PNP comment: This is worth the 7 minute watch. — Editor Liz Bowen

The gazelle and the leopard –

Or should the gazelle’s horns be cut off?

Good stuff………regardless of your political viewpoint, the logic of this video on gun control is difficult to disagree with!

I only wish our Congress was REALLY listening to Bill Whittle, our Virtual President.

THE WAY FOR THE GAZELLE TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM THE LEOPARD?
This is a video that needs to be seen by every person in the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_T-F_zfoDqI?feature=player_detailpage

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/01/tiny-device-will-detect-domestic-drones

Worried about an unmanned plane looking into your window? This small detector could alert you when robot planes buzz past

By Jason Koebler

May 1, 2013

Worried about drones spying on you? Soon, a device might be able to send you text and email alerts that let you know when a drone is nearby.

[ALSO: Domestic Drone Arrest Database Being Built by Defense Lawyers Group]

A Washington, D.C.-based engineer is working on the “Drone Shield,” a small, Wi-Fi-connected device that uses a microphone to detect a drone’s “acoustic signatures” (sound frequency and spectrum) when it’s within range.

The company’s founder, John Franklin, who has been working in aerospace engineering for seven years, says he hopes to start selling the device sometime this year. He is using the Kickstarter-like IndieGoGo to finance the project.

The device will cost $69 and will be about the size of a USB thumb drive. It will use Raspberry Pi – a tiny, $25 computer – and commercially available microphones to detect drones. He says he imagines that people will attach the Drone Shield to their fences or roofs to protect their home from surveillance.

“People will get the alert and then close their blinds,” Franklin says.

He is currently working on an open-source database of drone sounds that the detector will check what it’s hearing against. Other devices with motors, such as lawn mowers and weed-whackers, will also be included to reduce false positives. Drone owners will be asked to record the sound of their drones to be included in the database. When the Drone Shield identifies a drone, it’ll flash and send an email and text message alert to a homeowner.

Franklin says that most commercially available drones have to come relatively close to a home in order to spy. More sophisticated drones, such as Predators, would fly too high to detect.

He got the idea for the device after getting into a bit of hot water with his neighbor, which Franklin says alerted him to the reality of people’s concerns about drones.

Wednesday, 13 June 2012 03:43 | Written by William M Lolli |||

With all the gun control legislation piling law-upon-law on the law-abiding gun owner, it is only a matter of time before the ‘law abiding gun owner’ finds himself/herself no longer law-abiding. It is inevitable.

At some point or other, whether its due to your use of a firearm for home defense, transporting a gun to the range, forgetting about open-carry prohibitions, owning the wrong gun, crossing over into the wrong city, possessing the wrong ammo, snapping on the wrong cosmetic attachment, letting a permit expire, or any one of thousands of nit-picking acts of minor tyranny, you—as a gun owner—will find yourself in front of a jury of your peers.

Or—who knows—you may find yourself called for jury duty, and forced to endure the civic duty of finding as a “matter of fact” the fact that a law-abiding gun owner broke some stupid ridiculous gun-law, and you must now render a verdict of guilty.

As an empanelled juror, finding one of your gun-owning brothers “guilty” for breaking a law that you find morally repulsive and in your heart know runs against the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, is a task you may find too horrible to bear.

But what can you do? You are a juror. You have been ordered by the judge that you can only determine the truth of the “facts” in the case. The defendant did, in fact, break a stupid gun law. The law was passed by a legislature, duly elected by the People, and signed into law by an executive, and deemed to be Constitutional by a court.

Even though you believe the gun law is immoral—what can you do? You have to find the defendant guilty, right?

Well—no. The Founding Fathers to the Rescue!

Our Framers were well acquainted with juries that were stacked against the average American subject by a tyrannical King. So our Constitution was constructed such that the American juror has the full authority to overturn unjust laws through a process called Jury Nullification.

Jury Nullification was a process used over and over in the 1850s as runaway slaves from the South sought refuge in the North. Time and again, when the slaves went on trial, Northern juries “nullified” federal laws which demanded that the slaves be returned to their Southern owners, and were instead found “Not Guilty”, even though they had in fact, broke the laws of the land.

As the Cato Institute’s report on Jury Nullification states:

Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote “not guilty” if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury “nullified” the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the “conscience of the community” and relied on juries’ “nullifying” to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution.

John Adams wrote, “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Remember that the next time you are called up for jury duty.

You have the absolute right to determine the facts and the law, and the rightness of either. And no judge can take that away, nor find you in contempt if you do so.

Source:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/justice-often-served-jury-nullification

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n1/jury.html

California Farm Bureau Federation

The government’s power of eminent domain is the power to condemn private property for a public purpose. While this requires compliance with certain procedures, the government’s power of eminent domain is otherwise quite broad and is shared by many governmental bodies and agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.

The government’s power to condemn and take property is essential for many beneficial public infrastructure projects. However, the government’s legitimate exercise of the power of eminent domain for the public good must be balanced against the rights of private property owners and individuals. The basic limitations on the government’s power of eminent domain are the statutory procedures that the government must follow and a landowner’s constitutional right to just compensation and due process.

With several large regional or statewide infrastructure projects in the planning stages, government eminent domain issues have surfaced for rural landowners in many parts of California. Public works under consideration range from water and flood-control projects to utility upgrades to major transportation projects such as California High Speed Rail, a statewide train system for which construction is slated to start in the Central Valley.

The “Overview of the Eminent Domain Process” provided below and available in PDF form here is intended to serve as a resource and general starting point for Farm Bureau members and others who wish to gain a better understanding of the eminent domain process. For private landowners who may be impacted by a proposed public infrastructure project, an understanding of the process is necessary to ensure that one’s legal rights, property, family, and farming or ranching operation are adequately protected.

Overview Of The Eminent Domain Process¹

While a private landowner may not be able to stop the government from using the power of eminent domain to condemn the landowner’s property, in many instances getting competent legal representation early and gaining familiarity with the eminent domain process may help to ensure that the landowner receives fair compensation for loss or depreciation of his or her property, relocation expenses, and other impairments of the landowner’s business or operation.

¹ This “Eminent Domain Summary” is not intended in any way to substitute for detailed legal advice from a private attorney. Individuals should consult a private attorney for guidance on their particular facts and circumstances. This information is provided as a general overview of the eminent domain process. While the information is believed to be generally correct, CFBF makes no representation as to this information’s legal or factual accuracy. In making this information available, CFBF disclaims any and all liability for any party’s reliance on the information provided.

Finding And Retaining Competent Legal Representation Early

In all cases, landowners facing a potential condemnation action will be well-served to obtain legal counsel experienced in eminent domain law as early in the process as possible. The process begins with the very first letter from the government requesting access to the landowner’s property in connection with a proposed public project.

For landowners who already have an attorney whom they consult for advice on general legal matters, a good starting point in the search for competent legal representation in this specialized area of the law is this existing attorney. An existing attorney can likely help a landowner to locate a competent eminent-domain attorney and appraiser (assuming this attorney does not possess the expertise to represent the landowner directly).

Local knowledge and expertise is typically a bonus in eminent domain proceedings due to a local attorney’s greater familiarity with the locale, with land values and the local economy, with local appraisers, the local court, and the like. On the other hand, landowners impacted along with many other similarly situated landowners by a single large project may see advantages to a mix of coordinated local representation on an individual basis, in combination with some form of collective representation by a firm specializing in eminent domain law, including potentially a firm or firms with exceptional credentials from outside of the local area.  Groups of landowners who are impacted by a single project can potentially reduce costs by pooling resources and coordinating actions.

For projects impacting large numbers of property owners in the same county, landowners may contact their local county Farm Bureau to determine whether eminent domain workshops may be conducted or other assistance provided.

READ MORE:

 http://www.cfbf.com/issues/landuse/eminentdomain/

Re- Posted Juy 24, 2012

 Four Winds 10.com

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642

CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)

The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902

Published April 13, 2013

FoxNews.com

: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/13/report-florida-teacher-tells-fourth-graders-to-give-up-constitutional-rights/#ixzz2QMQTyqio

•     Click on above link to see the letter written by 4th grader.

Aaron Harvey says his son’s 4th grade teacher told the boy to write the letter pictured above. (WOKV)

A Florida father says he was shocked to find a note in his fourth-grade son’s backpack suggesting that his teacher instructed students to write letters on their willingness to give up their constitutional rights.

Aaron Harvey told WOKV.com that his 10-year-old son was told to write a note reading, “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure,” after a civics lesson at the end of last year.

Harvey said he found the note earlier this month and obtained the curriculum guide for the lesson, which he said was geared toward helping students “determine their opinions on which rights they value most and least,” the report states.

He told the station that his son’s teacher instructed several students in the class to write the statement and sign it. He said the story was corroborated by other parents with children in the class.

Harvey, a military veteran, told FirstCoastNews.com he thinks the statement reflects the teacher’s personal opinion.

“I don’t believe that any American or American child should be asked to write this,” he said.

Duval County Public Schools issued a statement Friday to FirstCoastNews.com in which they said the lesson was consistent with the district’s “efforts to broaden civics-based education and develop critical thinking skills among our students.”

“The lesson builds awareness of First Amendment rights through a partnership with an association of local attorneys. Our possible concern rests with a follow-up activity that may have been conducted after the lesson,” the statement read.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/13/report-florida-teacher-tells-fourth-graders-to-give-up-constitutional-rights/#ixzz2QMQTyqio

PNP comment: I am impressed that the Republicans looked into “Common Core Curriculum” so quickly and saw the evil that it brings — and did something about it so quickly. — Editor Liz Bowen

LOS ANGELES – The concerns about the federal Common Core curriculum and the national standards it would impose on local schools reached the level of the Republican National Committee Friday and was passed unanimously.  Illinois RNC National Committeewoman Demetra DeMonte said she was happy to co-sponsor the resolution and encourage others to support the effort.

The RNC resolution reads in part:

… RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the CCSS for what it is– an inappropriate overreach to standardize and control the education of our children so they will conform to a preconceived “normal,” and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee rejects the collection of personal student data for any non-educational purpose without the prior written consent of an adult student or a child student’s parent and that it rejects the sharing of such personal data, without the prior written consent of an adult student or a child student’s parent, with any person or entity other than schools or education agencies within the state …

Complete language of the Resolution is found here:

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/rnc-passes-anti-common-core-resolution-at-their-spring-meeting/

P. S. IMPORTANT 12-MINUTE VIDEO!
Georgia Press Conference, State Senator William Ligon introduces Senate Bill 167 to withdraw Georgia from the Common Core/PARCC Curriculum. He notes Georgia’s cost to implement PARCC is $30 Million per year, but still no costs about Common Core. Noted speakers include: Sandra Stotsky (see bio), Jane Robbins (see bio), and others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODz4X0GO-Fk&feature=player_embedded

Jane Robbins, J.D., Senior Fellow, American Principles Project, is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Clemson University. (American Principles Project is founded by Dr. Robert P. George,  McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and one of America’s foremost scholars in the fields of constitutional law, ethics, and political philosophy.)

http://americanprinciplesproject.org/about-app/app-leadership-and-staff/

Sandra Stotsky: Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Ed.D., Reading Research and Reading Education; University of Michigan Phi Beta Kappa. While serving as Senior Associate Commissioner in the MA Department of Education from 1999 to 2003, she directed complete revisions of the state’s preK-12 standards for every major subject judged among the best in the country. Both national and international assessments have attested to their academic quality. Current Professor of Education Reform, 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality, University of Arkansas.

SALEM, Ore. –  A legislative committee voted unanimously Friday for a bill requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited daily in Oregon public classrooms.

Under state law, schools must give students the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance at least once a week. The bill passed by the House Education Committee would require schools to do so daily, and to have an employee or student lead the recital.

Students can’t be compelled to say the pledge, and the bill wouldn’t change that.

Supporters say the pledge is an important part of civic education. Critics say requiring time each day for the pledge would further ostracize students who don’t participate because of religious or other reasons.

Rep. Sal Esquivel, a Republican from Medford and the bill’s chief sponsor, said he believes the Pledge of Allegiance teaches students about the nation’s legacy.

“We need to teach kids the symbolism of that flag,” Esquivel said. “That flag stands for America. That flag stands for your freedoms. That flag stands for everything this country’s ever done, has been or will be in the future.”

The bill, which moves to the House, would also require each classroom to display the American flag. Currently, Oregon law requires that a flag be displayed at or near a school building.

Specifically, Esquivel has targeted his grandson’s school, the Madrone Trail Public Charter School, for not flying the American flag. He also said the Medford charter school doesn’t teach the Pledge of Allegiance to young students.

Joseph Frodsham, the charter school’s director, said he has reservations about making young students take a pledge that they don’t fully understand.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/oregon-panel-oks-bill-requiring-daily-pledge-allegiance-in-schools/

FYI
We now have a super majority of Democrats in California. 
Super-duper.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/10/Gay-boy-scouts-CA

by Ben Shapiro 10 Apr 2013

In a move that foreshadows the radical left’s plans for churches should gay marriage become the law of the land, the California legislature is moving to strip the Boy Scouts of America – a private organization – of its non-profit status for refusing to allow gay scoutmasters. The Youth Equality Act, created by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Long Beach), would deny nonprofit status to any youth groups that “discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.” This would invalidate any Christian nonprofit that does not accept non-Christians, any youth group restricted to boys or girls, or any similar group.

The Senate Governance and Finance Committee voted 5 to 2 to send the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate would need to sign off with a two-thirds vote.

Should same-sex marriage be ruled law in the state of California by the Supreme Court, undoubtedly the left will move immediately to strip churches of their state nonprofit statuses if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB638

New Hampshire House Bill 638

NH Legislature Page for HB638 – PermaLink

Bill Title: Recognizing the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [Track Bill]

Status: 2013-03-20 – Laid on Table (Rep Vaillancourt): Motion Adopted Division Vote 275-64 [HB638 Detail]

Download: New_Hampshire-2013-HB638-Introduced.html

HB 638 – AS INTRODUCED

2013 SESSION

13-0796

09/01

HOUSE BILL 638

AN ACT recognizing the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

SPONSORS: Rep. Tremblay, Rock 4; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 5; Rep. Christiansen, Hills 37

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This bill recognizes the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

13-0796

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen

AN ACT recognizing the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Preamble and Statement of Intent. The general court hereby finds that:

I. In 1810, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibited titles of nobility and which later became known as the original Thirteenth Amendment, was introduced, passed both houses of Congress, and was sent to the states for ratification. On December 9, 1812, shortly after ratification by Virginia, New Hampshire became the thirteenth state to ratify the amendment. The amendment was therefore ratified by the requisite number of states and became Article XIII of the United States Constitution.

II. During the War Between the States, otherwise known as the Civil War, the country was under martial law, and all executive orders made by President Lincoln were, in effect, law. After the war, laws made during that period were to be abated; yet, vestiges of martial law remained and presidents continued to write executive orders.

III. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, otherwise known as the Act of 1871, created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act revoked prior legislation relative to the district’s municipal charter and, most egregiously, led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted.

IV. Today, what appears to the public as the United States Constitution is not the complete document, as it was never lawfully amended to remove the Thirteenth Amendment. Instead, the document presented as the United States Constitution is merely a mission statement for the corporation unlawfully established in the Act of 1871.

V. The purpose of this act is to recognize that the original Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits titles of nobility, is properly included in the United States Constitution and is the law of the land. The act is also intended to end the infiltration of the Bar Association and the judicial branch into the executive and legislative branches of government and the unlawful usurpation of the people’s right, guaranteed by the New Hampshire constitution, to elect county attorneys who are not members of the bar. This unlawful usurpation gives the judicial branch control over all government and the people in the grand juries. As long as the original Thirteenth Amendment is concealed from the people, there shall never be justice or a legitimate constitutional form of government.

2 New Chapter; Thirteenth Amendment. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 1-A the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 1-B

ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

1-B:1 Original Thirteenth Amendment. The following shall be recognized as the original Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Article XIII

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

/////

Title of nobility.

Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 8; … No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; or “State” Article I, Sec. 10. cl. 1. Cf. Contract Clause; Hierarchy; License; Nobility; Prince; The Missing Thirteenth Amendment, http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/orig13th.html … http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” Journal of the Senate, p. 508 (1810); http://www.amendment-13.org/va1819images.html  … http://www.amendment-13.org/va1819images/va19stdept1.jpg

Cf. ORS Chapter 77 (Warehouse Receipts, Bills of Lading and Other Documents of Title); U.C.C. ARTICLE 7 (Documents of Title); http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/077.html