Getting Photos to Grandparents
11 hours ago
Featuring information you need to know before you consent...

Participants — including home-schooling moms, Libertarians and Rush Limbaugh Republicans — compare themselves to the 18th century patriots who dumped tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxation without representation.This home-schooling mom was not there - but if there were others there then that is a very good thing. And while Altimari likes to pigeon-hole participants, it's a good thing that she also printed this:
[Pam] Fowler, the movement's Connecticut coordinator, said the protests aren't directed at a particular political party. "The goal, first and foremost, is to raise awareness and put our politicians of all stripes on notice that we've got an intelligent population who's frightened, frustrated and angry about what's going on.The Courant tries to paint a picture that this is just some sort of gathering of exiled and frustrated Rush Limbaugh Conservatives - and they couldn't be further from the truth. These are people of all backgrounds who are just sick and tired of a government gone wild, and that includes what the Bush administration handed us. Obama's insane spending and Socialist policies are the last straw.
"And not just conservatives," Fowler added, but "all people who value our Constitution."

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest [the U.S.] become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." -- Cicero, 55 BC and the brackets should actually read "Rome."
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt." -- John Adams

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said a make-shift tent city for the homeless that sprang up in the capital city of Sacramento will be shut down and its residents allowed to stay at the state fairgrounds.
Schwarzenegger said he ordered the state facility known as Cal-Expo to be used for three months to serve the 125 tent city residents, some of them displaced by the economic recession. The encampment may be shut down within a month, said Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. The move comes after the Sacramento City Council last night agreed to spend $880,000 to expand homeless programs.
“Together with the local government and volunteers, we are taking a first step to ensure the people living in tent city have a safe place to stay, with fresh water, healthy conditions and access to the services they need,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “And I am committed to working with Mayor Johnson to find a permanent solution for those living in tent city.”
California, home to one of every eight Americans, has been particularly hard hit by the housing market collapse after many residents turned to exotic mortgages to afford homes. The tent city, which has long existed along the banks of the America River, gained national attention last month when some of its recently homeless residents were featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
The state has one of the highest rates of foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac Inc., an Irvine, California-based seller of real estate data. California home prices dropped 41 percent last month from a year earlier, more than double the U.S. decline, as surging foreclosures drove down values, the state Association of Realtors said today.
The state’s unemployment rate rose to 10.5 percent in February, as construction, financial and manufacturing companies eliminated jobs, leaving the most-populous U.S. state with one of the nation’s worst job markets.
The shelter at Cal-Exp currently houses about 150 people. It will be expanded by another 50 beds, and will include facilities for families with children.
Last week, a leaked secret report was put on the Internet. The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) put out a report that profiled Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin/Bob Barr supporters, people who have knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and people who display certain political bumper stickers as potential domestic terrorists. The report equated Ron Paul supporters, Libertarians, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and members of Campaign For Liberty, with radical race hate groups and terrorists!The director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety has ordered certain portions of a controversial intelligence report excised after widespread backlash from the public.Truth be told, the damage from this type of Homeland Security report is done. The profiling will go on in the way that they initially intended and it is more likely that they really aren't sorry for putting out this information. They are probably more sorry that the information leaked and that they got so many complaints and media backlash from it. (Here is Glenn Beck's piece)
In a letter dated March 23, Public Safety Director John Britt told third-party presidential candidates U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party that he was ordering the “Modern Militia Movement” report altered to delete their names and the names of their political parties as possible indicators of militia involvement.


Mary Huguley, of Hartford, said AIG executives should share their wealth with people like her sister, who is facing foreclosure.That is the crux of the AIG protest and Working Families. Wealth Re-distribution.

Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, predicted Congress’s efforts to rescind the bonuses through higher taxes would be thrown out in court. He said the legislation violates the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, which restricts lawmakers’ ability to punish individual Americans.Well, at least one other legislator in Washington D.C. besides Ron Paul understands the law.
“It’s basically targeted on a small group of people,” Gregg said. He also said the bill may exceed lawmakers’ power to rewrite existing contracts. He said “of course” the government ought to try to rescind the bonuses “but we’ve got to do it legally.”
From Re-TeaParty:Our founders have stopped rolling over in their graves. After months of tossing and turning, we have finally taken back the banner of hope that has been hijacked by the “do-good” saviors.
Statist sympathizers call us cynics; those who complain without answers of our own. They call us “selfish”, implying that funding failure is altruistic. While America was founded on those who do, they ask us to submit to those who can’t.
ENOUGH!
On December 16, 1773, the original Patriots put their lives on the line. With an envelope, a stamp, and a bag of tea, millions of Americans can send a peaceful message; our lives have value.
On April 1st, our establishment will know that our freedom to succeed can no longer be sacrificed at the risk of our future.
With sincerity and respect, we ask that you join us on April 1st, 2009, in sending the Oval Office a Tea Bag, in honor of the party in Boston on December 16, 1773, and in anticipation of its nationwide symbolic re-enactment in the summer of 2009.
President Obama's address is:
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is investigating how and why 22 active duty MP’s from nearby Ft. Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson during the night of a horrendous murder spree in the tiny South Alabama community – a possible violation of the federal Posse Comitatus Act.I don't know, but I am just hearing too many instances lately of our military either being trained or being used in policing functions.
Experts on the use of military troops for civilian purposes say it is becoming increasingly difficult to know where the line is drawn between proper use and improper use.
Civilian attorney Craig Trebilcock, a reserve colonel in the Army Judge Advocate General’s office, told CNSNews.com that in recent years, the president, Congress and the courts have all “muddied the waters” when it comes to civilian use of military force.
Trebilcock said the basic idea of the federal Posse Comitatus Act is very clear – the active use of the military as a police force within the borders of the U.S. is forbidden.
“The basic rule is, you don’t use the Army or Marine Corps to go out chasing criminals. When you have active duty Army troops, they are not supposed to go out and catch bank robbers, for example,” he told CNSNews.com.
Congress has approved a few exceptions to the ban on active use – but not many.
“One is called the Stafford Act,” he said. “During times of tremendous civil disturbance, the governor of a state can invite in federal troops by requesting them from the president. And the last we saw that was in the Los Angeles race riots back in the ‘90s.”
Another exception is in the case of civilian insurrection. But all active use of the military must originate from “very high sources,” Trebilcock pointed out.
“Individual unit commanders cannot authorize a violation of Posse Comitatus, nor can they invoke any of the exceptions,” he added. “That request must come from the governor of a state or ‘the national command authority’-- which is basically the military’s term for the president or secretary of defense.”
The problem, he said, is that court rulings over the last few years have made it “perfectly acceptable” to use military troops within U.S. borders for “logistical support” or “humanitarian relief” for civilian authorities -- and actions by Congress and the president have further complicated things.
“We increasingly see the military doing different types of logistical support at major civilian events like the Olympics or the Super Bowl,” he said. “This is where the line gets blurry.”
The courts have ruled that ‘passive’ use of the military does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act, he said. But the line between passive use and active use is “paper thin,” he added.
“But basically anytime you are putting military forces in control of civilians, you have a problem,” Trebilcock said. “Arresting people, detaining people, executing searches, knocking on somebody’s door and saying, ‘We’re looking for somebody’s gun’ or something like that – that’s pure law enforcement, and there’s no way of wiggling around that.”




The burdensome requirements the bill imposes on small farms and the intrusive federal control it creates over small farm operations threaten the future viability of sustainable agriculture and the local food movement. HR 875 has been assigned to both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture. It needs to be stopped. Anyone who values freedom of food choice and the rights and independence of small farmers should contact their elected representatives and the members of the two committees to ask that they oppose HR 875. Updates on the status of this bill will be provided on this site.CSA Days blogger says this:
"Basically what the Bill aims to do (at least my understanding I am an farmer not a lawyer) is to create a new Agency "the Food Safety Amininistration" and give it control of regulating and policing our nations food supply.and Metro Farm also has interesting comments on the bill. It is worth checking out.
.....
My reading of the bill seems to lead me to believe that it will make the "Home Produced" items allowed under Ohio law illegal. So say goodbye to breads, cookies, jams, jellies, and honey at your farmers market. In fact, you may have to say goodbye to the farmer's market itself.

Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT “just follow orders,” will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:
"Not on Our Watch!"
OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

On Monday, March 16, the Joint Committee on Judiciary will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 353, a bill sponsored by State Senator Martin M. Looney (D-11) that would ban the sale of all semi-automatic pistols not equipped with so-called "micro-stamping" technology.
Micro-stamping is an unproven technology that would require unique identifying information from the firearm, including the make, model, and serial number to be etched into the firing pin and breech face in such a manner that those identifiers are imprinted on the cartridge case upon firing. The technology can easily be defeated with common household tools, has no public safety value, and adds substantially to the cost of the firearm.
If SB 353 is passed, it will become ILLEGAL to sell or transfer any semi-automatic pistol that is not capable of micro-stamping. This would mean that any semi-auto handgun that you currently own could never be sold or transferred in Connecticut. This would ban the sale of used semi-auto handguns without the technology and would prohibit estates from bequeathing semi-auto handguns that do not include micro-stamping technology.
Since no manufacturers currently incorporate micro-stamping in their firearms, this bill would result in a de facto ban on all semi-automatic handguns in Connecticut.
The hearing will be held on Monday, March 16 at 10:00 A.M. in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building (LOB) in Hartford and it is important that Connecticut gun owners attend this hearing. We encourage all of our members to attend this meeting and voice your opposition to SB353. If you would like to testify before the committee, you must submit 45 copies of your written/typed testimony to the Judiciary Committee staff in Room 2500 at least two hours prior to the start of the hearing.
This bill must be defeated! If you are unable to attend the hearing, please contact the members of the Joint Judiciary Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to defend our Second Amendment rights by opposing SB353. Contact information for the members of the committee can be found here. Also, please contact your State Legislators and respectfully urge them to oppose SB353. Contact information for your State Representative can be found by clicking here. Please click here to find contact information for your State Senator.
The stated purposed of the bill is to “facilitate the linking of used cartridge cases to the firearm that fired them.” by requiring the microstamping of semiautomatic pistols. A semi-automatic pistol is a type of handgun that fires one cartridge for each pull of the trigger, with an automatic reloading mechanism. It is defined in the bill as “a pistol the operating mode of which uses the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to extract a fired cartridge and chamber a fresh cartridge with each single pull of the trigger.”
Explaining his opposition to the bill, Ranking Judiciary Committee Member and Assistant Republican Leader Arthur O’Neill (House Dist. 69) noted several problems. First, the technology is relatively easy to defeat. The firing pin that imprints the microstamp on the shell casing could be defaced with a nail file or simply replaced. “This is really easy and can be done with a pair of pliers and a screw driver,” said O’Neill, “It’s almost as easy as switching out a light bulb and takes less than a minute.” This means that those interested in committing a crime can switch out the firing pins with blank ones or with firing pins imprinted with other microstamps. O’Neill also noted that smart criminals could just bring several guns to a crime scene and “scatter” a scene with different casings. All of these issues would cause complications in court if a prosecutor tried to use the microstamps as evidence.
“It is being presented as a ‘Magic Bullet’ that can help solve crimes,” said O’Neill, “Any reasonably competent attorney could use this to raise reasonable doubt… Far from helping to solve things, it could make things worse.” O’Neill noted that this legislation is “fraught with opportunities” to implicate others and confuse the evidence.
Cost was another issue raised by O’Neill. The bill does not exempt law enforcement officers. As a result, every state and local police officer in the state would have to be re-equipped with a compliant weapon. Currently, a new Glock semiautomatic pistol costs between $400 - $600. “It sounds great in theory… but it’s like so much else in the forensic science field: it has its limitations and to require this will be very expensive.”
O’Neill also pointed out that since Connecticut is a relatively small state, out of state criminals could easily circumvent the law. Additionally, since the law does not apply to revolvers, criminals could simply switch from pistols to revolvers and avoid the law all together.
A similar bill was raised last year and defeated based on the testimony against the effectiveness of the technology. O’Neill believes that SR353 will not fare that much better this year. “Just the fact that we would need to re-equip state police and municipal police,” said O’Neill, “Just the costs may be the death knell.”

A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children's parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.First of all, you have to understand that this is standard in divorce cases...it's so routine that Dad immediately decides homeschooling is not in the best interest of the child when it looks like his cost will increase if Mom stays home after the divorce. This is nothing new. I am sure if you are a homeschooler that you also know of such cases. I have personally known people involved in cases such as this here in CT, and even cases were reported (see below) where Mom was told to take the child out of parochial school and place the child in public school. Why? Because of course in both cases homeschooling and parochial school will cost more in child care/alimony payments.
Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old. They have tested two years above their grade levels, she said.
"We have math, reading; we have grammar, science, music,” Venessa Mills said.
Her lessons also have a religious slant, which the judge said was the root of the problem.
"My teaching is strictly out of the Bible, and it's very clear. It is very evident so I just choose to follow the Bible,” Venessa Mills said.
In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."
Thomas Mills also said he was "concerned about the children's religious-based science curriculum" and that he wants "the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution."
In a verbal ruling, Mangum said the children should go to public school.
"He was upfront and said that, 'It's not about religion.' But yet when it came down to his ruling and reasons why, 'He said this would be a good opportunity for the children to be tested in the beliefs that I have taught them,'" Venessa Mills said.
All sides agree the children have thrived with home school, and Vanessa Mills thinks that should be reason enough to continue teaching at home.
"I cannot sit back and allow this to happen to other home schoolers. I don't want it happening to my children,” Venessa Mills said.
The state Supreme Court waded into a combustible parental-rights debate Wednesday by ordering a lower court to reconsider whether a boy whose parents are divorced should attend a public or Catholic school.It is unfortunate that control, as well as financial control, becomes a bigger part of the issue as opposed to what is best for the child. All to often what is best for the child seems to really be more about the ego and power of the parent who wants to control the terms of the divorce. At least that is what I have observed. One merely has to ask, what problems will be created for the child if more change and instability is inserted into the child's life? As if having divorcing parents isn't traumatic enough.
In a 4-1 ruling, the high court decided in favor of the child's father, Dennis R. Sweeney, who sued in 2002 to stop his former wife from enrolling their son, who was then 5, in a parochial school.
The technical decision found that an earlier lower court ruling in favor of the boy's mother may be appealed.
It sets up a potential precedent-setting decision by the Appellate Court that could establish a standard for Connecticut on how divorced parents with joint custody make educational decisions.
"The consequences of the enrollment of a minor child in an educational institution that a joint legal custodian believes to be academically inadequate and religiously objectionable are irreparable," the justices wrote. "The lost opportunity to have a child exposed only to academic and religious influences sanctioned by a joint legal custodian cannot be replaced by any subsequent court order."
Laura-Ann Simmons, a Stamford lawyer who represented Sweeney, said that the case could eventually expand the legal standard of what is in the best interests of the child.
Other rights "include the right to practice religion any way you deem fit," she said. "With joint custody, you have the right to dictate whether a child has religious instruction or not."
Mark Henderson, a court-appointed lawyer representing the child, said that the case "may very well break ground once it goes to the substance."
Sweeney had argued that the parochial school chosen by his former wife, Dale M. Sweeney, was "small, underfunded, lacked certification" and failed to provide information on standardized testing. He also had never agreed to religious instruction for his son, he said.
The Appellate Court rejected his appeal, ruling that the trial court's order did not fall within a category of appealable orders in family cases.
In August 2002, the Superior Court allowed Dale Sweeney to enroll the child in parochial school.
The parents, who have joint custody of the child, later agreed to place the youngster in a public school for one year. Dennis Sweeney told the Supreme Court that the schooling matter was the only remaining issue in the divorce proceedings, which both parents wanted to end quickly.
The lawyer for Dale Sweeney did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
In his dissent, Justice Peter Zarella said the decision did not satisfy the requirements of established legal doctrine.

Here is a completed resolution for Connecticut, ready to go. The New Hampshire one failed because it scared some people and was demonized in the press as being secessionist. This one has teeth without seeming secessionist:
A Joint Resolution declaring sovereign State authority as so prescribed by the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; proclaiming that certain federal legislation is null and void; instructing the State legislature to enact appropriate legislation; and directing distribution.
Resolved by this assembly:
WHEREAS, the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States limits the total scope of federal power to that which is delegated specifically by the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, aforesaid limited scope of power clearly demonstrates that the federal government was created by the several States specifically as an agent of, and subservient to, the several States; and
WHEREAS, presently, the several States are demonstrably treated as agents of, and subservient to, the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States assures that the several States respectively, and the people, are each and unto themselves sovereign and now and have always had rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4 states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”; and
WHEREAS, the Ninth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States further states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not commandeer the States' legislative processes; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous federal administrations, and some now pending from the present federal administration, and from the Congress of the United States, further violate the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Connecticut General Assembly hereby declares sovereign authority as prescribed by the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of those delegated powers as so prescribed by the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any and all compulsory federal legislation that directs States to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or requires States to pass legislation under threat of losing federal funding, are null and void within the State of Connecticut, as per the Tenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Connecticut General Assembly shall enact appropriate legislation necessary to assert its sovereign authority as so expounded in this resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the clerks of the House of Representatives and the Senate cause a copy of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each of the several State's respective legislatures, and each member of the Connecticut delegation to the United States Congress.
You can reach me directly at sundiamond442 AT yahoo DOT com.
For starters, we should contact Representative John Piscopo (R), 76th District. Especially those of us in his district.
In 1995, he co-sponsored this same resolution and is the only sponsor who is still serving today:
His office numbers are: 800-842-1423 or 860-240-8700 or contact him online:
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
|
Men of age object too much, consult too long, adventure too little, repent too soon, and seldom drive business home to the full period, but content themselves with a mediocrity of success.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) |
Just Say NO! To The North American Union
Visit the SovereigntyOne Blog and New England Republican's post too!
Trailer (4 min)
Entire movie (1:49)

Run Time approx: 2 hours