Comments for Think For Us http://www.thinkfor.us An ongoing conversational blog Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:27:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 Comment on Capistrano Valley High School history teacher James Corbett speaks to members of the Orange County Mensa : News Photo by james corbett http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=39920&cpage=1#comment-113014 james corbett Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:20:22 +0000 #comment-113014 . Chad Farnan, the boy who sued me, was a student, who admitted under oath that he did not do the required reading for the class. I cannot legally comment on his class work, but several of his classmates have publically stated that he regularly slept in class. If Chad's lawyers, the "Advocates for Faith and Freedom," and his parents were actually concerned with protecting the boy, why didn't they simply come to me and ask me to explain my comments? Neither they nor the Farmans ever expressed concerns to me nor to any administrators before they came to school with attorneys and reporters in tow to drop a lawsuit on the desk of Tom Ressler, our principal. Perhaps more importantly, the Farmans were aware long before Chad took my class that I go out of my way to be provocative. Every year in July, I send a letter home to students who have signed up for my class. Chad admitted under oath that he received that letter. The letter says, in part: "Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either The Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news Web sites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the 'lessons' of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views." I included my home phone number and e-mail address in that letter and encouraged parents to contact me if they had any concerns. Chad admitted under oath that my lectures prompted many discussions with his parents. I might add, that in 20 years in the CUSD, I have never had a complaint filed against me, save this one. By the way, my the pass rate in my Advanced Placement classes (AP Art History and AP European History) was over 90% which is significantly above the national average. I might add, the Advocates have made tens of thousands of dollars (probably hundreds of thousands) through begging for donations in appearances on O’Reilly, Hannity, Fox News, Trinity Broadcasting, et. al. The make money win or lose because they claim to be fighting for Jesus and that is a powerful motivation for many. Questioning cherished myths may make students and parents uncomfortable, but students have a right to think for themselves. It is not "bullying" to demand that students think. Ms. Farnan objected to my challenge of another national myth, that the United States was founded as a "Christian" nation. There is some truth to that notion, but embracing that myth and excluding other views can be used to unfairly gain political advantage. Another view of the founding fathers can be seen in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the Declaration of Independence. He translated the Bible. The last words of the Jeffersonian Bible might shake Ms. Farnan's faith: "There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed." There was no resurrection for Jefferson, he rejected all the Biblical miracles, as contrary to reason. I doubt with his view would be called "Christian" by Ms. Farnan or anyone else. James Madison, who penned the Constitution, warned, "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and units it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." If Jefferson and Madison were alive today, I doubt they could be elected. The guardians of the national myth would rise up and smite them as unbelievers. One other note, my attorney advised me that taking my case to an Orange County jury would be unwise. He explained that the “law” was on our side and that a trial presided over by a judge would serve me best. I accepted his advice. At the time, I did not understand that, by accepting that advice, all the “facts,” as presented by Chad’s lawyers, the Advocates for Faith and Freedom, would be accepted by the court as true and could not be challenged. If I had it to do over again, I would have chosen a jury trial and refuted each of Chad’s charges. I have never belittled religion in my class. Let me give you two examples of how the Advocates took my quotes out of context, the famous phrase “Jesus Glasses” and the reference to “superstitious, religious nonsense.” In the first case, my reference was to Joseph II and 18th century Austrian monarch who tried to close the monasteries and distribute the land to the landless serfs. The church and nobility, used their control of religion to blind the serfs to their own best interests by claiming that Joseph was going against “God’s will” in taking church land. In effect, I said, the clergy and nobility put “Jesus Glasses on the peasants and they couldn’t see their own best interests. In the second, my reference was to the teaching of a biology teacher at my school, a “young earth creationist” who refused to teach the state mandated curriculum and replaced it with his biblical views. He sued the student newspaper of which I was the adviser for defamation over a student written editorial which noted that he was teaching religion, not science in his class. He also sued the Board, principal, vice-principal, the Science Department Chair, and several others for violating his “religious freedom and freedom of speech.” The District supplied an attorney who gathered all the defendants and told us not to make any public statements until the case was decided. At that point, I stood up and said, “I will not allow John Peloza to propagandize kids with his “superstitious, religious nonsense” without response. I repeated that statement in Chad’s class when a student who Googled my name and found the 18 year old case and asked me to explain it. The case, of course, was thrown out of court as a “frivolous lawsuit filed in bad faith.” .
Chad Farnan, the boy who sued me, was a student, who admitted under oath that he did not do the required reading for the class. I cannot legally comment on his class work, but several of his classmates have publically stated that he regularly slept in class. If Chad’s lawyers, the “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” and his parents were actually concerned with protecting the boy, why didn’t they simply come to me and ask me to explain my comments? Neither they nor the Farmans ever expressed concerns to me nor to any administrators before they came to school with attorneys and reporters in tow to drop a lawsuit on the desk of Tom Ressler, our principal. Perhaps more importantly, the Farmans were aware long before Chad took my class that I go out of my way to be provocative. Every year in July, I send a letter home to students who have signed up for my class. Chad admitted under oath that he received that letter. The letter says, in part:
“Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either The Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news Web sites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the ‘lessons’ of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views.”
I included my home phone number and e-mail address in that letter and encouraged parents to contact me if they had any concerns. Chad admitted under oath that my lectures prompted many discussions with his parents. I might add, that in 20 years in the CUSD, I have never had a complaint filed against me, save this one. By the way, my the pass rate in my Advanced Placement classes (AP Art History and AP European History) was over 90% which is significantly above the national average.
I might add, the Advocates have made tens of thousands of dollars (probably hundreds of thousands) through begging for donations in appearances on O’Reilly, Hannity, Fox News, Trinity Broadcasting, et. al. The make money win or lose because they claim to be fighting for Jesus and that is a powerful motivation for many.
Questioning cherished myths may make students and parents uncomfortable, but students have a right to think for themselves. It is not “bullying” to demand that students think.
Ms. Farnan objected to my challenge of another national myth, that the United States was founded as a “Christian” nation. There is some truth to that notion, but embracing that myth and excluding other views can be used to unfairly gain political advantage. Another view of the founding fathers can be seen in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the Declaration of Independence. He translated the Bible. The last words of the Jeffersonian Bible might shake Ms. Farnan’s faith: “There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” There was no resurrection for Jefferson, he rejected all the Biblical miracles, as contrary to reason. I doubt with his view would be called “Christian” by Ms. Farnan or anyone else. James Madison, who penned the Constitution, warned, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and units it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.” If Jefferson and Madison were alive today, I doubt they could be elected. The guardians of the national myth would rise up and smite them as unbelievers.
One other note, my attorney advised me that taking my case to an Orange County jury would be unwise. He explained that the “law” was on our side and that a trial presided over by a judge would serve me best. I accepted his advice. At the time, I did not understand that, by accepting that advice, all the “facts,” as presented by Chad’s lawyers, the Advocates for Faith and Freedom, would be accepted by the court as true and could not be challenged. If I had it to do over again, I would have chosen a jury trial and refuted each of Chad’s charges.
I have never belittled religion in my class. Let me give you two examples of how the Advocates took my quotes out of context, the famous phrase “Jesus Glasses” and the reference to “superstitious, religious nonsense.” In the first case, my reference was to Joseph II and 18th century Austrian monarch who tried to close the monasteries and distribute the land to the landless serfs. The church and nobility, used their control of religion to blind the serfs to their own best interests by claiming that Joseph was going against “God’s will” in taking church land. In effect, I said, the clergy and nobility put “Jesus Glasses on the peasants and they couldn’t see their own best interests. In the second, my reference was to the teaching of a biology teacher at my school, a “young earth creationist” who refused to teach the state mandated curriculum and replaced it with his biblical views. He sued the student newspaper of which I was the adviser for defamation over a student written editorial which noted that he was teaching religion, not science in his class. He also sued the Board, principal, vice-principal, the Science Department Chair, and several others for violating his “religious freedom and freedom of speech.” The District supplied an attorney who gathered all the defendants and told us not to make any public statements until the case was decided. At that point, I stood up and said, “I will not allow John Peloza to propagandize kids with his “superstitious, religious nonsense” without response. I repeated that statement in Chad’s class when a student who Googled my name and found the 18 year old case and asked me to explain it. The case, of course, was thrown out of court as a “frivolous lawsuit filed in bad faith.”

]]> Comment on Boe-Bot Robot Information by Asus P320 PDA Control BoeBot with WiFi Interface | Your Pda Handheld Phone Review http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=38439&cpage=1#comment-112948 Asus P320 PDA Control BoeBot with WiFi Interface | Your Pda Handheld Phone Review Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:35:16 +0000 #comment-112948 [...] Boe-Bot Robot Informat&#105&#111&#110 [...] [...] Boe-Bot Robot Informat&#105&#111&#110 [...]

]]> Comment on Data Recovery Software to Undelete Files; Disk recovery; Recover Deleted Files by hdd repair tools http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=32864&cpage=1#comment-112498 hdd repair tools Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:13:06 +0000 #comment-112498 thanks share your artic! nice artic! thanks share your artic! nice artic!

]]> Comment on brother-in-law sex - Google Search by Jennifer Hudson’s Brother-in-Law’s Trial | lawyer http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=39536&cpage=1#comment-112496 Jennifer Hudson’s Brother-in-Law’s Trial | lawyer Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:20:06 +0000 #comment-112496 [...] Think For Us » Blog Archive » brother-in-law sex – Google Search [...] [...] Think For Us » Blog Archive » brother-in-law sex – Google Search [...]

]]> Comment on YouTube - Senate Candidate Freilich on a Cow by Jeremy http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=39328&cpage=1#comment-111650 Jeremy Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:09:28 +0000 #comment-111650 Wow this video is so bad it's good. I've probably watched it 20 times and still find it hilarious. Congress has made me want to cry lately, nice to finally laugh. Wow this video is so bad it’s good. I’ve probably watched it 20 times and still find it hilarious. Congress has made me want to cry lately, nice to finally laugh.

]]> Comment on YouTube - Gather Your Armies by Ross Wolf http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=37618&cpage=1#comment-108772 Ross Wolf Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:11:56 +0000 #comment-108772 Could Obama Be America’s First Defacto President? Innocent Americans increasingly are sent to prison based on false evidence manufactured by police forensic crime labs. Now President Obama wants the power to incarcerate U.S. Citizens not on evidence, but for what they might do. Compare: Two days after the 1933 burning of Germany’s Parliament Building, blamed on communists, Hitler responded with a powerful speech before Parliament. Hitler asked Parliament to suspend sections of the Reich Constitution that protected Citizens’ Rights and Civil Liberties. Hitler said the suspension was necessary so government could protect the homeland from being destroyed by communists. Hitler promised Parliament the Constitution would later be restored. After Parliament passed Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees and Hitler signed it February 28, 1933, Hitler immediately used the news laws to abolished Parliament. See Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Laws below: Obama gave a speech in May 2010, that proposed incarcerating in indefinite prolonged detention without evidence, any person government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage in a violent act in the future; that would include U.S. Citizens “without evidence of wrongdoing.” With that amount power Obama like Hitler could arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s claim they are a “combatant” or likely to engage in a violent act in the future. If Congress approves Obama’s categories of people likely to engage in violent acts, overnight millions of lawful U.S. activists could be subject to arrest, Indefinite Prolonged Detention. When you examine Obama’s speech, it appears Obama wants retroactive power to incarcerate anyone government claims (prior) supported violent acts on the premise that person is likely to support violent acts in the future: U.S. activists would be extremely vulnerable because no activist can control what another activist or group might do illegally they network with domestically or overseas. Government would only have to allege a person; group or organization might commit a violent act in the future to order Preventative Detention of lawful participants with no evidence whatsoever. Americans would be afraid to speak out. See: Obama Sound-Video http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html It is foreseeable any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners could be deemed by authorities a “Combatant” or likely to engage in or cause violent acts: government too easily could claim an author’s writings inspired people in the past and will in the future to commit or support violent acts. It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel; interrogated, will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while held in indefinite Prolonged Detention. Obama wants the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama wants the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence, based on conjecture someone might do something violent in the future. Obama similar to Hitler is centralizing power in the federal Government by getting passed legislation the U.S. government could potentially use to intimidate and threaten corporations among others. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists. Immediately after the fire, Hitler used his new laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. Obama is now approaching a position where he can use similar new laws, including the Patriot Act and 200 asset forfeiture laws to seize any corporation or individual’s assets; and force U.S. corporations and other institutions like Hitler did to support legislation that threatens or curtails rights of Americans. More recently Obama has moved forward to crush Free Speech, silence his critics by pushing passage of HR 5175: this abomination will choke the 1st Amendment, denying the right of free speech to ordinary Americans. Under Title II: groups like Gun Owners of America and other groups including bloggers that only mention “public officials” within 60 days of an election, could be required to file onerous disclosures–and potentially have to disclose their membership lists—despite the Supreme Court ruling in NAACP v. Alabama that held membership lists like those of GOA's) are off limits to government control. Is Obama’s support of HR 5175 similar to what Hitler did to shut up his critics? In the run up to Parliament passing his police state laws including the 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that abolished Citizen’s Free Speech, Hitler employed thugs to beat up reporters, arrest anyone who had courage to criticize the Fuhrer or his Nazi government or expose introduced legislation. Is Obama by supporting HR 5175 to shut up his critics, trying to take American to the same place? Alarmingly the Obama Government recently employed a vendor to search Internet social networking sites to collect information about Americans that could potentially be used by this government to injure Americans, for example, if you apply for a federal job, your name might be crossed referenced by the Obama Government with comments you made at Websites against Obama; or if you make application at a bank for a loan the Government has control since the financial crisis, could your Internet comment(s) prevent you getting that loan? Obama’s monitoring of the Internet sites can too easily be used by Government to intimidate Citizens from speaking out. Obama Top CZAR Cass Sunstein prepared a 2008 paper that proposed spying on Americans, infiltrating groups and organizations to obstruct Free Speech, disrupt the exchange of ideas and disseminate false information to neutralize Americans that might question government. See: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121884 To hear Obama proposing Indefinite Detention without evidence, access sound video at following web address: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html See Hitler’s 1933 Nazi Laws below: DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7 In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state: Section 1 Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. Section 2 If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority. Section 4 Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks. Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property. Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months. Section 5 The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning). Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years: 1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder; 2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person; 3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle. Section 6 This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation. Reich President Reich Chancellor Reich Minister of the Interior Reich Minister of Justice Could Obama Be America’s First Defacto President?

Innocent Americans increasingly are sent to prison based on false evidence manufactured by police forensic crime labs. Now President Obama wants the power to incarcerate U.S. Citizens not on evidence, but for what they might do.

Compare: Two days after the 1933 burning of Germany’s Parliament Building, blamed on communists, Hitler responded with a powerful speech before Parliament. Hitler asked Parliament to suspend sections of the Reich Constitution that protected Citizens’ Rights and Civil Liberties. Hitler said the suspension was necessary so government could protect the homeland from being destroyed by communists. Hitler promised Parliament the Constitution would later be restored. After Parliament passed Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees and Hitler signed it February 28, 1933, Hitler immediately used the news laws to abolished Parliament. See Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Laws below:

Obama gave a speech in May 2010, that proposed incarcerating in indefinite prolonged detention without evidence, any person government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage in a violent act in the future; that would include U.S. Citizens “without evidence of wrongdoing.” With that amount power Obama like Hitler could arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s claim they are a “combatant” or likely to engage in a violent act in the future.

If Congress approves Obama’s categories of people likely to engage in violent acts, overnight millions of lawful U.S. activists could be subject to arrest, Indefinite Prolonged Detention. When you examine Obama’s speech, it appears Obama wants retroactive power to incarcerate anyone government claims (prior) supported violent acts on the premise that person is likely to support violent acts in the future: U.S. activists would be extremely vulnerable because no activist can control what another activist or group might do illegally they network with domestically or overseas. Government would only have to allege a person; group or organization might commit a violent act in the future to order Preventative Detention of lawful participants with no evidence whatsoever. Americans would be afraid to speak out. See: Obama Sound-Video http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html

It is foreseeable any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners could be deemed by authorities a “Combatant” or likely to engage in or cause violent acts: government too easily could claim an author’s writings inspired people in the past and will in the future to commit or support violent acts. It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel; interrogated, will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while held in indefinite Prolonged Detention. Obama wants the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama wants the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence, based on conjecture someone might do something violent in the future.

Obama similar to Hitler is centralizing power in the federal Government by getting passed legislation the U.S. government could potentially use to intimidate and threaten corporations among others. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists. Immediately after the fire, Hitler used his new laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. Obama is now approaching a position where he can use similar new laws, including the Patriot Act and 200 asset forfeiture laws to seize any corporation or individual’s assets; and force U.S. corporations and other institutions like Hitler did to support legislation that threatens or curtails rights of Americans.

More recently Obama has moved forward to crush Free Speech, silence his critics by pushing passage of HR 5175: this abomination will choke the 1st Amendment, denying the right of free speech to ordinary Americans. Under Title II: groups like Gun Owners of America and other groups including bloggers that only mention “public officials” within 60 days of an election, could be required to file onerous disclosures–and potentially have to disclose their membership lists—despite the Supreme Court ruling in NAACP v. Alabama that held membership lists like those of GOA’s) are off limits to government control. Is Obama’s support of HR 5175 similar to what Hitler did to shut up his critics? In the run up to Parliament passing his police state laws including the 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that abolished Citizen’s Free Speech, Hitler employed thugs to beat up reporters, arrest anyone who had courage to criticize the Fuhrer or his Nazi government or expose introduced legislation. Is Obama by supporting HR 5175 to shut up his critics, trying to take American to the same place?

Alarmingly the Obama Government recently employed a vendor to search Internet social networking sites to collect information about Americans that could potentially be used by this government to injure Americans, for example, if you apply for a federal job, your name might be crossed referenced by the Obama Government with comments you made at Websites against Obama; or if you make application at a bank for a loan the Government has control since the financial crisis, could your Internet comment(s) prevent you getting that loan? Obama’s monitoring of the Internet sites can too easily be used by Government to intimidate Citizens from speaking out. Obama Top CZAR Cass Sunstein prepared a 2008 paper that proposed spying on Americans, infiltrating groups and organizations to obstruct Free Speech, disrupt the exchange of ideas and disseminate false information to neutralize Americans that might question government. See: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121884

To hear Obama proposing Indefinite Detention without evidence, access sound video at following web address: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html

See Hitler’s 1933 Nazi Laws below:

DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).

Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice

]]> Comment on Raymond Lee Oyler Gets Death Penalty For Arson by StarsWIsh http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=37000&cpage=1#comment-108160 StarsWIsh Thu, 27 May 2010 06:14:53 +0000 #comment-108160 this happened almost a year ago. why comment NOW? what's the point? I was close to this case and it's just another reminder of how some things can go so wrong in life. this happened almost a year ago. why comment NOW? what’s the point? I was close to this case and it’s just another reminder of how some things can go so wrong in life.

]]> Comment on Roland AX-Synth Shoulder Synthesizer :: Overview by Porter http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=26407&cpage=1#comment-106666 Porter Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:04:46 +0000 #comment-106666 I'm totally buying one of these in a few months. I'll bring this thing everywhere, beach, downtown, wherever I can play, this thing will be going. I’m totally buying one of these in a few months. I’ll bring this thing everywhere, beach, downtown, wherever I can play, this thing will be going.

]]> Comment on Ostler, Zacher help Brunos bounce back by MediaMentions http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=35188&cpage=1#comment-106116 MediaMentions Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:14:51 +0000 #comment-106116 Oh, I was just reading this post the other day: (http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=5FHYWFTAT117&preview=article&linkid=7ffd1ca7-6275-4d91-95c6-e7a05b95a3d3&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d): funny how it all comes together, no? Sincerely, MediaMentions Oh, I was just reading this post the other day: (http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=5FHYWFTAT117&preview=article&linkid=7ffd1ca7-6275-4d91-95c6-e7a05b95a3d3&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d): funny how it all comes together, no?

Sincerely,
MediaMentions

]]> Comment on HellMOO@Everything2.com by Dionysus http://www.thinkfor.us/?p=34800&cpage=1#comment-105766 Dionysus Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:24:36 +0000 #comment-105766 I had actually written a lengthy write-up about HellMOO there but I ragequit and deleted all my articles after nearly 9 years on E2. :) I had actually written a lengthy write-up about HellMOO there but I ragequit and deleted all my articles after nearly 9 years on E2. :)

]]>