The War On Drugs Provides For The Common Defense On The Cocaine Front

According to this report from Reuters the drug wars that have brought so much grief to the United States has now hit Europe. Britain and Spain are now beginning to match the U.S for cocaine use among 15 to 34 year olds while France and other European Union members show signs of catching up. This is an epidemic since there with nine million individuals being exposed and possibly seven hundred European deaths a year linked to cocaine. Any country shipping cocaine to Europe would thus be engaging in an act of war.

According to a pro-drug cite by Brian C. Bennett whom claims to be a former intelligence analyst and expert researcher 18126 people died of cocaine related deaths in the United States between 1979 and 1998 inclusive. He also ventured the hypothesis that this number would decline if the cocaine was legal but controlled. He then went on to say 378,960 died from legal but regulated alcohol use during the same time. So lets use his assumption that human beings seek out pleasure and novelty by nature. The conclusion would be that if that self destructive pleasure were more available and permissible then it would be easier to find and engage in and thus more deaths would happen even if the death rate were reduced by regulating it. The number of deaths due to alcohol and tobacco bears this conclusion out.

So a thousand or more deaths happen a year from cocaine compared with the official toll of 2752 from the world trade center bombing. There were also 231 other deaths associate with terrorist attacks on that tragic day for a total close to 3000. The vast majority were civilians who did not volunteer for war and were not near a military target . There have been few if any deaths associated with terrorism in the United States since then. Because of those attacks we launched wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq where 2000 plus volunteer soldiers have died. But the military actions our brave soldiers are engaged in has weakened terrorist organizations which has made it more difficult for the later to attack the United States. Our courageous soldiers have also aided in freeing Afghans and Iraqis from despotic governments. Our soldiers deaths and injuries thus bear more honor than those whom died because of self indulgence in drugs.

So in conclusion if Columbia a democratic government was willing to ally with us to subdue the rebellious areas of their country that produce and ship cocaine to us, then would it not make sense to do so. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan Columbia already has a stable democratic form of government and a standing army so American troops would not have to stay there to see that either were established. This would limit danger to our troops. If we could get a coalition of South American countries to do so it would be better.

San Francisco Defies The Federal Government Over Drugs As A Precedent For The Right To Life Defiance

In San Francisco the city has decided to allow pot clubs and the federal government under President Bush has decided to kowtow to these self destructive liberals. The population complained because of noise, odor, and traffic and the city stepped up and is beginning to do something while the Republican Controlled Congress sits and watches. I suppose if the people of San Francisco want to be oppressed by pot addicts who falsely claim medical needs then they have a right to be. If you don’t believe my claim then think how many clubs have you ever heard associate with legal prescription drug use.

On the other hand should not conservative communities have the right to outlaw abortion in the same way. If San Francisco can defy the Supreme Court to their own ill without federal interference then any community has the right to defy the federal court to the benefit of the community. Rendering the arbitrary and deliberate killing of human beings illegal is certainly beneficial as evidence shows that 853,485 legal abortions were reported in the United States which is 246 deaths via abortion for every thousand births for approximately 20% of the young human population of the United States killed. In comparison The Black Death when it struck Europe between 1347 and 1351, killed a quarter of the population of all ages and is considered a horrendous disaster. I admit that the government uses abortion to keep minority population growth in check as white population declines due to other causes. That kind of behavior is atrocious and must end for all human beings whatever their race or ethnicity may be have the right to life.

Modern liberal American hypocritically complain about 2000 soldiers killed in approximately 2.5 years of warfare in Iraq. At least those soldiers have a means to defend themselves from their attackers.

Local communities need to take the precedent that San Francisco is setting and refuse to allow abortions to be performed in their communities. They can also refuse to go into the federal courts when sued. This will show the spirit of our founders who believed in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all human kind. If we do this then it will put the ball into the court of the federal government.

The ACLU Advances Their Cause Though Lies, Misunderstandings, And Judicial Fiat

The ACLU is a champion of what they call lifestyle discrimination. Lifestyle discrimination is a term made up by them or their allies to make laws that were passed to insure justice or protect the general welfare look wrong. They then use the equal protection clause of the Constitution to defend these cases which shows the power of euphemisms. Drug use and homosexuality are both lifestyle choices according to them. I wonder what they think of incest and bigamy? Here is a cite from a question and answer report about Deane and Polyak v. Conaway

Hasn't marriage been traditionally defined as relationship between a man and a
woman?

At various times in the past, marriage has meant something different than what it means today: Marriage used to be a forced union of two individuals for economic or political gain, but now it is a free choice of two people who love each other. Women who married used to lose all ability to act for themselves, instead becoming the property of their husbands, while now wives are not property but can act independently. Marriage used to be restricted along racial and religious lines, while now people of different races and religions are free to marry. Marriage used to be a permanent bond from which there was no escape, but now we allow divorce. In short, what has remained constant about marriage is that it is about commitment, love, sharing, and compromise. People who make that commitment to each other should not be denied the protections of marriage just because they are of the same sex

Now I want you to look at the evidence from the Commentaries on the Laws of England which were required reading for lawyers in the colonies. Here is an excerpt from University of Groningen in the Netherlands that testifies of the validity of Willam Blackstone 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' to display what the writers of the Constitution held to be true

Blackstone played an influential part in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In his 1985 book Novus Ordo Seclorum Forrest McDonald called Blackstone's contributions "pervasive." The Commentaries were cited if not by name than by inference many times during the constitutional convention. The most direct and lasting force of his ideas concerned ex post facto laws, rules of laws designed to retrospectively regulate conduct. During the debates James Madison questioned whether the provision banning ex post facto laws in the draft of the Constitution would apply to civil cases. The next day delegate John Dickinson announced that he had consulted his Blackstone and found that the illegitimacy of ex post facto laws applied only in criminal cases. The matter was dropped, and Blackstone's edict remains in force today.

According to Blackstone women were not property but were the less influential of two incorporated elements such as AT&T merging with Cingular under the AT&T name. In other words the two become one rendering one company legally defunct while merged and the other takes on it debts and obligations.

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law : that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband : under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing ; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert ; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord ; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

Never in United States history has a marriage been a forced union as can be seen in Blackstone’s writings and there is no law mandating that it be between two people whom love though marriage vows might well include love as a duty as the husband was instructed to love his wife in the bible.

FIRST, they must be willing to contract. “Consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias,” is the maxim of the civil law in this case : and it is adopted by the common lawyers , who indeed have borrowed (especially in ancient times) almost all their notions of the legitimacy of marriage from the canon and civil laws.

As for race I see no evidence that it was a consideration in Blackstone’s Book 1 Chapter 15 “On Husband and Wife” though some states did put such limits on marriage. The several states I know of were Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, and Wyoming. All were Anti-black laws of which there were many.

In conclusion you can see that the ACLU is either deliberately or incompedently misinformed about the history of marriage in the United States. In point of fact the United States has always regarded marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman. Their have been changes in the regulation of that contract through the democratic legislative process when the majority felt the need. What the ACLU is proposing is a radical new ideal who’s time does not seem to have come. since they have been unable to pass it by the legislative process. They have now given up on the rule of law and instead seek an unlawful judicial fiat of which the case of Deane and Polyak v. Conaway is one attempt.

The Activist Courts Have Failed To Protect The General Welfare

I am addressing a Washington DC article that mention Samual Alito’s and the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on whether or not police can conduct a search of individuals at a location they have a lawful warrant to search. According to the article the court majority whom Alito disagreed with ruled that police violated the rights of a mother and her daughter when they searched them under a warrant to search the premises they inhabited.

The majority was in error as I clearly display in a previous post. I am not rehashing that issue but instead am venturing a hypothesis on why they erred. When I heard of the case my first knee jerk reaction was in agreement with the majority because of the lettering of the Fourth Amendment and it was only after researching the issue to determine the spirit that I came to the conclusion that Alito was correct.

Going by the letter of the law has created poor judgments in the past such as when the Supreme Court ruled capitol punishment as unconstitutional in the 1972 case FURMAN v. GEORGIA. In that case the court quoted Trop v. Dulles in saying The Eighth Amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. This is a precept of the evolving Constitution doctrine and contradicts Article V of the Constitution which describes the only way for the Constitution to be amended. The justices do not legally have the authority to determine what The People view as moral and decent as that is legally determined by the democratic legislative process in the United States.

Another and more recent case that shows the same reasoning is Kelo v. City of New London where the statement “this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... Public“. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." The court obviously ignored the Highland Clearances where the land of Scottish tenant farmers was seized for the economic benefit of the region. The disenfranchised Scots emigrated to the United States where no doubt they were a great help in our war for freedom from British rule.

In conclusion I have shown that the activist mentality of some judges has violated our right to rule ourselves at the same time it violated our rights by allowing government to oppress us unchecked.

Samual Alito Proves He Will Strive To Establish Justice

A Washington D.C. news article included the following about a case addressed by the court Samual Alito was on and a summary of the judicial decisions rendered therein.

In a 2004 decision, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the case of four police officers who faced a lawsuit after the search of a mother and her 10-year-old daughter in the course of executing a search warrant for narcotics.

The court said "searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." The court pointed out that "a search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside."

Alito dissented in the case, saying the best reading of the warrant was that it authorized the search of anyone found on the premises. He added that even if the warrant didn't explicitly give that authorization, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so."

If you read the Amendment in question you will find that it treats a person's body like the property of the person, The normal procedure is that when premises are searched all property on those premises is also subject to search as any other limits would be unreasonable.

A second argument based on Supreme Court precedent used in Minnesota v. Carter is that individuals whom are found at an area being searched for drugs which is a commercial endeavor have no reasonable expectation of privacy since their privacy has already been violated by the initial search.

A third argument relies on history in that one purpose the fourth amendment was written was to forbid the use of a writ of assistance which was a class of general warrant used during colonial times that allowed the government to search any home, business, or person it desired.

This case does not fall either into that category of a general warrant or into an unreasonable mandatory warantless search which is also forbidden. Why I say the search is reasonable is because the police were conducting a search in an area suspected on containing drugs and because the individuals being searched inhabited that area and therefore give police reason to suspect them of being involved.

Free Speech In Broadcasting, Cable, And Satellite Media

According to a news report I read Fox News refused to run an ad that was critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito because it's lawyers claims the spot is factually incorrect. The ad is a half truth, but that is a complaint I have with news from all media sources including Fox News. I also understand they have size constraints on both the news and ad content. Fox News of course is self regulatory, and its commercial space is not a public forum, so they can limit what they show.

The news article I am using as a source states that "The ad says that as an appellate court judge, Alito has ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate ... even voted to approve a strip search of a 10-year-old girl. " I understand from that evidence that the ad is using the obviously preferred method of the left for an emotional appeal vs. a rational appeal, and makes the assumption that there is no reason to strip search a ten year old child. It neglects to mention the situation under which the strip search occurred.

The ad addresses a 2004 decision made by the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that ruled whether under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant for the search of property included the inhabitants of within the boundaries of that specific area. The majority said no, while Alito said yes.

I agree with Alito as the majority’s decision sounds like it was based on the letter of the law, and is oppressive of constitutional powers of the police to establish justice, and promote the general welfare. On the other hand Alito’s decision appears to be based on the spirit, and if it oppresses anyone it is those found at the scenes of crimes and not the vast majority of Americans. I will go into both more thoroughly later in other posts.

In conclusion, though I oppose the ad and support Fox News property rights I would be for cable, broadcast, satellite television, and radio becoming a public forum regulated by the government. This is so all Americans could have free speech in those mediums. Since it is not currently so, we must deal with it being corporately owned and regulated until Congress chooses to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by regulating it.

California School Should Be Indicted For Contributing To Delinquency Of A Minor

Here is a article about Catholic Monsignor Dale Fushek who is accused of sexually assaulting several boys, as well as asking them inappropriate questions as the below cite indicates.

“…asked them prying questions about their sex lives that he pretended were part of confession.”

It immediately reminded me of a recent ruling in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concerning where schools asked students prying questions about sex. This was where the federal judges ruled parents were not sole providers of their own children's sex education. So let me see, it is permissible for government to ask prying sexual questions of minors but not for the church to do so. Those teachers should have been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as I believe California has a variation of that law on their books also. But of course, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt did not consider the possibility of damage against the children caused by their early introduction to sex since there is no indication in the article I have about the case that either side brought it up.

On the other hand, the article does display evidence that he was asked to rule on parental rights. His ruling was "no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty.". This shows an obvious ignorance of American legal history. The consent of parents has traditionally been considered necessary by law before minor children were married with a few exceptions. He also ignores the Declaration of Independence’s legalization of natural laws which were defined by John Locke in his 1690 The Second Treatise of Civil Government which explicitly mention parental rights.

“The appeals court noted that other courts have upheld mandatory health classes, a school system's condom distribution program and compulsory sex ed.”

What other courts have done is irrelevant unless they are constitutional and the Constitution is quite clear on the exceptions to personal liberties as outlined in the preamble. John Lock is more detailed when he describes the limits to all liberties in that liberty does not justify license.

In this case you have the hypothesis of the government vs. the hypothesis of the parents and parental right clearly gives the parents primary jurisdiction unless that right is removed by the due process of law or the child’s health is in immediate and significant danger or the evidence supporting the government's hypothesis of what is best for the child is significantly stronger than the parents'.

Many Foreign Countries Have Economic Control Of Us Through Our Bloated Budget

The Constitution declare one ideal of a good government is to provide for the common defense and our government is failing in that miserably. It is not an foreign invasion I am talking about but a more insidious takeover of our economy by foreign capital. A wise man one said that “the debtor is a slave to the lender” which makes the United States slave to these foreign countries.

According to this report from the Department of Treasury the main country we are a slave to is Japan who holds 687.3 Billion dollars of treasury security holdings. China a communist country is number two with 252.2 billion. Other countries ranked largest to smallest holders are United Kingdoms, Caribbean Banking Centers, Taiwan, Germany, Korea, OPEC, Honk Kong, Canada, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, India, Netherlands, Turkey, Poland, Thailand, Ireland, and Israel. The grand total in dollars as of September 2005 is 2065.5 billion dollars.

So I hardly see how we can be free when countries like China hold our leash nor am I surprised with the far left victories in our federal government now that I know this. It is good that we keep a strong military since in the financial department we rot as it allows us a little leeway to defy payment but we still have to play in the big pond and so cannot get to bad of a reputation as a bad financial risk. President Bush makes noise about China's human right violations and Iran's nuclear ambitions but knowing that we owe them both, I am sure it is just noise.

This just goes to show that we desperately need to get the budget under control a suggestion that Democrat Senator Bill Nelson of Florida addressed with these words “The shocking thing is that of the debt we went out and borrowed last year, almost all of it was borrowed from foreign sources,”. Whomever wrote the title of this article about his speech which is “Democrats test debt xenophobia as 2006 issue” sounds like a far leftist as xenophobia is not a part of the issue, since it is about keeping the deficit in control and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by not being financially subject to foreign powers.

When To Show Mercy While Still Establishing Justice

The Constitution states that one duty of government is to establish justice and by the ancient law of nature justice is defined as a life for a life. Here is an article about U.S. rapper Snoop Dogg protest for the life of Stanley "Tookie" Williams. As aggravating circumstances Williams is convicted of the tyranny of depriving a four human beings of their right to life and so owes his life four times over and was leader of a violent gang. As mitigating circumstances supporters testified that he co-authored a books with Barbara Becnel geared toward steering children away from gangs, drugs, and crime. Dogg claims that Williams inspired him to turn away from being a gang member to being a better role model for coming generations.

Considering that Snoop Dogg is part of the gangster rap scene, so his testimony comes to naught and really hurts the case as gangster rap glorifies crime. Thus I would hardly call him a good model for the coming generations.

Nerveless if his coauthored books with Barbara Becnel are effective tools at stopping gang violence then they are saving lives and he has otherwise shown a sincere conversion then I believe mercy should be shown and his execution postponed perhaps indefinitely but he should remain in jail. This is because then the government would be protecting the right to life of its people as well as establishing justice.

The Constitution Instructs How To Curb Judicial Activism

Here is a very interesting case that has been processed through the federal courts. It is a lawsuit based upon patent infringement. I ask you to research federal practices where you will find that case law is what courts go by more than statue law as you read the below cite.

Robert Kerton, an economics professor at University of Waterloo in Canada, says the case demonstrates the need to reform the patent system, allowing real producers to get down to business.

``But don't hold your breath,'' he said, ``because thousands of attorneys really love the tangled system.''

Remember that judges are also lawyers so when they make case law they very well could be taking care of their own clique. That may be why instead of clarifying the law as they should, they work to make it confusing. You see the same thing in the court of justice as well as civil courts, which is only to be expected when judges abandon the tenants of natural law and make their own opinion the law. If a number of legislative members were not lawyers or influenced by special interest groups that gain by the system of laws as it now is, it would still have an uphill battle to repair the system since judges having the ability to arbitrarily decide what the law actually meant. That was one reason why the Constitution had judges take a constitutional oath, the Senate was given the power to impeach judges, and the Constitution limits judges to the term of good behavior. Still the Senate has violated their own constitutional oath and not acted to impeach these judicial enemies of the U.S. Constitution.