Monday, August 19, 2013

APPLE DUMPLINGS - Recipe Of The Day

Apple dumplings
Apple dumplings (Photo credit: SaijaLehto)
Sift together flour, baking powder and salt; rub shortening in lightly; add just enough milk to make soft dough. Roll out ⅛-inch thick on floured board; divide into four parts; lay on each part an apple which has been washed, pared, cored and sliced; add one teaspoon sugar and ½ teaspoon butter to each; wet edges of dough with cold water and fold around apple pressing tightly together. Place in greased pan. Sprinkle with sugar and cinnamon and put little butter on each dumpling. Bake 40 minutes in moderate oven. Serve with hard sauce.
  • ⅓ cup butter
  • 1 cup powdered sugar
  • ½ teaspoon flavoring extract
Cream butter until very light; add sugar very slowly, beating until light and creamy. Add flavoring and beat again.
Peach dumplings may be made in the same way.

Make Something Extraordinary Tonight.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence - The Federalist Papers No 2


Federalist Papers no 2 - Concerning Danger From Foreign Forces and Influence" target="_blank">Federalist Papers no 2 - Concerning Danger From Foreign Forces and Influence from Chuck Thompson


Liberty Education Series here on GVLN.  The Federalist Papers, number 2 from John Jay.  To read the above more easily, please click the icon at the bottom right hand corner of the container and the document will open to full screen.  Free downloads are available of this document.  You will have to sign in to SlideShare through either a Facebook account or LinkedIn account or you can create a free account on SlideShare to get your free copy.

  After the American Revolution, it became clear early on that the present Continental Congress had many flaws.  These needed to be fixed as fast as possible.  Arguments were all over the board.  The Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers were the major arguments of the day.  We are presenting both arguments on this site so that there is a very clear perspective of what it took to build this nation.  Even though the American Revolution was over, new troubles everywhere were only beginning.

English: Title page of the first printing of t...
English: Title page of the first printing of the Federalist Papers. Deutsch: Titelseite des Erstdrucks der Federalist Papers aus dem Jahre 1788. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Enhanced by Zemanta

Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continues

Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control Ordinance 3-17 continues it's legal debate as we have heard back from Gloucester County Attorney, Ted Wilmot on his opinion of the code.

First let's once again explore the code and our arguments against it, then we shall turn our attention to his arguments that are pro.  Once we cover his pro arguments, we shall again show you what looks like holes to us.

Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control Ordinance 3-17 reads as follows;



Sec. 3-17. Animals riding in open vehicles.

It shall be unlawful for the operator of any motor vehicle on a pubic road to place or keep an animal in any portion of such vehicle that is open in such a manner so as to permit such animal to jump out of or escape the vehicle or to be thrown from the vehicle by acceleration or stopping of the vehicle or by an accident involving the vehicle. The prohibited portions of a motor vehicle shall include, but not be limited to:

(1)The open bed of a truck or upon a motorcycle; or

(2)The rear storage portion of a vehicle with the tailgate, truck, or hatchback portion open or down. For the purposes of this section, the operator of a motor vehicle shall be deemed to have control of any animal found there.


Our arguments here are that we can not find any corresponding state code to the above local ordinance which is what the Dillon Rule would seem to argue for.  It appears to us to be made up.  We received confirmation from the Gloucester County attorney, Ted Wilmot, that it is in fact made up.  However, he claims justification for it.  Here is his argument.

"There does not appear to be one specific Virginia State Code section constituting enabling legislation for Gloucester County Code Section 3-17. However, that code section’s requirements are legally defensible regulatory measures in light of the following:



1. The section is limited to public roads and public places, and does not regulate activity on private property;

2. Va. Code Section 3.2-6570 prohibits the carrying by vehicle of any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner;

3. The County has the authority to prohibit cruelty to and abuse of animals and fowl, see Va. Code Sections 3.2-6544(B) and 3.2-6543;

4. The County has the authority to prohibit animals running at large (see, e.g., Va. Code Sections 15.2-1218, 3.2-6538, 3.2-6543, and 3.2-6544) ;

5. The County has the authority to require that animals have “adequate shelter.” “Adequate shelter” is defined, in part, by Va. Code Section 3.2-6500, to include shelter that is “safe and protects each animal from injury.”;

6. No case or opinion of the Attorney General of which I am aware demonstrates the unlawfulness of Gloucester County Code Section 3-17; and

7. Va. Code Section 15.2-1201 generally vests in the County Board of Supervisors the same authority and powers as are vested in City Councils. Va. Code Section 15.2-1102 vests in municipal corporations (here, cities) the authority to legislate to protect welfare, safety and health.



I hope that you can understand and appreciate that one of my roles is to defend and assist in enforcing the ordinances passed by the Board the citizens have elected, at least unless such an ordinance has been declared unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, or is clearly unlawful even without a court determination. Mr. Thompson’s assertion the Section 3-17 is unlawful is not sufficient for me to agree.



Ted Wilmot"

So here we have Ted stating that it's fine to create new ordinances via hodge podge means.  Just cut and paste areas of state codes from various sections.  Even if it creates new meanings, it's justified.  We sent a message back that if the codes are already in place, there is no reason to duplicate them in new manners especially when those manners have a tendency to change the meaning of the original codes.  To be fair, we also stated that we are going to create a new form questionnaire and send it out to other attorney's, the state and law schools to get their opinion on all of this.  

The form will be ready before the end of this week.  

Argument 6 from above, Ted states that he is unaware of any opinion the Attorney General may have on Gloucester County ordinance 3-17, well if the Attorney General has not seen it, why would he have an opinion on it?  Bad argument there.

Argument 7 from above, Ted states that counties in Virginia have the same rights as city councils.  So?  What is that supposed to mean?  Does that mean that both counties and cities can make up whatever ordinances they want in violation of the Dillon Rule?  I don't think so.  

From what we see of Ted's arguments, as already stated, codes are already on the books to cover the proper protection of animals.  So there really is no reason whatsoever to duplicate them through a mosaic of words that create new meanings, unless of course the final desired results were to create new meanings.

The Dillon Rule Applied In Another Virginia County:


The Dillon Rule Defined:


What is the Dillon Rule?

The Dillon Rule is used in interpreting state law when there is a question of whether or not a local government has a certain power. Lawyers call it a rule of statutory construction.

Dillon's Rule construes grants of power to localities very narrowly. The bottom line is that if there is a question about a local government's power or authority, then the local government does not receive the benefit of the doubt. Under Dillon's rule, one must assume that the local government does not have the power in question.

In legal language, the first part of Dillon's Rule reads like this: Local governments have only three types of powers, those granted in express words, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted and those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but indispensable.

It is the second part of the Dillon Rule, however, that puts the vice on local government's powers. 

This part states that if there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has not been conferred. This is known as a rule strict construction of local government powers.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/fcpos/dillon.pdf  Fairfax County PDf of the Dillon Rule.  Sent to Ted Wilmot, Brenda Garton and the entire Gloucester County board of supervisors.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, August 18, 2013

British Intelligence (1940) Classic Movie



In 1917 London, elusive German spy Frantz Strendler regularly accesses crucial British military information and relays it to the German government, with disastrous results for the British on the front lines. British intelligence subsequently scrambles to uncover the master spy, who is hard at work to expand his own reach.

The film features Boris Karloff and Margaret Lindsay.

Classic Movies here on GVLN.  
English: L. to R. : Marjorie Reynolds, Boris K...
English: L. to R. : Marjorie Reynolds, Boris Karloff (seated), Raymond Hatton & Grant Withers in Doomed to Die - cropped screenshot (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Angel Face - 1957 Comic Strip Cartoon

A Federalist

The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 178...
The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781. This was the format for the United States government until the Constitution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"A Federalist"

Boston Gazette and Country Journal, November 26, 1787

No. 1 of the Borden Collection


I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to theGENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. At length the luminary of intelligence begins to beam its effulgent rays upon this important production; the deceptive mists cast before the eyes of the people by the delusive machinations of its INTERESTED advocates begins to dissipate, as darkness flies before the burning taper; and I dare venture to predict, that in spite of those mercenary dectaimers, the plan will have a candid and complete examination.

Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH [of Massachusetts]. Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its adoption. They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves.

 They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect. They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them.

 Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire. Let all act understandingly or not at all. If we can confederate upon terms that wilt secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole. If the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be amended; in order to which it must and ought to be open to inspection and free inquiry. The inundation of abuse that has been thrown out upon the heads of those who have had any doubts of its universal good qualities, have been so redundant, that it may not be improper to scan the characters of its most strenuous advocates.

 It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever. These consist generally, of the NOBLE order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination. The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait.

 The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger. They will probably find it suited to THEIR HABITS, if not to the HABITS OF THE PEOPLE. There may be reasons for having but few of them in the State Convention, lest THEIR [OWN] INTEREST should be too strongly considered. The time draws near for the choice of Delegates. I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.

A FEDERALIST

From the Anti Federalist papers.  Liberty Education Series 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Federal District Court Judge Incapable Of Reading Simple Words - Free Bible Bonus

U.S. Supreme Court building.
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Federal Court Says Pittsylvania County Violated Citizen’s Religious Liberty with Meeting-Opening Sectarian Prayers;


Danville, VAFederal District Court Judge Michael Urbanski today ruled that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors violated the First Amendment rights of ACLU of Virginia client Barbara Hudson by opening meetings with prayers that favored one set of religious beliefs over others.

“This ruling sends a clear message to localities that government officials may not impose their own religious beliefs on the entire community by leading sectarian prayers at public meetings,” said ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg.  “The Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled repeatedly that our right to religious liberty precludes the government from expressing favor for one set of beliefs over others.  It is, indeed, unfortunate that, given the clarity of the law, Pittsylvania County  officials would choose  to waste time and tax payer dollars in an unnecessary lawsuit, rather than simply conform their behavior to well-settled law,” Glenberg added.

“Despite the clarity of the law, we continue to receive too many complaints that public officials in cities and counties across the Commonwealth are engaging in government-sponsored sectarian prayers at public meetings,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Claire Gastañaga.  “Local governments across the Commonwealth should take note of this decision and the thousands of tax payer dollars that will be spent paying our legal fees.  Legislative bodies may open their meetings with prayers if those prayers do not refer to particular religious beliefs or prefer some beliefs over others. Such a policy can, however, be very difficult to implement legally in practice.  That’s why we encourage localities that want to have an invocation to consider having a moment of silence.  A moment of silence can still solemnize the meeting by providing a brief period of reflection, and lets everyone who is present, both believers and non-believers, use the moment as they choose,” advised Gastañaga.

The controversy in Pittsylvania began in August 2011, when Ms. Hudson notified the ACLU that the Board of Supervisors began each meeting with a Christian prayer, delivered by Board members on a rotating basis.  The ACLU wrote a letter to the Board explaining that this practice violated the First Amendment under the clear precedents of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which state that government bodies must not engage in official sectarian prayers.

After the Board made clear that it would continue holding sectarian prayers, Ms. Hudson filed suit in federal court.  In February 2012, Judge Urbanski denied the County’s motion to dismiss the case, and granted a preliminary injunction to Hudson, forbidding the Board of Supervisors “from invoking the name of a specific deity associated with any one specific faith or belief in prayers given at Board meetings” while the lawsuit was pending.  Since the injunction was issued, the Board has been opening its meetings with silent prayer.

Judge Urbanski ordered the case to mediation in December 2012.  Following failed mediation efforts, Judge Urbanski issued his ruling on March 27, 2013.
In its opinion, the court enjoined the Board of Supervisors from repeatedly opening its meetings with prayers associated with any one religion, which practice has the unconstitutional ‘effect of affiliating the government with any one specific faith or belief.’
The court also noted that the decision did not “indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer.” Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Urbanksi wrote: “The founders of our nation, possessing faith in the power of prayer . . . led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very  guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which [the Board] has attempted here.”
Hudson was represented by Glenberg and by ACLU of Virginia cooperating attorney Frank M. Feibelman. The ACLU of Virginia will be seeking attorney’s fees and costs.
A copy of the District Court’s Memorandum Opinion can be found online at: https://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/20130327PittsylvaniaDistCtOpinion.pdf


Our Notes:  How long are we going to continue to allow insane judges and insane attorneys to ignore very simple words from the 1st amendment of our Bill of Rights.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press.  All 3 go hand in hand.  You take away freedom of religion you are also taking away freedom of speech and freedom of the press all at the same time.  No exceptions.  If Federal District Court Judge Michael Urbanski can not read the simple text of the 1st amendment to the Bill of Rights, maybe he needs to be given a very long vacation and taught to read.

  Dictators need not hear bad cases.  Would these people prefer opening board meetings with prayer from the satanic bible?  This is a Christian Nation founded on Christian principles.  If the prayer is non denominational, in Christian faith, then it makes no difference.  Can the Christian Faith as the prefered faith of this nation be argued and won?  Without question, YES!  Are other faiths blacked out from prayer because of this?  No.  The argument is not sound from the ACLU nor from the judge.

It's time to fight back from the tyranny of stupidity and false arguments.   By the way, laws in violation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not laws and do not have to be followed.  We recommend that Pittsylvania continue in it's practice ignoring anything the court has stated as the court itself is in violation of the Bill of Rights in our view.  Barbara Hudson can move to Russia for freedom from religion if that is what she seeks.


Free downloads are available on this bible from either our SlideShare account or 
Choose the free user option and download your free copy.  Send a copy to the judge, he needs some reading exercises while taking that needed vacation coming up.

The separation of church and state is so that one could not control the other, period.  It did not preclude prayer from one denomination over another.  It's like claiming that even though a Catholic priest said the opening prayer, the Catholic church now has complete control over the entire US Federal government.  It's hogwash.  If all board members at a Board of Supervisor's meeting proved to all be jewish and by consent of the public they were all voted in, then by consent, the jewish leaders at the board would have a fair argument to have jewish prayers open each meeting.  Consent of the governed.  One person does not make consent in totality, only in minority.  Let Pittsylvania wrest the case of consent and not some Federal District Court Judge dunderhead.  

  It's government by the people, for the people and of the people by consent of the people.  Not some dictatorship in some banana republic by the few for the few.  Oh by the way, congress opens it's meetings with prayers, anyone want to attack them?  I didn't think so.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Laws Should Not Be Suspended

English: Illustration of the Parable of the Un...
English: Illustration of the Parable of the Unjust Judge from the New Testament Gospel of Luke (Luke 18:1-9) by John Everett Millais for The Parables of Our Lord (1863) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia


A pastor provided me a scripture that is appropriate to this amendment and the issues we are facing in Gloucester County, VA.

The Virginia Constitution was written for us to limit the government intrusion into our lives.  Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?  How about the Constitution of Virginia?

Article 1 Section 7.  Laws should not be suspended.  ” That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the …. people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.”

The Parable of the Persistent Widow
18 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’
“For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”
And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”
Luke 18:1-8, New International Version (NIV)

Our faith must be strong and we (the widow) must continue to go to the judge (the board of Supervisors) to get justice from their acts that appear to be illegal and not for the common good.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.  Our founding fathers used common sense and Christian scripture when establishing our founding documents. 

“For the Common Good. “

Sincerely,
Alexander James Jay

P.S.  The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives us Freedom of Speech; when will we have the courage to exercise this right when praying in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord in public forums.  This freedom cannot be restricted in our Christian Nation.
Enhanced by Zemanta