The ACLU is targeting a Virginia school district for displaying the Ten Commandments in one of its high schools. “The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia filed the lawsuit [September 13th] against Giles County School Board in U.S. District Court in Roanoke on behalf of an unidentified Narrows High School student and the student’s parent,” reported the Washington Post. “The lawsuit says the display unconstitutionally promotes a specific religious faith and serves no secular purpose.”
The ACLU is demanding that the Ten Commandments be removed from school walls and that the court impose a ban on any further biblical displays. According to CBN News, “School board members voted in June to re-hang the biblical texts as part of a display that included other U.S. historical documents. More than 50 students had walked out of class in protest over the commandments removal earlier in the year.”
On Saturday, September 17, our country celebrates its 224th birthday. Constitution Day commemorates the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and the 39 statesmen who signed it that day in 1787. This year, since the anniversary falls on a Saturday, the holiday is observed on Friday, September 16.
John Adams said the Constitution was the result of "the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen." His praise was not exaggerated; by this document the Founding Fathers framed a republican form of government unique in history, restrained within strictly defined lawful bounds. It set up limited powers for the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Because its authors knew governments tend toward corruption, they added a Bill of Rights — the original 10 amendments to the Constitution — stipulating all the things the Federal government is not allowed to do.
Sadly, many Americans today undervalue the worth of our founding documents and the safeguards of freedom they provide.
On September 13, 2011, Ron Paul chaired a hearing entitled "Road Map to Sound Money."
The New Hampshire Legislature has overridden a veto by governor John Lynch of a bill to allow citizens to use deadly force against assailants anywhere they have a right to be. The state House of Representatives voted 251-111 in support of the bill Wednesday, exceeding the two-thirds vote needed for an override. The state Senate last week voted for the override. 17-7.
The bill expands a provision of existing law, often called the "castle doctrine," that allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, or the defense of others, in one's home or attached property. In all other places, current law requires a person under threat of attack to retreat to safety whenever possible. The new law, effective within 60 days of passage, removes the retreat requirement for someone under attack "anywhere he or she has a right to be." Supporters said a resort to lethal force in defense of one's life or the life of others should be legal in public places as much as in the home.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled September 13th that a California teacher’s First Amendment guarantees were not violated when the principal at the school where he worked ordered him to remove classroom banners that connected America’s heritage of freedom to faith in God. The decision overturned a lower court’s ruling that the Poway Unified School District had violated the free speech rights of Bradley Johnson, a mathematics teacher in the district.
As reported by the Los Angeles Times, Johnson “had displayed banners in his classrooms for two decades that he saw as celebrating the religious heritage of America, including ‘In God We Trust,’ ‘God Bless America,’ and ‘God Shed His Grace on Thee.’ ”
But when Johnson transferred to a another school in the district in 2007, his new principal, Dawn Kastner, ordered him to remove the banners, some over seven feet wide, saying that their size made them “a promotion of a particular viewpoint,” as Kastner was quoted in the court’s 40-page opinion.
The dispute between Boeing and the National Labor Relations Board was addressed today by a vote in the House of Representatives. The measure in question is one that would minimize the NLRB’s enforcement power. It passed by a vote of 239-176. Six Democrats crossed party lines to vote in favor of the bill.
The bill, called “The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act,” prohibits the labor board from “ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstances.”
The battle between Boeing and the NLRB erupted when the NLRB attempted to block Boeing’s plan to open a production facility in South Carolina, a right to work state. The disagreement between the NLRB and Boeing has prompted Congress to introduce the measure.
After an intense summer of campaigning, political history was made last night in New York’s Ninth Congressional District, as Republican Bob Turner emerged victorious over his Democratic opponent, Assemblyman David Weprin. In a stinging rebuke to Weprin and to his litany of liberal, statist positions, which voters associated with Obama, voters in the heavily Democratic district turned out in droves for Turner, putting into Republican hands a seat which has consistently been held by a Democrat since 1921.
Turner’s victory comes as a major upset to New York Democrats, who attempted to smear Turner by casting him as a “Tea Partier” whose allegedly “radical” views were out of sync with those of constituents in the Ninth District. Turner, a retired cable television executive, had won 53 percent of the vote, compared to Weprin’s 47 percent, in the special election to succeed Rep. Anthony Weiner, a seven-term Democrat who resigned in June after a sexting scandal. What makes Turner’s victory even more remarkable is the registration advantage Democrats hold over Republicans in the district, which spans the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, and where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a three-to-one margin. Turner also successfully overcame Weiner’s relative popularity in the district; according to pollsters, Turner’s victory is more accurately attributed to voter dissatisfaction with national liberal Democratic policies than a backlash against the local Democratic Party due to the nature of the Weiner scandal.
One of the expert witnesses testifying before Ron Paul’s Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee on Tuesday was Dr. Lawrence H. White, professor of Economics at George Mason University. His testimony reinforced the case for Paul’s bill, HR 1098, the “Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011” by outlining its benefits in introducing freedom of choice into the realm of currencies.
White compared competition in currencies to competition in package delivery services among Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and the U.S. Postal Service. That competition has lowered costs, accelerated delivery, increased reliability, and in general allowed better overall services to be provided for their customers. It also weeds out weak competition and rewards the most successful. He went further to explain that financial consumers today rely on banks to provide other services such as checking accounts, credit cards, and travelers checks — why not choices in currency? He noted, “Although Federal Reserve Notes … should of course be protected from counterfeiting, there is no good case for them to enjoy monopoly privileges in the market for currency.”
The Cherokee Nation is in a heap of big trouble from the top chiefs at the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has fired an epistolary arrow at the nation because it sent its black members on a trail of tears.
The tribe booted out 2,800 descendants of blacks freed during the War of Northern Rebellion and given the full rights of Cherokees in 1866. Blacks, the tribe says, are not Indians. The pointed admonition from the great white city in the East ordered the tribe to let the blacks back in. A federal agency cut off a wagonload of wampum.
The Cherokees’ answer? They'll stand their ground.
The Cherokee relationship with blacks began many moons ago. Most people don't know it, but many Cherokees not only owned slaves but also fought for the Confederacy. Others sided with the Union.
North Carolina’s legislature placed the fate of marriage in that state into the hands of the citizenry on September 13 when the state Senate voted 30-16 in favor of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. That vote came one day after the state House approved the amendment by a 75-42 margin, setting up next May’s ballot referendum, which will require a simple majority approval by voters in order to inscribe the marriage protection measure into the state’s constitution.
“It is time for us to let the people of this state decide what they want in their constitution as far as marriage is concerned,” Republican state Senator Phil Berger challenged fellow lawmakers during floor debate on the amendment. “It may pass, it may fail. But it is time for them to make that decision about their constitution.”
As reported by Baptist Press News: “All four states that border North Carolina passed constitutional marriage amendments in 2004 or 2006, but leaders in the then-Democratic controlled North Carolina legislature blocked an amendment from even coming to a floor vote. That changed last year when Republicans took over both chambers for the first time in more than 100 years.”