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

The Common Defense And The War On Drugs

Here is an article that supports why the War on Drugs is needed. The War on Drugs serves to keep the cost of drugs high. According to the law of supply and demand if the price were to come down then demand would go up. This is what is happening is Spain who is a gateway for drugs from Columbia and other countries.

The U.S. is a richer country and so can afford to spend more money for illegal drugs. The drugs from the South America countries are also more readily available since they do not have the Ocean to serve as a barrier between the point of origin and destination.

There is still a question whether the governments of the United States are serious about pressing the War on Drugs. Chris Simcox of Minuteman voiced his suspicions that President Bush and several governors may be in cahoots with drug dealers as Bush pardoned a drug dealer but refused to pardon two border control agents who shot another drug dealer in the butt. I have heard reports the injured drug dealer and his family were granted both amnesty and citizenship after the executive branch chased them down to testify against the two agents. I have not confirmed those reports yet.

There is a big question why the administration refuses to secure the borders of the United States despite the knowledge that terrorist, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and others use them.

Source 1 is article about Cocaine use in Spain.