The Common Defense of The United States Is Weak By Sea

I am glad to see that the United Arab Emirates port deal seem to be dead but I hope that no one tries to pull a quick one on the American people. The bad thing here is that all we have to warn us is the media and they defend their right to libel religious figures. I wonder if you can lie about religious figures who and what else do you feel you have the right to lie about. I guess we have to deal with the half truths the media gives us until a better source comes around.

According to Associate Press writer Ted Bridis in his article titled “Study Warns of Port Operator Lapses”. Our ports are poorly secured as it is. The results indicating poor security were as follows.

The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities

And

The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains "that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain."

I am not going on. From what I read about the study the governments of the United States deserve an F in overall port security. There were two bright spots in America but considering how many ports we have that is not saying much. I still believe that the government should reward the two companies even if they are not American. I still do not trust foreign mercenaries but a desperate man will choose any port in a storm.

Security was good at two terminals in Seattle and nearby Tacoma, Wash. The operator in Seattle, SSA Marine, uses cameras and software to track visitors and workers. "We consider ourselves playing an important role in security," said the company's vice president, Bob Waters.

Any individual who is in political office takes an oath to uphold the values of the Constitution. One of those values laid out in the preamble is “to provide for the common defense“. In this case the Democrats seem to be one up on the Republicans but from prior experience it appears that overall the media does have a liberal bias. The simple solution is to get more companies like SSA Marine to control our port operations.

Pro Life Interest Should Challenge South Dakota's Anti Abortion Law

Politically the South Dakota legislation is the wise thing to do for pro life as it takes the wind out of the sails of pro-legalized murder advocates claim that Roe v. Wade’s support of legalized murder through abortion is settled law.

It also has a good chance of success if the lawyer’s fighting for the people’s rights to rule themselves is qualified and sufficiently funded.

If you want a bizarre scenario that could help the pro life cause then listen to this one. Pro lifer can challenge the South Dakota law because it does not grant unborn children either equal protection under the law or due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their case would be base on the fact that Roe v. Wade made conditions under which an unborn child is to be considered to be a person but then said that there was no evidence to prove that unborn children fit those conditions. The trick is that there is evidence. One is to establish that an unborn child is in fact a living human being instead of a theoretical human being. To do that you need to call in biologist that will establish that it is a biologic fact that unborn children are alive and human beings from conception on. How can the Supreme Court justify accepting the biological theory of evolution as fact without also accepting the biological fact of that unborn children are human beings. The second point is the Court stated that the law did not treat unborn children as persons. In fact William Blackstone called unborn children after the point of quickening persons and said they had the right to life in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England”. The Commentaries are important as they were used as a linchpin in Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review for the Supreme Court. I don’t see the Supreme Court declaring their power of Judicial review unconstitutional.. Roe v. Wade itself mentions why quickening was established as the beginning point of human life at the time William Blackstone write the Chronicles and so allows the replacement of the 18th century theory of the beginning of human life with the established biological fact. The last is to explain while unborn children are not treated equally under the law. The answer is that unborn children are considered slaves of their mothers and therefore not citizens of the United States. The Dred Scot decision declares that states have the right to give what benefits they want to non citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment was made law to right the wrongs of the Dread Scott decision and it grants non-citizens equal protection under the law and due process of law. It would be unlawful to strip someone non-citizens of either right just because laws exist that unconstitutionally strip them of those rights.. I used Roe v. Wade as a precedent to overturn the conclusions of Roe v. Wade. I think I am clever but I have had no qualified pro life attorneys review my work so it could be filled with holes.

If successful unborn children would be covered by the same laws as everyone else. If not succesful the South Dakota Law has been upheld be the Supreme Court as constitutional.