Restoring the Rule of Law with States Leading the Way

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Rule of Law / Constitutional Convention
____________________________________

The Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott,  unveiled a proposal for restoring the balance between the federal and state governments as well as define each role respectively and set forth a check and balance system to restore the rule of law that has been lacking in this country to the point of nullifying the Republic for an rich man's oligarchy. 

The Texas Plan of 2015 is calling for a Constitutional Convention to correct this imbalance. The VDP Gazette has read the tenets proposed and wholeheartedly agrees. The plan is well thought out and resolved to create balance and order. 

You can read the plan here: 

Restoring the Rule of Law with States Leading the Way

All we can say is: it is a about damn time!

Source: Governor of Texas

School Lunch Conspiracy Against Children's Welfare and Parents' Sanity

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Child Welfare / Education / Parenting
_______________________________

The epidemic of bureaucratic stupidity has again taken another strike at children at school.

"It was pretty traumatic and humiliating," said Erica Lukes, whose 11-year-old daughter had her cafeteria lunch taken from her as she stood in line Tuesday at Uintah Elementary School...

Schools are now parenting the parents by ridiculing their children if the account for student lunches falls short. What a positive Christian behavior that we all can be proud of. It's what happens when schools become corporations instead of community education centers. 

These issues aren't just arising in Utah, but across the nation over the last several years:

NJ Students' Lunches Thrown in the Trash if Parents Haven't Paid 

Mom Claims Student’s Lunch Thrown Away For Being 70 Cents Short

Middle School Students Short on Lunch Money Ordered to Throw Food in the Trash
Beaverton school worker takes girl's lunch when account empty

Schools and school districts are adopting the attitude that the parent is there to service them:

"Well, we're hoping it doesn't happen," says Dr. Ronald Taylor, the Superintendent [in Willingboro, NJ]. "It's either all or nothing type of policy, when you have parents not taking advantage of the reduced lunch and taking away dollars for instruction we have to adopt a policy to enforce it."

Superintendent Ronald Taylor explains that the new policy is in place because parents abused the Free and Reduced Lunch program last year.

"Upwards of $50,0000 for students who had not applied for Free and Reduced Lunch who received free lunches," says Dr. Taylor. "Part of the reason we're doing this is to help hold parents accountable."

Let's get this straight: a parent who pays taxes to have your school buildings built, pays for the books, and pays for the salaries of all the teachers and incidentally the Superintendent is a bad parent that needs to be punished for not paying for a less than a dollar lunch because it eats into your budget?

Aren't the parents your boss?

And for a school, aren't they required by federal law to give milk and a sandwich to a child who does not have food or money? So who is committing the crime here? A parent who has already paid into the system with their taxes to create and maintain the school system or the school depriving and even embarrassing a child because they cannot pay for lunch? 

Maybe schools need to start rethinking their strategy. Parents are your customers and your supervisors, not the other way around. It seems that bureaucrats are overstepping their boundaries.

It's time for parents to take back their schools.

Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, My Fox Philly, 

Checkpoint Charlie: Militarization of Everyday Living

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Government / News / Martial Law

_____________________________________

Amber Lyon has a new book out: Peace, Love, and Pepperspray. It is a photographic look into protest. Even the protests here in the United States, not just overseas, does she document. What you will find will send chills up your spine.

In the interview on Buzzsaw (please go view now), we see how: Americans' rights to protest and freedom of speech are being eradicated, journalism through corporate intervention is destroying news, and Posse Comitatus is being eviscerated with the militarization of our police force.

The three time Emmy Award winner, Lyon, sees how America is becoming a third world nation via the policies and politics of the United States government against its own citizens. The agenda is not because of terrorism. The fundamental accusation is that you are the terrorist.

For a moment, let's digress and read about Posse Comitatus:

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

However in America today thanks to laws like the (un)Patriot Act and NDAA, police forces that hire combat ready troops from recent military discharge, and military equipment given to local police exhibits in no uncertain terms that Posse Comitatus is a honor code of long past. 

No longer are Americans safe. Safe from their own government. Safe from their local police force. 

In California, police were out in riot gear to quell a protest by women, children, and unarmed men as Anaheim became Afghanaheim. Texas has forced checkpoints for breath, blood, and urine samples as well as the police attacked peaceful protestors at the recent JFK 50th Memorial. And if your protest is peaceful, police have been seen going undercover to start violence and create vandalism where there was none. All documented facts.

Police are the ones out of control. If a police officer has to engage a crowd unlawfully, then that officer needs to reassess his participation. The Bill of Rights is very clear on this matter.

Let's take a look at the First Amendment: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does the right of the government supersede the rights of the individual citizens. No government intervention is allowed. No police force to intimidate or beat protestors is allowable either.

Where does this so-called right of police to harm peaceful Americans come from? This criminal behavior is not sanctioned by the highest law of the land. What is going on?

So the question becomes... is it more than unlawful treatment of the people or has it slid onto the scale of treason?

Yep, there the accusation is: Treason. So let's read the law:

18 USC § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

"Levies war against them..." sounds like what is happening now. A government using its peace officers to commit crimes against the people of the United States. According to the Nuremberg prinicples, just following orders does not relieve a person from their criminal behavior.

So the question is asked again: is attacking peaceful protestors against the Constitution for which peace officers are sworn to uphold constitute a form of treason?

Until Americans come to grips with the realities of the day and begin demanding reinstatement of their rights, then the common person will be subject to Checkpoint Charlie as martial law invades their communities a little by little until everyone is desensitized into their role of papers, please.

Source: Buzzsaw, dojgov, Muckraker, Cornell Law

Is the Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional?

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Government / News

_____________________________________

This article isn't one of those prescriptions of why and how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a terrible piece of legislation. We already know that. People are living that fact everyday.

This article isn't a conservative or liberal propaganda piece. I don't support failed policies and excuses of the main corporate-owned political parties. I just don't have time to have my ethical, moral, or mental aptitudes corrupted. I rather watch paint dry and then eat the lead-laden pieces off the house.

With that said, this article is here to explain how Constitutional and Congressional procedures were not adhered to and therefore makes the Affordable Care Act defunct. You guessed it, when the Affordable Care Act was made into a TAX by the Supreme Court that decided how the legislation was supposed to be brought to fruition. 

As a Commerce Clause Law, the Affordable Care Act was begun in the Senate. However, as a tax as it now stands, the Affordable Care Act was supposed to be started in the House of Representatives. Origination is everything.

A lawsuit now underway is bringing this fact under scrutiny. The case was filed by Associate of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2010 (AAPS v. Sebelius), and is pending in the District of Columbia's Circuit Court. 

Besides questioning the constitutionality of the ACA, this case raises other issues including that the law violates the Fifth Amendment by compelling private citizens to buy from a government approved private company as well as for government to take property from one citizen in order to transfer that property to another in direct violation of the Takings Clause. 

If these issues cause nonconformity in rulings amongst the courts, then the probability of a Supreme Court intervention is possible. 

However while we are questioning being forced to buy goods and services by the government... Shouldn't we question why our regular light bulbs are illegal but mercury spewing ones aren't? Shouldn't we question why Americans are forced to buy car insurance? Or for that any state or corporate mandated insurance? Why the Food and Drug Administration has argued in court that Americans do not have the right to food choices?

Until the American people have had enough and start speaking out, we have to rely on others to speak for us: 

The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."

If the Affordable Care Act is a tax that the Supreme Court has defined specifically for the House of Representatives to originate, then the ACA may be unconstitutional and therefore finished as an executable law.

Source: Ben Swann, Yahoo News, US Constitution Online, US Constitution Online