Not A Crook

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Donald Trump's Travel Ban Cut Off Again

Donald Trump still must obey the law, especially the Constitution. He tried, once again, to restrict any immigration or visitation from Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, and Syria. Because of his past rhetoric, proclaiming great hate for Islam and Muslims, Judge Derrick Watson of the United States District Court in Hawaii found that there is a very strong chance that Trump is discriminating against others for religious reasons. Now there is a new restraining order on the new travel ban.

Instead of studying constitutional law, Trump held a rally in Nashville, Tennessee today, during which he complained bitterly and disrespectfully about the court's decision. It seems that instead of truly representing America and America's constitution, Donald Trump can only appeal to the baser emotions of the less educated and less loyal among us.

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Frankfort Kansas School Doesn't Impose Sanctions About Guns

Hmmmm....something tells your faithful blogger that this directive, courtesy of thea United States Department of Justice, has not been heeded by the principal of Frankfort High School, in Frankfort, Kansas. On March 3, 2015, an eighteen old senior, who was already on probation for other crimes, took a gun to school and was arrested again. Federal law states that such a student must be expelled and may not enter the building again, for any reason, for an entire year. The school administration has no choice in this matter; the law states that any public school using state or federal tax dollars must follow this directive. One must wonder, then, what was the student in question doing at graduation, less than nine weeks later? And why did he get a diploma from the school that was required, by law, to expel him? Shouldn't that student's diploma be recalled, as he did not properly earn it? And shouldn't Frankfort High School lose a portion of their state funding and their federal funding for their failure to follow the law?

ACLU Guide For Snapping Pictures In Public

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about snapping pictures in public, especially of police officers while they are eating doughnuts and beating people up....er...working. Police officers will often tell people that it is not lawful to take pictures of police officers when they do their jobs, and will even confiscate cameras of bystanders and arrest journalists and reporters when cameras have clearly caught police officers with their pants down. But the truth is, taking pictures in public is perfectly legal. On private property, one must have permission of the property owner in order to take pictures, but in public, one may snap pictures of anything one can see. Police may not confiscate anyone's camera or SD card without a warrant, and police officers have even been brought up on charges of tampering with evidence for doing just that. The American Civil Liberties Union has published a guide for photographers for reference.

Pictures of police in action, taken by citizens, provide an independent record of the photographed or recorded incident. Such evidence reduces the prevalence of faulty memories and lies, and is important for transparency of those who represent authority. No one should have to worry about police confiscating photographs or cameras, and no police officer should do anything in the line of duty that he or she would not want photographed.

When Should A School Notify Parents About Unplanned Absence?

A parent's worst nightmare; to have a child simply disappear. In Oregon City, Oregon, a sixteen year old girl ran away from home, instead of showing up for school one morning, and her parents were not notified of this until after 5:00 PM that day. Luckily, she was found, and now there is a local discussion in Oregon about the reporting of missing children when it concerns school. The awareness that stranger abductions culminating in murder usually feature the murder taking place within the first three hours of the abduction is key, here. Waiting until after 5:00 PM to file a report about a child who went missing hours earlier is an invitation to tragedy.

In 2011, Oregon passed a law, largely because seven year old Kyron Horman disappeared from school in 2010, that requires schools to notify parents when a child has an unplanned absence from school. The school board in the above case has, so far dodged questions from the public about whether 5:00 PM was too late to notify parents. A step in the right direction, however; is that the general public has taken notice of the potential danger to children and has begun to address it. Wouldn't it be a godsend if Marshall County, Kansas and USD 380 Vermillion, which employs the absurd and inane Tom Schroeder, who drops off children in random parts of Marshall County and does nothing but go home and eat dinner when they disappear, would show some civic concern about child safety, as well?

Religious Freedom And Business As Usual

What's all this pomp and circumstance about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act? It's all nothing special, just a renewed opportunity for the good, christian people of America, the Midwest in particular, to act with hatred and disdain for their neighbors. After all, what better of a way can there be to make a person whose ethnic background, language, religion, sexual orientation, or perceived disability feel badly about himself than to wait until he orders a pizza, books a wedding, requests medical care, or enrolls in school, than to begin the transaction or service, only to suddenly cease, pulling the rug out from under him, with the announcement that fulfillment of the contract or delivery of the service would, in the case of said client or customer, be abhorrant to God, and therefore not feasible, in any way. If a child is disappointed to the extent of tears, or on the verge of a dangerously high fever, so much the better. Harm to an unbeliever is an enormously effective manner of making the point that "we do not serve your kind in our establishmment", isn't it, dear christians?

Well, you know something, Jesus Freaks? The Satanic Temple of Detroit has an answer for you; it's called Discrimination Transparency. In order for the non-christian world to determine, at a glance, which establishments are in business to make money, rather than to make others unhappy, a petition has been circulated and signed, and will be presented to the representatives of the involved locales, to request that a rider be written into the RFRA laws, requiring businesses which choose to discriminate to warn the population at large, so as to avoid humiliating the targets of christian hate and wasting their time in fruitless endeavors. Anyone who will not serve a member of an ethnic group Jesus does not like will be required to warn everyone by placing a sign on the door or somewhere visible from  outside the establishment, stating the discriminatory intentions. The same will go for any business  intending to marginalize customers and clients who attend the "wrong" church, speak a language  that is unfamiliar, or are sexually oriented in  ways that are useless in basic, old fashioned, christian adultery. People who do not wish to patronize bigots will be able to make educated choices about where to spend their money.

A prototype of the required sign has also been graciously provided, as well. It is pictured below.

Disclaimer: It is understood by the writer that not all christians interpret religious and spiritual teachings as inclusive of hatred and bigotry. This post is only meant to describe those who have wrongly concluded that the world revolves around only themselves and their ilk.

Patricia Welch As A Resident Agent

Hey Patricia Welch, how come you're such a big, fat liar? Who the hell did you think you were when you didn't want to help find two missing children? And why is covering for adults more important? Here's another question, you dumb bitch; what was really going on when you served as a "resident agent" for L. Engleking Inc.? Was your friend from Florida really a plumber, or was that just a ruse, so that he could get inside the homes of people who have children, in order to post their pictures on Facebook? Isn't that why your friend's son is in prison now?

You know, you are married to a "person of interest" in a high profile missing persons case involving two children, Sheila and Katherine Lyon,  and your nephew is a person of interest in the same case. Your employment history also involves working with someone who is currently serving time in federal prison for child pornography and human trafficking! Was your home daycare used for something similar?

Hopefully, you'll be savvy enough to tell the truth in court on April 27, when you go to court in Bedford County, Virginia. While you certainly come across as a bimbo who thinks she's exempt from the law, you do not appear to be the type who would make it in prison. Short of definite answers about all this, you can expect to see more details, such as the ones in this post, splashed all over the internet. Quite a few people already hope that you will go from being a "resident agent" for a kiddie porn creep to being a resident in the pokey, so you should really find a way to start telling the truth in court.

Minnesota Minister No Longer On The Lam

Almost a year ago, John Walsh featured a story on The Hunt about a christian minister in Minnesota who had inappropriate sexual relationships with underage females in his church. Is this becoming a familiar scenario with christianity? Or at least, christianity in the Midwest? During the 1990's, a creep named Victor Barnard started a church in Minnesota so that he could entice the young, female daughters of his parishioners to move in with him, in a camp-like compound he built, while holding them hostage. He got the permission of their parents to keep them there, so the teenage girls had no say. Wow......gotta hate christianity sometimes! How could parents allow this? Barnard isn't really unique, either; Catholic parents have been ignoring their childrens' claims of clerical abuse for centuries.

Minnesota decided to find out what the rumors and claims of abuse surrounding Reverend Barnard were all about in 2012, but the good reverend moved his pimping operation to the state of Washington. At that point, it became national affair, rather than merely limited to Minnesota, so the FBI got involved. When enablers of the reverend "annunciated" to him that authorities were still hot on his trail, he picked up and moved to Brazil. It appears that his happened last year, but the story is still unfolding. Interpol got involved, and he was caught in Rio Grande last week, with a Brazilian enabler.

What is it, about Jesus, that makes his legend and persona so convenient for sex offenders and child abusers? And why don't they carry on their abuse with people their own ages, in a safe, sane, and consensual manner? What is it, about these clerical authority figures, that drives them to seek out relationships and isolated encounters with victims, rather than finding willing partners? Is it more holy, according to christian doctrines, to defile one's self with an unwilling child, and either ruin the child's life or kill the child, than it is to just admit that one is a pervert and find an equally corrupt adult? And what's with these parents who allow this crap, and don't put a stop to it when they discover it? Why would anyone cover for these people? Don't they love their children? One might accuse Barnard of starting a cult, but is this story unique to his operation? John Walsh covered it, and the media also made Barnard famous, but there have been so many reports lately involving clergy gone wild that we can no longer ignore the fact that Judeo-Christian religions somehow attract and propagate filth.

How can parents of clerically abused children continue to send them to church? When does enough become enough? Are social connections to abusers that important to these dumbass parents? Are the courts really deaf to the complaints of victims, particularly when voiced in unison? And even if the courts don't care, is it really that hard for an individual parent to look at the socially approved crime objectively and keep children away from it?

I'm Just An Innocent Policeman's Wife

So the wife of a Ferguson, Missouri police officer wants us to feel sorry for her. Normally, I would not agree with anyone having to live under threats of violence, but after some experience living in neighboring Kansas, my opinion has changed, somewhat. Whenever I make requests of my local school district, USD 380 Vermillion, that their schools guarantee at least an honest effort at compliance with federal and state law, the secretary at the superintendent's office will rudely tell me to move house and live somewhere else. Pam Slifer does not want me to ask what will be done if another child is abandoned a few miles away from school and officially missing, as my daughter was in October of 2009 when a guidance counselor named Tom Schroeder transported her in his vehicle and dumped her, allowing her to remain missing until she got a ride back with strangers. (Suck it up, Frankfort, my daughter told me that those men who picked her up were NOT part of any search party, and that NO search party had been formed. The school board's spin on it was nothing but a LIE) Pam Slifer would rather tell me to move than tell me what policy Frankfort and Centralia Kansas follow when children and adults take drugs, alcohol, and guns to school with them. She feels that because Frankfort is a small town, and because she lives there, I personally owe her the liberty to violate the law and endanger my children. The wife of this Ferguson policeman feels that she, too, is owed some sort of special privilege not granted to the rest of the population. In the face of black men being shot by white policemen, just for being black men, (which is not the law, by the way) the families of those who are allowed to shoot minorities at will want special protection so they can enjoy their special privilege! Ha! I say that anyone who wants the freedom to violate the laws and step on the rights of others at will should move.....if a place where lawlessness can be guaranteed by cohorts, witnesses, and victims can actually be found.

Pam Slifer feels that because the violent intent expressed here uses my married name and not my birth name, the facebooker and police officer are not guilty of actually referring to me, and that the person to whom they refer does not exist. This is how these people deny and rationalize every dirtball act or intention in which they engage. Why should the wife of a police officer get to live worry-free? 

Convenient Time To Talk About Drunk Driving

 

Above is a comment posted by yours truly at WIBW beneath a story about an auto wreck near Frankfort, Kansas that involved alcohol. The fact that alcohol was a factor curiously did not appear in the story, but because Frankfort Kansas is such a "closeknit" community, (description borrowed from the author of the adversarial response) your faithful blogger was made aware, along with, probably, everyone else within a fifty mile radius, of the fact that alcohol was involved. So....since four young people, three of whom still attend Frankfort High School and one graduate, still under twenty-one, nearly got themselves killed while unlawfully combining substance abuse with the use of everyone's roads and highways, how is it that no one here in Northeast Kansas is talking about substance abuse among minors?

The three high school students mentioned represent at least five percent of Frankfort's high school students. Two of them are, or were, seniors. (is the principal still collecting enrollment dollars for these children, even though they obviously cannot attend school at the moment? Seems the dollar mill should be shut down for the moment, here) Since the senior class at Frankfort is not very big, this represents about fifteen percent of the graduating class at Frankfort. Of the remaining children who have either not been arrested yet or were not involved in this incident, there is only one child in attendance at Frankfort High School who does not drink, bringing the percentage of the students who drink up to about ninety-nine percent. These totals are a bit high, and compare unfavorably to the rest of the nation, where this kind of stuff runs an average of about seventeen percent of high school students who abuse drugs and alcohol daily. In a place with smaller numbers of students, one incident can bring per capita percentages up in ways that make statistics reflect awkwardly on the population. The lone student who does not drink usually serves as a designated driver, despite the fact that the law prohibits this type of enabling and prohibits alcohol and drug use by any child on probation, which is the unfortunate circumstance of one of the children in the accident.

That is the response left by someone who apparently feels that the problems caused by drunk teens should be addressed at a later date, at the convenience of the offender, if at all. This person is not concerned in the slightest about what criminals put their victims through; only the problems encountered by the drunk teenager and the enablers. It's okay to judge and bully anyone whose culture or lifestyle is a little different from that of the average Frankfurter, but not a child who causes traffic accidents by drinking and driving. How much mercy does the writer of this comment show the victims of these children and their enablers? By all appearances, not any. Along with very little comprehension of the language chosen for the comment, there is also not any comprehension of the fact that, while not everyone in the community was involved in the accident, everyone who drives on the highway shares the road with everyone else. That makes the problem of teens who drive drunk everyone's problem, not just the problem of those directly affected by one particular traffic mishap. As for Frankfort's description of being a "close knit town" creating an environment wherein "age is not an issue", federal law trumps this notion, along with the state laws of the very state that hosts this "close knit town". Anyone who buys alcohol for a fifteen year old commits a crime. If the person who wrote this comment does not like that, she should consider moving to another country. No one has a right to allow his or her children to inflict drug and alcohol abuse, and the accompanying pathos, onto anyone else's children. 

This is not the first time your blogger has heard howls and cries from Frankfort about her opinion of underage drinking and underage drinking coupled with driving. The spouse of one of Frankfort's teachers, upon hearing that the police were summoned when some drunk children drove on the sidewalk one evening, actually put in an appearance on the doorstep here to defend her son's right to drink and drive. The fact that this involved the family of a teacher at Frankfort High School truly spoke volumes. If the teachers at the Frankfort High School fail to teach their children to not to drink and drive, how can children from others schools safely interact with either the teachers or the students at Frankfort?

Wichita's New Petition To Decriminalize Marijuana

A new petition to decriminalize marijuana in Wichita Kansas is in the works. The old one was rejected by the city council when they went over each and every signature, looking for flaws and reasons to reject the petition. It had garnered over twice as many signatures as necessary to put decriminalization on the ballot, but the city council was determined to find a reason to deny the voters what they wanted, so they questioned a few of the signatures and told Kansans For Change that they were thirty-six signatures short. Would Kansans have this much trouble with a petition to put prayer in school on the ballot, despite the fact that federal law trumps it already? Probably not. A new petition should be in circulation on October 1. This blog will post a link.

Disclaimer: your blogger does not engage or approve of the use or abuse of any recreational drugs. She simply thinks that your tax dollars, along with hers, could be better spent on pursuits other than malicious prosecution of anyone who violates a prohibition law.

Naked Man In Topeka Raises Issue

Only in Kansas. Seriously....in Topeka, there happens to be no law against public nudity. This means that in addition to the antics of Westboro Baptist Church, there are also people who occasionally go about without clothing. And WIBW interviewed a naked person named Jerry Beyer, who is featured in the video above. One must wonder if WIBW truly needed to use the vernacular "raised the issue" in the introduction of the subject, and a reader commented that this particular naked person likely is without enough in the way of productive pursuits in life, such as employment. Indeed, for employment , Jerry Beyer would require an appropriate wardrobe, as most employers have dress codes that at the very least, involve clothing. Kansas.

Picture courtesy of WIBW

Enrollment Fees In Public Schools

If you are a parent of a child who attends public school, and you were pressured or harassed to pay enrollment fees, this was never legal and never constitutional. Federal law clearly maintains that public school districts must provide free and equitable education to all students. This includes activities and materials, as well as the right to attend school. Some educators and school administrators in California didn't believe that, and the ACLU got involved. Now, those schools no longer attempt to extort money from parents, and all of the school districts named in the lawsuit were audited. A bill was even drafted to consider punitive fines and other actions against the offenders. How interesting. Dean Dalinghaus, at good ole' Frankfort High School, thinks that parents owe his so-called school monies in addition to their taxes, too. He will even stoop to the level of bullying and threats to force parents to pay him money. If you live in Frankfort, Kansas, and have been pressured by the school board of USD 380 to pay enrollment fees, just say no.

Kansas And Nebraska Defend Racism

Parade Float; picture courtesy of WIBW Topeka

A Fourth Of July parade in Norfolk, Nebraska celebrated by mocking President Obama by making a float that suggested that Obama is not as well read as the average, bovine, Midwestern Caucasian. This is simply hilarious. President Obama is a constitution lawyer, and most of the parade attendees, including those who created the float, probably do not even read at a sixth grade level. Their defense of the public racist statement? "It's obvious that the majority of the community liked it," said Rick Konapasek, one of the parade's organizers, according to WIBW.

So, if all this guff from the nonsensical parade organizer is interpreted correctly, it appears that we have a segment of the population here in America that does not understand that the "majority" only rules during a popular election. The "majority" does not have the authority, or the right, to override the law. The principal of the public school in Frankfort made that mistake when telling a parent that he could teach and preach christianity at the PUBLIC school because the "majority" of people in Frankfort are christians, and didn't mind if federal law was violated at Frankfort School. The ACLU was quick to point out to the principal that this is incorrect; it is unlawful to violate the the law, no matter how many crooked frankfurters appear to be in favor of it. While a parade float is not quite the same thing, promotion of racism and unlawful discrimination is not only backwards, rude, and stupid; but a terrible example for children.

A lot of pink and fluffy Midwesterners apparently don't remember "white's only" signs on businesses, or race riots, or demonstrations and marches, or glass ceilings, (we still have those) or Brown v. the Board of Education in Topeka, or all of the violence connected to enforcing Brown v. the Board of Education in Topeka. Quite a few of the pink and fluffy crowd are not even aware that a woman could not obtain credit to buy a home without a male co-signer until 1974. Or that children could be bullied by teachers in school for religious reasons until 1963. How far behind do these ignorant neo-nazi types want to slide? The "majority" supported these forms of discrimination until challenges were issued, and the Supreme Court established what is already guaranteed by our Constitution. Something the Midwest, Nebraska and Kansas in particular, very much need to learn is that when something becomes law, especially federal law, it is not optional. The "majority" in a white, church-going community do not have the right to discriminate against those perceived as somehow not conforming to the preferred pink and fluffy mode of existence so favored by their adipose tissue. Another word for "majority" is Bolshevik, and from the way Christianity is practiced in Northeast Kansas, that appears to sum up the goal of christian churches in the Midwest, and the interest those churches have in schools and public parades. Yuk.

Police In Kansas Respond To Imperial Storm Trooper

The irony. On July 1, the very day the clarified version of the law defining open carry of firearms takes effect in Kansas, police in Salina were called because an Imperial Storm Trooper exercised his second amendment rights. It turned out that the guy in the costume was making a video. A business was locked down for awhile....all because someone walked around in a costume.

Republicans Have Panties Bunched Over Prisoner Exchange

Whenever I think I've heard it all, I always find myself sadly surprised. And this time is no different. We just had an American prisoner by the name of Bowe Bergdahl returned to us by the Taliban, in exchange for five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. I think this is wonderful. I hope we can do this again, and soon. But guess who doesn't think it is wonderful.....If you are guessing the Republican Party, you would be correct. Republicans think that this prisoner exchange violated some goofy, inapplicable law in some imaginary, unthinkable way because Congress was not given thirty days notice prior to the release of terrorists. (mocking, whiny voice here, coupled with eye-rolley)

Thirty days. Obviously, no Republican serving in Congress has served in any branch of our military and been held hostage by a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention. The first and most important order of business for President Obama, as soon as prisoner exchange was brokered, was to get Bowe Bergdahl back into America. Thirty days could have killed the whole deal, and gotton Bergdahl killed, as well. Not that most Republicans nowadays would care; Bergdahl and all other American prisoners of war and hostages are just collateral damage to them.

In addition to the thirty day whine from Republicans, there is also the matter of America's lack of progress in closing down Guantanamo Bay. Obama spoke of wanting to do this eight years ago, and has been blocked every turn of the way. If he can kill two birds with one stone, and empty out Gitmo and keep his promise of shutting it down by exchanging prisoners, I do not see how this can possibly be a violation of any law. Unless Republicans in Congress are really not on the side of American people.