The State Uses it Power to Remove Child from a Medical Marijuana Activist

There certainly isn't a shortage of things to worry about when it comes to our out-of-control government, and it is becoming abundantly clear that we can add CPS to the list.  In the past many of the complaints have been about them not doing enough to protect children when it is clear that children are living in unsafe environments.  The answer that came from the agency was almost always the lack of funds and staff to handle the case loads.  It seems that has been taken care of. 

In Kansas, there is a medical marijuana activist by the name Shonda Banda.  She has Crohn's Disease.  It is a very painful digestive problem that causes severe cramping, among other things to its victims.  She uses cannabis oil to help with her pain.  In Kansas marijuana is illegal in all circumstances.  She is working to change that.  

One day the school her son attends gave a class on drug use.  Since his mother is an activist, one can imagine that this little boy understands the ins and outs of the issue.  During this discussion her son made statements when he believed the information that was being told to the class was incorrect.  This raised the hackles of the counselors.  They called the CPS, who then called the cops.  

They show up at the school, take the little boy out of his class to question him.  They did not call either parent to get permission to talk to an 11 year-old-boy.  

After her son spoke out about medical marijuana, police detained him and launched a raid on Shona Banda’s home. “Well, they had that drug education class at school that was just conducted by the counselors… They pulled my son out of school at about 1:40 in the afternoon and interrogated him. Police showed up at my house at 3… I let them know that they weren’t allowed in my home without a warrant… I didn’t believe you could get a warrant off of something a child says in school.” Banda continued, “We waited from 3 o’clock until 6 o’clock. They got a warrant at 6 o’clock at night and executed a warrant into my home. My husband and I are separated, and neither parent was contacted by authorities before [our son] was taken and questioned.”

They found a small amount of cannabis oil in her home.  With the amount being as small as it is, obviously it is for personal use.  She isn't a drug dealer.  She uses a substance that helps her deal with chronic pain.  For this, she has lost her child.  

She has been charged with no crime, yet she still must go into court to prove that she should still have custody of her child.  You can feel that pot, even for medicinal use, should remain illegal, and realize how wrong this is.  

There is no proof that this child was being given an illegal substance.  The boy simply understands the issues surrounding the use of medicinal pot.  That isn't a crime.  That isn't child abuse.  

The State of Kansas has done nothing to "protect" this child, they have done quite the opposite.  This child has been harmed by the very agency that is supposed to help him in cases of abuse and neglect.  When we have a government that is so large that it can walk into a classroom of a child, question him without parental permission, then use those statements of a child to get a warrant to get into the home of the parent, we have a government that is too powerful.  

This child has been harmed more by the state than anything his mother has done.  That is something that shouldn't be allowed to stand.  

The Further Criminalization of Your Parental Choices

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv were recently investigated by the police and child welfare for allowing their two children, aged 10 and 6, to walk home from the park without them.  The walk is approximately one mile in length.  A person, who very likely thought they were doing a good deed, saw the children and called the police.  
The Meitiv's live in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, DC.  The law in Maryland states that a child under the age of 8 cannot be home alone without someone who is at least 13-years-old.  It says nothing about being outside of your home.  But that didn't stop the police.  Now, I want to be clear, the police aren't really to blame here.  They were called.  They had to respond.  They followed the law, as is their job.  With children they are also most likely obligated to contact Child Protective Services.  

Child Protective Services were contacted and came to check out the parents and the safety of the children.  When CPS arrived at their home, they were interrogated and told not to allow the children out alone unsupervised.  They were told that they were being investigated for neglect.  They were basically told do as your told, or your children will be taken away.  

CPS has finished their investigation and the outcome is "unsubstantiated child neglect".  Whatever the heck that really means I'm not sure, but for these parents they are now in the cross hairs of CPS for the next five years.  That is not a typo.  For the next five years, they will be continually monitored for child abuse.  Insert primal scream here.  

It matters none if you agree with their parenting style, known as Free Range Parenting.  It matters none if you would feel safe letting your children walk a mile on their own.  What matters is do you want the state to have this type of power over your choices as a parent?  

Now, when I was kid I was not driven to my middle school on a daily basis. Unless the weather was bad, we walked.  I can't tell you how long of a walk that was, but I figure it had to be at least a mile, if not a little more.  I also walked through a wooded area when I did it.  I did this twice a day for three years.  I grew up in one of the few states that allows you to have your late in the year birthday kids start school when they are four, if you choose.  My mother did make that choice because I already knew how to read and she felt I was ready.  That means I was ten when I started middle school.  So was my mother guilty of neglect when I was walking to school?  I guess I might have thought so at the time if it was snowing or raining out.   

Here are the facts, the rates of children being abducted by strangers is down by more than 35%.  A child is in much more danger of being in accident while you are driving them to school instead of letting them walk.  Do we start telling parents who drive their kids to school are guilty of neglect because the odds are far greater of being hurt than they are if they walked instead?  

Parents need to let children grow, mature, and learn responsibility.  How each parent chooses to do that is going to vary.  But it is part and parcel of the parenting experience.  Today, we are seeing more and more parents who are constantly on top of their children.  The so-called helicopter parents.  The parents who are so engaged with their children and their activities that we hear stories about them involving themselves in the job interview process.  

Government is getting larger and larger.  It is getting more and more intrusive.  A government that can swoop in and decide that a parent isn't allowed to make a choice about a short walk home from the park is a government that is way too large.  A government that now has the right to investigate these parents for the next five years is a government that I don't want.  

I am not sure I would let a ten and six-year-old walk a mile on their own.  I lived outside of Washington, DC for many years.  I know the Silver Spring area fairly well.  The children were walking on Georgia Avenue, it is a major roadway that normally has a great deal of traffic.  But what I don't know is the maturity levels of these children.  There will be ten-year-olds that are very likely ready for that walk.  
But I do know that I don't think that act alone is a good enough reason for this family to be investigated continuously for the next five years.  Has anyone thought that these children are going to become distrustful of police now?  How is that a good thing?  

These children have learned a valuable lesson.  A government that is large can do almost anything.  I hope they carry this with them into adulthood.  

Snowden: Hero or Traitor

The short answer is that Snowden is both a traitor and a hero.  There is no question that Snowden broke the law, releasing classified information to those who are not authorized is a felony.  The U.S. Government has every right and the responsibility to go after him and prosecute to him to the fullest extent of the law.  

That said I am glad that Snowden did what he did.  One of the things that must be remembered in all of this everything this government does is done in the name of average Americans.  We all have a vested interest in what this government does.  This is true about both domestic and foreign policy.  We have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution.  Both of those of documents intent was to give the power to the people and to reign in the power of a centralized government.  We are losing those rights more and more every single day.  Snowden has only confirmed what many around the country already knew.  This government is taking more and more control over our daily lives.

We have been hearing for days now that this is a "legal" program.  A program that has been authorized by congress and is put in front of a court.  That is supposed to make me feel better?  We have plenty of evidence that congress passes laws all the time that they have no constitutional authority all the time.  One very simple example is the Violence Against Women act.  I am in no way in favor of violence against women, but is there any state that doesn't have laws against this already?  Why in heaven's name would spousal abuse a federal issue?  Every state has the right to request a fugitive from another state.  If the laws are not strong enough in one state then people should be working on the state level to strengthen those laws.  Not forcing every police department across the country to deal with cumbersome federal regulations and completely ignoring the fact that Tribal Courts have more power over non Native Americans, even though these courts do not have to give constitutional rights to anyone that is in that court.  

The opposition's first concern is that the power given to tribal courts would strip non-reservation residing offenders of their constitutional rights. Tribal courts are not bound by the laws of federal and state governments, and do not offer to defendants legal protections such as the First and Fifth Amendments or due process. Additionally, offering tribal courts jurisdiction over sex crimes would set a precedent for their jurisdiction when other crimes are involved.

So, it is of no comfort that congress has authorized this.  It is of no comfort that President Obama is basically saying "Trust Me".  I don't trust that man as far as I can throw him.  He certainly hasn't proven that he has my best interests at heart.  

One of the things that I find so infuriating about this whole thing is that it was just a few weeks ago that President Obama gave a speech on terrorism where he said this:

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11

If that is true why exactly are we expanding the programs?  I have been against The Patriot Act from day one.  I agree with the founders who warned us that giving up security in the name of liberty would give us neither.  I don't dismiss the dangers of terrorism and Islamic extremism.  What I question is how effective are these programs?  I say not so much.  

The path to his capture, according to the public records, began in April 2009, when British authorities arrested several suspected terrorists. According to a 2010 rulingfrom Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission, one of the suspects’ computers included email correspondence with an address in Pakistan.
The open case is founded upon a series of emails exchanged between a Pakistani registered email account sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com and an email account admittedly used by Naseer humaonion@yahoo.com between 30 November 2008 and 3 April 2009. The Security Service’s assessment is that the user of the sana_pakhtana account was an Al Qaeda associate…”
“For reasons which are wholly set out in the closed judgment, we are sure satisfied to the criminal standard that the user of the sana_pakhtana account was an Al Qaeda associate,” the British court wrote.
Later that year, according to a transcript of Zazi’s July, 2011 trial, Zazi emailed his al Qaeda handler in Pakistan for help with the recipe for his bombs. He sent his inquiry to the same email address: sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com.
An FBI agent, Eric Jurgenson, testified, “I was notified, I should say. My office was in receipt of several e-mail messages, e-mail communications.” Those emails — from Zazi to the same sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com — “led to the investigation,” he testified.

Here are some sad truths, the Fort Hood Shooter was a terrorist.  A terrorist that we should have been able to stop before his killing spree.  The reason we did not was due to political correctness.  To this day this is not even called an act of terrorism but work place violence.  The Russians turned over information on one of the Boston Bombers, yet we did nothing.  Are these programs worth the loss of our liberties when it is obvious that when given the information on a silver platter they are still able to go ahead with their dastardly deeds.  

One of the biggest problems is that we are still not willing to follow a simple tried and true criminal investigation tool; profiling.  We have seen recently a Muslim turn over a fellow Muslim 

Both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition took a moment in the House of Commons on Tuesday to thank the Muslim community for its role in thwarting an alleged terror plot against a Via Rail train.
“I’d like to begin by thanking law enforcement officials, as well as a brave religious leader from the Toronto Muslim community who, as we learned yesterday, helped to prevent a potentially devastating attack on Canadian soil,” NDP leader Tom Mulcair said as he opened question period.

If we start working with these communities maybe they will start communicating more and realize we are only interesting in rooting out terrorism and want to leave law-abiding citizens alone to live their lives.  

I, for one, am not willing to give away my liberties for a false sense of security.  I want my civil liberties to left alone.  There are plenty of ways to thwart terrorism without our government gathering information on virtually every American and have a huge database that can be used and abused in ways that we really don't fully understand.  

The government has shown us over and over again that they can't be trusted and have abused their power.  The IRS ring a bell for the naysayers?  

Snowden is both a hero and criminal.  Snowden has raised an issue that needed to be raised.  How much of your privacy are you willing to turn over to clandestine government agencies?  Where does it end?  This isn't a left or right issue.  This is an issue that should matter to all Americans.  To those that are willing to do this in the name of security, just remember your chance of being killed by terrorist is even less likely than being struck by lightning.  Yes we have dangers to deal with, but those dangers are relatively remote.  The powers of big government are not.  

Government Allowed to Take DNA without Warrant

The Supreme Court today ruled that it is perfectly acceptable for the police to take your DNA without a warrant.  Oh my.  

In 2009 a man named Alonzo King was taken under arrest and charged with assault, during this arrest the police took a swab and matched his DNA to an unsolved rape.  Mr. King was not taken under arrest for the rape, nor was he believed to be involved at the time of the arrest.  He was charged, prosecuted, and found guilty of the rape.  His attorney's filed an appeal under the fourth amendment of illegal search and seizure.  

The court has decided that DNA swabs are no different than taking a photograph and fingerprints.  It is only a source of identification.  Really?  Giving the government bodily fluids is just another source of making an ID?  

Scalia joined with the more liberal wing of the court and said this in his dissent:

"The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence," Scalia said. "That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment."

But my favorite has to be:

"I hope that the Maryland officials who read the Court’s opinion do not take it seriously,"

Doesn't those on the court understand how this can be abused?  Now, it seems pretty obvious that King is indeed a rapist.  I have zero sympathy for him, zero.  But he isn't really the point.  These cases are always about something bigger than person who brought the case.  When he was arrested, there doesn't seem to be that there was evidence he was guilty of committing this rape.  So why would they have right to take his DNA?  The entire point of our justice system is the presumption of innocence.  By automatically taking DNA swabs of every person who is arrested we have forgone that presumption and walking towards something that will no longer resemble our justice system.  

What is so odd is that it seems that the deciding vote came from Justice Stephen Breyer.  Strange bed fellows indeed.  

But sadly we have gotten to the point in this country that the government's desires and needs are now over taking our rights.  This government was built on the rights of the individual being paramount.  That seems to no longer exist.  

Governor Perry on the Hot Seat

Fox News Special Report is having the presidential hopefuls joining the "All Star" Panel and answer questions.



I am really liking his answer on the United Nations.  If the U.N. actually lived up to it's charter it wouldn't be a problem, but they have long ago proven that they are Anti-American and Anti-Israeli and very corrupt to boot. It is a waste of our precious tax dollars to fund this sham of an organization.

The Nanny State Never Ends - The Healthy Media for Youth Act

Senator Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) are pushing a bill to be passed in order to have a healthier image for girls set in the media; The Healthy Media for Youth Act. While I will agree that young girls are bombarded with unhealthy images all the time. We have models that are airbrushed to the point that they don't even look like the image that is portrayed in the magazine or billboard, they also are sometimes deadly thin. These images alone can push some tweens and teens into the grips of anorexia.


We have sexualized our children in ways that we tell them pretty much anything goes. We lie to them about abortion being nothing more than getting rid of a problem and the unborn child they are carrying is nothing more than a "bunch of cells". None of this is a healthy way to raise our girls so that they become happy and well-adjusted adults.

The Healthy Media for Youth Act takes a three-pronged approach to promote healthy media messages about girls and women. First, the bill creates a competitive grant program to encourage and support media literacy programs and youth empowerment groups. The bill also facilitates research on how depictions of women and girls in the media affect youth. Finally, it establishes a National Taskforce on Women and Girls in the Media, which will develop voluntary standards that promote healthy, balanced, and positive images of girls and women in the media for the benefit of all youth.

This bill was announced yesterday at press conference with both Hagan and Baldwin. They were joined by CEO of Girl Scouts of America Kathy Cloninger and Actress Geena Davis.

A survey by Girl Scouts of the USA's (GSUSA) Research Institute, Girls and Body Image, found that 89% of girls say the fashion industry places a lot of pressure on teenage girls to be thin. The American Psychological Association's (APA) Report on the Sexualization of Girls (2007) found that three of the most common mental health problems among girls—eating disorders, depression or depressed mood, and low self-esteem—are linked to the sexualization of girls and women in media. And according to the Geena Davis Institute of Gender in Media, despite being 50 percent of the U.S. population, in family films and television, male characters outweigh female characters nearly three to one and five to one in background or group scenes, a statistic that has remained the same since 1946. Only 27 percent of the speaking characters are female. (GDIGM)

Geena Davis' role in this press conference I found particularly insulting:

"I am in the industry and I want to keep working. We are kind of like Switzerland -- we don't put down specific movies, we don't single out anybody."

It would be unfair to say that Ms. Davis has not worked on this issue in the past. She has founded The Geena Davis Institute of Gender in Media. A non-profit that works to try to disspell some of the stereotypes of woman that are shown to our young girls. Not only do I stand up cheer her for this effort, I would donate money to the cause. I don't think that the images we show young women are healthy. I firmly believe that we do a great disservice to our children with some of the things that they see on T.V. and in movies.

Where I have a big problem with what she did yesterday is the fact that she feels that government has a role to play in this. This is a woman who is in the very industry that creates many of these stereotypes and refuses to call them out for it. Instead, she would rather that government get involved in creating non-profits to be used as a counter measure to the very content she puts out there as an acting professional. At least the Girl Scouts statement is looking to address some of the real issues; sexualization of children, depression, and eating disorders.

Ms. Davis' involvement seems to end after "gender equality". More progressive PC nonsense that says we as woman are victims and being held back from doing and being all the we can be because of an unfair male dominated world. Her view of world will actually increase the problems that Girl Scouts report has listed. Ms. Davis is of the mind that women should be out having sex because if it is a man can do it, so can a woman. This is one of the very things that it causing the higher rates of depression, low self-image, and eating disorders to begin with. We should be teaching them that how they look isn't important. We should be teaching them our actions have consequences. We should be teaching them that boys who try to pressure you into having sex when you are not ready don't care about you. If they cared about you they would respect your choice. We should teaching them the way to get ahead is through education and an unexpected pregnancy could end that dream for them. We should be teaching them that abortion can be a soul killer.

We have very serious problems in this country. Having the government get involved in our lives in this type of way is not the way to solve them. The things discussed in this bill is the job of the parents. It is up to the parents to monitor how much T.V. a child is viewing. It is up to the parents to pay attention to the reading material that is brought into the home. It is up to the parents to understand the content of the movies that you are allowing your child to watch. This is not the job of the federal government.

If Geena Davis really cared about this issue as much as she claims, she would call out the people in Hollywood. She would do it loudly and by name. This is not the job of our government. This is the job of parents and society as a whole to start demanding that Hollywood be accountable for the trash they are putting out on the screens that affect how our children--and society for that matter--view ourselves. If we didn't watch this crap, they would stop making it. After all, Hollywood is one of those evil capitalistic industries.

Give the Kid a Dog

Michael Vick, the convicted dog abuser, wants to give his children a dog.  Unless he moves out of his house, that is not possible, as part of his release he can never own another dog. 

“I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love and my passion for animals; I think it would be outstanding. If I ever have the opportunity again I will never take it for granted. I miss having a dog right now. I wish I could. My daughters miss having one, and that’s the hardest thing: telling them that we can’t have one because of my actions.”

 I don't think anyone can condone what Vick did, but does the government have the right to ban someone from getting a pet for life?  Shortly after his arrest Whoopi Goldberg caused a firestorm when she talked about how dog fighting is very acceptable within certain cultures.  Everyone jumped all over her thinking that she was saying what Vick did was OK.  She was rightly saying there is a market for it, not unlike cock fighting and street boxing and if you grow up in that culture you don't see it as brutal as most other people do.  That is not an excuse or a justification, rather an explanation. 

I personally think that Vick was an idiot not only for getting involved with a dog fighting ring but also for continuing his relationship with childhood friends who have long histories of criminal behavior.  He made it out of the ghetto through the NFL and he should have kept right on going.  He had a great deal to lose by associating with people who didn't.  The reality is he got caught because he was turned in by someone who was in trouble for something else and used him as a way to save himself.  Something that was totally expected.  Vick spent almost two years in prison, lost a great deal of money, had to explain this to his children and was incredibly lucky to have not lost his career permantely.  There are many that feel he never should have been allowed back in the NFL. 

Tony Dungy, a former coach in the NFL and a man of faith and of great integrity has been mentoring Vick, that was a condition of his return to the NFL.  Dungy was more than just a tad conflicted about the relationship, but Dungy has grown to have a great deal of respect for the transformation that Vick has made in his life.  Vick had issues even before his animal abuse arrest became public.  He was a troubled kid and much of that followed him throughout most of his adult life.  In all appearances he really has turned his life around and is now on a more straight and narrow path.  Which deserves to be commended. 

I personally believe that if he were to get a dog, it would be very well treated, maybe better than most other pets in the world.  I also really question the right of the government to keep someone from getting a pet.  I do think that Vick has learned his lesson and will never hurt another animal again.  I believe in redemption and I think that Vick has found his.   Let his kids get a dog.  He has gotten his finances back in order, he can afford to pay the costs to have an animal protection officer to come to his home once a week to check on the dog until they are comfortable that the dog is well cared for. 

Government Oxymoron - Govt Panel on Stimulus Waste to Meet at Ritz Carlton

That's right.  We are going to send the people on this panel to Phoenix, Arizona to discuss the wasteful spending of the Stimulus bill.  They couldn't do this by teleconference?  Isn't that the advantage of having this technology? 

 

9 Levels of Outrage

We cannot possibly stay on this path and be competitive on the world stage.  The size and scope of government must be decreased; Remember November.


Federal Pay Gap from RightChange on Vimeo.

Obama's 4th of July Wish for You

Not very politically correct, but very funny.

ACORN Cookies Anyone? - White House Christmas Party

Rep. Steve King wasn't exactly sure what to make of the cookies he was served at the white house Christmas party.  What is your take?