God Bless Elections

Posted in 2014 Election, Politics, Religion on March 7th, 2014

“God Bless Elections!” is exactly what the Romeike family should be proclaiming unto the Heavens because it was solely the fact that the Obama Regime fears the upcoming midterm elections that has allowed the stay in America.

Romeike Family - Christian refugees from Germany
The Happy Romeike Family

The Romeikes are devout Christians from Germany who wanted to homeschool their children because of what they perceived as the secularist agenda in German public schools. This is illegal is Germany and the parents faced both persecution and possible prosecution by the German authorities.

In 2008, after enduring two years of ever-increasing persecution and threats by the German government, they fled to America where they applied for asylum after settling in Tennessee. In 2010 Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman granted this request for asylum. This should have been the happy end of it. It wasn’t.

Obama’s and Holders’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) almost immediately appealed Judge Burman’s decision and got their appeal on docket of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, who were quick to over the immigration judges grant of asylum to the Romeike family.

Finally, in 2014 the US Supreme Court refused to hear Romeiki’s further appeal. Legally this doomed the family to deportation and the likely destruction of their family as a unit upon their return to Germany. In theory this should have been the sad end of it. It wasn’t.

The whole case made the national news and the public outcry over the Obama Regime’s behavior was fairly intense – to intense for Obama and other Democrats in a midterm election year, especially one where they’re weakened by the failure of ObamaCare and the retirement of many of the politicians. Hence, they granted the Romeike family “indefinite deferred status,” which will allow them to stay in the US.

God Bless Elections!

Related Reading:

UQ Holder 3
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
When in Germany, Do as the Germans Do: The Clued-In Guide to German Life, Language, and Culture
Look What Came from Germany
Gluten Freedom: The Nation's Leading Expert Offers the Essential Guide to a Healthy, Gluten-Free Lifestyle

Too Young For Rights?

Posted in Politics, Society on February 28th, 2014

The 9th Curcuit of the US Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that Constitutional and Civil Rights are not fully applicable or to be enjoyed by juveniles in the setting of a state-run school with their decision upon Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District.

They have ruled that it is no violation of students’ rights to force them to either leave school or change clothes for wearing shirts with the US Flag upon them on Cinco de Mayo. Such juveniles don’t have the same level rights as adults enjoy under the law.

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

SUMMARY
Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a civil rights suit brought by high school students who were asked to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag after school officials learned of threats of race-related violence during a school-sanctioned celebration of Cinco de Mayo.

The panel held that school officials did not violate the students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection. The panel held given the history of prior events at the school, including an altercation on campus, it was reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real. The panel held that school officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances.

OPINION

McKeown, Circuit Judge:

First Amendment rights and the operational and safety needs of schools. As we noted in Wynar v. Douglas County School District, 728 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2013), “school administrators face the daunting task of evaluating potential threats of violence and keeping their students safe without impinging on their constitutional rights.” In this case, after school officials learned of threats of race-related violence during a school-sanctioned celebration of Cinco de Mayo, the school asked a group of students to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag.

The students brought a civil rights suit against the school district and two school officials, alleging violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to freedom of expression, equal protection, and due process. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the only defendant party to this appeal, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, and its denial of the students’ motion for summary judgment, on all claims. School officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances. As a consequence, we conclude that school officials did not violate the students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection.

Given the text of the opinion in the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District this was a solid legal decision on the part of the Court. Tinker did, after all, hold that school administrators could violate the constitutional and civil rights of students for the purpose of maintaining order and preventing disruption of the normal operations of the school.  As disruption in the form of violence was likely, Mckeown’s ruling, displeasing as it is, was right based upon earlier Court precedents.

It’d be better if the 9th Circuit had undertaken to decide that, even in the case of minors in school, “Hecklers’ Vetoes” are unconstitutional. Sadly, the 9th Circuit and Judge McKeown is particular has a trend in holding strictly to Tinker. Expecting a significant policy change isn’t really realistic.

A Small Thought Experiment

What actually happened was that during the school’s 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, a Hispanic Assistant Principal, Miguel Rodriguez demanded that some White students remove their shirts which had the US Flag on them because Hispanic students were likely to become violent towards them based upon both current and previous behavior by those Hispanic students.

That was not a violation of any the White students’ rights.

What could have happened in an alternate reality is that during that 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration a Caucasian Assistant Principal, John Smith demanded that some Hispanic students remove their shirts which had the Mexican Flag on them because White students were likely to become violent towards them based upon both current and previous behavior by those White students.

Care to wager whether or not that would have been a violation those Hispanic students’ rights?

A Final Consideration

It might actually be that Tinker sets forth the correct constitutional rule in this case. Schools do have special responsibilities to educate their students and to protect them both against violence and against disruption of their educations. Thus a school might thus have and require the discretion to decide that prevention of disruption, even at the cost of suppressing speech, is acceptable.

That, however, does not address the fact that in parts of California it is utterly unsafe for White ,American students to wear or display our nation’s flag while at school due to the reasonable fear that Hispanic students will physically attack them for doing so. Worse, the only way that the schools can- or is willing protect them is by restricting their freedoms rather than punishing and/or reeducating the violent Hispanics.

Related Reading:

The White Princess (The Cousins' War)
The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic
The How Can It Be Gluten Free Cookbook
Curious George's First Day of School
Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts

It Has A Familiar Look

Posted in Politics on January 4th, 2014

A photo by George Roelofson of WTHN showing a long line of Connecticut residents waiting to register their guns and ammunition to avoid the state from declaring their legally purchased property illegal contraband has gone viral and is rightly sending chills down the backs of some gun owners.

CT Gun & Ammo Registration Line
It Has A Familiar Look

The unhappy shades of Weimar Germany seems to be haunting Connecticut, warning any and all who can remember that sad period in history of just what such registrations can lead to. Given America’s current economic straits, which also bear some resemblance to the Weimar Republic, and the current Regime’s vilification of certain propertied classes and groups, such warnings may well be such as to be heeded by the wise.

Yep, We’ve Seen Queues Like That Before

History has already given us a stark lesson in how one sort of government mandated queue can easily lead another, worse sort. First it’s the registration and restriction of citizens’ firearms; later it’s possibly the registration of “undesirable” citizens.

Police Beating
The Consequence Of Unchecked Authority

Even if one chooses to deny that “it could happen in America,” it’s very hard to deny that a disarmed and cowed citizenry consolidates power in the form of force in the hands of the State and its enforcers. We certainly don’t need to run afoul of Godwin to warn of where that can lead. US and world history as well as both domestic and international news and currents events should be enough to make it clear that the police, when left unchecked, are as dangerous to society as the criminals they are meant to deal with.

So yes! There’s plenty of reason for Roelofson’s photo to both “go viral” and to strike a chord of fear and worry in the hearts and minds of freedom-loving Americans.

Related Reading:

Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America (Princeton Studies in American Politics)
Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About American Law (Law 101: Everything You Need to Know about the American Legal System)
America Is...
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 30, 1952
When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany