San Francisco A Failure Of Democracy

I watched a repeat about the San Francisco Folsom St. Fair Aids benefit on the O’Reilley Factor last night and heard him comment on the fact that the police were lax in enforcing the law in that city even to letting people walk in the street naked and pee on the city benches. I decided to investigate the crime statistics for that city and see if his worry about the fairs effect on the general population respect for the law was genuine or not.

What I found was that San Francisco is in fact lax on enforcement as indicated by this report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. It is obvious the report is biased when it treads a 1% difference in crime decline as significant. I made one conclusion from the data presented in that crime is decreasing across the United States. My hypothesis is that due to abortion laws being relaxed in a few states and later abandoned all to together via a Supreme Court exercise of despotic power they younger generation of the United States was culled. According to a 2002 FBI press release in 2001 28.8 % of those arrested for violent crimes were 18 to 24 years old and another 15.4% were under 18 years of age for a total of 44.2%. The FBI failed to list the percent of the population in these age groups so I can not guarantee they are more likely to commit crime though I have heard it is so. 77.5% of arrestees are male and 69.5% were white. These two statistics indicated the possible presence of both racism and sexism in being convicted and jailed.

Now lets look at San Francisco’s actual population and crime data. It has a high rate of crime overall with a crime rate index of 5298.97 reported incidents per 100,000 people. The average U.S. rate during the same time was 4118.8 per 100,000. The nearby but slightly larger city of San Jose has a rate of 2601.69. The nearby but significantly smaller cities of Santa Rosa and Salinas have higher than average crime rates of 4268.13 and 4363.73 respectively. San Francisco seemingly destroys my age hypothesis with the 19.54% of its population of age10 and 24 years. Comparatively San Jose 21.05, Santa Rosa 20.43 and Salinas 24.95. I defend my hypothesis by assuming that an insignificant number of individuals under 10 are arrested for criminal offenses and citing the FBI statistic that 45.9% of total arrest were of persons under 25 years old. This means that these teens and young adults are committing approximates 2 times as many crimes for their number as older groups. I looked at New York City which has a low rate index of 3100.06 but a higher than normal murder rate of 7.26 per 100,000 compared to the national average of 5.6 but stiller lower than San Francisco’s 8.44.

So as you can see San Francisco’s lax police enforcement has resulted in a city where the population is not equally protected under the law and the natural human rights of life and property are sacrificed on the altar of greater liberty. It certainly has not noticeably harmed nearby San Jose though it may have hurt the smaller cities of Santa Rosa and \but the later has a larger percentage of males as well as citizens in the 10 to 24 year old range while the earlier has no apparent explanation in these statistic. Still they are ruled by a republic form of government and if they want to behave in a self destructive way they have who am I to say nay. On the other hand The Declaration of Independence states that is the duty of government to secure the natural human rights and when it becomes destructive of those ends it is the right of the people to abolish it. It seems that San Francisco is a benign tumor so it does not need to be surgically removed but hopefully the people change and exercise the self destructive nature that rules that debased town.

The Need For Citizen Oversight And Judicial Reform

In American we are a republic in that the Citizens of the United States elect their representatives to the government. In order to judge who will best meet our needs we need to be informed and so a free press is necessary. We also have the right and obligation to act as oversight for our government and voice our opinions whether they are legislative, executive, or judicial in nature. It is important that we as citizens are aware of the powers and application of those powers of each branch of government.

The legislative and executive branches of the government we control directly by vote. They also have the power to make rules for government. The legislative branch is in control of making laws and regulation and should be held accountable for them. The executive branch is in control of various organizations who’s purpose is generally enforcement of the laws. The executive branch is also in control of the military but Congress determines when it can be used.

The judicial branch is harder to influence in that we have indirect control of it from the appointment of an officer to the bench and onward. Most of our control is through the Senate or Congress as a whole. The Senate’s advise and consent phase to the appointment is just the start. The Senate can also impeach federal judges for committing a crime such as perjury. This was done during Thomas Jefferson’s time to help control the bench. They can also expand the number of Justices on the bench, so it would seem the could also reduce the number. They can form new inferior courts so it makes sense they can also dissolve them. The can also make rules for the judicial branch as it is part of the government as long as they don’t take legislate judicial actions. They with the states ratification can propose an Amendment to the Constitution to limit judicial powers. Despite all these powers they are reluctant to use them as it has proved self destructive to do so in the past. As Patriotic Americans we need to encourage them to do so and vow to stick by them through thick and thin as long as they uphold their part of the contract we voted them in for.

The state legislator also has the power to control federal judges but that would take a continental congress. I propose that a voter referendum should be proposed in all fifty states for that purpose and let the people decide.

To control our government though we need the power of oversight and the power of free speech so we each can do what we believe is right. This is a republic that has been seriously weakened by judicial activism and we need to fight to reclaim what we have lost. I leave you with the words attributed to Ben Franklin when he left Independence hall on the final day of deliberations about the Constitution in 1787 when asked what kind of government was created. His answer is below.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Who Has The Constitutional Right To Regulate Death

The Supreme Court is looking at whether the federal government has the authority to regulate pharmaceuticals in the assisted suicide law of Oregon. It is clearly a no-brainer that the federal government does have the right to regulate commerce. The question seems to be does the commerce clause give the federal government the right to regulate the use of the product traded. A similar case, The Gonzales v. Raich case that was just decided in June. It was not as clear cut, with the deciding Justices ruling that it fell under the commerce clause of the Constitution. But if they rule against the federal government in this case, it will allow the states to reattempt to thwart federal interference with distributing marijuana as medicine. The commerce clause is located in Article 1 Section 8 and I cite it here.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

But lets assume the Justices ignore all other implications of this case, which I have chosen not to mention, and instead choose to deal with the original question which is does the federal government’s right to regulate interstate commerce give them the right to tell others how the product can be used. First off this is clearly a right to property issue. As such it is clearly it is obvious the federal government has directly been given the right to regulate how or if items are transferred or sold between states and has not directly been given the right to regulate right to property such as the control or use of the product. Never the less since the federal government can choose whether to or not to allow an a product to enter a state they can in all practical purposes determine the conditions under which it enters that state by preventing its transport unless it is agreed to sell or use it as prescribed. Thus they can also legislate appropriate penalties for if the conditions of the agreement are violated. The state can refuse to allow the trade or transport of the product into or within their borders if they object to the conditions which the federal government placed on it. The state can also place additional restriction upon the sale and use of the product.

One other question that can be addressed it the federal government responsibility for the general welfare of its citizens vs. the states. In this case there are two conflicting hypothesis about the way a group of products can be used to benefit the general welfare of the people of a state. Though in most cases it is the states right to determine the best way to promote the general welfare, this is an exception as the indirect application of the commerce clause allows the federal government in the form of Congress superior jurisdiction in regulating the purposes products can be transported or sold over state borders.

Far Left Liberals In The United States Are Racist Part III

Progressive liberals are racist in their support of abortion. Unborn children have been credited with the right to life as well as being a person by the United States since before we were an independent country as can be seen from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. They were not credited at that time with having a right to liberty and their right to life was not considered equal to the born while on the other hand they did have an equal right to property. This of course speaks of an inequality of their protection under the law at that time, not their lack of being a whole person. This is obvious since Blackstone’s writings refer to them as a person with an equal right to life and limb.

The killing of legal persons through abortion in violation of the Constitution's instruction to insure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity is racist because a higher rate of black children is thus deprived of their right to life. Black children are targeted for death by abortionist in that the later builds clinics to serve the earlier’s greater “needs” when compared with whites. Like in the United State, Britain also targets blacks with 12% of those killed having black mothers though they make up only 2% of the British population. Asians are also targeted in Britain but I could not find data on whether or not the same is true in the United States. Here is a cite from the Population Resource Center that displays the racism inherent in the legalized abortion phenomena.

In 1997, African American women were three times more likely than whites and 50 percent more likely than Hispanics to have an abortion. Black women accounted for 36 percent of abortions, compared with 41 percent by non-Hispanic whites and 17 percent by Hispanics.

The conservatives were successful in stemming the assault on the black race by these progressive liberal executioners by cutting off their federal funds and so saved a number of children of color from the far left's wrath. Still the conservatives need blacks to become aware that the conservative cause is more friendly to the black race than the liberal cause that seeks their destruction.

For example the case of Dred Scott justified the victimizing of blacks by whites and was resisted by Christians and Republicans and resulted in the Fourteenth Amendment being added to the Constitution. Now Roe v. Wade which is also resisted by Christians and Republicans has clearly resulted in the unequal protection of blacks under the law by using a right enumerated in the Constitution to deprive the people of the natural right to life they retain by nature according to the law of the period in violation to the Ninth Amendment.

Far Left Liberals In The United States Are Racist Part II

Progressive liberals are racist in their attack on marriage. Progressive liberal doctrine is that marriage is only a piece of paper and doesn't count for anything and that divorce should be had at will. They say it is love that makes the relationship and therefore a loveless marriage is no marriage. They have been successful in their attack on American culture since the 1960's. The result of their attack has been the decline in marriage rate, the increase in divorce rate, the increase in dysfunctional families, and the increase in single parent and cohabitating households.

As the following statistics from CDC report titled "Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the United States" shows blacks have suffered disportionately under the harsh rule of Progressive Liberal dogma that pervade our society. The population in this paragraph is composed of women of ages 14 to 44. 25.2% of the black population is married compared with 54.3% for whites, for Hispanics, and 48.8% for others. While Cohabitation is similar between individuals of either black or white race at 6.9 %and 7.0% of the population, it is lower with others with 4.6% and highest with Hispanics at 8.2%. The last indication of the number of those formerly married which is 7.6% for others, 9.3% for whites, 11.6 for Hispanics and 15.5 for blacks. Below is a cite from the Population Resource Center regarding this phenomena.

In 2000, there were 8.7 million African American families. About two-thirds of blacks and non-Hispanic whites lived in family households, but only 48 percent of black households were married couple households, compared with 83 percent for non-Hispanic whites. Twelve percent of African Americans lived in households of five or more, compared with eight percent of non-Hispanic whites and 23 percent of other minorities.

This breakdown of marriage among people of color and has created an environment that leads to escapism and crime. There is proof that sex outside of marriage results in a higher level of domestic abuse and child abuse including abortion. For this reason a strong and serious stance on finding ways to decrease sex outside of marriage and increase strong stable marriages is a must for anyone who cares about children and/or women

This fanatical attack on marriage by predominately middle and upper class white progressive liberals has exploited a vulnerability in American Society and so significantly demolished the domestic tranquility of Americans of African decent and to a lesser extent those of European decent. This damage has been well studied and is widely known to those whom are wise enough to look it up. Therefore whoever backs the progressive liberal philosophy of weak or no marriage is a racist and/or a fool. When those individuals are also government officials either elected or appointed then they forsake their vow to uphold the Constitution for it states they are to insure domestic tranquility.

Far Left Liberals In The United States Are Racist Part I

This is the fist of three parts of my report on the racism of Progressive liberals. Progressive liberals say it is a human right violation to incarcerate those accused of crime and point to the racial disparity. I do agree that a racial element does exist but evidence exist to show it is in those whom point to the disparity in proportion of incarceration without considering the victims and what race they are. The economic class of the perpetrator should also be considered also since it plays a large part in the rate of crime.

According to a Bureau of Justice Special Report on Violent Victimization and Race for 1993 to 1998 by Callie Rennison, Ph.D. American Indians suffered the highest rate of victimization at 110 individuals in a group of 1000 of age 12 or higher were victims of crime. The rate for blacks 43 and for whites it is 38 while only 22 for Asians. Hispanics were apportioned in this study according to their race which throws off the statistics as they have a higher conviction rate and therefore a higher victimization rate. We know from experience that the perpetrator is usually the same race as the victim.

The violent crime statistics above did not include murder which according to the same report is 23 black victims per 1000 black individuals over 12 or 2.3% of the population, which is nearly 6 to 8 times that of other races. The statistics for other races is 4 per 1000 for whites and 3 per 1000 for Asian/American Indian.

It would be wise for our elected or appointed government officials as well as the rest of us to consider these statistics when you look at reports from Progressive Liberal such as the Human Rights Watch. I would be interested in which states are more effective in reducing violent crime and if they are the same states with a higher incarceration rate. It is the victims, not the perpetrators, whom should be first and foremost on the minds of our government. Their goal should be to uphold the U.S. Constitution and establish justice by seeking for ways to reduce the crimes committed against the natural right to life, liberty, and property among others of their constituents and not how to allow convicted felons whom prey on their own race back out on the street to victimize them again.

The Racism Of Abortion In America

The Whitehouse criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for stating the following. ``But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,'' The statement does express what some if not most pro-abortion supporters believe. According to euthanizer.com article the study Bennett was commenting on concludes the following.

. August, 1999 -- A study by a Stanford University law professor and a University of Chicago economist has sparked a national stir over its racist conclusion: legalizing abortion in the 1970s may be a leading cause of plummeting crime rates in the 1990s.

The unpublished research, conducted by Stanford's John Donohue III and Chicago's Stephen Levittand and titled "Legalized Abortion and Crime," relies heavily on previous research suggesting that unwanted children are more likely to commit crimes. It suggests that those most likely to commit crimes as young adults -- unwanted children of poor, minority or teenage mothers -- were aborted at disproportionate rates more than two decades ago.

So what Bennett stated was deplorable was just what the study had concluded. I do not see how you can get the ideal that the comment were "not appropriate" as the Whitehouse stated. In case George Bush has missed the boat the practice of abortion is abhorible and racist with people of color suffering a significant greater loss of fertility though the loss of life of their children to white doctors and white clinic personal targeting the black population. The Justices who chose to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution when they “legalized” abortion were all white males. I am tearful to admit that the United States has forgotten and abandoned the truth stated in the Declaration of Independent that all human being are created equal at conception and have the right to life.

Do Governments Have The Obligation To Present An Unbiased Platform?

Several states such as Arizona, Tennessee, and South Carolina have allowed choose life license plate and Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are arguing against them. Planned Parenthood which was once more accurately known as the Birth Control League has in the past stated they are not pro abortion but are pro choice. So if they are not lying they should have no problem with a license plate that encourages the choice of life.

The ACLU complaint is that because there is a pro-life plate and not a pro-choice plate that it's a restriction of free speech. The ACLU argument is unsound because the wording does not advocate the pro-life position of illegalizing abortion. Instead it advocates the pro-choice position and urges women to make a choice of not killing their own children. I have read where Hillary Clinton advocate this very ideal and she is certainly not pro-life as will see in the following cite from one of her speeches at clinton.senate,gov.

This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.

The ACLU argument is also misapplied in that while the government is restricted from making laws that restrict freedom of speech it certainly does not restrict the administration of a state from establishing a particular platform. The government does not have to be unbiased upon political issues despite the ACLU's claim to the contrary.

In fact in the United States we vote on them because they are biased and we expect them to advance our biased agenda. I do like the ideal that the ACLU advances that the government has the duty to provide an unbiased media for free speech but I do not see where the Constitution of the United States mandates that it does. Perhaps the legislation of the effected states were seek to put it into law if the ACLU feel like going by the democratic process, instead of the dictatorial process they are so fond of, and lobbying for it.