Expressions of Liberty

Making Sure Our Vote Counts

2007-01-09T17:47:00.000-06:00

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

2007-01-06T18:26:00.000-06:00

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

2007-01-05T08:06:00.000-06:00

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

2007-01-02T18:27:00.000-06:00

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

2006-12-30T12:37:00.000-06:00

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

2006-12-29T18:03:00.000-06:00

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

2006-12-28T20:16:00.000-06:00

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

2006-12-26T12:21:00.000-06:00

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.

Religion v Politics And How They Mix

2006-12-20T09:05:00.000-06:00

This is an article about a lawsuit that was filed and won by a “Christian” man in Great Britain. I am using it because it shows why religion and law are mixed even though extremist try to falsely claim that the separation of state and church doctrine in the U.S. Constitution prevents this.

This “Christian” man sued his former employer Professional Cycle Marketing, of Essex after an accident on the work site that he stated:

transformed him from a loyal newlywed into a "disinhibited9ik, 0." character who had two affairs.

The statement is a denial of Jesus as Lord since according to the New International Version Translation Jesus stated in Matthew Chapter 15 that:

18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

If sin comes from the heart then it is not the result of an accident and the man used unchristian pretences to sue for reason that can not be Godly as they are based on false doctrine.

His doctrine is actually a doctrine that is related to that I saw written in the Communist Goals submitted to Congress 1963. Some of the related goals are.

39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."

In saying that the injury he sustained controlled his action he is stating adultery, which is a form of promiscuity, is a natural action that can not be controlled. This is an issue in the psychiatric field that effects marriage and thus the family as an institution.

Head injuries can cause impaired self-control but does not actually cause a person to sin. A Christian realizes that such impaired self-control or even a deadened conscience is no excuse before God as we sin because we obey our evil natures and not because of lack of self control. Faith in God can overcome lack of self control just like it can overcome any other obstacle that puts itself in the way of a Christians pursuit of the true righteousness and holiness that comes from God.

My conclusion is that religion and politics are mixed because political doctrine such as communism set themselves up opposed to the Christian doctrine. I also caution Christians to be careful not to be led astray by these false doctrines even though the Founders of The United States decided it was best to tolerate them and work to overcome false doctrines by an application of sound and valid reasoning.

Source 1 is article about man suing company for causing him to commit adultery.

Source 2 is 1963 Communist Goals Submitted to Congress.

Source 3 is Wikipedia entry on “traumatic brain injury“.

Is The Anti Discrimination Law Being Misused?

2006-12-18T21:52:00.000-06:00

The recent immigration laws seemed to have brought our either an error in or misuse of anti discrimination laws. It seems that four years ago Swift & Co. meat packing plants was fined for discrimination when they demanded proof of legal status. This involved two different parts of the federal government which are at cross purposes.

The lawsuit should have been thrown out of court if the plaintiffs were unable to show that Latino’s were singled our for special treatment. If all employees no matter their race or ethnicity were treated the same then there was no basis for the lawsuit. Racial profile is not a smart thing to do in this case since illegal immigrants though seemingly predominately Hispanic do come in other races and ethnicities.

Looking at my deduction above and comparing it to the following statement shows one place where the anti discrimination laws are being misused..

In June, the Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed rule that companies give workers 60 days to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warned that the proposal could lead businesses to violate nondiscrimination laws, and the rule has not been adopted.

As you can see there is no evidence that a company following the above rule would be showing any bias toward a person based on their ethnicity of race. This tends to make me believe the attorneys and courts involved are misusing the law and are not throwing our cases which are obviously non discriminatory.

Here is another misapplication of the law since an employee is not barred from asking for additional proof of identity by the anti discrimination law as long and that asking is done equally across racial or ethnic lines.

Federal law requires businesses to have job applicants fill out an I-9 form and to verify that the person can legally work in the United States by checking documents — usually a Social Security card and photo identification. But employers are prohibited from asking for additional documentation to prove legal residency.

I believe this is blatant lawsuit abuse and the plaintiffs are harassing these companies for their own purposes. Such abuse needs to be addressed by the legislation. They could demand a sizable fine be paid by those plaintiffs whose case is thrown out of court.

There is also some question about the constitutionality of federal anti-discrimination laws that allow lawsuits against organizations or businesses , In reading the Fourteenth Amendment it can clearly be seen that the federal governments authority in regulating these activities is only extended to the states themselves and not to the citizens of the state or any organization they see fit to form themselves in. I do not believe the elastic clause(last part of Article 1 Section 8) should be used to expand the Federal government’s power in this case. The Federal government could require that the state in question pass and enforce anti Discrimination legislation that does effect individuals and organizations. This would be much like what New Jersey courts mandated in respect to homosexual unions in their states except it would not violate the division of powers as the New Jersey action did.

Do not get me wrong as I believe legal action should be taken against Swift & Co. with the hopes that there defense may have an effect on getting the Anti Discrimination laws correctly applied to take into account the need to enforce immigration laws. I know it may be a burden for Swift but it seems to be the likeliest way to correct the wrong that is done in the court systems.

Source 1 is about Swift & Co and how they are caught in a legal crossfire.

A Scandal About Parental Rights Centered On Foley

2006-12-13T18:56:00.000-06:00

U.S. News complains about the House ethics committee and it lack of action against Denis Hastert with these words

Once again the House ethics committee has failed to take a positive step in sending a clear message to the American people.

Instead, the bipartisan report on the Mark Foley scandal was a study in pitiful cowardice.

The committee recommended no penalty for anyone, including outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert. The evidence was clear that Hastert and his aides knew that Foley's seamy conduct was open to further investigation.

They are half right in that evidence shows Hastert failed to act aggressively in taking care of the matter but other evidence implementing other members of both the Republican and Democrat caucuses existed that U.S. News does not mention.

Kolbe is described in a House Ethics Committee report as being too friendly towards the high-school-age pages, who serve as congressional interns.

The ethics report also faults Kolbe for not reading an inappropriate instant message sent by Foley to a former Arizona page who complained to Kolbe in 2001 about that matter.

It seems that Kolbe is a homosexual himself and may have allowed his sexual orientation to effect his judgment. He was probably looking at it as gay bashing and not pedophilia. Kobe is retiring and his handpicked replacement lost the primary to Randy Graf who was himself defeated in the general elections.

The third element of this situation is the Democrats such as Rahm Emanuel who knew about the situation in 2005 but did not release that information until it was political expedient. It seems that Emanuel like Hastert has a short memory for events when such would benefit him as he is on record as saying he did not know of the affair in question in 2005..

Kolbe resigned before the scandal broke and the Republican voters rejected his hand picked successor so not much could be done to him. Hastert loss his position in leadership which could also be considered a repercussion of the Foley scandal. Emanuel was persuaded by Nancy Pelosi from running for the Majority Whip but took the Democrat Caucus Chairman position as a consolation prize. Did these gentlemen suffer these repercussions for unrelated reasons or did God step in. I can not say since if God did step in he did not make his presence known where I can prove it.

There is probably more about this case than I have been able ascertain as this time.

Source 1 is article about Hastert

Source 2 is article about Kolbe

Source 3 is article about Emanuel

Are The Blind Out To Oppress The Non Blind?

2006-12-12T21:11:00.000-06:00

This is an update of an earlier post that I brought to you attention. U.S. District Judge James Robertson made a socialist ruling based on the Rehabilitation Act that mandates that treasury department has to change the currency of the United States to take in account the disability of blind individuals.

The lawsuit is clearly a way for the American Council of the Blind to get around our system of making changes in the government by bringing the courts into it. They state as much themselves with the following words from this article.

Christopher Gray, president of the council, said that while his group has been lobbying for changes to help the blind since 1995, the government has yet to conduct any feasibility studies of what those changes might cost. He said that during that time, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has made several design changes to thwart counterfeiters.

The chances are good that the group went judge shopping before even submitting their lawsuit as that would be the actions of any half way competent attorney and from what I know there is nothing to stop them,

According to Tara Cortes, president of Lighthouse International, another advocacy group for the blind there are 1.3 million blind individuals in the U.S. and the number is expected to grow. That comes up to 43 individuals who are blind out of every 10,000 residents. These individuals are taxpayers and deserve that an tax expenditure in proportion to their numbers be made to accommodate their needs. That expenditure would be 43/100ths of a cent of each dollar spent. I don’t think anyone would object if 50/100ths of a cent of each dollar was spent on them.

The law in question is the Rehabilitation Act and it is constitutional as Congress can make laws regulating federal agencies. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities in programs conducted by the federal government. It does not mandate discrimination toward those who are not disabled so in order to prevent discrimination on both sides the Treasury should make sure that the blind get their 43/100th of a cent of every tax dollar worth of input into each currency design.

Source 1 is article about Federal Government appealing case.

Source 2 is some information about the Rehabilitation Act.

Standing For The Right To Life No Matter What

2006-12-10T18:40:00.000-06:00

I am going to attempt to answer a difficult question which is whether your soul leaves your body when you are brain dead. Bain dead is when your brains suffers a catastrophic injury that leaves your brain with a persistent flat electroencephalogram reading but your body is still living and still trying to keep you alive as God designed it to do. It is also trying to either repair or circumvent the damage. It does not give up until true death.

God designed the human body very well and it can do amazing things to get over the abuse of this corrupt world. So the idea than you can not recover from being “brain dead is a complete myth.

Even when a region is so badly damaged the brain may use another region to replace its function and thus restore some semblance of use. This is called Neuroplasticity.

You can go from being non conscious to being conscious so the liberal theory that non consciousness means death is nonsense. Brain dead individuals are woken up after given sleeping pills.

There is little I know about the human body butit is enough to convince me those who support the "brain dead" theory are lying or are being fooled.

In addition science is making huge strides so that advances now account for miracles like having the blind see. One experiment is with rodents where their sight is restored by nanotechnology. Another experiment has transferred new neurons generated in one part of the brain and plugged them into the brain in another where they began working.

These organ donors are in scant supply while the demand while the demand for their organs keep going up. There is a lot of money involved in this industry and that is most likely one motivation for the deception.

The doctors may see it as a triage decision where they are sacrificing one human who might recover to some extent from the damage for several others whose life might be saved by his or her organs. The family members on the other hand are being deceived and making the call because they believe their loved one is dead or because they figure it is better to be dead than disabled.

I am a kidney disease patient and face the choice whether to have one of these people who have their own families and friends killed for my personal benefit. I do not have that right whether the Government said so or not and my God condemns the actions of those who would do or condone such a terrible deed.

Source 1 shows that the brain continuously rewiring itself.

Source 2 is definition of Neuroplasticity

Source 3 is about brain dead people who wake up after receiving a sleeping pill.

Source 4 is about MIT researchers restoring vision to blind rodents using nanotechnology.

Source 5 is about scientist moving neurons from one part of the brain to another.

How Permisive Parents Threaten Parental Rights

2006-12-03T23:15:00.000-06:00

My source is an article by Patricia Reaney of Reuters and is about a study that found a link between pre teen dating and smoking young. The possible reason given for this in the article is that both are a result of the children wanting to be adults. That makes sense as advertisers play on that desire to pitch products and services to kids. Some of those items are not age appropriate.

I believe that if the researchers have tested it they would have found the parents who allowed their preteens to date were more permissive. Because of negative peer pressure those permissive parents effect even non permissive parents though the actions of their poorly disciplined children.

Source 1 is the article by Patricia Reaney.

Source 2 is abstract of study that found link between substance abuse, risky sex, parental permissiveness and negative peer pressure.

Source 3 is characteristics of a “typical child” from 8 to age 18.

Educating Immigrants On Being Americans

2006-12-02T22:32:00.000-06:00

The government has unveiled a draft of a new citizenship test they will be trying out in several cities. The questions on the test are certainly things that all American citizens should know. I would probably want a more involved test that goes into the basics of the rights and privileges of Americans and emphasizes not only our founding documents but at least some of the documents that support them.

Never the less the article claims that immigrants will be required to show a deeper understanding of American history and government which is an idea I support. I do realize that education is only part of the solution as human beings seem to forget knowledge they are not using.

The one complaint I have with the test is the statement “equality for all Americans” which is correct if you are talking of their possession of natural human rights but is not correct if you are talking socioeconomic standing. The later is a teaching of socialist and not of the Founders of the United States..

This sounds like a step in the right direction though it does not solve the illegal invasion the United States is undergoing.

Source 1 is about a rough draft for a new immigration test.

A Violation Of The Separation Of Powers

2006-11-29T21:00:00.000-06:00

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins is an activist judge who has decided that the President of the United States does not have the power to arrange foreign policy despite Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution giving him many aspect of that power. She has applied the Bill of Rights to foreign organization when that bill is clearly intended to be applied only to American citizens and their decedents since it states in the preamble “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.

Congress does have the power to regulate the Presidents exercise of the foreign policy power but in those cases when they have chosen not to and no treaty binds him then he has a free hand. Judge Collins did not display either regulation by Congress or a treaty that would forbid the President from declaring foreign organization terrorist organizations. She has instead violated the separation of powers by interfering between the President and his duty to negotiate with foreign powers.

She did this by stating that one part of the Patriot Act was so vague a person of average intelligence could not understand it. I question whether or not she even looked at a study which gave evidence that point was true. It is irrelevant since the Patriot Act just gave a power to Bush that was already his according to the U.S. Constitution. The most this vague section could do is regulate how he exercises that power and if it is so vague then he would be bound by that regulation.

If this had been a case of domestic organizations then the Fourth Amendment would have made it necessary for the President to get some kind of warrant to take the action he proposed. The assembly clause of the First Amendment would not of applied even then unless he was stopping the organization from meeting. I see no evidence he was doing that even with these foreign organizations.

Source 1 is article about Judge striking down President’s ability to declare foreign organizations to be terrorist organizations.

Source 2 is a second article with a different point of view about the Judges action.

The Primary Target Of The Hedonistic Barbarians Is Children

2006-11-26T20:27:00.000-06:00

My source for this commentary is a very informative article by Martha Irvine of the Associated Press which talks about pre teens behaving and looking more and more like teens. I am convinced that a lot of this is the result of the cultural war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Atheistic Hedonistic barbarianism.

The physical facet may be attributed to better nutrition or overeating as proposed my some experts but I favor the presence of both actual or artificial male and female homes in the environment. The evidence I have of this shows that such presence exist in the water which we all need to live. They are also secreted by each of us so they may well be a God given method of birth control as a males sperm level decreases with exposure to some of them.

The cultural facet is that advertising firms make money out of sexualizing children and they put money before ethics. Those companies that do not do so find themselves falling behind in the marketplace. This is also complicated by permissive parents or those who actively encourage the sexualization of their own children. These poor quality parents then become a threat to the children of other parents who are not so permissive because of peer pressure.

I have not mentioned the effect of divorce and cohabitation on children which increases their risk factor. It is better for a mother to be a single parent that cohabitate as far as behavior according to some statistics I have seen though she and her child will suffer economically. A married family is the most stable and economically well off unit there is which does not mean there are not some bad marriages.

Please read the article I mentioned which is my first source below. Then consider that we need to act to reverse the trend that has struck the U.S. and other nations. We have the federal courts as well as a number of activist and politician against us. We can use boycotts or pressure our politicians to legislate. We need to spread the word to others so that those who are concerned have a chance of becoming stronger in number. We need to consider ways to compete with, win over, weaken, or eliminate those are against us.

Source 1 is article by Martha Irvine.

Source 2 is hormones causing feminizing of Fish in Denmark

Source 3 is effect of hormones on frogs

Source 4 is more about hormones and other pollutants effect on human health.

Source 5 is a short commentary and some books you might want to read about the Sexualizing of children.

The Fall Of Civilization

2006-11-25T21:57:00.000-06:00

It seems it is news that swingers are allowed to operate in Singapore even though they have to be discrete about it. My suspicions of this article are stirred up by a ruling last year in the Supreme Court of Canada that made swinging legal despite the rule of law. There is a movement that is going on world wide which may or may not be organized to encourage libertine behavior. It often works through the legal system of various countries such as the ruling that is attempting to force homosexual marriage on the people of Israel or the ruling that has already forced it on the people of Massachusetts.

The question is whether such behavior is harmful to society shows a lack of knowledge or an intentional incompetence on the part of the part of the judges in question since sexual transmitted diseases are passed from person to person in such casual encounters. There is also children conceived through these actions that should be considered. There are other harmful effects butt these are the most obvious.

The question that these two articles bring up is what we Americans are going to do about what is coming because it will come. There are individuals who strive to encourage the hedonistic lifestyle. They have already damaged our society significantly and they do not care as their goal is to obtain personal pleasure at any cost.

Source 1 is Swingers in Singapore

Source 2 is The aliance between activist courts and swingers in Canada

Source 3 is a Glossary of swinger verbiage which shows the depravity of swingers.

Will Rhode Island Choose To Encourage This Violation Of The Right To Life And Health?

2006-11-22T19:05:00.000-06:00

A lesbian couple who are citizens of Rhode Island have filed for divorce in that state after being “married” in Massachusetts. They were allowed to “marry” because a .Massachusetts judge exceeded in jurisdiction by acting as a legislator for Rhode Island.

The solution to this supposed conundrum is quite simple in that all Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah Jr. has to do is correctly interpret Rhode Island Law as Rhode Island law does not recognize homosexual “marriage” and if there is not marriage there is no need for a divorce.

This is because the only marriage Rhode Island law recognizes is between a man and a woman. The Massachusetts judge said the Rhode Island law did not latterly forbid the marriage of two individuals of the same sex which is correct as far as it goes but then it does not forbid a woman from marrying a dog or man from marrying a car. On the other hand it does not recognize any of these “marriages” which ends up forbidding them though not in actual words. This means the couple is only legally “married” in Massachusetts and must return there to get a divorce just like any other homosexual couple “married” in that far left state that encourages the violation of natural human rights.

The situation is that too many activist judges exist and Judge Jeremiah Jr. may well me one in which case his personal politics is more important than the law. There seems to be a lot of hoopla for such an open and shut case so I am concerned that he is an activist. Instead It may be he is just being careful to construct his argument considering the controversial nature of the case.

I wonder if this is one of the same couples whose “marriage” was legalized by that extremist Massachusetts judge just a few months ago.

Source 1 is about lesbian couple filing for “divorce”

The Disaster To Families Caused By The Federal Courts

2006-11-21T21:51:00.000-06:00

37% of American babies are born out of wedlock but I am not complaining even though such children face a rough and dangerous childhood as both cohabitating and single parent relationships and more disruptive than married families. The reason I am not complaining is a large number of children conceived out of wedlock are deliberately and intentionally killed at the behest of their mothers before there are born.

This high number of children conceived out of wedlock is a natural result of the Supreme Courts decision to violate the separation of powers restriction in the U.S. Constitution. They either incompetently or intentionally ruled that the freedom of speech covered pornography. It is common sense that no one has the right to use their own rights to harm or injure others. Science has also presented enough evidence to show that pornography brings harm to other even if it is just in normalizing deviant behavior such as having sex out of wedlock. Even if there are competing theories which is questionable it is up to the legislation and not the judicial branch to choose which theory they favor.

The no fault divorce laws and the removal of laws against cohabitation and adultery or the refusal to enforce them have most likely contributed to this state of being. The courts have a job and that is to judge according to the law. It is not to make or remove laws that they object to for one or another arbitrary reasons.

Source 1 is about number of U.S. births that are out of wedlock.

An Applause For A Strike For Freedom Of The Press

2006-11-17T21:14:00.000-06:00

Hungary seems to have trouble with the idea of freedom of the press as a socialist/liberal council shuts down the media because it is biased. I mention this because we have had too many attempts by radical liberals in the United States to do the same thing with speech they disagree with. Here is a commentary by a fairly liberal individual who is swinging right and is about the episodes where liberal object to Ann Coulter’s free speech. I could point to radical liberals who vandalize pro life displays on a regular basis.

Conservatives may also do the same thing and if they do they are no more right than the liberals who do it. I find the hate America speech preached by some Americans to be a crime akin to treason and yet I am forced to tolerate because I do not want anyone defining what is “hate” speech and what is not. I am hoping that most American will reject such speech. Liberals are too prone to outlaw speech and expression they find harmful while backing speech that is proved to be harmful such as pornography.

I must applaud the Mayor’s solution of employing town criers to bring the news to the people of his community and I hope is protest will be effective.

Source 1 About Mayor using town criers to protest councils’ infringement on free speech.

Source 2 is commentary about attempts to deny Ann Coulter free speech.

Why Aliens Are Not Protected By The U.S. Constitution

2006-11-13T22:39:00.000-06:00

Non citizens are challenging a recent la enacted to fight terrorism. It gives law enforcement the power to apprehend Aliens and put them in detention indefinitely a detention they can not challenge in civilian courts. The executive branch defends the action stating This action is clearly constitutional as the Preamble states the U.S. Constitution was established to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and Aliens do qualify.

The Fourteenth Amendment may be construed as protecting Aliens in some cases as it does state “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law” and “any” may be all inclusive. The context of the very sentence that ends with those words is talking about citizens for it starts off “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Even if you take the broad interpretation the Aliens are still allowed due process as their status is tried before a military court. There is nothing that says the due process needs to be the same due process and we know different due processes are allowed for citizens and military personal.

Since the attack on 9/11 was an attack on the United States the conditions for the suspension of habeas corpus have been triggered and it is up to Congress to decide whether or not to suspend it even for citizens as it is written in Article 1 Section 9 “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”.

Some may say this law should of not been passed or should be revoked and that is their opinion and they should use the regular legislative process in order to attempt to do so. This is not a job for the court system and any court that attempts to so is violating the separation of powers that is written in the U.S. Constitution and so violating their constitutional oath.

Source 1 is about challenges to detention

Libertines Are Always Testing The Limits

2006-11-11T23:16:00.000-06:00

I felt I should mention that some things are too libertine even for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals as this article on a ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court. The scary thing is that two of Nevada’s lower courts found what they called “"expressive conduct" in the constitution. That probably has something to do with the right to speech. The court wisely stated that even if it does apply it not absolute. I would like to see both that decision and the one in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals even though I have trouble believing the Ninth said any such thing.

Seattle on the other hands rejected a measure keeping dancers four feet away from patrons.

I am unsure what the legislators and others who propose these bills hope to do. I would really like to know the rational since I do not see them doing anything significant to curb sex entertainment.

The First Amendment can not be used to violate the purpose of the U.S. Constitution so there is a limit to any one of the freedoms it grants.

Source 1 is article about Nevada Supreme Court.

Should The Question How Best To Kill A Child Be A Decided By The Supreme Court?

2006-11-04T22:51:00.000-06:00

The courts will be hearing the case challenging the ban on partial birth abortion, I ask how much riskier for a woman’s health is it to completely give birth to their child instead of partially giving birth to the boy/girl and then have the doctor kill him/her. In short it sounds like the health of the mother is never in question which is the only reason for a third trimester abortion of the child I remember according Roe v. Wade.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

This phase potentiality of human life is incorrect as human life is known to begin at conception according to science. It is only when you get to theological/philosophical arguments that there is any debate. Viability is the point of which a child can survive outside his/her mother’s womb and occurs at the point where the child has lived 22 weeks or shortly thereafter. The only point in the human life cycle when there is a potential for human life is the gametes as they are not a homo sapient life form though they are living.

In law according to Roe v. Wade this is irrelevant. All that cares is who the law states is a person, and not who is actually a person. .In their argument the deciding judges used prior court decisions to determine what the law was. Court decision are not the law they are merely the interpretation of the law and may be changed at a later date without changing the law. Only the legislators have the power to make or remove laws and therefore a statue law holds precedent over a court decision every time.

The potential hang up in the court for the partial birth abortion ban will be the words “appropriate medical judgment”. The courts decided in Doe v. Bolton than one medical opinion is all that was necessary since they stated the second was unnecessary. If the federal attorneys can present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt there is no health reason for this procedure to be performed then the Justices should decide the law is constitutional. The federal attorneys have an advantage over state attorneys in that Congress can regulate the federal courts and the Seventeenth Amendment removed the states ability to influence the federal government. This makes the judiciary think twice before overturning the a law passed by Congress.

Source 1 is article about Supreme Court hearing case on Partial Birth Abortion.

Source 2 is the majority decision in Roe v Wade

The Repercussions Of Choices

2006-11-03T22:01:00.000-06:00

I am getting tired of hearing the excuse I am an alcoholic from our Congressional representatives. It is probably true as far as it goes but if you know alcoholism affects you by reducing your inhabitations then why are you drinking in the first place. I find it hard to believe anyone does not know. It could also be a lie as he can get his sentence reduced by a year if he completes a alcohol treatment program.

Representative Bob Ney of Ohio has finally resigned after being convicted of corruption. The prosecutor wants him to do 27 months but that is not enough as he abused the public trust.

State Senator Joy Padgett who was hand picked by him as a successor has bagged him to resign as his presence in office and her personal business dealing was hurting her chances of victory. She is strong on protecting our border and a strong on protecting the life of all human beings whether they are born again but is loosing in the polls to Democrat Zack Space 35% to 45%. Zack Space is also for a strong border but may be pro choice to commit murder as he supports chopping up children in a early stage of their life and using the pieces for research.

This possible loss may be because the cultural conservatives have lost faith in the Republican Party to win the battle. Their mistake is to think the Republican party is united. The Republican party is filled with libertarians who are cultural liberals. There is also disagreement among the cultural conservatives. For ethics to win then the cultural conservatives need to agree to disagree with others on the other points and set their goal on winning in the area of pro life. If they can not win that fight then the rest are already lost. The pro choice to commit murder faction is happy that so many of those that would stand for life are not going to vote.

Source 1 is about Mr. Ney resigning.

The American Problem: Money Is More Important Than Ethics

2006-11-02T22:41:00.000-06:00

My source is about Black conservatives that disagree with the Democrat party agenda and still vote Democrat because what they believe the Democrat party has done for them. The fact do not bare out what they believe since it was Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights marches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seems to have been non partisan but his father was a lifelong Republican that began to side with the Democrats after one faction of that party responded to his son being locked up in Birmingham jail. It was the Democrats and not the Republicans that opposed even to the point of filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 though a number of Republican Senators including libertarian Senator Barry Goldwater who would later loose a run for President. Mr. Goldwater’s comment was that “you can’t legislate morality”.

Arthur Hammons summed up the real reason for the voting and it covers Whites as well as Blacks when he said "Our community votes for the Democrats because they are seen as the party for the middle class and poor people. We see the Republicans as the party of the rich,"

The Republican Party has managed to shake that image to some degree but when look at the tax breaks they give it tends to favor those with money. The Democrats are more slick but the also favor a different faction of the rich in the medical and education fields. They also favor union who’s higher-ups are far from poor. The apparent advantage is that the poor and middle class seem to reap benefits from the Democrat positions.

Personally I believe we need a new party who will embrace some of the economic policies of the Democrat party and the ethical policies of the Republican conservatives,. I am not sure if such a party would be feasible in our system because money seems to be needed and what moneyed special interests would they appeal to even if they appeal to the majority of the People of the United States.

This is my Source about Black conservative voting.

The Religious Right V The Religious Left

2006-11-01T21:55:00.000-06:00

Reverend Al Sharpton who happens to be an American of the Black racial group came out with a message from the religious left criticizing the religious right by stating that their efforts should be aimed at fighting poverty, insuring equal access to education, and fighting other social injustices instead of being against homosexual marriage and abortion.

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson who also happens to be an American of the Black racial group responded by stating that the breakdown of marriage is what cause these social injustices and that they will be remedied when families united again.

This is opposed to the Democrat message of no fault divorce and cohabitation which probably means Mr. Sharpton does not want to hear it. Legalized abortion which is also supported by the Democrat party results in the deaths of three times as many Blacks as non Hispanic Whites.

I am convinced Mr. Sharpton has the wrong priorities. I am not stating that Mr. Patterson is 100% correct and that Mr. Sharpton is 100% wrong but the idea is to go back to the pattern of the 1950’s before the breakdown of marriage and the legalization of abortion and take a new path on both of those issue. The federal court has been the largest enemy of the Black people with unconstitutionally legalizing a number of practices that have proven destructive of the institution of marriage. One of those is pornography and the other seems to be contraception. Both of these contributed to the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s.

Even before the liberal attack on the institution of marriage there was a disparity between the marriage rate of Blacks and that of Whites but some of the issues have been addressed since then but do no aid in remedying the situation. From what I have heard the government has also managed to award single women for not getting married in their program of help for needy families which adversely effects the poor which Blacks tend to be. This strangely enough will ensure that such women remain poor as having a second person making an income relieves some of the financial burden from the woman.

Are TASERs A Threat To The Natural Human Right To Life?

2006-10-31T22:14:00.000-06:00

I am actually a supporter of TASERs but from what I see they tend to be overused because they are branded as non lethal. They are a tool for law enforcement to use and one side effect of that use is the possible death of the target.

Taser International Inc, who sells TASERs, claims that 9000 lives have been saved while Amnesty International claims that 156 have been killed by them in five years. I believe both figures are inflated. Taser’s claim depends on police using a TASER instead of a gun which is not the case where a teenager was yelling “I want Jesus” and when confronted by officers who tried to calm him became combative so they TASERed him. They shot him a second time when he continued to struggle.

The question I have to ask and this article does not answer is how would of this type of confrontation been resolved before TASERs were introduced. In what ways is the new method better/worse than the old way. Since I do not have this in other information to adequately evaluate the situation I can not say whether this was a unfortunate death that is the result of better law enforcement or whether it was a death that could have been avoided by restrained use of TASERs.

Source 1 is an article about a death attributed to TASER.

Is It Truth Or Fiction? Immigration Reports

2006-10-30T21:00:00.000-06:00

Two reports the appear to record improvements in border security are being covered by the media. The first reports that border arrests of illegal aliens are down despite an increase in border control agents. The second is a report about the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) breaking up an a human smuggling ring. The initial source of both reports is the government so it is not implausible that they have spun either or both stories to their advantage.

We have no idea what the 1900 new border agents will be doing as they may be support staff instead of boots on the ground. There is also supposed to be increased security measures. This should increase the number of arrest per those getting through. Since the report indicates the opposite it would seem clear that other factors not reported in this article account for the fewer arrests. One possibility is the unrest and elections that are taking place in Mexico this year.

There is also a report of 13% more marijuana being seized. This could indicate that a higher percentage is being seized or that more is being shipped or even a combination of the two. The reasonable assumption is that the tightened security is making it risky to ship marijuana into the U.S. I do not believe that is the case as it would cause an increase in the street cost and I have not heard of that happening. If you have heard different then provide me with evidence of it.

ICE did a good job breaking the smuggling ring which had been operating for years. The question is what is going to happen to the participants and it this just a cameo bust for public consumption. There is reports of the U.S. returning more illegals to there home country this year but I question how effective that is when we have an fairly open border on both our North and South so the can easily return.

Source 1 is report of heightened arrests on the border

Source 2 is about smuggling ring being busted in Arizona.

Science Without Ethics And The Slipper Slope Of America

2006-10-29T22:05:00.000-06:00

Women are going to go crazy over this new advancement using adult stem cells. Using stem cells from a woman’s own fat researchers believe the will be able to construct new breast. This article states it is only for cancer patients but if I can see the potential of it being used for plastic surgery then so can other people.

This article shows a consistent media bias for research on stem cells made by cutting a baby in its first days of life up and using the body parts to do research on possible cures for other humans later in life. The designation stem cell though true is also a euphemism that hides what is actually occurring. Those who support the right to life of all human beings should avoid using it because it is deceptive. The media is even more deceptive as they refuse to make a distinction between those stem cell obtained from killing a human being in his or her early stage of life and those that are harvested form a human being but do not kill or significantly injure him or her.

For this reason the stem cell debate is on area in which the liberal bias of the main stream media is obvious.

The study I mention above is still in the animal testing phase and is farther advanced than embryonic which is in its hypothetical stage. I believe they have created a male gamete out of a cell from a chopped up baby early in its lifespan.

There is no reason that scientist could not be performing these studies using stem cells from chopped up animal babies instead of stem cells from chopped up human babies. If they succeed then they can get permission from the American people to kill human beings so they can heal other human beings. If the people gave them it would be a clear violation of the law of Nature and Nature’s God but our system allows for to tolerance of such tyranny.

The only reason I can believe that scientist have chosen a path of greater resistance is that they are challenging those that believe that all human beings have the right to life. Researchers have also proposed fusing a human child and a chimpanzee child which are both in the blastocyst stage of life thus killing both children to create a new offspring that was a combination of both known as a chimera. This would be unethical but some scientist do not believe ethics apply to them which pits them against what is called the religious right even though it contains Atheists in its numbers.

Source 1 Is about discovery in adult stem cells the could change the nature of plastic surgery involving human breasts.

Source 2 is about human chimpanzee chimera.

Source 3 mentions some interesting items about the nature of chimeras and our laws.

The Government's Support Of The God Of Science In Unconstitutional

2006-10-28T22:50:00.000-05:00

The Federal Bill Of Rights was made law to limit the Federal Government and not the state governments as they have their own Constitutions to do that. The federal courts either incompetendly or purposely misinterpreted the Due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and their motive was most likely so they could better control the states. In the following comments I am following their misinterpretation.

If you read the First Amendment of the United States Constitution then you will find all it does is forbid Congress from showing favoritism for any religious organization or prohibiting the exercise of religion of the same organizations. This of course also meant the members of such organizations as the people of that time believed in social contracts.

The separation of church and state doctrine is a lie base on an incompetent or intentional misinterpretation of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist which also mentions natural law which according to the U.S. Declaration is the law of Nature and Nature’s God.

Evolution is called science but the Board of Visitors at Virginia University also called religion a science while Thomas Jefferson was overseeing them. I call evolution a religion because believing in it takes an act of faith because we do not know what really happened as no one recorded the events that evolution talks about and the “evidence” evolutionist put so much faith is may be and probably is misinterpreted.

As proof of my claim I enter the recent discovery that biologist have decided they have gotten the relationships between the four major grouping of insect wrong and have to redraw it. This is not the first discovery of a mistake as the family tree of primates has been restructured and the theoretic relation between placenta, partial placenta, and egg laying mammals has been changed. The later was done after fossil discoveries but the other two were attributed to genetics. Even the configuration as it is now is theoretical which means that believing in it is based on faith. Fossil evidence which lacks genetics for the most part is even more tenuous than that which includes genetic evidence.

Evolutionist refuse to recognize the possibility that an intelligent entity had anything to do with anything as they claim they existence of such an individual can not be proved. If that claim of evolutionist is true then their theory becomes an opinion as they are saying their assumption that God is irrelevant is not falsifiable. As an opinion that makes the theory of Creation or any other theory that accounts for the evidence just as valid.

So why are we teach the faith based theory of evolution in public schools and disregard other faith based theories that explain the diversity of life in the World. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment as the government is showing bias for a particular religious belief and should be fought by all true patriots who believe that the government should show not bias toward any religion.

Source 1 is about evolutionist restructuring the insect family tree.

Character Assasination v Good Character

2006-10-27T22:33:00.000-05:00

The GOP is blamed for an ad that accuses Democrat Harold Ford Jr. or going to a party sponsored by Playboy. The ad is said to be racist because is shows a white blond woman who tells him to call her. My perception when I saw the ad was that Mr. Ford engaged in the same kind of womanizing parting that certain politicians have engaged in for years. The facts of the matter are actually a little different as the party though sponsored by Playboy was celebrating a sports event.

Though deceptive the ad does bring up an important question about good character which is prized in our politicians. Do we want a politician that supports a pornographic organization such as Playboy to have a legislative position and is merely attending an event sponsored by Playboy testimony that a individual supports pornography. You should not be deceived as Playboy does have a reason for sponsoring any event and I doubt it is because they like sports.

This is one of many character assassination ads that are criticized by some individuals. I do not see it the same way. The problem with the ad like many ads political or others is that they present one biased viewpoint. This is something the average person should already be aware of and act to counterbalance by finding out what the whole story is much like I did. Mr. Ford and other politicians have the opportunity to respond or get their story out in one way or another. If the worse case occurs then all that happens is that the other politician wins which is at worse a sad comment on the wackiness of some Americans. I have know of no method that will stop wacky people from voting without infringing on the right to vote of everyone which would do more damage than the disease it is intending to cure.

Some of the defenses of those accused of character assassination otherwise known as defamation of character are as follows. A true statement is not considered to defame the character of the person targeted. This includes any statement made in good faith with a reasonable belief it was true. It also includes opinions since they are not falsifiable. It is also not defamatory if the target consents or has such a poor reputation that they can not be defamed.

As you can see it is difficult to prove that character assassination actually occurred in any of these cases and in politics the courts have left it up to the people to decide since they felt it would do to much damage to the political process for the courts to interfere. I agree with them.

Source 1 is my source about negative ads.

Politics And The Border Fence

2006-10-26T22:05:00.000-05:00

The Comprehensive immigration reform Ted Kennedy wants amounts to amnesty for millions of law breakers who are mostly from Mexico. This of course leads up to the what the Mexican administration stated supporting the so called comprehensive reform as being no real surprise since such a process favors Mexico over the United States. Bush takes the same viewpoint and may make some concessions on insisting that English becomes the official language of the United States. I question this as the Republicans on the last issue as they had an opportunity to make all election in English but passed it up. That action makes me suspicious of their excuse for insisting on voter ID since the two moves seem to contradict each other. All Aliens who become citizens are supposed to know English to be meet the qualifications so the question is who is voting that does not know English good enough to vote?

Back to the original topic which is the fence which provides for the common defense and which our American compatriot Mr. Kennedy and his Mexican ally Mr. Fox are criticizing. The planned fence will cover only seven hundred miles of our 1951 land miles between Mexico and the United States. From what I know this “fence” may be either an actual fence or a virtual fence which is left up to the Homeland Security Department(HSD) to decide. In addition the HSD can decide where to put this so called fence up which gives them the option of placing it on inhospitable deserts which well may be an ineffective place to put them. Combine this with the idea that the National Guard troops were sent to the border to be support for the border control and to build roads. Roads can be used by anyone including drug smugglers, terrorists, and illegal aliens.

I believe Congress should have insisted on a fence being build and not let Homeland Security decide but the later being an executive branch is given the power to decide what tactics and strategy best serve the interests of the United States. The problem I have is the loyalty factor as Director Michael Chertoff is part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America which to all appearances compromises the independence of the United States. It is also a program the violates the separation of powers idea written in the U.S Constitution. Another question is whether it is giving power that is reserved to the representatives of the United States to a foreign organization in violation to the guarantee of a representative form of government.

There have been claims that “the fence” is not funded and that claim in untrue since 1.2 billion dollars have been allocated to begin the building. This is of the estimated 8 billion needed to build the fence. The 8 billion if it even costs that much is a drop in the bucket to the Federal government. With Homeland Security in charge someone needs to keep a close watch on them to make sure they are not wasting the money either accidentally or purposely.

We the people have to be persistent in our demands that the job done on time and done right. If we do not give up or get bored and stop paying attention then we can get the government to do its job. The government will twist and turn to try not to do their job and Mexico will aid them because there are special moneyed interests that do not want our border secured. I am sure the U.N. will rule against the wall because they already did so with Israel’s wall which was to stop terrorist and had proved effective. We can not let our politicians give into that pressure.

Source 1 is about the signing of the Border Fence Bill.

Judicial Activism v The Rule Of Law In New Jersey

2006-10-25T22:09:00.000-05:00

The Courts in New Jersey disappointed both the traditionalist and the homosexual movement when they chose to compromise on the issue of homosexual pseudo marriages by ordering the legislature to pass a law in 180 days that granted homosexuals the same rights as married couples.

This violate the idea of separation of powers that is in the United State Constitution but the New Jersey Constitution may not maintain a similar separation of powers device. This ruling is definitely legislating from the bench as it is up to the legislators to decide what laws to pass and revoke and up to the judiciary to judge according to those laws. The question I have is does the NJ Constitution give the judges the power to legislate from the bench and if it does can New Jersey government still be considered a republic in accordance with the mandate of the U.S. Constitution. The same type of legislative ruling seems to have occurred in Vermont in 1999.

The three dissenters backed homosexual marriage which means that all seven judges on the New Jersey Supreme Court are activist and most likely violate the rule of law. That is a sad state of being for a state and for a country.

I am curious how much the American Bar Association who is a non government organization that has agreed to uphold the principles of the United Nations and supports the homosexual agenda has to do with this and other rulings.

The legislation should condemn the activism of the NJ Superior Court and use what ever powers they have to bring the courts back into compliance with the rule of law but I doubt they will in such a progressive state.

Americans are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to keep our government in check if we do not let our biases sway us to work against the rule of law. If you to have a part in ruling yourself you do not allow judges to legislate from the bench even if the law as it stands is against you point of view. You work for change within the system. The homosexual movement have proven again and again that they would rather force their agenda on the rest of us than leave up to the people to decide what they decide what is best. The judges need to be brought in check and according to an article I read at the Washington Times this is being tried in several states. I believe the effort needs to be tried in every state and in the federal government. This we need to do for the freedom and liberty of the people of the United States.

This equal rights arguments for gays v heterosexual couples is questionable since I am wondering what rights a married person has that a unmarried person does not. My guess is these rights are not really rights but powers given to each partner to deal with contract obligations. If that is so then without a contract there are no obligations and therefore no need for such power. If you say the close relationship should give you these powers then there is no reason why any roommates no matter if the relationship is sexual or not should not have the same powers. This later argument was used by Dr. James Dobson in his support of Colorado Senate Bill 166. From this article the same kind of bill will satisfy the requirements of the political decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Source 1 is about the N.J. Superior Courts activist ruling.

Source 2 is about action being taken to bring activist judges under control.

Source 3 is about Dr. James Dobson’s support of Colorado Senate Bill 166.

The ACLU Supports Online Preditors Who Are Exploiting Children

2006-10-24T21:10:00.000-05:00

The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) who is connected to the United Nations(UN) through a non government organization(NGO) agreement where they agree to carry out the policies of the UN is representing the plaintiffs who are against a law meant to protect children from online predators who wish to introduce children to pornography. The law was passed by a Republican Congress in 1998 and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton much to the credit of all that backed it.

The federal government does have the power to legislate in this matter as Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives them the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” and the internet is a place of commerce even if it is just the trade of information.

The issues as stake are freedom of the press/speech. This freedom is limited by the same rule that limits and other freedom and that is that you are not at liberty to harm yourself or any other creature in your possession except for a noble cause. The stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution supports this as in one clause it states it was enacted to “promote the general welfare“. Some other clauses of the preamble may also apply to this situation.

The second issue is parental rights which have recognized as a right longer than the United States has been a country but are not specifically defended by the U.S. Constitution. It would be a good idea to place a parental right Amendment in the U.S. Constitution for this reason. Parental rights are that you have complete authority over your children and those children legally put in your charge because you are responsible for their welfare. The exception to this is that you do not have the right to use this authority to harm yourself, the child, or any other living creature except for noble purpose.

As you can see parental rights makes the freedom of press/speech argument irrelevant to this case as the law merely gives a tool to parents to control what their child views. The Ninth Amendment allows them not to be surpassed by the right to press/speech. It does not stop the legislation from writing laws to that infringe on them. The so called “vagueness” of the law is irrelevant since in the end it is left to the parents discretion to decide what is appropriate and what is not even if the government if over zealous . The argument that overseas content is not regulated just means the law has a loophole in it, which does not make it unconstitutional as such loopholes are not forbidden by the U.S. Constitutions. The ACLU argues that the law accuses parents of being too stupid for not using filters which is placing the work in the hands of often overworked parent who may well be ignorant of how to install filters and maintain them. I know that computer viruses are often passed around. So does this make most people stupid?. The law just makes it so the parents have to make a decision to give child the credit card information or some other proof of being 18 or older that they can use to access these sites.

The bottom line is that these sites want to sell to children who are our most vulnerable and hopefully cherished resource. The federal courts who are an unelected oligarchy that hands down unjust dictates on a regular basis may not see children as a cherished resource. The ACLU who also backs the North American Man Boy Association(NAMBLA) almost certainly does see children as precious and to be protected.

We the people have to demand that Congress controls the excesses of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Article 1 and other parts of the U.S. Constitution. If the candidates that represents us on the federal and other levels of government will not do control the courts then we need to assemble in groups and find other candidates to represent our interests. If we do not do this then we as responsible because we chose not to do the good we can do but instead choose to be quiet even though we should know that silence is seen as surrender.

Source 1 is about lawsuit involving federal law designed to protect our children from online predators.

Whatever Happened To Free Expression Of Religion?

2006-10-22T23:47:00.000-05:00

This is a case about the free exercise of religion and applies the Federal Bill of Rights to a state. This is a legal fallacy that in currently practiced by the federal government to give them authority over the states in place the U.S. Constitution does not grant them any. The people have chosen to tolerate this act of tyranny and the violation of the U.S. Constitution. The federal courts began selectively applying the Federal Bill of Rights on states beginning in the 1897 to protect corporations from state regulation which is a conservative action. This violation did not really get going until the 1940’s and 1950’s when the liberals took over the unelected oligarchy that is known as the Supreme Court. From what I understand they use the due process of law clause. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to define what the due process of law is so as long as every individual receives the same due process of law then the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated. In the Federal government the military and civilian courts have two different due process of law. Court proceedings were overturned in the 1878 Reynolds decision, which I mention later, because Utah state due process was violated when federal due process rule were used. It is my hope the people will get sick and tired of the federal governments usurpation of their rights and demand that they live according to the rule of law. In violating their constitutional oaths and the law the Justices who defend this unlawful action prove they do not have the good character required in federal Justices according the U.S. Constitution.

Since we have to work with the current situation as unpleasant as it is the Catholic Church has a point when they state their freedom of religion has been infringed on in this case involving manditory supplying of contraceptives. First I will mention the court ruling in the state of New York which mandated that the Catholic church has to obey a state law that forces them to provide contraceptives in contradiction to the church's free exercise of religion. The state decided that because the Catholic Charity organization, even though owned by the church, was not a religious organization because it employed non Catholics. Since it was not a religious organization then the New York exceptation to the law did not apply.

I can see the state court's reasoning though it seems to violate the legal lie known as secularism as it gives the idea that an organization may be separate from religion as long as it employs people of various religious affiliations. I do not know of very many if any government entities including public schools that employs only members of one religious sect. The only time the U.S. Constitution mentions religious practices is when it forbids Congress from infringing on the free exercise of them. There are exception such as granting the President Sunday off which is obviously a blue law.

Judges whose duty it is to smooth out such contradiction in law often make them when they choose to legislate from the bench. Legislation is best accomplished by legislators and Judges should stick to what they are supposed to be good at and that is judging through the correct application of the law.

The Catholic Church is the one who calls up the First Amendment and states that their freedom of religious expression has been infringe by the state courts interpretation of this law. This brings up a The Reynolds Decision otherwise known as the 1878 Supreme Court Case of Reynolds v The United States and about whether the government had the rights to infringe on Reynolds free expression of religion in the case of polygamy. The Court found that the government had the authority to outlaw polygamy because it had always been “odious” among the nations of northern and western Europe and because it led to “stationary despotism”. Neither of these can be said for contraception and its use has even been “odious” among the People of the United States until about fifty years ago. I doubt that a case can even be made that it improves a woman’s health since pregnancy is not a disease contrary to the claim of some New York judges. The side effects would actually say the opposite.

In order to win their case on free expression of religion the Catholic Church will have to put contraceptives on trial. That would be interesting to see. I do not see a way for contraceptives to win considering the evidence against it starting with the fact the Sexual Revolution and all its damage to our culture is linked to a number of Supreme Court rulings that include the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut that stuck down the legislation banning contraceptives distribution. The problem is the pharmaceutical industry makes a lot of money off contraceptives and will be weighing in against overturning or weakening Griswold v. Connecticut. The other cases were were mostly linked to the pornography industry which is also a large money maker.

Source 1 is article about New York court ruling infringing on the Catholic Churches free expression of religion.

Source 2 is The Reynolds Decision.

Source 3 Griswold v Connecticut.

Are Republicans And Democrats United Against The Rule Of Law?

2006-10-20T21:55:00.000-05:00

In California Democrat Loretta Sanzhez was born in American though she is of Hispanic decent. She is pro choice to murder your own children provided they are in your own womb. In California it is illegal to murder a unborn child over the age of 2 months or so from conception if they are not in your own womb. Location, age, and development are very important according to California Law.

Here Opponent is Tan Nguyen a survivor of America’s cowardly retreat from Vietnam and who also survived a long dangerous trip as a refuge. According to a survey with the California Pro Life Tan supports a child’s right to equal protection under the law and the right to life even if he or she is still in his or her mother’s womb.

The two also disagree on immigration policy with Tan a legalized citizen that obtained his own naturalized citizenship supporting a tough border solution and Loretta favoring the open border and amnesty for lawbreakers solution favored by President Bush and too many Senators. A victory for Tam would therefore be a defeat for the individuals of both parties who want to dispense with American’s right to rule themselves and control their own borders. It would also be a strike against the forces that support the ongoing genocide in the United States that kills 1.2 million or so people annually.

It seems a letter written in Spanish was sent our to 14,000 registered Democrats in District 47 of California where the race is taken place this letter made the statement that "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.". From what I understand the cry is this letter in that it could intimidate immigrants who are naturalized citizens of the United States. The defense is the letter is in Spanish so a translation error could well have occurred and the difference between the correct and incorrect wording is not that great and may be covered by the word “could”. We have not heard the letter writers defense for one reason or another.

What is happening is the Republican party is abandoning Tam which is not that surprising since he disagrees with Bush on border security and amnesty for those who break immigration laws and the GOP may not. Tam is also backing away from the letter stating that one of his campaign workers sent the message without his permission. This may be true as there is a split in the Republican campaign and the “misinterpretation” may well have been done intentionally just to cause a scandal. Since such potential bias exists the word of the County Republican chairman is worthless. I would like to say Tam should say the buck stops here but that same argument would make the President guilty for any crime committed by an America. If he knowingly committed or knew it was being committed and did not stop it then he should be held responsible. We will not know that until the ongoing investigation and any legal action is over and so in short Tam should have his day in court a point both Democrats and Republicans who respect the rule of law should be insisting on.

Source 1 is about the “scandal” involving Tam Nguyen.

Source 2 is about Tam’s early life.

Source 3 is about California Pro Life’s survey.

The Art Of Compromise When Voting In Ohio

2006-10-19T22:19:00.000-05:00

In Ohio they have pro illegal immigrant anti choice to murder candidate Mike DeWine facing off against pro illegal immigrant pro choice to commit murder candidate Sherrod Brown with both having congressional records to show for them for what they are. The economy of Ohio seems to be at issue and this is a federal election. The voters have a poor choice between a soft on crime socialist and a individual who subjects our government to the rule global corporations. That is a terrible choice though I would probably vote for DeWine because of his position against genocide by abortion and hope to vote him out and get a better candidate during the next primary in 6 years.

Brown is strong on taking a position against free international trade but I can not say as I see other of his stances that impress me.

Economically Brown may help Ohio on the federal level since Dewine is more interested in making money for his corporate bosses but the cost of electing him in other ways is very high and Ohio may end up loosing more than they gain. I believe the People vote for Dewine and try to moderate the damage with their House selection. To improve their economy they need to look at their state and local elected representatives and try to find those who are willing to stand up against the federal government and the United Nations Non Governmental Organizations such as the ACLU, like Hazleton, PA; Escondito, CA; and other cities have.

Source 1 is about the race between Sherrod Brown and Mike Dewine.

Source 2 is Sherrod Brown on the Issues.

Source 3 is Mike Dewine on the Issues.

Don't Let Questionable Scandals Divert Your Attention This Season

2006-10-18T21:52:00.000-05:00

The FBI seems to be busy this political season investigating Republicans for one reason or another. In most if not all cases there is perhaps a possibility of a crime having been committed. Jeanne Piro who is being investigated for wiretapping her own property. If she committed a crime then it a foolish law the forbid you from taping your own property. That is assuming she actually had her property bugged and didn’t just mention it as a possibility.

Then there is Curt Weldon who is accused of getting lucrative contracts for his lobbyist daughter, like there is not a reason why so many lobbyist are friends, associates, and family of the legislators and any smart business person wouldn’t find the best connected one to pay to lobby for them

Now there is Rep. Bob Beauprez who is running for the Colorado Governor and is accused of hacking in the federal criminal database. He says he heard the so called hacked information from an informant which is likely since there were people involved from the apprehension of an illegal alien through the governments failure to deport and him being picked up on suspicion of sexually assaulting a minor in California. I suspicion the leaker is probably someone in law enforcement that favors Bob Beauprez. The article did not say that such a person would have been breaking the law unless they used information from the criminal data base.

The Foley Scandal is different but has related issue as a mountain is created out of a molehill for political reasons. Foley resigned and should have been encouraged not to run for reelection earlier in the year. He was disciplined for the flirting that was known about and from all accounts that was less serious than the bombshell that was dropped at a convenient time politically. There is investigation in Congress over how the situation was handled. I believe holding anyone but Foley accountable for his actions at this time is foolish.

I urge people to vote on the issues and by the records of the candidates and not by the questionable scandals that are just meant to warp your judgment and vote before you count the cost. Most Democrats are worse or equal to their Republican opponents with a few exceptions such as Bob Casey, Jr. a pro lifer who is running for Senator in Pennsylvania though the immigration issue may change my mind. When they are equal I will vote Democrat so that the next time around the Republicans may give me a better candidate. Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island is one Republican I would vote against. Some favor Independent Senator Lieberman of Connecticut because of his pro Iraq war stance but that is an candidate I am undecided on as I do not want the cultural conservative idea to be minimized over the Iraq war situation. Still a major defeat for the far left may weaken them and possibly allow the cultural conservative ideology to gain some momentum in that state.

I do know this and that is that I want the pro life and strong on the border candidates in both the House and the Senate to stay in power while I want to weaken those who are opposed to those ideas. I would also support someone who supported one of those ideas over an opponent who supported neither.

My source is article about the Bob Beauprez scandal.

When Irration Anger Wins You Become Your Own Enemy

2006-10-17T21:53:00.000-05:00

The “value” voters or cultural conservatives as I like to call them seem have disappeared according to reports. According to the article I read from Reuters they have found more important issues than stopping the genocide that occurs through abortion in the United States and deliberately and arbitrarily kills 1.2 million children annual according the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Some say the Iraq War is a larger concern and yet it has resulted in the death of mere 3000 brave American soldiers in 3 ½ years who laid down their lives so that others may get a chance to know what freedom is about. On the other hand those babies mutilated by abortion do not have any choice as they are executed in cold blood at the request of their own mothers; who’s duty it is to love them and secure their natural right to live, liberty, and pursuit of happiness among other rights. The medical staff and those mothers are more like the insurgents and those who supply them with aid and comfort because like them they are destructive of the natural human rights of other human beings without a noble cause.

I understand that these cultural conservatives and angry at the people in power but if they allow that anger to rule them then they will be manipulated by the very people they want to remove from office and they will end up removing the ones that that have remained loyal. The libertarian wing of the Republican party will in fact ally with liberal from the Democrat party to fight against cultural conservative values. I tend to believe it is better a liberal Democrat than a libertarian Republican since that may well encourage the Republican party to offer a better candidate next time. One the other hand getting rid of a cultural conservative Republican that for the most part agrees with my cultural values out of anger at their inability to break the liberal-libertarian alliance is insane. Victory is a slow process of winning over the hearts and minds of people and getting them to put cultural conservative people in power. The sad thing is I have heard to many wanting to give the House to the Democrats when the House is not the one being disloyal to the cultural conservative cause. The Senate is the one that we need to win and one way may well be to hand seats like Lincoln Chaffee’s to the Democrat party in hopes that the Republican party will put a conservative challenger in the race. The risk of course is that Bush and whoever is elected made seek a moderate candidates for the federal judiciary or even extreme left one to get by the Democrat Senators. From what I see we need a third populist/conservative alliance party in the blue states which is culturally conservative and yet appeals to the Democrat voters.

In Pennsylvania we have a populist candidate for Senator running against a conservative. That race is a tough decision but I would probably favor Democrat Bob Casey as that will hopefully encourage more pro life candidates in the Democrat party which would certainly be a plus for the cultural conservative cause. I do not know the immigration stance of the two contenders and knowing that may shift my opinion.

On the Foley matter from what I see the Republican establishment did bungle it but if we remove them from office for that bungle then we will invite the lion in to chase out the dog and will end up regretting it. At this time the rebuke they are receiving at the hands of their constituents should be enough. If the continue to be light on crime then sterner measures may well be needed at a later date. I believe that such measures should be handled only if we can replace them with another cultural conservative.

If we can keep mix our anger with reason and ask for God’s favor then there is a good chance, depending on God’s will, that we will win in the long run even if we loose a few fights along the way. The enemy just like the one in Iraq will continue to fight and will adjust their tactics so we can not choose to let them manipulate us because we choose to act irrationally.

Source 1 about value voters disapearing.

Why Isn't Treason Called Treason Anymore?

2006-10-16T22:13:00.000-05:00

Lynne Stewart, who is falsely called a civil rights lawyer received 2 ½ years for aiding and abetting terrorism. In truth she is guilty of treason according to the definition of the U.S. Constitution since she has aided and abetted an enemy of the United States. That is not the charge to prosecutor chose to bring against her for their own reasons. The constitutional definition of treason is:

U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Ms. Steward has defended other radicals and may well be an anarchist who is only out to destroy the government by any means as an anarchist will ally with anyone who they believe will destroy the current government. She has chosen to defend the “civil rights” of Black Panthers, Anti war radicals, and terrorist. This may be a legitimate legal enterprise as everyone deserves a fair trial but her conduct in aiding and abetting terrorist make me doubt her goal was to secure a fair trial for her clients and the type of client she prefers to serve makes me doubt she is particular to any one of their ideologies except the general anti American government aspect.

The anarchistic idea of civil rights extend the gambit from anything goes to the libertarian idea that you can do anything as long as you do not bring harm to a non consenting human being. On the other hand the idea of civil rights as adhered to by our Founders is that you had absolute freedom to do anything as long as it did not harm any living creature. They considered libertine behavior of any type to be harmful. They wrote this into the U.S. Declaration of Independence by stating it is a governments job to secure the natural rights of the people and if they become destructive of those rights then it is the right of the people to abolish the government. It also mentions that the People may chose to tolerate the governments violation of those rights. Either active or negligent violation of those rights is considered being destructive of them.

The 2 ½ year sentence is by far too light. The reason given is her age of 67 years old and the fact she was diagnosed with breast cancer and would most likely die in prison if she received the 30 years that the prosecutors asked for. The also insist that he action to not appear to have violence as it’s end. Those mitigating circumstances are mostly foolish since she was well aware of her age and should have been well aware her actions were criminal when she chose to purchase the sentence by committing what amounts to treason. The definition of treason certainly does not differentiate between an action leading to violence and one that does not and from all I know neither does the law the prosecutors held against her. Still since the general idea is the more serious the crime the greater the sentence she should not of received the maximum sentence but the 2 ½ years she received is ridiculous. The fact she has breast cancer is a sad event but should not be considered a mitigating circumstance as her bad luck doe not excuse her conduct. If the breast cancer kills or significantly maims her I might consider granting her parole under the idea that she has received divine justice and the justice of man is unneeded. That is something the judge could have considered in her sentence.

A large aggravated circumstance is that she is a lawyer and an officer of the court and so held to a higher standard. In addition she took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic which she chose to break. This of course makes her guilty of oath breaking which may be considered perjury which is a crime that could have given her the 2 ½ year sentence by itself.

The judge was appointed by Clinton and this point should be irrelevant but evidence shows that judges are prone to legislate from the bench. From District Judge John G. Koeltl words that Ms. Stewart has presented a great service to her country I would question his lack of bias in the case. The solution to this is to allow both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to appeal the sentence. This will not eliminate politics but it will bring the opinions of more judges into play and hopefully eliminate the most extreme cases. This is justified by the U.S. Constitution since everyone whether they are the victim or the perpetrator is to be treated equally under the law and the prosecutor’s job is to represent the victim as well as the people his/her jurisdiction.

My source about Lynne Stewart’s sentence here.

A Bold Move To Secure Our Borders

2006-10-15T20:45:00.000-05:00

Raj Bhakta pulled one over on the federal government when he took an elephant and a mariachi band to the Texas border and proceeded to cross unimpeded. His Stunt for some reason did not attract the Main Stream Media though it was on the O’Reilly Factor. He seemed to have angered the Border Patrol since they turned him into the Department of Agriculture for jeopardizing an animal.

I have to applaud the stunt as it did a good job of attracting attention to him and the Federal Government’s unwillingness to protect the American people. It is stunts like his which will keep as well as our vote against those willing to trade the security of the United States for one reason or another which can by grace of God win the issue for us.

I am not a strong supporter of Mr. Bhakta, but his courageous move gets my backing. It also seems to have angered liberals for one reason or another.

Many want to punish all Republicans for the action of some of them. That is a very bad idea that can be used against them because all but a few Democrats are willing to sell the U.S. out. If you want to punish a Republican then please make sure it is one like Lincoln Chaffee who is little different than a Democrat and is vulnerable if he can not get Democrats to vote for him.

Source 1 Is About Rac Bjakta’s political stunt.

A Common Defense Issue: Is Defending Our Ports Cost Effective?

2006-10-14T17:18:00.000-05:00

It seems the Congress and Bush have taken action to defend our security at least at the busiest ports. This might cut down some high profile targets but it still leave large holes in our Port defense since the obvious thing for anyone to do who wants to smuggle Weapons of Mass Destruction in the United States is to use less busy ports. The radiation detectors may stop the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the United States but they will not stop one being detonated in a port. Such a detonation may kill less people than actually letting it off in a highly populated area but it could hurt us economically which seems to be at least one goal of Al Qaeda. The best defense is if we could have a means to screen ships even before they get within short to medium missile range of the United States.

My question with this and any other security measure is whether or not the cost is worth the advantage. I have my doubts.

I see radiation detectors were installed in Hong Kong. I have my questions about how much this protects us as Hong Kong is really not an area I perceive a terrorist threat coming from. I also question if we could trust the operators of the detectors in countries that are more to have terrorist operating from them. In addition from what I have heard we gave China the plans for the detectors in exchange for them putting them up. That action itself sounds like a breach in security.

This all is of course my political opinion and it did not win the day on the floors of Congress. I have some interest because this is how my tax dollars are spent but I concede the defeat to those whose ideas received the majority support of both houses. I would not seek to pull a undemocratic procedure technically as Senator Durban of Illinois did when his idea about the parental notification act was overridden. The act was stopped even though the majority of Congress passed it.

I see the Bush Administration spent $10 billion dollars to inefficiently secure our ports but is unwilling to spend $2-4 billion dollars to build a wall in order to secure our borders. He does not see the contradiction.

Source 1 is article about President Bush signing Port Act.

The Common Defense Of Our Economy

2006-10-12T21:55:00.000-05:00

Mercantilism was the economic theory of Europe and the United States during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century and a way to enact it is written into the U.S. Constitutions by the powers granted to Congress. It was based on the idea that the worlds wealth was limited. This is considered erroneous by some schools of economic thought. The thing is that these schools also have a globalist bias which their theories support. Some resources are indeed practically unlimited as they are renewable such as labor, farm produce, solar power but they are limited to a maximum output each year. Other resources are limited such as coal, oil, precious metals and they are also limited in output in that they take the expenditure of labor to obtain them. If the output of any of these exceeds the need for them then the rest is not used and in some cases such as labor and food goes to waste if not saved in some way. Since the resource output each year is limited the wealth output each year is also limited. The same is true with those resources that have a limited supply. Renewable resources are for all practical purposes unlimited as long as you do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

According to the Institute of Trade and Commercialism Mercantilism was

A once-prominent economic philosophy that equated national wealth and prowess with the accumulation of gold and other international monetary assets, and hence with running a persistent trade surplus. The mercantilist viewpoint has been discredited by modem economics, which has shown that national economic security and well-being are not necessarily related one way or another with trade surpluses or deficits

This is of course true since if you as a person were to borrow money and just pay the interest owned on it you could live better than if you did not borrow the money even though you are going to end up paying more in the long haul. The key is to pay back as little more than the interest as you can and most lenders will be satisfied with the arrangements as they long as they are making enough money off you which they can reinvest. The problems with this is that you are depending on always making enough money and lenders want higher interest payments for longer duration loans.

This brings us to the news that the increase in the federal deficit this year is less than it has been in four years which President Bush touted as proof that his tax cuts for the rich increased taxes. This may or may not be the case but the economy under Clinton who took away tax cuts for the rich actually gave a federal surplus for several years. To really determine what is going on would require a itemized listing of the taxes and how much they each raise for the federal government over the last thirty years compared with the tax policy during that same time. The key point though is I have my doubts that Congress or the President wants to control the deficit since the United States is living better on borrowed money.

The problem is that the holders of our debt might decide they want more interest. This can be fought by selling our dept to other holders that are willing to lend us money at a lower interest rate. Bust what happen if the number of those willing to lend us money shrink in the total amount they are willing to lend us. The value of our money is based on faith and nothing else so all a country that wants to hurt us economically has to do is destroy the faith of people in the American dollar. Can this faith be destroyed if a country undersells our dept to a third party of if they demand we pay. Lets say China decided to undersell their portion of the U.S. dept to Venezuela. What effect would that happen to the faith other countries have in our dollar. If our dollar started to decline in value Venezuela could then demand we pay off their loan to us in full which I do not even believe we have the ability to do. Meanwhile the price of oil could be inflated by OPEC who “lost” faith in our dollar. Would our money be so devalued that a cart full would barely buy a loaf of bread. What would be the politic ramifications of that.

China has a federal deficit of 32.2 billion dollars in one year. I am not sure whether the loan is held by domestic or foreign investors. They have a trade surplus of 120.4 billion dollars in one year which could easily pay off their deficit. The U.S. has a 247.7 dollar deficit in one year a large part of which is owned by foreign investors. The U.S. also has a trade deficit of 799.5 billion dollars. I have no idea what the depreciation is on the goods and services we receive in exchange for our wealth and increasing our debt. That depreciation is how much we are loosing of our wealth each year if we do not have anything to replace it such as renewable wealth. I wonder if anyone will ever get sick of us borrowing money to live at the standard we are accustomed to.

Do you agree with the modern economic theory of the theory of Mercantilism?

Source 1 is the article about how this years federal deficit is lowest in four years.

Source 2 is the CIA Factbook where you can find economic statistics for both China and the United States.

Unnecessary An Unconstitutional Federal Agencies

2006-10-10T22:28:00.000-05:00

I was watching Glen Beck on CNN Headlines when he mentioned an incident some years ago where Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh led his Rajinese religious members in a terrorist attack on the town by poisoning the food supply of The Dalles, Oregon in an attempt to take over the town. His idea was that these E. Coli outbreaks may be a terrorist attack on America and that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. E. Coli poisonings are normal and there is no evidence that the situation has worsened in recent years though our food supply is made vulnerable to such a hypothetical attack by the speed and efficiency of transport system,. Never the less I do not believe that Homeland Security needs to have any direct control of the situation since state and federal agencies do exist that are already on the job and are hopefully competent enough to do it.

The federal agencies are my concern because I question the need and constitutionality of them. The Department of Agriculture for instance. The only power that the federal government has is there ability to regulate commerce between states and nations and the FDA already serves to enforce those laws for the Federal government. So what does the Department of Agriculture do, that is not already accomplished by the FDA, which is also part of regulating commerce. I do know that only the states have the power to regulate production and trade within their own state

The Federal does make the questionable claim that it has the power to regulate trade within a state if it effect trade between states or nations. I question their claim because they do not have the power to regulate trade in other countries even if it effect trade between nations or between states. Those who passed the U.S. Constitution were big on states rights and they wanted the give the federal government jurisdiction within a state they would have spelled it out especially when you consider the Tenth Amendment which states that any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states.

Then there is the question of need. The state governments already have agricultural departments that are just as capable of doing the job as the federal government except they are smaller and thus most likely have less bureaucracy. They can communicate with the federal government in those areas where concerns are and the FDA has the power to enforce any standards put out by Congress. In addition the voting public for the state government is smaller which theoretically grants the individual more power in controlling their fate.

So in conclusion why are we paying for a government agency than seems to be unneeded and unconstitutional. I have the same question about the United States Department of Health and Human Services as states also have the same departments that do the same job and it appears to be a useless duplication of services that I see no justification for in the U.S. Constitution. To answer my own question, the only reason I see that these organizations exist at our expense to give the federal government unconstitutional power over the states and therefore over the people of those states and of the United States.

Source 1 is an account of the E. coli outbreaks

The Battle About Murder Through Abortion In South Dakota

2006-10-09T21:36:00.000-05:00

Dakota is having a skirmish on the abortion front using words with anti choice to commit murder v pro choice to commit murder forces facing each other in a political campaign which will end in the voting booth this fall with the people declaring one way or another. All indications are that this is a close campaign with anti choice to commit murder forces closing the gap in polls of the peoples from 47%:39% to47%:44%.

The anti choice to commit murder have taken a new feminist label for themselves and that is pro motherhood. They urge the people to support the woman’s right to motherhood by supporting the ban since women since in the words of Leslee Unruh the campaign manager "We women buy the choice line. We're panicked, or we're being pressured, or we're ashamed to have a child outside marriage,". Evidence from Pew Forum indicates even with the pro choice slogan that women have to right to kill their own child in their womb a similar percentage of women to men support banning legalized homicide through abortion with rape, incest, and to save mother exception by a 42%:40% and women are more likely to support it with no exception 11%:08% ratio over men.

South Dakota is obviously more conservative than the national average but if the anti choice to commit murder faction can chip at some of the base of the pro choice to commit murder faction using these tactics then the dynamics of the United States will most likely undergo a change as the pro choice to commit murder faction retreats and regroups to come up with their own strategy.

In South Dakota they are trying to play on the sympathy of the people for women who are victims of rape and incest but evidence is that such women are actually only about 2% of those that choose to get and abortion and Plan B contraceptives can be made available for them. The frightening thing is that 40% are women that have had a previous abortion and so seem to be arbitrarily and intentionally killing their child in their womb as a means of birth control. Then consider that punishing the child for the father’s crime is a medieval practice called corruption of blood. Do we really want to behave in such a barbaric fashion. It is the father that committed the crime and should be punished for it not the child.

Source 1 is a pro choice to commit murder biased article about the new anti choice to commit murder strategy. The “talk is not of a fetus' right to life” gives away its bias.

Source 2 is also a biased pro choice to commit murder but from the LA Times instead.

Source 3 seems to be a neutral article on the ban.

Source 4 is surveys by the Pew Forum.

Why Is The U.S Government Working Against The General Welfare Of The People

2006-10-08T19:26:00.000-05:00

Some of the things the Mains Stream Media do not consider news is quite frightening. One of those is the proposed mega port in Mexico’s Baja California with it adverse effects on Americas working class.

This mega port will not in any way increase the purchase of goods from China and other Asian countries unless it occurs because of the decrease in labor costs of dockworkers and transporters which will be the less expensive Mexican laborers instead of the more expensive American ones. It will not decrease the cost of shipping though it may make it easier and faster to unload cargo ships since those ships will pretty much have to travel the same distance. So how does it provide for the general welfare of Americans unless you are talking about a few rich ones whose loyalty to the United States I question.

I do see the benefits to Mexico and figure that businessman Gabriel Chavez is playing a game in order to get a better deal when he acts like he sees more important priorities. He may also be doing it for political reasons of which I do not know. There is also the possibility that he is being straightforward but I do not give that a high possibility.

In the United States I see dock workers and transport workers put out of work as their jobs are transferred to Mexico. Will the government make governmental jobs by funding public works projects to hide this job loss and so increase the deficit of the state or/and federal government or will they let it be seen.

This is not the first time the U.S. government has acted as the enemy of the people of the United States. Global free trade punishes the U.S. labor force by removing many middle income factory labor positions to developing countries like China and India. In exchange we get lower cost goods sold through companies like Wal-Mart but the middle class begins to disappear. In Los Angelus the middle class is disappearing as illegal immigrants who are used to lower pay have created a surplus labor economy where the United States is beginning to look like a heavily socialized Mexico that can not pay its bills.

Perhaps the government has decided our ports are two vulnerable to a nuclear bomb and have decided to shift the risk to Mexico. If so they are making sure not to let us know the risk.

Source 1 is article about the NAFTA superhighway and the Mexico Mega Port.

The Federal Government Acts To Promote The General Welfare

2006-10-07T19:46:00.000-05:00

In yet another story of E. coli contamination Jim's Market and Locker an Iowa firm recalled ground beef produced between August 31 and September 1. This effects 5200 lbs of product. According to reports no illnesses have been associated with this beef.

Some libertarians do not support the Food and Drug Administration as they state that that the consumer should be responsible for his/her own life and health. I think it is nonsense since the vast majority of citizens I know do take responsibility for their own life and health to the extend they believe is necessary whether or not the government does anything and the government is better equipped to handle these situations.

It is true that consumers can sue companies that cause them damage by negligence but that requires someone to take them to court and fight it out with them. That in itself has problems such as excessive rewards and the idea that most companies will hide their guilt rather than face a lawsuit in the first place. It is also cleaning up the mess after it happens instead of preventing the damage in the first place and it is easier to prevent a person from dying from E coli contamination than to bring them back to life after they already died.

In short it comes down to the fact that government regulation is probably the best choice. I say probably because among other things I have not heard the cost versus benefit analyst yet. The federal government does have the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce according to Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The states on the other hand have the authority to regulate commerce within a state and the two governments should work together as allies to promote the general welfare in those areas where there different spheres conflict.

This does not mean I back the Food and Drug Administration as it sits now because I find its formation is unconstitutional because it exercises legislative and judicial powers which are forbidden to the executive branch of government. It needs to be abolished and a new organization needs to be established which enforces legislation passed by Congress as well as investigate possible ways to improve the health of the people. In short it should become a law enforcement agency instead of regulatory agency.

Source 1 is account of recall of ground beef due to E. coli contamination.

Activist Judges Who Work Against The Common Defense Of America

2006-10-06T21:48:00.000-05:00

Today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of a law that required voter presenting an identification or proof of citizenship. They are most likely addressing the Twenty Fourth Amendment as those who oppose the law claim “it discriminated against minorities and the poor, who might not have funds to obtain the necessary proof of identification.”

One fallacy is the Twenty Forth Amendment only applies to federal elections and not state elections. The other is it gives Congress and not the federal courts the power to enforce it. So the question is whether or not there is a federal law that world effect this situation. If there is then that law would be applied but if not then it is questionable if you can rule the law invalid since the Twenty Forth Amendment would not be enforced.

If we ignored the wording of the Twenty Forth Amendment and instead misinterpreted it to fulfill our political agenda then the sky is the limit as it no longer has any thing to do with the rule of law but rather who is more powerful in the federal courts.

Putting a possible non existent federal law aside the issue is not a constitutional issue but is instead a political issue and according to the U.S. Constitution separation of power political issues are property decided by the legislature at they have the power to pass legislation while the judicial branch is limited to judging according to that legislation.

As a political issue looking at the cost of obtaining a photo ID and dividing it by the number of years it last will probably come up with yearly cost of $10 dollars or less which is easily paid by even the poorest American. If any state is above that pleas speak up. If any person in America can not afford to pay $10 or less than the least of their concerns is voting since they are probably starving to death. Still if we pander to the opponents of the law and give a free picture ID to anyone they will probably not be happy as that is what was the case in Georgia where they expressed concern that homebound people could not go out and get such a license. The government offered to come to them and give them licenses but that was not satisfactory for the opponents.

The bottom line is that alien both legal and illegal, convicts, and other individuals that can not vote legally make enough difference at the polls that some politicians do not want them screened out. In places where such illegal voters are more prevalent they may well vote in significant numbers to determine who gets into office. So from where it is sitting the opponents look like fools or traitors. If anyone has a better objection than the one mentioned in the article please let me know what it is.

Source 1 is about Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals putting a hold on Arizona voting ID law.

The Mindset That Causes Legislating From The Bench

2006-10-05T22:26:00.000-05:00

A state appeals court in California ruled the pseudo marriage of to members of the same sex is not mandated by the state constitution in a narrow 2-1 ruling.

The deciding Justices which included Justice William McGuiness stated:

The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that 'marriage' in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning,

In his and Justice Joanne Pirelli’s support for the separation of powers and the power of the people to determine their own fate.

I question the existence of the right to marriage since marriage is a social contract and not a characteristic that human beings are endowed with by the Creator. I am not arguing that individuals who meet the criteria necessary to enter marriage can do so as that is a right to liberty and a right to pursue happiness issue and not a right to marriage issue and calling it the later obscures those rights.

The deciding judges defended the power of judges to legislate with these words

That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings,

And thus contradicted their earlier statement or maybe he was just saying that the judges are more powerful than the Legislature and the voters which is an idea that is opposed to the idea that every state should have a republican form of government.

On the other hand, Justice J. Anthony Kline, the dissenter must have been having a bad day to state:

the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the rights of personal privacy and autonomy and is just as discriminatory as California's former ban on interracial marriage, which the state Supreme Court struck down in 1948.

Since marriage is a social contract and thus not something you keep his or concealed which would be personal privacy. You can not have it both ways. On the other hand his second objection is more open to opinion but flawed as he said it as just being discriminatory does not make something wrong and may actually make it right since forbidding someone to have sex with a dead person is discriminatory and it is also right.

I believe that marriage is formed under the idea that the two individuals involved could crossbreed by nature if they had the standard abilities of both individuals in the relationship and both have the ability to chose whether or not to marry. This means that even infertile individuals of the opposite sex can marry while a male dog and a female human being could not.

My source about the California Appeals Court Ruling In San Francisco.

Prosecutors Are Employees Of The People

2006-10-04T22:19:00.000-05:00

Here is a look at the St. Rita’s nursing home flood in New Orleans during Katrina that left the owners charged with 35 counts of negligent homicide and 64 cruelty to the infirm. The 35 dead have no one to speak for them except the living and those that suffered harm may be able do speak up but it is unlikely giving their state of being. So the people of Louisiana have to speak through the prosecutor to defend their right to life and what health they have. The people of Louisiana also find it in our interest that the accused have a lawyer so they will not be unjustly convicted.

The prosecutor accuses the couple of abandoning the elderly to the rising water after Katrina struck. The defense is that the government levee unexpectedly failed and the government failed to evacuate the patients.

Their defense is hogwash because the primary care for the elderly was in their hands and not the government’s and the government order a mandatory evacuation previous to Katrina striking. To make their case they would have to prove that the government had a contract with them to evacuate the patients and that the government also guaranteed the levies would stand. We know the second is not true because of the mandatory evacuation order and I have heard no evidence of the first occurring.

I have heard that they were called previous to the flooding and warned to get out by others but the government. What appears to have happened is they assumed that Katrina would not do significant damage and then when the opposite happened the panicked and saved themselves instead of taking responsibility for their actions and doing their duty to their patients. If this is the case negligent homicide is a very light charge as they knowingly committed murder while carried away with the emotion of fear which sounds like a Second or Third Degree Murder as their intend was leave them there to die.

I understand the defense in this one is the blame the government defense that sadly might work in our society at this time but we as Americans need to start taking responsibility for our actions even if those actions lead adverse effects including to bad government .

Source 1 is the article about the St. Rita nursing home flood.

Congress Makes A Move To Protect United States Gambling Interests

2006-10-03T18:00:00.000-05:00

Congress made a smart move to protect American gambling interests against the threat provided by free trade gambling interests. This of course hurt the UK and other internet gambling interests but more than likely helped the domestic interests. Since our government gets money from local gambling I am not surprised that Congress stepped up to the plate on this one and did not give into free market capitalist.

Some claim gambling is a tax on the poor and that is probably true but unless you spend the money of the poor for them you can probably not change the fact that some of them spend what little resources they have foolishly. They could spend their money on cigarettes and alcohol but I would rather they spend it on gambling which is probably healthier for them and may if they are blessed give them a return.

Some claim gambling causes addiction and I have no doubt of that but so does shopping. If addicts can be spotted and treated or otherwise dissuaded at a reasonable price then it should be done.

Some hold gambling is a debaucherous practice and that may in fact be the case. Thomas Jefferson argued against that viewpoint by pointing out it is not really different than investing your money in a business. I am not sure I agree with him since there is a more instant gratification to gambling.

The money made through gambling aside there is damage to our society caused by the addicts. I do not know if this is significantly greater than would have been caused in other ways by the same people. I tend to believe it would not be. I do know it is up to the people of each jurisdiction whether they want to tolerate this violation of natural law or not and if they don’t to what degree they wish to address it.

Source 1 Complaints about American protectionism.

Source 2 The effects of gambling on our society.

Is Making Obscenity Illegal Constitutional?

2006-10-02T22:30:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court turned down the case Acosta v. Texas without comment. The case is about the sale of sexual obscene devices. The accused defense is the right to privacy the Supreme Court created in the 1960’s. The states case is that the item is “so offensive on its face as to affront current community standards of decency“ and “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.”

The right to privacy is a joke that in my opinion is used to obscure the right to do with your own property what you see fit. The closest the U.S. Constitution comes to it is in the Forth Amendment when the government is forbidden to make an unreasonable search of your property and thus breaching your ability to hide/conceal your own property.

The accused could argue that the item is his and he can do whatever he wants with it provided it is not harmful to himself or others even if people find such action offensive.

That argument should not work since debaucherious behavior is considered a breach of the natural right to liberty of what the law of the U.S. government is base according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

That of course leaves the normal way of changing laws which is to get legislation changed. If the people chose to tolerate a breech of natural law then that is their choice.

Source 1 is the article about Acosta v. Texas

Source 2 is Texas Penal Code Section 43.21

Source 3 is Chapter II of John Locke’s “Second Treatise On Civil Government” which is part of the Foundation of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and so of American Law as it was meant to be.

Politics And Good Character

2006-10-01T15:57:00.000-05:00

New York is having an interesting run for Attorney General between Jeanine Pirro and Andrew Cuomo though she is currently trailing him. She is being investigated for attempting to get a family attorney to bug her family boat and having her husband followed. I have a little trouble seeing what crime has been committed since she has the right to bug her or her families property if she wants and tailing someone is not against the law If there is a law against bugging your own property then it is a violation of the right to do as you see fit with your own property which I can see no good justification for.

This all came out of a leak from the Federal Attourneys office that was highly illegal and most likely political motivated.

She is accused of being a weak individual since she won’t divorce her husband that has been convicted of fraud and is guilty of adultery and has even received two speeding tickets including one for driving 51 miles an hour in a school zone. The fraud and adultery gave her sufficient justification for divorcing him but she decided for her own reason that it was better to remain together and try to overcome the effects of his bad character in hopes that he would change and her and her children would come through. Divorce is rough on children who often react with anger so I can certainly see her reasoning.

Mind you, Hillary Clinton who is running for Senator in the same state did the same thing as Jeanine did and the Democrats had no significant problem with it. The Republicans that vied to face Clinton, tore each other up with accusations about their bad conduct and the battered winner is not doing well in the polls.

I personally favor Jeanine even though she is trailing because she seems to favor the victim of crimes and appears to want to reduce the number as she is proud of reducing crime by 30% in her previous jurisdiction while Andrew Cuomo things the criminal needs more mercy as he is proud of launching a fight against drug law which he considered evil. In my opinion if you commit a crime then you deserve the penalty that goes with the crime because there are plenty of law abiding citizens in New York. He did mention the larger arrest and conviction rate of blacks but that is probably linked to the higher divorce and cohabitation rates among blacks. This because children of divorce often anger issues and children of cohabitation situation are more likely to lack self discipline as they have not been taught it since a single devoted parent has less time to spend with them than two devoted parents do. Drug and alcohol abuse are also factors leading to child abuse and negligence as well as to domestic violence and even effect married families, and so to future crimes as well.

My Source is about the tabloid type Scandals in New York State.

Here is a source of the recent culturally liberal trends and how they effect children.

The Right To Life And Health Threatened In Rhode Island By A Massachusetts Judge

2006-09-30T19:52:00.000-05:00

Here is an action from an activist state judge the said homosexual pseudo marriages are allowed in Massachusetts that involve Rhode Island couples as Rhode Island does not expressly prohibit gay pseudo marriages. First the judge does not have the right to rule what is legal and what is not legal in Rhode Island because it is not his jurisdiction. Second the question of course is not if Rhode Island prohibits them but whether or not Rhode Island recognizes them after all Rhode Island does not recognize a marriage between a women and her dog or between a man and his car either.

The judge is ignoring the intent of both the Rhode Island law which stresses marriage between a bride and a groom and Massachusetts law which is meant not to interfere with another states laws and put his own spin on both. That should be an impeachable offense as it is obviously a mark of bad behavior which you do not want in any official position especially the judicial branch.

The idea that Governor Romney has to enforce the court ruling as advocated by Michele Granda is contrary to the idea of separation of powers as proposed for the federal government. The question is if that same separation of powers in Massachusetts and it certainly appears it does from what I read as the governor is given supreme executive powers and judges are given judicial powers..

I also found this passage in Chapter III of the Massachusetts Constitution interesting.

Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.

I am curious if the legislature made other provisions and what they are.

The idea that homosexuals love each other is an obvious deception as you do not engage in self destructive behavior with those you love and homosexuality is known to be self destructive. For instance HIV/Aid is a known and preventable disease that never the less is common in the homosexual population. Encouraging such self distructive behavior is a threat to to life and health of the people of Rhode Island.

Source 1 is the article about an activist Massachusetts Judge ruling on making homosexual marriage legal in Rhode Island.

Source 2 is the Massachusetts State Constitution.

Representative Mark Foley And How Politics Trumps Ethics

2006-09-29T22:05:00.000-05:00

Republican U.S. Representative Mark Foley of Florida resigned after a male teen age page of another Congressman complained of receiving explicit email from him. Why Mark Foley targeted the boy as a victim I do not. The boy also believes that Foley may have targeted another boy.

The Republicans claim to have kept this under wraps at the behest of the parents and have no of it for 10-11 months. The emails were leaked and published Friday by ABC in what was obviously a political move by someone. The Republicans did a disservice to the constituents in Foley’s district as he ran for reelection this year with them knowing his action. Politics seemed to have trumped ethics once more in Washington DC.

Foley is a social liberal in that he supported genocide through abortion often referred to as abortion rights. One the other hand I heard that he said he would support a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. He does sit the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus which makes him appear to be a hypocrite. I do not know if he is since I do not know if he believes he did evil by emailing the explicit comments to the teen page or pages.

I do know he should consider getting treatment either from a competent religious councilor or a competent psychologist. He might even attend meetings for sex/love addiction anonymous. Whatever choice he makes God has the power to overcome our evil desires and he willing to use it for those who are willing to follow his Son.

I do know Foley committed a crime according to natural law as homosexuality is abusive and thus destructive of the right to life and health and also because the boy is still his parents protection which rendered the action a violation of their parental rights. At the same time I do not know if he committed a crime according to the laws of the government jurisdiction he was in or if the people of that area have decided to tolerate such conduct for one reason or another.

An article about Republican U.S. Representative Mark Foley of Florida.

New York Act Against Trans Fats In Order To Secure The Right To Health And Life

2006-09-28T18:04:00.000-05:00

New York City moves to ban trans fats. Which being a significant market will cause nationwide restaurants like McDonalds to reduce trans fats in their product nation wide in order not to loose the customers in New York City unless it is more economical to resolve the issue in another way. One cost to the consumer will be the taste of the product will change and so the choice of the consumer will be limited. The government’s concern in this area is the health or general welfare of the people and is well within their jurisdiction since it is part of their obligation to ensure the natural right to health and life of each person. The question though is whether or not trans fats are a significant risk to the general welfare of those people who eat the produce of restraints to overweigh other concerns such as limiting taste and loss of income.

Being overweight is most likely a significant risk factor but trans fats are only a fraction of why people are overweight and removing them from a persons diet may not significantly alter their life span or chance of continue good health. Portion control would seem to be a more effective method of ensuring the good health of the general populace.

I have seen the abstracts of two studies concluded what different things to me.

The First Concluded:

Interpreted in the light of experimental and clinical studies, the results of these cross-cultural analyses suggest that dietary saturated and trans fatty acids and dietary cholesterol are important determinants of differences in population rates of coronary heart disease death.

The Second Concluded:

Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of coronary heart disease , stroke, or cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce cardiovascular disease risk.

I find apparent contradiction interesting as it indicates that other factors as well as an increased consumption of trans fats are most likely found in the higher incidence of coronary heart disease death in the first study that were not controlled for. Two possible factors are age and sex. The first study did mention dietary cholesterol as a risk factor and it may have been calculated with the level of trans fats and so may be more responsible for the findings than the trans fats were.

The bottom line though is that whether trans fats is a significant risk to the health of the people is something that needs to be decided by the legislative process.

If the law is passed and McDonalds can prove their costs significantly increased because of it in more than New York City then McDonalds or any other restaurant that stretches over two states can petition the federal government to intervene as the clause in Article 1 Section 8 which grants the federal government jurisdiction over interstate trade gives the federal government the authority to do so. If we actually went according to the U.S. Constitution the interstate organization, otherwise known as an artificial person, could not take the case to court as the Eleventh Amendment took away the federal judicial power to try suits in law or equity between citizens of another state or foreign citizens and according to Article 3 Section 2 it never gave the authority to settle a case between a state and a citizen of that same state. The sad thing is the federal courts choose to ignore the Constitution and make up legal fictions to steal the power from the people, the states, and the local governments. On the other hand at the state level McDonalds may be allowed to sue for much the same reasons unless state law forbids it. McDonalds can also petition the state government to hear their complaint.

The citizens are limited to using there choice of where to purchase their food and what to buy to influence McDonalds. The also have free speech, free press, freedom to assemble and petition, and as a last option the power of the vote.

Source 1 is article about New York City banning trans fats.

Source 2 is the study of dietary trans fats and dietary cholesterol.

Source 3 is the study of trans fats in postmenopausal women.

The Law Of Unitended Consequences In Action

2006-09-27T18:54:00.000-05:00

China experience an unintended consequence when they passed a law to aid single parents. The people saw a chance to improve their economical status and started divorcing. The mass divorce was noticed by officials who then abolished the law and persuaded 39 of the 41 teachers to remarry their former spouse.

We do the same thing in the U.S. but we do not seem to be wise enough to catch on. Aids to dependent families to single mothers because they are single then they will remain single or get a divorce in at least some cases while cohabitating. This causes a dilemma that may be solved by considering each individual separate without rewarding or penalize them for any other adult in the house. This may lease a stay at home individual with a well paid mate to receive Aid but it seems to be better than encouraging divorce or cohabitation which are both known to damage our society.

Source is about the unintended consequence of China passing a law to aid single parents.

Since When Are Words More Important Than Actions

2006-09-26T18:50:00.000-05:00

Politics is a dirty game and just because an accusation is not true does not mean it does not harm the target. Lets take Senator George Allen who is supposedly beloved by Christians, which is 80% of the U.S. population and so tells us nothing. A left leaning political commentator accused him of racism during his early years and claims he has two anonymous sources to back him up. Others that were associated with him at the time deny that he made any such comments. It seems that some of the evidence against him is he used a confederate flag and a hangman’s noose as decoration at the time. These are symbols and no smoking gun because we do not know what he associated them with at the time and the same symbol can mean different things to different people. The third piece of evidence against him is his denial of his Jewish heritage. Mind you Jew mean race as well as religion and his answer of that his mother was “raised a Christian” was obvious a reference to religion and not race. His mother states that just the month before she had told him she was raised a Jew. Was he embarrassed with that revelation or did he just forget it during the stress of an interview? The last evidence against him is that he used the word “macaca” which is a racial slur in French speaking North Africa and is derived from monkey. He says he did not know what it meant but his mother probably did coming from the right region.

In my book Senator Allen is a RINO as he is only pro life from the point of viability on. Still I was taught that actions were more important than words and he has showed by his actions that he supported Black universities.

I also find Democrats to be highly hypocritical as they support legalized abortion that kills three times as many blacks and two times as many Hispanics as whites. The also support cohabitation and no fault divorce which have hurt White society but demolished Black society and is probably a factor in the higher rate of Blacks being in prison than Whites. There is also the fact that they have Robert Byrd an ex member of the Klu Klux Klan is in their Senatorial ranks.

My source is a persuasive article pretending to be an informative one about the accusations of racism against Senator Allen.

The Right Action, The Wrong Government In A State V Federal Government

2006-09-25T18:46:00.000-05:00

The Federal government proposes mandatory testing for HIV/Aids in hopes of slowing down the disease and prolonging the life’s of those who have it. 4000 individuals die from Aids in the United States every year and the rest are kept alive by high cost medicine that is sometime picked up at the taxpayers expense. Since 40,000 new cases are reported annually it is a net of 36000 or +.012% of the total U.S. population.

50% of the known cases are homosexuals and 87% of the confirmed cases are in males. This sticks with the transmission factor I heard of that sodomy, intervenes drug use, blood transfusion, and birth to a HIV/Aids infected mother. Researchers claim that there is an increase in infections by vaginal intercourse but I have my doubts because almost all cases I hear of are of a bisexual male infecting a heterosexual female and there is male female sodomy as well as vaginal intercourse. If vaginal intercourse is a large factor then HIV/Aids has increased in threat level.

According to the CIA fact book 6% of the population has HIV/Aids and half of those with HIV/Aids are homosexuals. If this is correct and the 2-4% estimate of the percent of our population who is actively homosexual is also correct then the vast majority of homosexuals have HIV/Aids and it does not have much further to spread.

It is a myth that condoms stop HIV/Aids as they do not stop pregnancies. Going by their success at stopping pregnancy you would have a 1/5th to 1/6th of the chance of catching HIV/Aids that you would have with out them. Every time you have sex you are gambling with your life and your health.

Our government should have acted against HIV/Aids long ago by setting up colonies for infected individuals and segregating jails. Their failure to do this because of political correctness has allowed the disease to spread to a point where colonies are no longer a viable option. The segregation of jails should be done in every state.

This lack of segregation explains why HIV/Aids is spreading in the Black community. Many individuals practice sodomy in jail and a higher percentage of Blacks are imprisoned than whites. When these men exit jail have sex with women of their own choice and mixed racial couples seem to be rare in our society.

Abstinence until marriage and faithfulness in marriage are the best ways to avoid any kind of sexually transmitted disease providing you do not marry a person that is STD positive or a person who is unfaithful to you.

By the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution the federal government does not have the authority to actually legislate mandatory tests within the jurisdiction of the states. They will of course ignore that detail as they have for many years. The states are quite capable of acting to protect the general welfare of their own people but the federal government likes the unconstitutional power rush.

Source 1 is article about mandatory HIV testing and has a story where a bisexual male infected a heterosexual female.

Source 2 is abstract about heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 where a bisexual male infected a heterosexual female.

I am posting a correction to this blog. The HIV/Aids rate is .6% or 950 thousand individuals and the deaths each year from Aids is 14,000 individuals. I am sorry for my errors. I am not sure how the CIA factbook got these figures but I did notice that the 950,000 and .6% did not match with the 298 million population. Maybe it is another failure of intelligence from the CIA.

Building A Border Fence Is One Step Of Providing For The Common Defense

2006-09-24T23:15:00.000-05:00

The House has pushed through a bill on securing our border by building 700 miles of border fence and it has irritated a number of groups and individuals. One of these groups is Action For World Liberation Everyday(AFWLE) who’s spokeswomen is in Washington DC to join with other protestations in chaining themselves to a half ton 28 ton wall they set up in a Senate park where plan to fast for a length of time in attempt to influence the public sentiment and the Senate. The reporter for Christian Science Monitor whose article I used as my source did not feel that her relationship to the AFWLE was important information.

Her objections that those willing to break the law will find a way around such a border are legitimate but we employ border control agents to prevent them from doing just that. The question is if we have enough agents and if the ones we have are efficiently organized.

This brings me to the National Border Patrol Council which is a union and may not be completely trustworthy in this case because they are a member of the AFL-CIO and what they said agrees with that organizations stance. The AFL-CIO came out for amnesty for illegal aliens in 2000 but are against Bush’s proposal which sounds like amnesty to me. Nine illegal immigrants that were fired after being part of a unionization effort won a case before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board in January of 2000 which set a precedent that the AFL-CIO probably found advantageous. Self interest may encourage the National Border Patrol Council to favor more border control agents on the border as a partial solution but their connection to the AFL-CIO compromises their loyalty to their mission.

Maureen Torrey a business owner who benefits from illegal immigration says she is paying $16-$17 dollars an hour in upstate New York and can not attract enough workers. She should advertise as Wal-Mart or other retail outlets as they pay Americans a whole lot less. I know the people work through temporary agencies at light industrial jobs for a fraction of what she states she is paying.

Senator Larry Craig (R) of Idaho and Dianne Feinstein (D) of California are out of touch with the bureaucracy as they want to tell it to speed up without actually finding out why it can not handle the present load. My opinion is they are playing politics and not really looking for solutions.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) is the only one in this article that speaks for two thirds of the American people when he states the border fence is about the national and economic security of the United States.

Source 1 is the Christian Science article about the bill to build a border fence.

Source 2 shows that Azul-Cristian Caravaggio is the Tennessee contact person for AFWLE

Source 3 shows the National Border Control Council is affiliated with the AFL-CIO

Source 4 is about AFL-CIO’s stance on amnesty for illegal immigrants

Source 5 mentions case illegal immigrants won in Minnesota.

Source 6 Is 2004 statement by AFL-CIO president on President Bush’s immigration principles.

Our Natural Rights Are Put At Risk By Leniency To Convicts

2006-09-20T21:36:00.000-05:00

There was a study conducted that determined that our prisons are a breeding ground for radical Muslims and place terrorist use to recruit them. Lack of funding is the excuse for this but I have my doubts as a lot of funding is already in place. I know that gangs also recruit members in prisons so this is a longstanding and know problem that the government has not acted to resolve.

One possible problem is that too many rights are being extended to prisoners. There was a reason why when the Thirteenth Amendment was passed to forbid slavery or bonded servantry in the United States that an exception was made for criminals. That is so that they could be better monitored and controlled. These are individuals that have a proven tendency to violate the natural human rights of other human beings and who are most likely already hostile to the government which makes them ideal candidates for recruitment. The ACLU is a champion of given prisoners rights, among which seems to be the right to harm others, that the U.S. Constitution does not grant them as you can see by the Thirteenth Amendment.

My question is if the government can not control such extremist in such ideal setting then how can they protect us from them in the outside world where they can blend in with the average person or keep a neighborhood terrorized into silence and so operate in the open as gangs do.

My source about study on terrorist recruitment is our jails.

An Unjust Vengence And The Need To Establish Justice

2006-09-19T19:33:00.000-05:00

There was a shooting in a Dandridge Tennessee baseball park where a ten year old child and his peers were playing. Three of his grandparents ended up dead and his father ended up wounded. The police are not saying who did the firing but the article leads me to suspect that the boy’s maternal grandfather who was one of the victims.

Previously to the shooting a drug bust occured that ended with putting the boy’s mother in jail for conspiring to distribute marijuana. The shooter suspected her husband, the father of the boy of turning her in to law enforcement. A divorce and child custody battle were also involved.

The signs are that the boy’s maternal grandfather showed little or no love for his grandson who was left in shock after the incident occurred. Filled with unrighteous vengeance the grandfather ignored the real perpetrator, who was the mother as she chose a path of crime, and went after the one who he thought performed the righteos action of reporting a criminal action to the police.

I am usually against divorce but you can not be yoked to someone who is intent on criminal enterprises as it is neither a secure or happy lifestyle and certainly is not healthy for children or even adults. If the maternal grandfather was the shooter and if he survived I would have considered the death penalty as appropriate as I can see no mitigating circumstances in his crime of hate.

An article of the shooting event.

An Attempt To Coerce An Abortion In The United States

2006-09-18T19:01:00.000-05:00

Legalized abortion is a form of genocide as it kills human beings in their mothers womb. It is a stain on the United States as it takes away the claim of being a free nation since the unborn underclass suffers a massive loss of their natural human right to life. Over one million children are killed annually and of those children Blacks and Hispanics are more adversely effected than Whites.

In a recent case two parents of a nineteen year old age girl first argued with her in attempt to coerce her into getting an abortion and then kidnapped her and transported her over state lines in order to find a facility where the medical staff would kill the baby through a late term abortion. It seems they had no concern that the staff would hesitate to perform such evil on a child that was obviously being coerced.

Thankfully the girl escaped from captivity and called the police who then apprehended her parents, who if convicted are due to serve 7.5 to 15 years in prison. I am curious if they actually do the time in jail that they justly disserve for such an abusive attitude. I feel sorry for their daughter and grandchild who have been betrayed by those who are supposed to love them. I hope a crisis pregnancy center or some other benevolent organization or person comes to aid her in her time of need.

Here is the full article about the kidnapping.

You Do Not Have The Right To Harm Americans Through Speech Or Press

2006-09-12T22:32:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting case of inmates at a prison who sued the State of Indiana over a ban of nude photos and other adult material. It is interesting because according to the Thirteen Amendment of the U.S. Constitution a person convicted of a crime can be made a slave who has no legal standing unless the state government gives them that standing. In fact the Fourteenth Amendment which the federal courts misinterpret to give them power over the states in this case make an exception for those convicted by the due process of law.

The ACLU which is a cultural liberal organization and a partner of the United Nations has taken up the case. They will most likely ignore those parts of the U.S. Constitution that contradict what they want to force on the American people and misinterpret the rest to forward the non official policies of the United Nations. That is what their Non Government Organization(NGO) agreement basically states though it does not mention the non official part but you can get that with examining the overwhelming conformity of the positions of the NGOs of the Department of Information of the United Nations. The American Bar Association who will more than likely be another though hidden player in this case is also an NGO for the DPI and has made the same agreement.

The issue is pornography and whether it is covered by the freedom of speech or freedom of press clause of the First Amendment. If the courts were being honest about the issue then the answer would depend on whether or not pornography cause harm to our society since no one has the right to cause harm to themselves of others. I have seen studies that have concluded it does cause harm and have heard other studies that have concluded it does not cause harm. I tent to favor the first view as pornography is a type of propaganda that is designed to sell libertine behavior and that is proven to be harmful to society. Even if the evidence is not conclusive there is enough evidence that such decisions should be left up to our republican form of government to legislate and not the unelected judicial branch as they violate the Constitution when they take up the legislative powers of the States or of Congress.

Source 1 is an article about the lawsuit I am speaking of.

Protecting Our Natural Rights Through Abstinence And Faithfulness In Marriage

2006-09-10T22:34:00.000-05:00

I am not a Catholic but when a man voices an opinion that sounds right to my ears then I am glad to salute him or her. Pope Benedict XVI did just that when he rebuked Western societies for rejecting Christianity and adopting science and technology instead. His argument relied on the known fact that abstinence and faithfulness in marriage are more effective as combating the spread of HIV/Aids than condoms.

Considering that condoms fail to prevent pregnancies 15% of the time with typical usage and not using anything fails 85% of the time he has a point. That means anyone engaging in premarital or extramarital sex has 1/5.67th the chance of contacting HIV/Aids than a person not using anything. This is true of any sexually transmitted disease(STD) are fully effective in resisting the transfer of.

Some people say abstinence is impossible. The statement itself is an admittance of sexual addiction which needs to be addressed and not encouraged. The sad thing is that our cultural seems to be designed to encourage sexual addiction. The best way to prevent sexual addiction is to stop it before it starts and the abstinence only program advocated by Bush will fulfill that very want.

The questions is how effective are abstinence only programs at reinforcing students against peer and cultural pressure and are the programs taught early enough to catch children before they give in to the cultural pressure to have sex. A preliminary examination of a Texas study say that the classes are given too late and that their effect does not last after the course. Another study found that regular religious attendance during teen years was linked to a higher level of abstinence and a lower level of alcohol consumption among Americans of African decent. The believe is that the churches involved preached conservative ethics where these practices were forbidden. From these two studies I conclude that constant reinforcement of the abstinence message is necessary. It most likely helps if the child is not introduced to sex before the abstinence education starts.

Source 1 is Pope’s speech supporting abstinence and faithfulness in marriage.

Source 2 is Study of Texas teens

Source 3 is Study of Americans of African decent.

The Democrat Party Moves To Put God Back In Its Platform

2006-09-05T21:50:00.000-05:00

The Democrats are making a move to put God back into their parties platform. The problem is that the God they intend to put back is one that they confess with the mouth while their heart is far from him. Never less it could benefit them if they can get rid of the image that they are hostile to religion. I do not see their atheistic and homosexual base allowing that. There are both atheist and homosexuals in the Republican party but they do not come across anti religious and that makes a difference.

In reality the Republican party is considered hostile to religion as the vast majority of people spoke against them on the issue when asked. Only 47 said they were friendly. A mere 26% who are probably the Democrat party base said the were friendly to religion. In education terms both party failed but the Democrat party did not study at all.

David Rexrode, the Republican National Committee's director of coalitions believes FaithfulDemocrat.com will fail but I am sure about that. If the Democrats hold to their economic liberal position and change to a more culturally conservative position they may well win elections in Red States as well as Blue as the combination has not been tried. We see in Connecticut that the Democratic base will attempt to chase them off the reservation for heresy but they may well be able to take enough votes from Republicans to win victories as there is 53% that do not believe the Republican party has a religious friendly image.

In my opinion FaithfulDemocrat.com has potential and should be encouraged by those who want a third option.

Source of news about FaithfulDemocrat.com

My Thanks To Those Officers Who Establish Justice

2006-09-04T14:02:00.001-05:00

We owe a gift of thanks to the police officers who put their life on the line to protect our natural rights from that savages that arise among our numbers or enter the United States from outside.

And escaped fugitive suspected of gunning down two troopers in New York . Trooper Joseph Longobardo died of his wounds after heroic efforts were made to save his life and Trooper Donald Baker was upgraded from critical condition. They returned fire but no evidence that they shooter was hit has been released to the press at this time.

I thank all those law enforcement officer who like Longobardo and Baker put the health and life at risk every day that we may have a safe and secure country. My condolences go to the friends and families of those officers who pay the price of liberty for us.

Source is a more complete story about Longobardo and Baker.

The United Nations Attack On American Culture

2006-09-02T22:53:00.000-05:00

Laws against adultery in the United States used to be considered important to the stability of family. Yet those laws like those against fornication have not been enforced. That lack of enforcement may well have led to the deterioration of the family.

In an article by Professor of Law Joanna Grossman she commented that the Virginia State Supreme Court and other courts struck down the law for the same reason that laws against homosexuality were illegalized. The reason that is because they violated the right to privacy the unelected Oligarchy known as the Supreme Court created in 1965 through an unconstitutional judicial fiat. This so called right does not actually exist within the U.S. Constitution but it does exist in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I suspicion that the United Nation’s political and cultural agents known as the American Bar Association had something to do with the decision. This is a tentative suspicion based on their partnership with the U.N. and the Supreme Court admitting they ruled by international law in at least some cases.

I have found other evidence that indicates there is a worldwide movement that has successfully legalized adultery in many country. This evidence comes from an article about Cambodia making adultery illegal where the opposition said.

"There are only a couple of countries in the world which prosecuted personal immorality based on their sacred texts such as the ousted Taliban regime," opposition MP Eng Chhay Eang said in the debate.”

The opposition also stated:

“They forced people to follow their tradition which cannot be accepted. So did Pol Pot's regime. They murdered people who had love affairs," he added. “

The Taliban has a law code based on the Koran which like other law codes which has its oppressive parts and its non oppressive parts.. Pol Pot was a communist and an atheist which makes me doubt very much they has a law code based on anything but atheistic communism. I heard of people executed for lack of production and other bureaucratic snafus. At best we are talking a have truth.

I feel I have presented a case that shows that there is a worldwide anti religious movement that is possibly centered on the United Nations. I realize some parts of my case are circumstantial but I fell that all together it is a strong case.

Source 1 is an article by Joanna Grossman

Source 2 is an article about Cambodia passing an law against adultery because of the damage is causing the their country.

The Threat Of The U.N. And Their Religious Establishments

2006-09-01T22:14:00.000-05:00

The Tulsa Presbyterian Church stood up for their believes in scripture by voting 967-to-36 to affirm their elders vote to leave the Presbyterian Church U-S-A. This cultural conservative vote affirms the First Amendments non establishment clause as the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. is a non government organization(NGO) connected in partnership that agrees to carry out the principles of the United Nations.

To be correct the Catholic church is also nation as well as a religion and can be as much of a threat to the liberty of the United States as the United Nations is.

The question is how much power does the Catholic church or the United Nations have over the United States. I am afraid they have too much power that previous presidents and Senators have allowed them to have. They have done this by signing treaties that they then treat as higher laws than even the U.S. Constitution. The United Nations has also compromised our judicial branch at the federal level by forming a NGO partnership with the American Bar Association.

Cultural liberalism which is supported by the United Nation is a version of anarchy that allows individuals to commit so called victimless crimes that are not as victimless as they are portrayed. These crimes such prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, adultery, etc harm families and contribute to the spread of STD’s and other illnesses. Abortion is just a form of legalized murder. I suspect that the U.N. is planning to destabilize the U.S. in order to send in a force of Peacekeepers to occupy it. They have been known to put puppet governments in place. I also suspicion that the Democratic party is their tool since they seem to be favor the same principles. The Republican party is not immune but they seem to have plans that are in opposition to the U.N. at least some of the time.

Source 1 of information of the Presbyterian Church break.

Source 2 The distabilization of Somalia, the establishment transitional government and international troops.

The Front Men For The United Nations Attack On The Liberty Of The United States

2006-08-28T18:34:00.000-05:00

The United Nation makes a point of attacking America using superfine and front men. The front men in the case of Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act are the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) who are both non government organizations connected to the United Nations. A third one who is not mentioned but who is seldom if even missing from legal procedures is the American Bar Association.

The United Nations is an advocate of open borders and migrant rights. We signed on the 1951 treaty that established the “International Organization of Migration”. that like many international treaties we signed compromise our ability to rule ourselves. This is an effect of removing the state legislatures ability to check the federal government by passing the Seventeenth Amendment.

The Hazleton case is not the only case in which the United Nation is attacking the freedom of the People of the United States. Another instance is the Mount Soledad case. The Jewish War Veterans of the United States is another NGO that is in partnership with the United Nation. They and the ACLU along with some independents are taking the case to a federal court that is under a monopoly or near monopoly of judges that are ABA members and influenced by ABA propaganda.

I am sure there are other cases in which this same thing has happened. I would like to direct your attention to one other area of corruption and that is judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who belong to groups that compromise the security of the United States such as the Council of Foreign Relation. It is not up to judges to devise foreign policy that is the domain of the legislative and executive branches. It is certainly not up to judges to rule in accordance to federal law since all legislation has to be passed by Congress. Ginsburg who has a pass history in leadership within both the ABA and the ACLU will be anything but impartial when either of these cases comes before her. I know there are other judges on the bench that are as biased as her.

Source 1 is about Hazleton and it lawsuit and seems to be biased for illegal immigration.

Source 2 is about the Mt Soledad lawsuit.

Source 3 is the connection of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education to the United Nations.

Source 4 is a list of NGO’s in partnership with the United Nations that include the ACLU, The ABA, and the Jewish War Veterans of the United States .

Source 5 is a short biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Source 6 is a membership list of the Council of Foreign Affairs. I did not use this but it can be used to find our if a judges perceived impartiality is possibly compromised.

Britney Spears Image Is Used To Promote The Right To Life

2006-08-24T21:38:00.000-05:00

A stature was sculpted in New York and depicted Britney Spears nude having her baby. This of course caused controversy which actually may have helped the pro life cause.

Someone in Japan must of gotten ideas because they decided to put a nude picture depicting a pregnant Britney Spears. Japan has a very low fertility rate and killing your own child in your womb is legal there. In another event a group in Japan decided to give badges to women that claimed they were pregnant women that read "there is a baby in my belly". I suspicion that both actions are to encourage women to give birth to their children instead of killing them. They are both good ideas.

The poster was originally blocked by Japanese subway officials because pornography is illegal but they have since backed off that position by saying the poster was not all that salacious.

I guess some individuals have decided there is a difference between pornography and artwork. To bad we seem to have that trouble in the United States.

Source about Poster of Britney Spheres in Japan

States Rights And Securing The Right To The Pursuit Of Happiness

2006-08-22T22:28:00.000-05:00

I happen to me a supporter of an increase in minimum wage. It does cause inflation in the goods and services provided by minimum wage workers but it also gives the workers increased money to purchase more goods. This offsets increase of costs due to normal inflation so that instead of purchasing less minimum wage workers can purchase the same amount they did before.

I am not in favor of a federal minimum wage as it is not a power given to the federal government. Each state has the power to raise minimum wage and has the duty to ensure the natural right of pursuit of happiness of its citizens. They may use other solutions than raising minimum wage . That tactics to deal with the situation are up to the legislature to debate and decide and it is up to the citizens of that state to elect those representatives that they fill have the best plans.

In California the legislation has chosen to lift the minimum wage from $6.75 to $8.00 an hour. California has a flourishing economy. The legislation made a deal with the governor that not veto the legislation if they did not include an automatic raise equal to inflation. He gave in his demands for a dollar raise instead of the dollar and a quarter raise he that was made law. That is how the legislation process works.

Illegal immigrants are a threat to the minimum wage as they will work under it and since the law is already being broken by employing illegals the employer has no problem with paying them under the table. Except for a few the Democratic party at the federal level supports illegal immigration.

My source of information on the minimum wage being raised in California.

Why Are We Importing Social Disaster?

2006-08-19T23:27:00.000-05:00

There is a interesting case of a woman claiming sanctuary in a Methodist Church located in Chicago, IL. I have no problem with sanctuary as a cool down period when chasing those who have committed misdemeanors. There has to be a reasonable limit on how long an individual can claim sanctuary.

The case in Chicago involves a women who is an illegal immigrant and her child who was born in the United. Elvira Arellano was previously deported in the lay 1990 and then returned to the U.S. to give birth to the child that she claims it an American child by birth. The argument against is citizenship is that since his mother was not legally within the jurisdiction of the United States he can not be treated as if he was born within the jurisdiction as would reward lawbreaking.

She can be deported and she can also choose to take him with her or leave him with someone in the United States. If she is deported what guarantee do we have that she will break the law again and reenter the United States. We need to build a wall on the border as we are defenseless. We also need to get hard on businesses.

She is part of a broken family since I see no proof she has a husband. The Hispanic community and the United States has too many problems stemming from such broken families. We do not need any more in the United States as we have enough of our own.

Source

A Campaign Against The Tyranny Of Drunk Driving

2006-08-18T22:20:00.000-05:00

Alcoholism is a crime in itself as it infringes on a person’s use of reason and self control but we have chosen tolerate and so not to prosecute it as is our entitlement under the idea of a free nation. On the other hand drunk driving which causes a multitude of deaths and injuries each year is another matter. Last year 16,885 human beings were killed in alcohol related incidents and many were not drinkers. For example drunk drivers are one of the leading causes of death among on duty officers.

In the interest of curbing drunk driving a advertising campaign has gone out aimed at both male English and Spanish speakers in the 21-34 age bracket who are more likely to commit this crime. The is of course profiling which seems to be allowed in this case and when companies are marketing goods but not in other cases. The ads will air at a period of heightened enforcement. The idea of anyone being arrested as soon as they are caught drinking and driving sounds good but if that it all they do I am not sure that it will do any good. First expecting a drunk to display reason or self control seems to be an oxymoron. Second is that people may be more careful when they know of periods of heightened enforcement and then get more careless when there are not. From everything I have heard alcoholics have to want to give up alcohol before they can. They need to suffer negative repercussions in order that to give them the desire to admit they give in to their evil desires and then to actually feel a need to fight them.

I know alcoholism is called a disease but the truth is alcoholics can and do control their actions though the desire to harm themselves for the euphoria that accompanies drinking is always there. From everything I know self destructive behavior is that same way whether is homosexuality, adultery, compulsive gambling, compulsive gaming, or anything else. People still resist it and have resisted it throughout history long before psychiatry declared it an illness. Alcoholics have the power to resist their “disease” and should be held fully accountable when they do not do so. I am tired of 16,885 people being deprived of their right to life in what we claim is a free society. This campaign is an attempt to address that tyranny.

Source: Article on Campaign against Drunk Driving

Cohabitation Is A Threat To America's Security And Happiness

2006-08-12T15:48:00.000-05:00

A Missouri couple is suing the city of Black Jack, Missouri over a housing ordinance that levels a $500 a day fine on unmarried couple and their children living together. They claim the law is unconstitutional. I find this hard to believe as laws forbidding cohabitation have been on the books as long as or longer than the U.S. Constitution has been around.

The article is not clear but I assume they are speaking of the U.S. Constitution The Tenth Amendment states quite clearly that any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the state. The U.S. Constitution mentions the jurisdiction of the federal courts in Article 3 Section 2 and suits between a state and a resident of the same state are not part of its jurisdiction. The Twelfth Amendment further limit’s the power of the federal judicial branch and the Fourteenth Amendment which the federal government uses to justify stealing their power from the states only gives Congress the power to legislate in order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. The courts can then act to adjudicate cases involving that legislation. Congress has never passed a law that legalizes cohabitation.

If we ignored the U.S. Constitution’s jurisdiction requirements and allowed the federal courts could illegally adjudicate the issue then they would also be violating the rule of law in their disobedience of the separation of powers that grants all legislation powers to Congress and grants the courts merely the power to judge according to the law. Since cohabitation is not specifically legalized by the U.S. Constitution then it follows the power to do so is reserved to the states according to the Tenth Amendment.

The town of Black Jack, Missouri is acting well within it’s duties to protect the natural human rights of its people as the preponderance of evidence shows that cohabitation is a danger to American society. The problem is we have too many civil libertarian judges who ignore the evidence and break the law. This will remain while all we do is grumble about their corrupt behavior. We need to act. One way of acting is to petition Congress to impeach these enemies of the U.S. Constitution and therefore of the security and happiness of the American people.

Source 1 is article about lawsuit

Source 2 is about the negative effects of Cohabitation

The Effects Of The Illegal Hispanic Invasion

2006-08-11T22:21:00.000-05:00

The Christian Monitor came out with this report on a poll that states Latinos are coming together as a political force after the protest marches in March. In the poll 63% if Latinos expressed confidence that the rallies started a new social movement. Of the Latinos in the U.S. approximately 40% are illegal and many are loyal to their home country making uniting as Hispanics difficult. The percentage of illegal in the poll is not indicated which make the poll unreliable for predicting how naturalized Hispanics feel.

In addition to their lack of unity, their lack of English language skill makes it difficult for them to navigate the bureaucracy. It seems that many do no comprehend that a misdemeanor is still a crime, which is understandable as most American given a speeding ticket do not believe they have committed a crime. There is also a high level of apathy in the naturalized Hispanic community compared to either black or white.

The good news is that Hispanics who remain loyal to their native lands and do not make the effort to learn the English language are the greatest threat to American culture but the least threat to America through the voting system as they will be less united and will have trouble will the political process. The bad news is that there is always organizations like the federally funded La Raza to help them overcome those difficulties.

There is also an article from the Associated Press that states illegal immigrants are not hurting American jobs. It compares illegal immigrant populations to employment rate. It is not a very informative study as if a person is going to invade a country to break the law then they are also going to travel to areas that have more available employment. The question the study did not answer is what is the effect on the wages of American workers if any. The general rule is that excess labor keeps labor costs down. If the demand for labor stayed the same and the supply went down because of the absence of illegal immigrants than the general rule of thumb is that their would be wage inflation. The disadvantage is that their would be less consumers which may increase unemployment. Considering a large source of Mexico’s income in money sent home from illegal immigrants and a large part of American tax burden is supplying government services to illegal immigrants it seems probable that the benefits of cutting back on illegal immigrants would exceed the disadvantages.

Source 1 Poll on Hispanics coming together politically

Source 2 Study comparing unemployment rate to size of Hispanic population

Congress Threatens To Violate The Secound Amendment

2006-08-09T20:47:00.000-05:00

The nations governors are once more opposing an attempt by the federal government to interfere with the National Guard. First it was the attempts of the Bush administration to cut the number of National Guard troops and now it is an attempt of Congress to usurp authority of the National Guard during emergency. Congress is using Katrina and the National Guards reaction speed during that event as an excuse but I well remember that the National Guards reaction was no slower than FEMA which is under federal control.

The central government ignores the Second Amendment in its greed for power. They are well aware that a single person has less power the greater in size the constituents grow and that the state governments are is capable as the federal government is of taking care of its own people. The state government is more concerned with its own people at the federal government has 50 states plus a number of territories to concerned with.

U.S. Constitution Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Originally the militia were under town control but that right was usurped by the states to create the state guards just after the Civil War. The state guard was further altered to become the National Guard in the beginning of the Twentieth Century. The ideal would be to return the Guard back to the control of the local communities or to create an alternative that would be in the towns control, but this would be a threat to the dominance of the federal government. It of course was meant to be a threat so that the rights of the people to rule themselves would be honored by both the state and federal governments.

I agree with Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco that the National Guard numbers should be increased as Guard members are citizen soldiers that are called up at need instead of regular soldiers that are always in service.

Source 1 is about Congress proposing removing state checks and balances before guard is placed under federal control.

Source 2 is about Bush administration plans to reduce the National Guard.

Paris Hilton Champions Abstinence Only Education

2006-08-07T22:19:00.000-05:00

Some moral values come out of Hollywood and it seems the main stream media does not think it is important enough to report. I obtained this article from Yahoo news who does not keep there articles on file very long. The reporter is Natalie Finn but the title which is “That's Not Hot: Paris Preaches Abstinence” is not accurate since you do not have to be sexually loose to be “Hot”.

Paris Hilton amazed most people when during a in an interview for the September issue of British GQ she came out and said “People think I sleep with everyone, but I'm not like that," Hilton told the magazine. "Kissing is all I do.”. She mitigated that by also saying "I'm not having sex for a year. I've decided...I'll kiss, but nothing else."

Her reasoning is she wants to know if men are after her for sex or if they are sincerely interested in her. She goes on to say that she only intends to get married once and that when she goes out on dates she wants to be treated like a princess.

I mention this because the values Ms. Hilton is speaking of are values known to be good for our society. They are the last values I expected to hear from anyone associated with Hollywood. We know that divorce is bad for our society, if only for the short and long term effects it has on children. There are adverse effects even in individuals that do not have children. Sex before marriage and adultery can have disaster consequences for our society. I suspicion that much of the drug use and crime can be traced to weak or no family bonds.

Source 1 is about divorce effects on children

Source 2 is about the effects of divorce on society

Source 3 is about the effects of cohabitation on society

The Truth About The Right To Die Movement

2006-08-06T09:20:00.000-05:00

I remember of the case of Karen Ann Quimby and how the media spun it to appeal to my heartstrings. I was a dope and fell for it hook line in sinker. I was so deep that I did not make a connection when I read a medical article in a hospital waiting room on more transplant parts can be obtained from a “coma” patient than from a dead one. I watched Robin Cook’s show coma and said to myself could never happen. Over time events happened that destroyed my faith in the righteousness of our medical staff and began to realize how naive I had been. Terri’s Shiavo’s death and my debates about it just brought to light that the one of the main purpose of the “right to die” movement may be to obtain body for expensive transplant operations. It also showed that Americans can be put to death by doctors and hospitals without a due processes of law. When the face transplant operation was performed in France the face came from a women that was declared “brain dead”. It seems donors such as these is not enough to meet the demand for donor organs so the Western medical community has decided to switch the definition of death. So just the warning that when you have enter a hospital with a donor card you may end up leaving in pieces. It may happen even if you do not have a donor card as is the case involving dead bodies and a body harvesting lab in New Jersey.

Source 1 Definition of death changed to obtain organs.

Source 2 Scandal involving body harvesting lab

Source 3 France transplant using organs from “brain dead” woman

Why Do Conservatives Fail This Intelligence Test?

2006-08-04T22:28:00.000-05:00

This is commentary about gullibility and taxes and the repeal of the “grave tax” supported by the general Republican. Taxes are the fee we owe the government for governing.

Let me see why do Americans appear stupid. It is most like because they have sectarian blind spots. Liberals for instance are unable to understand while it is a contradiction to take the word of biologist on the theory of evolution but reject the word on those same biologist when they say human life begins at conception. Conservatives make more sense in the are as they point out that evolution is just a theory while the point at which life begins is not. Then we come to the conservative blind spot. They complain about taxes and then aid Warren Buffet to pay a lower portion of his taxes to the government than his own secretary by reducing the capital gains tax. Not satisfied with that absurdity they turn around and aid him again so he will not have to pay as much of a death tax.

OK! Time for an intelligence test. If the rich pay less taxes then who will make up the difference? Will it be the poor who can hardly afford to feed and cloth themselves or will be the middle class who is supporting the tax cuts for the rich.? Who is the fool? If the Republican want to reduce taxes then they should reduce income taxes and equal percentage across the board. I would not mind if I was paying 70%, 80%, or even 90% of what I pay now but I do mind giving someone else a taxe break while I have the same burden and will probably end up greater burden later.

Which Is Worse, To Be Called Names Or Have Your Life And Limb Put In Danger?

2006-08-02T22:21:00.000-05:00

Mel Gibson is stopped for drunk driving, an American pastime that kills thousands and injures a multiple more every year. The complaints I here about his anti-Semite comments. There is evidence that many Jews in Hollywood are less incensed with his remarks than the impression the media gives.

Mr. Gibson has apologized and asked Jews to aid him find a “path to healing”. ABC/Disney did not believe that is good enough and yanked his Holocaust mini-series. The problem I see is that very mini-series is a way for him to show that he is truly sorry for his words.

What bothers me most as I see little actual concern with his action of getting in a vehicle when his abilities and his mind were impaired by alcohol.

His first crime was against himself and occurred when he decided to drink more than one to two glasses of alcohol. It is a crime that we as Americans choose not to penalize. From that point on his judgment was impaired so he aggravated his crime by choosing to drive and then resist arrest and make mean spirited comments that happened to also be bigoted.

We should not forget that this all started with the self destructive crime of alcoholism. We should not forget the people he endangered by choosing to drive drunk. We should not forget that actions hurt more than words.

Source 1 is about many Hollywood Jewish Leaders being silent.

Source 2 is about Mr. Gibson asking help to find a path of healing

Source 3 is about ABC/Disney pulling Holocaust mini series

What Is Racism And What Is Not Racism

2006-08-01T21:41:00.000-05:00

I am beginning to think the average American is insane or at least our leadership. Last fall the NAACP got angry about the “racist” song “Pick A Bale of Cotton”. The thing is that “Pick A Bale of Cotton” is a black folk song and can hardly be considered racist. So is the NAACP angry because blacks made the most of their poverty and leaned to enjoy themselves. I always thought that was an inspiration for Americans in general.

Now Governor Romney of Massachusetts apologizes for his remark comparing the Big Dig to the Tar Baby in an Uncle Remus tale. The analogy fits if you consider the Big Dig is a trick the government stuck their nose in and got trapped. Tar baby is not a racist remark as the tale is written by Joel Chandler Harris and are supposed to be based on tales told him by slaves when he was a young boy. I guess some people just want to reject the rich history of blacks for their own personal reason. My guess if they face up to it then they have to admit that blacks under the Democratic party have been their own worse enemy.

They might have to admit that the Democrat politics of legalized abortion has resulted in blacks being killed at three times the rate of whites even before they exit their own mother’s womb. They might have to admit that no fault divorce and cohabitation which are both supported by the Democrat party have decimated black family life. The soft on crime approach and the legalized drugs are just as dangerous as the poor are more subject to both in their want of status and escape from reality and human beings tend to prey on those closest to them.

I leave it up to you to decide what racism is real and what is a delusion.

Source 1 is the Uncle Remus Tale of "Brer Rabbit AND The Tar Baby"

Source 2 is an account of the NAACP v. "Pick A Bale Of Cotton"

Source 3 is an account of Governor Romney's Apology for his Tar Baby remark.

The Rule Of Law Is Missing In Action In Florida

2006-07-30T21:24:00.000-05:00

There is an interesting case where a Florida state panel of nurses found that there is probable cause to revoke the license of Carla Sauer-Iyer a former nurse of Terri Schiavo of breaching medical confidentiality by giving testimony to the media.

What I find so interesting is that Carla Sauer-Iyer testimony states that Terri was “was reactive to her environment, to herself, and to other people”. Now if what she said was false then it would not be a breach of confidentiality. Just imagine you tell a friend a secret and that friend tell another person a lie about what that secret is. Did you friend breach your confidentiality by telling that lie? So the charge against nurse Sauer-Iyer is only valid if what she said was true and if so it reveals there is something rotten in Florida and it is most likely the rule of law.

Governor Bush stepped in and like most politicians missed the contradiction and said that the nurse Sauer-Iver should not loose her license because what she said was on public record.

This is most likely true as Carla Sauer-Iyer states she made a report to the Pinellas County sheriff's office. This is the same police office where Michael Schiavo was employed at starting in late 2004 and his mistress’s mother retired from in 1999 after 20 years of service. Sheriff Everett Rice who was her supervisor hired Michael.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Why Is Bribery Law Unenforced In Florida?

2006-07-29T21:49:00.000-05:00

In Florida Law bribery of a sitting judge is illegal and yet Judge Greer received repeated bribes in the form of awards why he was sitting on the case of Terri Schiavo. Now I do not know if all of the awards he received are linked to his findings on the case of Terri Schiavo but some certainly are.

I have just learned that the Clearwater Bar has twice honored Judge Greer with the John U. Baird award due to his performance in the Terri Schiavo case. The St. Petersburg Bar Association also awarded him during the Terri Schiavo trial:

The Clearwater Bar Association twice honored him with the John U. Bird Distinguished Jurist Award, in 2001 and in 2004, in part for his work on the Schiavo case. The St. Petersburg Bar Association gave him its Judicial Appreciation Award in 2004

According to my secondary source Judge Greer has been overturned 21 of 29 times by the Second District Court of Appeals of Florida. It makes it seem like awards are given out to even incompetent judges in Florida.

As long as Florida allows judges to be bribed by law associations then there will be no true rule of law in Florida.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

How Terri Schiavo Was Deprived Of Due Process Of Law

2006-07-28T21:54:00.000-05:00

The rights of Terri Schiavo were violated by the governments of Florida and of the United States as they tried her as property to be fought over instead of as a human being with rights of her own.

First the law Florida put in place that allows a human being to be killed by the intentional withdrawal of medical care is unconstitutional. This is because Fourteenth Amendment clearly states “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and Terri never received her due process as treated like property who’s ownership was disputed and not as a person who had the right to life. I believe this was the point Congress and President Bush tried to make in passing the law for her benefit. They had the power to do so according to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

I could point to due process as it is outlined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but in truth those Amendments are clearly meant only to limit the Federal government. Florida has its own constitution and its own due process of law and that is what Terri was entitled to and did not receive.

Since Terri was treated as property instead of as a person her fate was dependent on the will of the one who legally “owned” her and that was her husband. For the Florida law that unjustly executed Terri to be legal then a process just like that for a person accused of any other capital offense in the state of Florida would have to be allowed though their offense would be a medical condition and not a criminal offense.

The question I ask in parting is should we as Americans call on the government to honor the U.S. Constitution or should we allow the randomness of politics wash us too and fro committing atrocities as we go.

Are The People Of The U.S. Being Blinded By Political Double Dealing

2006-07-03T22:06:00.000-05:00

I was checking through the NGO’s of the United Nations and came across this one and started wondering if this whole issue about homosexual and atheist leaders of the Boy Scouts is a trick. In order to become a NGO of the United Nation you pledge to further the agenda of the UN and they demand proof that you are doing so on a yearly basis. It must be helpful in a court case when everyone involved has given an oath to further the same United Nations agenda. With the ACLU, ABA, and Boy Scouts pledged to advance their agenda that is just what is happening. Once a precedent is set everyone abides by it or receives a threatening letter from the ACLU.

Name:
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
Address:
1325 Walnut Hill Lane PO Box 152079 Irving TX 75015
UNITED STATES
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
WEB Address:
Assosiation: Other NGOs associate with DPI
Main Activity: Youth

If there is any double dealing going on then it is quite convoluted as the California courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts. This could be because the ABA is weaker in California despite the apparent liberal bias of their courts. I might be wronging the California state court system and they may not have as much liberal bias as the California federal courts.

My sources are:

Source 1 is evidence of Boy Scouts NGO status

Source 2 is ACLU demanding public subsity of Boy Scouts end.

For more on the ACLU and The Boy Scouts see:

Source 3

A Minor Loss Against The UN Claimed As A Victory

2006-06-28T20:57:00.000-05:00

I previously warned you of the United Nations attempt to influence the society of the United States through their Non Governmental Organization known as the National Education Association. This week the American Family Association sent me an email that states the attempt was defeated. From what I read it was not a victory but a loss that was reduced in severity since the result was merely a compromise that still advances the UN’s principles of homosexuality but not to the degree the NEA had initially attempted.

June 27, 2006
Important NEA update: Your Efforts Made A Difference, NEA Changes Paragraph.

Dear Kerwin,

Because of the efforts by AFA Online supporters, the National Education Association was forced to drop their proposal to endorse homosexual marriage.

Within hours of AFA Online's alert, the NEA had removed the original proposal and replaced it with a new one. The original paragraph under section B-8 Diversity read as follows:

The Association believes that legal rights and responsibilities with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, legal immigration, domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage belong to all these diverse groups and individuals.

To see the resolution in full, click here (bottom of page in bold type).

Due to the response from AFA Online supporters, the NEA immediately changed that paragraph to read as follows:

The Association also believes that these factors should not affect the legal rights and obligations of the partners in a legally-recognized domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage in regard to matters involving the other partner, such as medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, and immigration.

CNS News has written an excellent news story concerning the situation. To read their report, click here. Without the response from AFA Online supporters, we feel the resolution with the original paragraph would have been overwhelmingly approved at their upcoming convention in Orlando.

While the NEA continues to deny their efforts were designed to approve homosexual marriage, it is clear that they were. In fact, the NEA affiliate in California has already done so. Click here to see the California statement.

Take Action

If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman

American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

This is from the United Nations Department of Public Information and tells the methods used by UN NGOs to undermine culture and freedoms of the United States.

Since the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945, NGOs have made valuable contributions to the international community by drawing attention to key issues, promoting initiatives and programmes, disseminating information and mobilizing public opinion in support of the United Nations and its specialized agencies

The source of the above cite is located here .

The question is are you willing to fight and take back the blessings of liberty that have been taken from you and you descendants through

How The United Nations Corrupts Religion

2006-06-26T20:51:00.000-05:00

All NGO's of the United Nations are required to advance the principles of the United Nations and are held accountable on a yearly basis. When a religious organization joins the United Nations as a NGO who is their mater the UN or their God.

I had a theory why the Episcopal Church was pro homosexual. Guess who is an NGO of the United Nations

Name:
EPISCOPAL CHURCH USA
Address:
815 Second Ave. New York, NY 10017
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 1 212 716 6000
Fax: 1 212 490 6684
E-mail:
WEB Address: www.episcopalchurch.org
Assosiation: Other NGOs associate with DPI
Main Activity: Religion, Freedom of Beliefs

After Curtis Dahlgren mentioned them on the RenewAmerica forum I checked the Presbyterian Church also.

Name:
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA)
Address:
100 Witherspoon St. Louisville, KY 40202-1396
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 1 888 728 7228
Fax: 1 502 569 8005
E-mail:
WEB Address: www.pcusa.org
Assosiation: NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC associated with DPI
Main Activity: Peace and Security

I saw some Catholic organizations and a number of other churches so you might want to check if your own church has been undermined by what appears to be the antichrist and false prophet of end times.

Catholic schools are not safe if this organization is what I think it is

Name:
CATHOLIC INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION OFFICE (OIEC)
Address:
718 Avenue Houba de Strooper B-1020-Brussels
BELGIUM
Telephone: 32 2 230 7252
Fax: 32 2 230 9745
E-mail: oiec@<NOSPAM>infoiec.org
WEB Address: www.infoiec.com
Assosiation: NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC associated with DPI
Main Activity: Education

My sources:

Source 1 is verification that Catholic International Education Office is a UN NGO.

Source 2 is verification that Episcopal Church is a UN NGO.

Source 3 is verification that Presbyterian Church is a UN NGO.

The American Bar Association Is Guilty Of Treason

2006-06-24T23:13:00.000-05:00

There used to be a saying that all roads lead to Rome and today a large number of liberal organizations seem to be connected to the United Nations. That probably should not be a big surprise since FDR a socialist and liberal was a major player in establishing it. The liberal activist court owns it’s existence to him and his successor as all 9 Justices were at one time appointed by a Democrat President.

Now I am onto activist judges I felt a need to mention the American Bar Association which seem to be a type of union. The American Bar Association started in 1878 and it is a voluntary association of lawyers and law students. It sets academic standards for law schools and is responsible for formation of model legal codes. It claims to provide programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work. They also give a rating to judicial appointees. The ABA influence on who passes the bar seems to be indirect.

Name:
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Address:
750 N Lake Shore Drive Chicago IL 60611
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 312 988 5000
Fax: 312 988 5151
E-mail:
WEB Address: www.abanet.org
Assosiation: Other NGOs associate with DPI
Main Activity: Human Rights

With all the power I outlined above the American Bar Association is a NGO of the United Nations pledged to carry out the principles of the organization. So what happens when the principles of the United Nations run into conflict with the law of the United States?

Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey wrote:

“Another goal is to utilize existing law in creative and novel ways to ensure both that animals are protected, and to stimulate discussion inside and outside the legal system about the need to provide justice -- and not just charity -- to the non-human with whom humans share this planet.”

Rutgers University is the state University of New Jersey as well as being on the approved list of schools of the American Bar Association. I wanted to direct your attention how this school teaches its students to be liberal activist and misuse the law.

An example of this activism is when the Clearwater Bar Association gave Judge Greer their highest honor for how good he was doing in the Teri Schiavo case before the case was settled. This is normally considered a form of bribery but not one lawyer is reported as being bothered by it occurring.

Another example is when a number of law schools sued the federal government about recruiting on Campus because they wanted to change the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

My sources are

Source 1 is Rutgers Accreditations page.

Source 2 is verification of the American Bar Associations NGO status

Source 3 is information about how to obtain a license to practice law in the US

Source 4 is an information page about the American Bar Association that I found what powers and influences they have.

Source 5 is where students are taught to misuse the law in order to advance their political agenda.

So since the American Bar Association is aiding the United Nations in its attack on the Constitution of the United States they are guilty of treason against the United States according to the definition of treason that is written in the U.S. Constitution.

The United Nations Is Pushing Homosexuality On The United States

2006-06-23T17:42:00.000-05:00

This is an update of my article titled “The UN Is At It Again”

The UAW is pro homosexual marriage even though most of its members appear to be against it. Ford reports it is on target for 2008 profitability goals despite the boycott of it that is sponsored by the American Family Association. The boycott is in protest of Ford’s support of the homosexual movement. I reported earlier that the members of the UAW ended up taking a hit for the homosexual agenda is a highly questionable election. The Ford Foundation is also a NGO of the United Nations. I wonder if they are still linked to the Ford company and if the UAW has influence on them because of it. I did find a tenuous connection between the AFL-CIO with the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division of Sustainable Development. An address by Mr. Eric Fruman is listed under trade unions.

For some background I used check

Source 1 about AFL-CIO and their UAW’s support of homosexual marriage.

Source 2 mentions AFL-CIO address to the United Nations under topic trade unions.

Source 3 is about Ford reaching its 2008 profitability goal.

Source 4 verifies Ford foundation as a NGO of the United Nations.

Name:
FORD FOUNDATION, THE
Address:
320 East 43rd St. New York, NY 10017
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 1 212 573 5000
Fax:
E-mail:
WEB Address: www.fordfound.org
Assosiation: Other NGOs associate with DPI
Main Activity: Social Development

I listed this to show the coincidence of the Ford Foundation being involved in Social Development and an individual from the AFI-CLO addressing the Social Affairs Division of the United Nations.

The UN Is At It Again

2006-06-21T22:09:00.000-05:00

I feel I should alert you of another move by the United Nations to influence the politics of the United States, The NEA who is yet another NGO of the United Nations has declared itself in support of homosexuality. See related article here.

Name:
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION/WORLD CONFEDERATION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION
Address:
1201 16th St. NW Washington, DC 20036
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 1 202 822 7488
Fax: 1 202 822 7023
E-mail: bchase@nea.org
WEB Address:
Assosiation: Other NGOs associate with DPI
Main Activity: Education

You will find that the UN is a exclusive club for liberals. Any conservative organization joining is required to advance the liberal agenda. You can see confirmation as well as other NGO’s here.

I thought I should also mention that the union at Fords plant may well be the party who is resisting the boycott of Ford products as many unions support and advance the liberal agenda. The union has recently taken cuts in pay and benefits in an a highly questionable election. Is it possible they took one for the liberal team so Ford could withstand the boycott of it's goods longer. Maybe we will find out and maybe we won’t.

A Plan To Restore True Liberty To The United States

2006-06-09T20:31:00.000-05:00

A proposal for an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forbids homosexual marriages has once more failed in the Senate and few Democrats supported it. If that does not convince you that the Democrat party we have today is a party of extremist then I doubt you have an open mind. The Republican will be the one to split on the issue. The RINO’s will side with the Democrats against the cultural traditionalist of both globalist and non globalist mindsets. It is expected to be defeated. Activist courts will then force their will on the people of the United States and politicians like Bush will lie and call us a free nation.

The only real elections in the United States are the primaries. If the conservatives want to win then they need to start voting in primaries. The Republican primaries are where the battlefield is so it is the party the conservatives should concentrate on.

Getting a legitimate third party is important but I find problems with all the third parties I know of. What we need it a party that is social conservatives but also appeals the Democrat voters. This will weaken the Democrat party while giving social conservatives an out if the Republicans choose to elect a RINO or even a globalist. In this way the third party will become a tool to advance the social conservative agenda.

Of our federal representatives our House member is the one we have the most influence with because of the size of his/her constituency and the fact that they are accountable every two years. Unfortunately they are also the weakest politically. Senators who are magnitudes more powerful are more independent for their larger constituency since they are accountable every six years. Our individual influence with the President is the weakest because of his humongous constituency and he is only accountable to us one time after serving his first four years.

We need to organize because our enemies are well organized. The extremists are dominated by unions who can get their membership fired up and voting. I believe the Blue states have the highest presence of unions. The globalist are dominated by business interests who have been influencing politics for many years. I know the Chamber of Commerce is one way they are organized. The social conservatives are a disorganized and unruly mass. The strongest organizations they have are the Catholic Church and several Evangelical organizations. The Catholic Church is weakened by those who call themselves Catholics but continue to behave like non Catholics. If my statistics on abortions are an indication the Evangelicals are more loyal to their ideals but face a rebellion of members who say they follow Jesus but continue to do the things of the world. If the churches clean house and seek political alliances with like minded social conservatism organizations then we have a chance.

Don’t be deceived if the religious organizations start cleaning house they will face the press who will seek to defame them. Politicians will be against them complaining about separation of church and state since one of the first things churches will do is to expel politicians that are giving the organization a bad name by flaunting their disobedience of morality. This will happen because when you do what God asks you to do you are persecuted. If churches do this then they will show that they believe what they teach. We can not expect the government to do what the churches themselves are reluctant to do. If the churches and like minded institutes do not do this then social conservatives have lost the fight because their enemies will not be ethical.

We need to start competition for the enemy dominated organization like the media, Holywood, and the field of education. If the churches take the beam out of their own eye then the field of education will become more balanced and they can begin taking the beam out of the eyes of others. That in itself can provide trained social conservatism that can start organizations that can compete with Holywood and media and get the truth out to the general public.

An isolated individual is a weak individual so if you can get a conservative group started using members of the church you attend then you can work toward accomplishing these goals. Once there aim low and attempt to get your clean on the straight and narrow. If you can not form a group then your church is in rebellion against God and you should seriously consider finding another one that takes seriously their oath to make Jesus Lord of their life.

Good Churches Help Lead To Good Government

2006-06-06T21:57:00.000-05:00

I bashed the UU earlier and I feel a need to vent about the Catholic Church. Supposedly the Catholic Church teaches the love of God so when a graduating student by the name of Ben Kessler gets up and rebukes the students and professors for wanton immorality he gets rebuked. Reverend Dennis Dease is the one who rebuked him should be fired or at least demoted because he has no clue what his religion is all about. This tolerance for immorality in the Catholic Church is epidemic. There is little or no difference between these Catholics and non Catholics. I admit with politicians that wantonly defy the most critical teaching of the Catholic Church to look up to and Church leaders who support active homosexuality I am not surprised. See related article here.

Just to show that this event is not unique. Here is a link to a girls lacrosse team from a Catholic University that hired male strippers. Not an example of Christ like behavior. With servants like that Jesus hardly need his enemies to have any. See related article here.

Maybe it is time for devout Catholic to demand that their leaders clean up their church. The ACLU will be opposed as they were in a New York case where a teacher was fired for immorality. So much for separation of church and state. See related article here.

There is other religions that take their religion as seriously as the girls lacrosse team. That is they act like it is a joke.

If Churches who claim they follow God refuse to actually enforce God’s morality among their members then how can they expect the State which is made up of both members and nonmembers of the church to do so. In his letters Paul instructed churches to throw out members who were wantonly embracing sin. A similar instruction was given to the Hebrew people by God in the books of law. The churches that claim Jesus’ name seem intent on yoking themselves with ungodliness and that is sad. There is no hope that civilization will return in the Constitution be honored while the churches behave in this fashion.

I addressed the Christian religion and the Catholic Church in particular because that is the information I have available to use. Other religions such as Judaism, Islam, etc may have a similar situation and also believe that all human beings should love one another. This post is a message to them also.

The Power Of Unitarian Universalism And Its Thread To The Constitution

2006-06-05T22:21:00.000-05:00

One point of morality which where Christianity and Unitarian Universalism are opposed is homosexuality. The U.U. adopted support for homosexual rights in the early to mid 70’s just about the same time the American Psychological Association came out with the announcement that homosexuality was not an insanity. There is most likely a relationship between the two.

The U.U. is the established religion of the United Nations which makes it one of the strongest organized religions in the world. It may well compete with the Catholic Church in sheer power. The U.U. owns United Press International which gave it quite a bit of influence through the media. The UPI has suffered a collapse and is no longer consider a major news organization which may have hurt the UU or may be because they have other more subtle means to accomplish the same goal. The UN had a meeting in 1981 in which they declared war on Christianity and other religions that they decide are intolerant and discriminatory. The “civil rights” arm of the United Nations is just a way for the U.U. to force their morality on the world. Evidence shows that they are successful with our top judges, the later even finally admitting that they are using “international law” to settle cases. Note the law is not really international but what the U.N. and it religious arm support.

Thanks to the U.U. we have the Muslim brotherhood that like Christians object to attacks on their religious rights. The Muslim Brotherhood under the nomenclature of Al Qaeda has attacked Western (International Community) interests a number of times including the World Trade Towers on 9/11. Anyone notice the word “World” as compared to the missing word “American” in the name. The HQ for the United Nations is located in New York City which makes it a nice primary target for Al Qaeda.

One thing I am not sure of is why the U.U. and atheist seem to be so linked. It is possible that the fact that atheist and U.U. members are often humanist may be the explanation. It may also be an alliance of convenience that comes from the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I wonder what the stance of the U.U. on the evolution/intelligent design debate. I suspicion that they are evolutionist as that is what our federal courts support.

I do know the U.N. advocates Open Borders and does not legally recognize that illegal aliens exist. That makes sense since there goal is to become a strong central government. The U.U. is just one way of unifying the people by unifying their religions.

I also believe that the U.N. is an enemy of protectionism.

Evolution Is A Religious Theory Of Creation

2006-04-30T20:56:00.000-05:00

What if a group of priest got together and started a religion that was in opposition to the common religion of their time. They would then come up with a theory of creation that was in conflict with the common religion in order to attract religion. They wanted to make themselves different from the old religion so the referred to themselves as scientist instead of priests. I propose that that is just exactly happened to start off evolution. The government calls it science but it is just religion with a different name. Lets take a look at the lack of fact in its roots.

Scientific methodology as we know it today did not exist at the time Darwin came up with his theory of evolution. He attempts to convince people he is correct, but so did Thomas Aquinas when he was attempting to define the principles of life. Considering that both men used more reason the evidence to convince their audience, I would say they were both using philosophy rather than science.

The “theories” of embryology that Darwin used were far from proven and were not generally accepted by naturalist though he treated them as fact. It is pretty clear that he picked those parts of each “theory” that best fit with his own theory since he did not try to prove his mixture of embryonic theories true and the evidence I have seen indicates it was not commonly accepted as true by the scientific community of that time.

Darwin was convinced that the “civilized” races of men would exterminate and replace the “savage” races of men and thus make the gap between man and ape larger. He stated that in The Decent Of Man. He did not state that blacks and whites were separate species but he sure did give that ideal as he also mentioned anthropomorphous apes and baboons when talking about the evolutionary gap that existed then and the one he believed would exist in the future.

Eugene Dubois was so inspired by Darwin that he joined the Dutch army in order to go to Asia and find the missing link. Wonder of Wonder he found a sample which is classified as Homo erectus and known as Java Man. Java Man was used to prove that evolution was a fact even though many question if it is a valid sample. Despite how debatable it is Java Man is still used in text books to teach the theory of evolution.

Using Roe V Wade To Overturn Roe V Wade Part II.

2006-04-29T22:44:00.000-05:00

Argument 2 is designed to explain why unborn children are treated unequally under the law, It shows how unborn children are slaves of their mothers by nature but still have the right to life.

1856 Dred Scott v. Sanfort Declaration of Independence is interpretive document of the U.S. Constitution. Slaves not extended the same rights as citizens. States are allowed to give slaves unequal protection under the law as slaves are not citizens of the United States. Slaves are denied due process of law. Acknowledges that slaves are persons.

The U.S. Constitution assumes that the Declaration of Independence is legally binding by stating that The Constitution’s completion is in the twelfth year of the Independence of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges natural laws theory and social contract as legal fact with the words we hold these truth self evident. It also acknowledges it is the government’s duty to insure the natural rights of the people

The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution acknowledges rights of the people that exist outside of the Constitution.

1965 Griswold v Connecticut states that James Madison introduced the Ninth Amendment. Justices WHITE and GOLDBERG in there concurring opinion used natural law to reach their decision.

1947 Everson v. Board of Education uses a letter from Thomas Jefferson to resolve a First Amendment issue.

The March 4 1825 Minutes From the Board of Visitors at The University of Virginia from the Thomas Jefferson papers states that the general principles of man in nature and in society can be found in the doctrine of John Locke in his “Second Treatise on Civil Government” and of Algernon Sidney in his “Discourses Concerning Government”. It also states that these principles of government can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

John Locke’s Treatise state we are born free and rational in section 61 of chapter VI. We know from chapter V that humans are born to the right of preservation and chapter II Section 4 that that are born to the same advantages as other human beings. Before birth it is clear that a child is dependent on his/her mother for his/her preservation and lacks the right to liberty and is thus a slave to his/her mother. In chapter II Section 6 it is clear that a mother does not have the right to kill the child that is her slave as long as he/she is alive except for noble cause

Algernon Sidney’s Discourse states in section 3 that that human’s are born with personality; in that they are wise, foolish, good, bad, or cowardly. In section 5 he states that human beings are born under the English law. In section 9 when writing of those who are born into perpetual slavery he states they are subject to the will of their master no matter how cruel, proud, wicked, they may be.

U.S. Constitution Amendment XIII outlaws slavery in the United States except for convicts and those not in the jurisdiction of the United States. U.S. has no jurisdiction to change the laws of nature or nature’s God so unborn children remain slaves.

U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV declares unborn children are not citizens. Grants equal protection under the law and due process of law to all persons even if they are slaves or non-citizens

Why Libertarianism Is A Violation Of Our Human Rights

2006-04-28T18:37:00.000-05:00

This is my response to commentary by Liza Fabrizio titled “Encroachment of the nanny state.” The article is good though I criticize the libertarian the author embraces. Check it out. The cite from her article I am responding to is as follows.

Here in a state where business owners and consumers are deemed too stupid to make their own decisions about smoking, while others are thought too slothful to develop their private property into proper tax-revenue generating real estate, parents are now on notice that they do not have the right to decide how to conduct child-rearing in their own homes.

It has been said by different people that laws are made for the lawbreakers not those who by their very nature do not break the law. So there are business owners and consumers too foolish to make wise decisions and the rest of us pay for their foolishness. there are property owners who misuse their property and the rest of us pay for that. There are parents to uncaring to teach good character to their children and the rest of us pay for that. And yes the government does have a right and an obligation to protect all it’s people even from themselves. The question becomes is the government protecting it’s people or is it using it’s people.

The government exist to serve the people and not the other way around. Nature and Nature’s God endow us with certain rights. One of those right is that we get to posses the work of our hand’s. The government is to protect that right. Seizing you land or possessions in order to make money for the government is simple tyranny as it violates the natural right of the people and does not protect them. Parent’s have absolute authority over their children’s welfare except that they are nor allowed to harm their own children. They are given this authority because they expected to keep their children safe. Because their job is to protect parental rights they have make sure that their legislation is actually more beneficial to the children than it is damaging to parental rights.

Our government is a group composed of “We The People”. It is not a third artificial person. It is us and it’s sins are our sins. It’s actions are our actions. If the government ignores us it is because we allow the government to ignore us. A Christian is commanded to love others as they love themselves. That command was certainly not a command to be self destructive. If we are to overcome self destructive behavior in ourselves then why should we tolerate it in others. The opposite side of the coin is that most people do not know Christ and so are slaves to sin. The best the law can do is to make them Pharisees. The benefit is that is protects the rights of others. The problem is their soul is more important. There is where the government can not go. If the government embraces any particular doctrine then it will most likely be a heresy and it will oppress other heresies as well as the true doctrine. Churches need to preach the gospel without interference from the government. The government interferes even though it claims otherwise. I mean is saying Jesus really oppressive. What about a teacher that talk about her Wicca beliefs with her students? I do not believe either are that harmful as this is real life and both we and our children will be exposed to ideals that are evil as well as good. I believe Jesus said it best when he said be as innocent as a dove but as wise as a serpent.

We the People of the United States allow the government to be oppressive and sometimes we help it.

The People Of The United States Have The Right To Feel Secure In The U.S.

2006-04-19T21:53:00.000-05:00

This is my letter to the author of “The hidden threat America faces that not even securing our borders can solve” that is located on the RenewAmerica home page.

Dear Jonathan David Morris,

In the United States we have this document called the U.S. Constitution that is referred to as the high law of the land. This document insist that we the people of the United States collectively own the government and the territory that belongs to the government. In the Fourth Amendment is has the audacity to state that We the People have the right to feel secure in our effects. We the people therefore have the right to invite into our territory any one that we like and exclude anyone that we like. If a person comes into our home uninvited we have the right to have them arrested for trespassing or burglary. If we want to put up a privacy fence to keep trespassers out we also have that right. A privacy fence does not put me in prison no more that a locked door does. They both serve the purpose of making me feel secure in my own territory.
Just in case you did not realize it I have an imaginary line around the land I own. It is called a property line.
It sounds like you want be to get rid of that line. Such an attack on my privacy right, that I have either as myself or part of the collective know as we the people, is intolerable and smells like communism. So be careful who you are serving.

Sincerely,

Kerwin Brown

Of Border Fences And Spies

2006-04-16T23:14:00.000-05:00

I am hoping that someone will pass on the information that the United Nations is once again interfering with internal American politics.

As proof I will offer the information that International law forbids building a wall on the border according to a July 9,2004 14-1 decision of The International Court of Justice.

The case involves Israel but can easily be applied to the United States. In the case the court commanded that Israel tear down their wall and alter their legislation. So much for the United Nations support of democracy. It sounds like they support the socialist doctrine that the people are absolutely free to do what we tell them.

My source is here.

Then there is the country of Saudi Arabia whom has decided to fence off the chaos of Iraq by building a wall over their 560 border that country. The Saudi Arabia plan is to secure all of their 3600 mile border to improve internal security and bolster it’s defense against external threats. A European diplomat in Riyadh states that the fence is a white elephant since the insurgents will get around it by using Syria.

My source is here.

George Soros who is a naturalized citizen whom was born in Hungary and wants a European style democracy in the United States is also known to favor open borders. He favors them so much that his institute the Open Society Institute gives grants to the ACLU, Mexican American Education And Legal Defense Fund, and the National Council of La Raza, To make you feel more secure the OSI also gives grants to the Democratic Party and the American Bar Association. George Soros is a known political activist whom I consider a political and cultural spy from the EU. I also believe he became a naturalized citizen so that he could legally interfere in the politics of the United States.

The Grantmakers list of organizing that OSI gives to is located here.

What this has do with the Constitution is that the Constitution and not international law is the high law of the land. The Constitution clearly states that we have the right to feel secure in our own land. The United Nation is telling us that we do not have a right to build a privacy/security fence on our own land and thus violated the right to property of the people of the United States.