Making Sure Our Vote Counts

The state of New Jersey weighs cutting idiot from their state constitution where the later are denied the privilege to vote. The argument of supporters of this move does not bear weight as a person can only be declared either an idiot or insane after going through the due process of law as the article clearly indicates which would mean that “individuals with cognitive or emotional disabilities may be capable of making decisions in a voting booth” would not be considered to be either insane or an idiot for purposes of the Constitution. On the other hand banning people who were not capable of making a decision in the voting booth from voting would eliminate a possible avenue of corruption as they may be convinced to vote according to the whims of their guarding.

You almost get the idea that State Senate President Richard Codey who is a Democrat wants to set up voting booths in a hospital for the hopelessly insane and mentally disabled who can not even be convicted of a crime according to the law. That is an extreme example of political egalitarianism and under the same argument children should be allowed to vote.

Source 1 is about proposed change to New Jersey state Constitution.

What Is The Federal Government Doing About Our Common Defense

A National Guard unit retreated from confronting an armed probe of our territory by an unknown group as per orders from the federal government. The unknown group then returned to Mexico. There are suspicions that this unknown group is related to drugs though no real evidence seems to exist to back that suspicion up.

This article claims that patrolling the border has made it more difficult to get drugs into the United States. This claim sound very interesting since supposedly we are spending millions and maybe billions to fight the war on drugs and no one seemed to have though of toughening the border before this.

National Guard Sgt. Edward Balaban claims the unit does not know how many individuals were involved because it was dark. This claim opens up a new can of worms since you would think a unit that was intended to observe illegal crossings would have the needed equipment to observe those crossings even in the dark.

The question I have now is why does the federal government spent so much money on the war on drugs while leaving such an obvious hole in our defense as the border and are our military and law enforcement personal stationed there equipped to handle the mission they are assigned.

In other news a California National Guard helicopter crashes injuring several individuals. The cause of the accident are still under investigation but considering that the helicopter was moving personal to secure a remote area and the prior event I question if maybe enemy action was the cause. My suspicions do not have enough support to be anything else but a weak maybe.

Two Mexican states are proposing giving GPS trackers to those individuals attempting to invade the United States but due to treaty obligation they have to get the consent of the U.S. Since giving the trackers to those individuals would be an act of war I can see the sense of the treaty in question. The Mexican states say that giving the trackers to those invaders is a human rights issue but the invader are proposing to violate the rights of the people of the United States to have secure border. These invaders are making a choice to risk their life in order to violate the rights of others and the government of Mexico or United States should not condone or encourage such behavior.

Source 1 is about National Guard retreating from armed group.

Source 2 is about National Guard helicopter crash.

Source 3 is about Mexican states proposing to give GPS trackers to those intending to invade the United States.

Fraud In The Marketplace

Buyer beware seems to be the message of the week as two articles come out about products that are either advertised to be more effective than they are or don’t meet performance standards.

The Federal Trade Commission is the federal government that handles consumer products. It is a unconstitutional department of the federal government since the U.S. Constitution limit’s the power of the federal government to just regulating “commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”. It is obvious from this the federal government was not intended to regulate commerce within a state since if they were the clause would have been “to regulate commerce” without all the added description of jurisdiction. There is no reason that state governments could not do the job as good or better than the federal government.

Never the less the FTC fined companies 25 million that made exaggerated claims of the effectiveness of their diet pills in their advertising. The products will remain on the shelf but the exaggerated claims are to stop. The companies made 160 million dollars on those products last year and are expected to return the fines to the customers who brought the products. I have heard of a television manufacturer who paid off a lawsuit by giving a coupon for money off the next purchase of one of their televisions to the claimants and I wonder if this when end up similarly.

Consumer reports tested twelve car seats to the standard crash tests required of cars and nine of them failed and one of the remaining ones could not be fitted into several cars they tried. The car companies called foul since the car seats were mandated to be tested at lower speeds as the legislature does not have the same standards for both. The only two seats that passed all the tests were the Baby Trend Flex-Loc and the Graco SnugRide with EPS.

Source 1 is about false diet pill advertising.

Source 2 is about car seats failing automobile crash test standards.

Massachusetts Legislators Reluctantly Vote To Let The People Decide

Sixty one of the Massachusetts legislation voted to advance the amendment to place a ban on homosexual marriage within the state of Massachusetts. This concerned the gay marriage supporters they asked for a recess then returned and voted 117-75 to reconsider the vote. In response Democratic state Rep. Philip Travis a gay marriage opponent scolded them for neglecting their “constitutional duties”.

The governor elect stated that the amendment was being used to "consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution.". I have no idea what discrimination he believed was previously removed from the Massachusetts state constitution but his argument is foolish since the privileges accounted to marriage come through the legislation and not through the state constitution even if this proposed amendment is passed.

In addition privileges for one thing or another are excepted in our society as we are not a socialistic society that seeks complete equality in everything. Minors for instance do not have the privilege to vote or to drink alcohol. Individuals who are blind do not have the privilege of driving. Should these “discriminatory” practices be done away with then laws intended to encourage behavior that is beneficial to our society would also be done away with. That is a foolish idea and I do not know what the people of Massachusetts were thinking when they when they chose to elect Deval Patrick for governor.

There was an exchange between two individuals on opposite side about who was acting Christians. The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is self destructive behavior and so a Christian supporting it would violate the command love your neighbor as yourself. On the other hand a Christian might have a noble reason for choosing to tolerate its existence though I can not think of it. True Patriots who cleave to the U.S. Declaration of Independence would oppose it because it encourages the violation of the inalienable right to life and health without a noble cause.

Source 1 is yahoo news article about legislation voting on gay marriage ban.

Source 2 is a second news article about Massachusetts state legislators voting to forward amendment process.

The Obstacles To True Freedom In The Massachusetts System

Gov. Mitt Romney is prophesizing that those who support a ban on same sex marriage will get their case heard before the People of the state of Massachusetts as the legislators of that state are now stuck between openly acknowledging they are in violation of their oath of office or giving the ban an up or down vote which has a good chance of allowing it to progress to the next step.

Those within the legislature who oppose this proposed ban will have nothing to do with such a republican way to resolve the issue and instead propose to block it with a procedural vote of some type. I find such procedural votes to be contradictory of the idea of a republican form of government. The most I can say for them as they might serve purpose in a two party system but I am not sure of that..

Arline Isaacson states that two thirds of the Massachusetts legislation supports same sex marriage which shows how far left Massachusetts is. I am kind of curious if the People of Massachusetts are in tune with their elected leaders or if they instead vote for them for economical or other reasons not related to morality.

Fourteen lawmakers also sought to quash a lawsuit against 109 lawmakers who refused to vote. VoteOnMarriage.org is the group that filed the lawsuit.

Gov. Mitt Romney has articulated support for homosexual marriage in the past but now that he is considering a run for President he is talking right. Romney like every other major Presidential contender is a contender because of media hoopla,. From what I have seen the media is dominated by liberal and libertarian interests which tells you where their bias lies when giving a candidate free advertising.

Source 1 is about Mitt Romney prophesizing that there will be an up and down vote on the homosexual marriage ban.

How Universities Maintain There Liberal Monopoly

At Massachusetts Institute of Technology an Black professor cries racism when he is denied tenure. He has some evidence favoring him as MIT struggles to recruit non Asian minorities and James L. Sherley has won a prestigious Pioneer Award from the National Institutes of Health that includes a 2.5 million dollar grant. That sounds like MIT is throwing away a star player.

There is another possibility for there throwing him away and that is that he is known for his “controversial” theories about stem cell research. He works with adult stem cells and opposes research using embryonic stem cells. This probably upsets the establishment at MIT as few want to be labeled evil even if the label is true.

MIT claims:

"MIT has a well-established procedure for reviewing and granting tenure to faculty," the statement said. "This process is thorough and extensive, and we are confident it was followed with integrity in this case."

This is a case of trusting an organization to police itself and it is considered bad security. Those who signed the U.S. Constitution did not believe that way since they separated the federal government into three parts to establish checks and balances. The state government also had a check on the federal government through the election of Senators. It was only those who came afterwards who decided that the state check was not needed and the federal government has grown ever since. It did some growing previously but that growing could probably be traced to the establishment of the central bank that later became the Federal Reserve we have now.

The article does not provide enough evidence for me to come to any firm conclusion on this issue but since I have seen evidence of liberal bias at other universities I favor the idea it was his not buckling under to the liberal establishment that got his tenure denied. He may well believe that also but he may believe charges of racism are more likely to get the administration of MIT to break their monopoly.

Source 1 is article about MIT professor being denied tenure.

A Seperation Of Powers Issue In Massachusetts

It seems the Massachusetts Court can not make up its mind. In a unanimous ruling on Wednesday 27 2006 it rebuked the legislation for a clear violation of the state constitution by not voting on a voter referendum for an amendment to the state constitution which would ban gay marriage. They then stated they could not force the legislature to vote on it but left it up to the voters to let their displeasure be known. This is the same court who voted 4-3 that the legislature had to pass a law allowing homosexual marriage in six months.

Looking at this evidence it seems plain to me that the Massachusetts Superior Court has a homosexual bias. This is not a surprise as the American Bar Association(ABA) which is a non government organization in partnership with the United Nations also has a homosexual bias. The ABA influence on the Massachusetts legal system is partly through the ABA accredited schools and partly through other means that I have not researched. I do not know the extent of that influence but it is clear it exists.

Strangely enough I agree with this latest ruling and disagree with the ruling that forced homosexual marriage on the People of Massachusetts. The People of Massachusetts have a choice to vote out the radicals they have in power or to kowtow to their oppressive tactics. Unless they choose stand up for their own rights as their forefathers did before and during the Revolution War there is no real help for them. The first ruling was a violation of the separation of powers if nothing else. The judges of Massachusetts are not elected which isolates them from the people and therefore makes them less accountable for their actions.

Source 1 is about ruling that allows legislature to violate the state constitution

Source 2 is about court forcing legislature to make homosexual marriages legal