drugs, too?"

The answer to that is yes. Now some of you might think I'm going a little too far by saying that, but I want you to use some logic here.

If we are willing to allow dopers to shoot up in an effort to prevent overdoses, remove needles from the street, stop hepatitis and HIV ... surely we will be willing to provide said dope to prevent all of the other crimes involved in buying the dope on the street. Hell, it may even become a proposed strategy for the drug war (yes I know some people have already endorsed this tactic).

Seriously, think about it. The negative impact, and outright danger, to the individual as well as society is far worse if the drugs are purchased on the street instead of being supplied.

No Candy Allowed At Homes Of Sex Offenders

Now this is what I'm talking about! Now I get to sit back, and wait for the ACLU to object because of privacy reasons. They will say that posting these signs will disclose to the public who is a sex offender. I say ... so f___ing what.

UPDATE: Judge Outlines 9 Errors In "An Inconvenient Truth"

This is an update to my previous post.

The judge did make it a requirement to notify students that the film was biased before they view it.

Here are the nine errors the judge outlined, but you could watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to get more.

Student Socialist Club Allowed At High School Amidst Criticism

Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, South Dakota allows a socialist club to meet and discuss socialist ideals every Thursday morning, and many are uncomfortable with the situation. The school, however, feels the student club is protected by the Equal Access Act passed in 1984. It states that no school administrator can pass judgment on school clubs.

Schools must allow additional clubs to be organized, as long as:

• Attendance is voluntary.
• The group is student-initiated.
• The group is not sponsored by the school itself, by teachers, by other school employees, or by the government. This means that such employees cannot promote, lead or participate in a meeting. However, a teacher or other school employee can be assigned to a group for "custodial purposes."
• The group is not disruptive. i.e. it "does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school."
• Persons from the community may not "direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups."

The school is required to treat all of its student-led non-curriculum clubs equally:

• Each club must have equal access to meeting spaces, the PA system, school periodicals, bulletin board space, etc.
• School officials have the right to monitor meetings.
• Officials can require all clubs to follow a set of rules, including non-discrimination policies. However, a court has ruled that religious clubs can discriminate against persons of other faiths in their selection of officers.
• The school may limit meeting times and locations, but must apply rules equally to all groups.
• The school may prohibit people from the community from attending student clubs. However, they must apply this rule equally to all groups.

Now I am skeptical that all student clubs will be permitted under these guidelines, but we'll get to that in a bit. Here's the story ...

Keloland:

The Young Socialists Club at Roosevelt High School is looking for new members. Their flyer asks for students to quote "Come explore the vast realm that is socialism." But also on the flyer is a picture of Karl Marx, who is best known as a revolutionary communist. One of his famous quotes, "Workers of the World Unite," is printed boldly on the handout. But Roosevelt Principal Don Ryswyk says those references do not concern him.

He says, “At Roosevelt we have young Democrats club, we have the young Republicans club and they were asking for a young Socialists club and so I saw it as an equity issue and the students talked to me about some of the things they were going to research and I also saw it as an educational club.”

Under the Equal Access Act passed in 1984, no school administrator can pass judgment on school clubs.

Linda Hallstrom with the Sioux Falls school district says, “Basically what that act says is that school students have a right to form clubs and that we as a district or at the school building level cannot discriminate based on view point of those clubs.”

That's why Ryswyk approved the new group. He says there are several student run clubs at Roosevelt, which allows teenagers with different interests to get involved.

“We love to see kids involved in clubs because they get involved in school, they make friends, and we know that kids when they get involved in school they make better students,” he says.

But he says if a club harms students, or is based on hate, it will not be accepted.
Ryswyk says, “I'm not going to allow a club into my school that's gonna be harmful or hateful or anything like that and there needs to be some good.”

With all of that said ... I wonder if this school would allow a fascist club. Not a nazi club, but a fascist club. Would they be willing to weather the storm of criticism from the general public? I doubt it, and a student should attempt it just to make a point.

UPDATE: Judge Orders Schools To Warn Students Of Al Gore Movie Bias

UPDATE:

A CNN meteorologist applauded the news that a judge has ordered schools to warn students of the bias in "An Inconvenient Truth."


You can read more about his comments, including a transcript, here.

UPDATE 2:

Al Gore is still refusing to accept any debate challenges on global warming. This is nothing new. He's been hiding like a scared little punk for years, and refusing to debate anyone on global warming. Junk Science issued a debate challenge to Al Gore years ago, and he has refused to accept the challenge.

ORIGINAL POST:

This judge knows that the inconvenient truth is that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not truthful.

Daily Mail:

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.'

They will still be allowed to show the film, but with an asterisk.

Let's not forget that there has been a war waged by parents who know "An Inconvenient Truth" is scientifically inaccurate. They've been trying to get the movie banned altogether.

You must also consider that Al Gore was training over a 1000 people to go out and show his movie to kids.

Then there is the case of the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was made to counter "An Inconvenient Truth" specifically. This movie is not shown in schools, and was even the victim of scientists (who get a lot of funding from the global warming crowd) who wanted to censor the film.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only true culprit using the 'politics of fear' is the global warming crowd.

Breaking News: O.J. Arrested In Vegas!

UPDATE:

He was arrested at the Palms.

UPDATE 2:

Here is a time-line and list of charges against OJ.

UPDATE 3:

Very good background on the robbery, arrest and charges.

It looks like it finally happened. OJ Simpson was arrested in connection to the hotel robbery a couple of days ago.

Review Journal:

Las Vegas police arrested O.J. Simpson Sunday morning on one count of robbery with a deadly weapon for an armed robbery that took place at the the Palace Station Thursday, authorities said.

"He's under arrest and he's on his way to the office," said Lt. Clint Nichols of the robbery unit. Investigators will question Simpson before any more charges are added, Nichols said.

They also arrested his accomplice.

The man charged with armed robbery for allegedly helping O.J. Simpson recover what he claimed was stolen memorabilia at the Palace Station Thursday has been identified as Walter Alexander, 47, according to jail records.

Alexander was booked into the Clark County Detention Center Saturday and charged with robbery with a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy and burglary with use of deadly weapon.

Police said Simpson remains a suspect and could face several felony charges. The former football great, accompanied by his lawyer, is expected to make a full statement to police on Monday.

The Juice is loose no more!

Plasma TV's To Be Banned

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Actual Headline: Housing Market Slump Forces Couple To Open Brothel

FORCES?

Yeah ... ok.

I love how these headlines get written up sometimes. It isn't the poor decision of this couple that is responsible for their opening a brothel illegally. It's the housing market slump!

Whatever.