The Pig Industry Revolts: Swine Flu Now Politically Correct H1N1

It appears in our not simply nationally politically correct society but now also "globally" politically correct, spokesmen for the World Health Organization have now temporarily renamed the Swine Flu virus by its clinical name, Influenza A (H1N1). The United States Department of Homeland Security is following now in lock step.

It seems that there were some concerns and proof that the pork industry was having difficulty getting "this little piggy to market," due to now the psychological connections between the virus and the carrier. Except the World Heath Organization has also now qualified its stance on just whether or not pigs ARE the actual carriers.

Or just how it is transmitted between pigs and humans, although as a virus primarily attacking the respiratory system there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to suggest that ingesting or eating pork is connected. Unlike the e coli virus which has been proven can be transmitted by ingestion of both raw infected eggs and poultry.

Here are some other animals and insects who have been connected, fairly or not, to human disease:

dogs, cats, bats, skunks, raccoons - rabies

cows - "hoof and mouth," "Mad Cow" disease

ticks - Lyme disease

mosquitoes - West Nile, yellow fever, malaria

chickens,eggs - ecoli

tuna, shellfish - mercury poisoning

apes, monkeys - HIV

The swine, unfortunately, also has that carryover bad rap in other cultures and some religious connections to overcome as far back as biblical times due to both allegorical connections and dietary prohibitions, and its propensity in times past to be a carrier of disease before the refrigerator and freezer were invented.

It seems the pig family is now suffering from unfair discrimination.

Since 10,000 times the amount of lives have been lost due to the open Southwest borders in Ms. Napolitano's former home state, this former Arizonan wishes she would have been so "Johnny on the spot" protecting Arizonans eight long years ago after 9/11 and prior to the now Mexican drug wars and kidnappings there. They appear to be still conducting business as usual.

A suggestion was made by one of the directors of the WHO that maybe a contest should be run in order to rename the virus to give it a less scientific, and more commercially accepted identifier within the non-Latin speaking, scientifically challenged portion of the population.

I came up with several:

Hog Native
Hemispheric Navigational (globally transferred)
Hispanic Neutral (originating in Mexico, affecting anyone)

or how about:

The HeiNie Virus (you know, as in "backside")

USDA and WHO: Are those politically correct?

Maybe we should just call it "Global Economy Meltdown Sydrome" (GEMS). That surely is a psychological boost for the pigs, supermarket and people.

I think personally I just might fast.

Here is the link on the New York Times "politically correct" article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/health/01name.html

James Madison On The "General Welfare Clause"

From the words of the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution" with respect to the phantom "General Welfare" clause cited by both Congress and the Supreme Court as the basis for their continued violation and failures to limit their actions to their designated and proscribed powers:

James Madison had this to say:

"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;

they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;

they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;

they may assume the provision of the poor;

they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;

in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,

it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Congressman Shadegg Reintroduces Enumerated Powers Act

Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) is again attempting to reintroduce the "Enumerated Powers Act" (HR-450) in order to attempt to self-regulate the U.S. Congress and constrain it to its Constitutional powers and duties as enumerated in the United States Constitution.

This "Act" has and was drafted and introduced by Mr. Shadegg during several previous Congressional sessions.

The Act provides that prior to any legislation being referred to Committee or vote of Congress, a specific reference to the Constitutional authority which grants such power to the federal government must be included within the Bill.

In short, it has been voted down by the members of Congress on each and every instance in the past to formalize this Constitutional into statute. Which speaks volumes in and of itself.

However, at the present time, there is already such an informal agreement and House Rule which provides such requirements. So what has Congress done?

They continue making end runs around this Rule and instead "liberally" again translate the Constitution by using two introductory words as the stated basis for such legislation - the phantom "general welfare" clause.

Which is really no clause at all and simply a preface stated in the Preamble to our Constitution in order to state the "intent" of the contractual nature of the Constitution and it's purpose, and also which is used again as an introductory preface to the outlined duties and functions of Congress as contained with Article I, Section 8.

In fact, James Madison, the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution" had this to say about the purported "general welfare" clause:

"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;

they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;

they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;

they may assume the provision of the poor;

they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;

in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Department of Homeland Security: Marginalizing Our Military

In recent interviews after last week's Tea Parties conducted throughout the nation, much media spin and reporting has been done with respect to one group of individuals who were targeted as "potential terrorists" according to the Department of Homeland Security's "right wing extremism" memorandum issued prior to these events.

The focus which has occurred has primarily been directed toward the returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and, as Ms. Napolitano commented, their susceptibility to being recruited by some of these "right wing organizations." The marginalizing of the entire Catholic faith (an anti-abortion "one issue" group primarily also) has not been addressed, nor the marginalizing of citizens who have been the victims of illegal immigrant crime and theft in this country nor those that hold with the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment provisions who also were barely even given a nod. And a host of others who cannot in any way be categorized as affiliated with Ms. Napolitano or the Department's definition of "right wing."

This attempt at what is no more than mass propaganda and terrorism in and of itself, and marginalizing our military as potential terrorists or suscepitible to supposed "right wing extremist" ideology as defined by the Department can only be due to one agenda, and one only. An attempt to silence some of those returning veterans who just may have some more truthful information about what is really going on in Iraq and Afghanistan differing from what our mainstream media pundits have presented. Or discredit those outraged at this point with their multiple tours of duty contrary to their understanding when first enlisting for this "mission" back in 2001 and the direction it then subsequently took.

Or in order to minimize the sacrifices of those men and women who are now being reported by Ms. Napolitano's very own Department of Homeland Security whose agents are now detaining and holding for military trials at border checkpoints along the Canadian border some of those misled soldiers who are now refusing to return to their active duty after multiple tours these past seven years. I received two such reports of these detentions and "arrest" within the past 30 days since as a border security activist, I registered and receive the DHS builletins daily.

If we can marginalize those returning war veterans, then we can also eventually deny them future benefits, and also continue the Washington "spins" with respect to this ever-increasing war now under the Obama Administration, in direct opposition to his stated intentions during that two year run for office. And some of their stories when they return as unworthy of credence if contrary to governmental press releases and spins this past seven years.

The candidate who painted himself as the agent for "change" and the "Anti-Bush" who has now spent more under that unaccountable bank bailout he was instrumental in passing with those others in Washington, has now instead enlarged the number of troops and war in simply moving the troops around the Middle Eastern chessboard and its funding in the budget and a recent supplemental appropriations bill, and also now plunged this nation into more debt than the last four presidents combined.

While having an inaugural that puts some of the coronations of the Crown Heads of Europe to shame during a time when this country continued to further sink into the economic quagmire Washington itself created which reached a manufactured bank "crisis" when Mr. Obama was a member of the Senate Club in the Bush Administration. With all the "crisis" that have occurred within the past eight years alone now in this country, I'm wondering if all of them don't simply work for the networks and their owners under contract for ratings and their advertising revenue.

And then once elected, simply began his domestic and foreign carbon emitting, energy depleting and expensive road trips to sell the American people on Washington's ever increasingly outrageous "fixes" and policies, and apologizing to the globe, even a Saudi King, whose citizens were reported and responsible for the largest massive attack and civilian casualties in this country post World War II.

So how low can Washington continue to go in now not only declaring war on the majority of Americans in this "terrorist" bulletin, but also declaring war on its own military veterans?

"Mea culpas" are not going to get you out of this one, Washington bureaucrats. Public apologies to every single American in this country by the President, Vice President and all 535 members of Congress and federal bureaucracy and resignation at this point just might do it. But only might.

After all, the Sergeant-at-Arms in both the House and Senate are there for a reason and function, and this position is not simply a ceremonial one.

U.S. Constitution is De Facto Law of the Land

Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is a contract between the federal and state government and it's people, and the defacto Law of the Land.

As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:

Section 256. Generally.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]

A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]

The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]

An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]

The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.

Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification."

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act Behind Napolitano's Memos?

In America yesterday thousands of Americans banded together in order to stage mass protest "tea parties" throughout the nation in response to the recent bank bail-outs, stimulus, high taxes and lack of regulation over the Federal Reserve, a private banking institution which regulates and controls this nation's currency.

Prior to these organized events, a memo was issued from the Department of Homeland Security which now is targeting dissident Americans who do not hold with the federal government's continuing violations upon America's Constitution, including returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, as "extreme right wing" terrorists.

This memorandum was distributed to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the nation.

The memorandum in part, had this to say with respect to it's definition of "right wing extremism:"

"Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks."

Several members of Congress are now confronting the Department's Secretary in an effort to gain an explanation for the broad-based and open ended language contained in the memo, which actually targets any and all who may disagree with governmental policy - although in America such dissident protests and positions are protected under the American Bill of Rights affording the right to "free association and assembly" and "freedom of speech."

In fact, these are fundamental rights and freedoms given to all natural or naturalized Americans, which restrictions in England actually were the basis of America's Revolutionary War in 1776.

Interesting enough, however, no mention by these same Congressmen now objecting has been made that in late 2007 400 members of the House passed an Act, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007" in which such broad based language was included which actually is responsible for Ms. Napolitano's issuance of such an illegal and unlawful memorandum.

That doesn't, in and of itself, excuse Ms. Napolitano. After all, she is an attorney and should know that such an "Act" is a basic violation of the U.S. Constitution and prohibited under it. Also as Secretary of Homeland Security she is bound by the Constitution in the execution also of her duties and not primarily to Congress or the President - but the Constitution.

This Bill passed overwhelmingly in the House, although it is unclear whether or not it has yet been addressed or passed by the Senate.

This Act makes not simply acts of violent terrorism by foreigners against the country or American people a crime, but the mere political disagreement or political ideology which differs with elected or appointed governmental officials by Americans a crime in and of itself.

In short, governmental tyranny at it's core, and a fundamental violation of the basis upon which this entire nation was founded. The founders of this country were "radical" in their beliefs themselves.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, according to a YouTube video, is using this Act in order to now rewrite American history, teaching local and state government officials that the founding fathers of this nation were actually the first terrorists.

Global socialism now is not only destroying this nation's economy, but its very essence, by those now in Washington who have abandoned the very principles and foundations upon which those founders fought - freedom over governmental tyranny.

Actually, it appears this Act and memo have made the government itself a "hate group" of a significant number of the American people, by last polls, that do not agree with the onging War in Iraq, bank "bail-outs," stimulus provisions, taxation now at all levels, or Federal Reserves arbitrary monetary policies. It appears that instead of the government being representative of the people, it is now its own hate group targeting the people.

You can read the provisions of the Senate version (S-1959) of this bill at:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959

Congress Introduces "CyberSecurity Act of 2009"

For free speech and privacy activists it appears that the Patriot Act was not enough. Nor the Patriot Act II signed into law shortly after newly elected Barack Obama was sworn into office hiding the provisions of a National Health Care database of citizen's health care records to be created by the government violating privacy rights at taxpayer's expense.

Now there is a move by Congress to grant powers to the President to regulate and control internet access. This "hope" and "change" is getting worse by the day. In it's current form, it appears the powers given are fairly broad in an effort to protect America's infrastructure in times of "crisis." However, the definition of a "crisis" is left to the sole discretion of the President.

Senate bills No. 773 and 778 (The "Cybersecurity Act of 2009) introduced by Senator Jay Rockfeller D-W.V. creates a new government agency (expanding government jobs and taxpayer expense once again) entitled the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor which would be accountabl directly to the president whose main publicized function would be in defending the U.S. from "cyber attack."

The purpose of the bill as stated in its draft form is as follows:

"To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communicatons,

to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes,

to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption,

AND FOR OTHER PUPOSES."

In the working draft of the legislation recently obtained by an Internet privacy group, the plan also grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all internet service providers which can in any way be deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure and defense "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

This measure as defended by Mr. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, co-sponsors of the bills, is meant to give the Secretary of Commerce discretion to protect American's banking and health records in order to shut down those providers the President designates in the event of a "cyber attack."

The problems most in the cyber industry have brought up most often in response to these proposals is the lack of a clear definition of just what are the "critical infrastructure" networks, and the lack of any accountability of the President or the Secretary of Commerce given such powers and simply left at their sole discretion.

And the potential for access of the government, of course, to citizens private records in violation of the Constitution's "search and seizure" provisions.

The bills have been read twice on the floor, and have now been referred to Committee.

AIG: The Sanctity Of Contracts?

Recently "Break the Matrix" and Fox aired a segment from Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" program with respect to the recent actions of Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, over the AIG executive bonuses and his actions visiting the executive's homes and demanding that these executives return those bonuses. Judge Napolitano was outraged, and relied on the Constitutional provisions with respect to contracts on the bonus issue.

I have just one problem with that. Contracts in bankruptcy or restructuring actions have never been ruled as "inviolate" when individuals are seeking bankruptcy protection, nor corporations, through the federal court system.

In fact, many contracts are set aside in such procedures depending on the assets, and future obligations are also scrutinized carefully since it is the trustee and court's job to protect the creditors primarily in getting the debts satisfied in whole or in part through whatever assets remain of the debtor and distributed accordingly at the time of filing. What can be protected by the debtor is also set by state and federal statute in order not to knock the legs totally out from under the debtor.

Also, the timing of execution of those contracts is also examined carefully, since there is a time frame prior to bankruptcy which must be met before that contract can be held valid in order to also protect the creditors - many a debtor has attempted to transfer assets using contracts in avoid their inclusion in the bankruptcy action which may be entered into when it appears bankruptcy is inevitable as an protection and avoidance tactic. How do I know this? I have had both friends and family members who have had to file bankruptcy both personally, and for their small businesses. I also worked as a contract law paralegal for many years.

Below is a copy of my letter to the Judge after viewing this segment:

Dear Judge Napolitano:

I just finished watching another interview on Fox regarding the AIG bonuses and Geithner's actions.

I am very, very confused as to where you are actually coming from.

Mr. Geithner, with respect to AIG at this point, since he was unlawfully transferred the trusteeship for this in effect bankruptcy action of a "global" corporation by Congress when they had no Constitutional authority to do so for this "restructuring" outside the federal court's jurisdiction, is in essence acting as trustee for the stockholders and shareholders and the American people.

Contracts are not inviolate under our Constitution nor under the common law and existing case law. As a matter of fact, many, many contracts are "set aside" for various reasons, especially in bankruptcy actions depending on just when those contracts were executed, whether they are "excessive" in their terms, and depending on the assets of the person or business claiming bankruptcy.

Corporations are not "persons" they are "property." They can be bought and sold. In a normal bankruptcy for an individual, all of their assets are up for grabs in order to satisfy the debts - which would include also any future obligations.

You can "contract" for a hit man, but that doesn't make that contract valid.

So just why does the media and the media representatives continue with all this smoke and mirrors with respect to the validity of this entire "bankruptcy," not to mention those bonuses - for a global corporation outside Constitutional authority to begin with?

Florida Town Denies Right to Assemble

Apparently with the recent state of affairs in the United States with Americans outraged at Washington for the continuing war in the Middle East most expanding under the Obama Administration, any and all campaign representations to the contrary, our unsecured borders and a potential war now raging in the border states due to federal negligence post 9/11, and the recent bailouts and handouts which also occurred recently that risk America's economic future now for several generations, a Tea Party protesting such actions scheduled for this weekend was cancelled.

The reason for the cancellation?

The City of Cape Coral, Florida was concerned that there would be too many attendees for the City to handle. Oh, and the required permits and insurance costs for such a gathering needed to be scheduled and paid in advance.

While American citizen's Bill of Rights freedoms are under attack as never before, until amended states that the "right of the people to assemble shall not be abridged". The federal, state and local governments continue in their creative methods to both undermine and negate the government that our forefathers fought in order to secure. And pay lip service then every 4th of July but apparently have no real concept of just what those freedoms and "inalienable" rights as included in those Bill of Rights really mean for American citizens.

The details and excuses given for the cancellation can be found at:

http://www.winknews.com/news/local/42019772.html

The Constitution, Common Law and Gay Marriage Issue

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison

In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling granting civil unions for gay couples in the state citing the "equal protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution as their basis. In addition, in writing for the Court it wrote:

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective..."

And further,

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To this writer, this is just simply another example of a "political" rendering by an activist court acting outside the restraints of their Constitutional duties of office. Per Madison's quote above, any and all decisions reached by the Court's in any state in this nation must be considered with the intent of the founders also in mind above all else, otherwise we do not have Constitutional government, we have a "bastardized" form of it.

Insofar as the position that this is an "equal rights" issue, and that the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution would apply in such a case, I would also take exception. The "equal rights" and "unalienable" rights the founder's were referring to were those given to citizens by the Creator, a Creator which they acknowledged, although some were not Christians, merely deists - believers in God.

Marriage also as an institution "legally" is defined according to the common law of England at the time of its signing and as preceded by the Magna Carta.

The "freedom" to marry anyone and everyone you wish was not one of those they were referring to. Utah was deemed inadmissible as a state unless and until it discontinued its historic practice of plural marriage for just such reasons due to its Mormon roots. What's next? The gays acknowledge the "unconstitutional" issue of plural marriage, but not basic biology and nature's law in simply this issue?

God actually has already spoken on this issue, and gays were in existence at the time the Constitution was signed. The gay population has existed since Rome and biblical times, and even the Romans - a pagan nation - did not afford marriage rights to gay couples. The slavery issue was fundamentally different, and was a matter of contention from the time of the original Constitutional Convention. Slaves were considered "property" instead of "people."

As such an entirely different matter, and the civil rights movement of the 60's had to do with equal rights in the workplace and was not a gender issue, but a racial issue affecting both sexes equally due to hiring practices and other discriminatory issues and leftover biases after the Civil War era.

As far as "equal protection," Iowa is a no-fault divorce state. So there is no "equal protection" in any manner whatsoever for the parties in a marriage "contract," which is what a civil union actually is. None whatsoever. "No fault" divorce basically took care of "fault", even removing protections in the event of of adultery or abuse, "violations" of both covenants and contracts as a "breach." Such removals haven't historically boded well for the children in many instances of traditional marriages in this country since those protections were progressively removed that these civil "unions" and contracts were actually originally meant to protect.

In fact, the divorce rate in traditional marriages has soared to now over 50%.

And insofar as any supposed "privileges" of married couples, gays also have those too. Powers of attorney for most legal matters can be assigned to your next door neighbor if you wish, either limited to one legal transaction or a general power of attorney over any individual's legal affairs. Wills can be prepared for property or inheritance issues, and anyone can purchase property under "joint tenancy" or hold "joint title" to cars or other significant property.

For tax issues, there is the "head of household" option also and many married couples file separately if income levels are such that it is more advantageous to do so.

You don't even need a lawyer for any of the above, since most standard wills and powers of attorney can be purchased for a relatively small cost at your local bookstore or even online. And most married couples still need to execute these documents in the event of hospitalization or any other legal matter which are included in hospital admission forms that have such powers of attorney built into the forms themselves.

So what "privileges" do the gay community perceive are lacking, or just what "equal protection" have they been seeking?

If there were or are any under Iowa law, the proper Constitutional method would be addressing those, and actually getting those laws readdressed and rescinded.

Gay couples can adopt, and the adoption papers themselves protect rights of inheritance as a traditional couple's adoption would. I'm really perplexed at just what they feel is missing, other than social acceptance - which cannot be legislated on any level. In fact, they have now "invited in" the government to their union, rather than protect it from governmental interference. Sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This new "law" is really nothing more than another Lawyer's Economic Act for the domestic relations attorneys in Iowa.

Be prepared now for more challenges across the country, since there is a federal statute which affords attorneys in this country their legal fees for matters which can in any way be tied to "civil rights," whether or not they are valid challenges anymore doesn't seem to be the issue - since the state courts don't seem to be evaluating many of these cases on merits or the Constitution in any way whatsoever as of late.

Even the Supreme Court now has become more political and less Constitutional in their findings it seems more and more by the year. Now going so far as to use even foreign country's holdings in their deliverations rather than the Constitution and it's provisions.

This was nothing more than a political rendering by a rouge court, and I would guess for the pure benefit of the national attention and recognition many involved in the case would get, and also for the benefit of the Supreme Court members "associates" in the legal industry who were defending the case. The State was appealing the lower court's decision, therefore, the attorneys involved for the "non-profit" organization who originally brought the action would be entitled to their legal fees courtesy of the American people. Purely political.

Marriage is an "institution" with it's foundations in the common law of England. on which our Bill of Rights is based - with the exception of a few provisions thrown in with respect to the right to bear arms, free speech, and assembly, and jury trials for all civil and criminal matters which were not afforded in the sovereign nation of England.

It is God actually who set his plan for marriage in the creation of Adam and Eve. Although the federal government may not interfere in the religious beliefs and practices of citizens in this country, there was never any intent to remove any and all mention of God in our public institutions, or in the laws of this country. None whatsoever.

That provision was merely included in order to prevent a "State" or nationwide religion as had occurred in England, and avoid the dissention that had historically occurred in fights between the Catholics and Protestants, and the Church of England. In fact, Benjamin Franklin in his speech prior to the ratification of the Constitution makes mention of the fact that it was sectarian differences they were wishing to avoid with the arguments over religion in the first place.

And the false Christianity which had been historically practiced in England which had persecuted subjects of the crown in wars and religious tests of loyalty to God or the sovereign repeatedly due to those same sectarian differences.

Expect this decision to be challenged. It most likely will be. The courts in this country are becoming more and more political, and unconstitutional, it appears each and every year.

But even absent any religious bias or basis at all but simply on legal grounds, with all the rights and privileges under Iowa law available to the gay community which have already been provided under the commitment statutes, and powers of attorneys, wills, joint tenancy and joint title provisions for property, this entire movement seems rather ludicrous at this point.

Adoption papers secure rights of inheritance for childen involved, so I'm perplexed at this point.

The truth is the gay community are actually asking the government now to get involved in their personal relationship, and it's dissolution if and when it ends, and it will be the legal community that will most benefit from these provisions I guarantee. That and the state for the license fees in order to "permit" gays to marry.

Be careful what you wish for.

How To Cure The "Golden Parachutes" (And Stop The Corporate Thieves)

Recently I received a plea from a liberal left wing group and organization asking me if I would join in their fight to protest the fact that over 18 billion dollars from the last Congressional bailout of the banking industry went to the major executives of these questionably failed banking institutions for their own severance packages and group therapy sessions at top resorts throughout the country, and getting regulating requiring Congressional determination in any future bailouts.

I signed the petition but with a caveat, their proposed solution in my opinion was actually worse than allowing those executives to determine and fund their own future retirement lifestyles.

What is needed, of course, is a Constitutional solution that would protect the American people from such criminal activity again. Since most of the members of Congress, due to their own upper echelon incomes, have no real concept of "reasonableness" when it comes to financial matters (as with the ballooning amounts of this now pending spending package exhibit), their solution of having Congress institute legislation with respect to Congress then determining the amount of these severance packages was actually quite ludicrous.

Imagine if Speaker Pelosi or the Executive Office was to determine how much they are going to give to their corporate backers the next time some corporation seeks bankruptcy protection not through the Constitutional process, but by crying wolf on the steps of Capitol Hill? The mind boggles.

Better would be to institute legislation that calls for executive compensation, bonuses and severance packages for these publicly held corporations to be determined or affirmed by the actual owners of these corporate entities, the uninvolved citizen shareholders and stockholders themselves, not major corporate shareholders.

If I owned stock in any of those financial institutions or those automakers you can be darn sure that if they ran my investment into the ground so far as to have bankrupted the company itself, they should go away as empty handed as I potentially would under an actual federal bankruptcy action.

Actually, those executives should have to divest themselves of their own property in order to refund partially the losses and damages they have inflicted. There is no guarantee in the stock market, that is true, and everyone takes a risk for such an investment in the first place.

But if it is determined that it is blatant misuse of corporate assets and golden parachutes that have partially led to the crisis, than those responsible should also be held accountable for taking undue risks and profiting personally while the company's economic viability was in question or faltering. The owners and employees should be paid, and what is left over in such reorganizations or bankruptcies then be distributed for any salaries or benefits due and owing the executives at the time of any federal bankruptcy proceeding, or Congressional bailout.

Otherwise, it is becoming more profitable to rape company assets and take the money and run. This used to be called grand theft. But now in our politically correct society it is merely termed "bad business judgement," or "poor risk/loss assessment."

Taken in light of the S&L bailouts of the 80's and Big Oil bailouts, this is now becoming standard operating procedure for Congress to shift those costs now to the general public to assume those risks and losses, even those who were their customers and clientele and whose money was used for those corporate soirees.

Again, this has been the case in Congress betraying the Constitution and checks and balances included within it, as the founding fathers would never entertain using public sums to reward such breaches of the public trust for private commercial concerns especially public "institutions," instead every single one of those perpetrators would have been sent off to the local jail under criminal charges of "theft."

This would not have even occurred if Congress actually had been obeying the Constitution to begin with, as the banks in this country would never have been privatized in the first place, since one of the enumerated powers of Congress is to print, value and regulate U.S. coin and currency.

The dumbing down of America has simply been incredible, as there are screams now from the far right wing of "communism" if Congress (not the Executive Office) were to begin actually following the Constitution and nationalize the banking concerns once again (but without regulation also of the Fed, that action would be an exercise in futility also).

I am not nor was a shareholder or stockholder in AIG, yet it is I and my posterity and yours who will be assuming those risks. The new Rule of Law with these bailouts is now that every U.S. citizen, whether willingly or not, is an investor in all banks and major corporate industries in this nation and not as a matter of choice, but as a matter of Congressional and Executive unlawful directive. The President and Congress are now acting with a CEO mentality, rather than a Constitutional one.

It is the innocent Americans who are suffering with this mindset, which is nothing more than communism, pure and simple. Rather than the Communism as defined by some citizens and politicians on Capitol Hill with respect to nationalizing our banks, those Congressional members merely made the "community" of America suffer those losses while they were also losing their homes to these entities. If that isn't communism, I don't know what is. They even left Americans with a global communistic move as included in the September bailout was a London based insurer, AIG. The AIG bailout is the East India Tea Company all over again.

Corporations are "property" not citizens, and the owners of that property legally are the only ones who should determine just how much their administrator's are worth, while employed and thereafter. Period.

But with respect to those financial institutions and Congresss' fraud upon the public (since a good 2/3 of them accepted campaign donations from them for the 2008 elections), once those banks and the printing of our currency was privatized and given to the Federal Reserve and it's subsidiary private banks which it funds, Congress had the duty to be strictly overseeing their policies and practices and regulating them, not as co-conspirators in their fraud against the public and this now "secret" reorganization under the Executive Office, and out of public view and scrutiny.

Presidential Executive Orders

During the last presidential administration the powers of the Executive Office under former President Bush were expanded at a rate that is unsurpassed in the history of this nation. The President liberally used such methods as both "signing statements" and "executive orders" in order to both dilute the powers of Congress, and expand the duties and powers of the presidency outside Constitutional provision and authority.

The problems which such measures present should be clear to every American. It undermines and is a blatant disregard for our Constitution and also our intended representative government. The fact that those on Capitol Hill in the Halls of Congress cannot put aside their partisan political backbiting to challenge and dilute this presidential usurpation is simply nothing short of treason on the part of those claimed representatives.

There was a political challenge made at one point which made it's way to our Halls of Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court. In a divided opinion, the Court actually amended the Constitution in it's ruling in order to hold with the President. The Court also holds no power under the Constitution whatsoever to "make law," simply review any and all legislation for Constitutionality. The fact that such a power move by the President was not within the proscribed presidential powers was clear and not supported by the "evidence," our Constitution and it's clear language.

It does seem that the old addage "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," appears to be holding true once again. And Mr. Obama is clearly on track at this point as one who's views of his presidential powers more align with his predecessor, than our Constitution.

The President actually has only two proscribed duties within the Constitution. One is as the last "check" in the "checks and balances," for Constitutionality of any legislation placed before him. The other is as Commander in Chief of the military in times of declared war.

Congress was to have the true power in Washington with respect to governance in their enumerated powers and duties, which far exceed that of the presidency.

In their negligence to enact the needed legislation in order to clarify the limited powers of the presidency and bring it back into Constitutional alignment, it does appear that cronism, "political correctness" and the new buzzword, "bipartisanship" is simply a way for those on the Hill to continue to "misrepresent" their constituents, the people of this great nation.

James Madison on Stimulus, War, Property Rights

Since the founding fathers quotes with respect to their views on our country, and reasons for many of the provisions in our Constitution can be ascertained from historical records which are in the public domain for all to see, publish or expound on at will, below are some of James Madison's comments with respect to Congressional legislation (such as the recent stimulus), war and citizen's property rights.

Mr. Madison is credited with being the father of the Constitution actually, so felt his thoughts in light of the challenges America is now facing might be of interest to those of you who believe still in the America of the founders rather than the America it has become:

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right."

"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted."

"War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits."

"Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done."

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

Source: George Mason University
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/govt.html

The Office of the Presidency

"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
~James Madison


It continues to astound me how the progressive movement in this country (the ones who are progressing it toward global socialism, whose members span both sides of the aisle) have such a basic aversion to now the mere word "conservative" after the travesties of the Bush Administration. In point of fact, according to the founder's ex-President Bush was anything but a "conservative" in the true sense of the word.

A "conservative" merely is one who believes in "conserving" the Constitution as it is written, with the intent and purpose for each provision in mind according to their writings, and within a framework of a knowledge of basic American history. To a "conservative American" the Constitution is nothing more than a contract between the federal and state governments, and it's people. According to the common law at then and now according to legal doctrine, a contract is to be interpreted according to the "common usage" language contained within it, until the contract is amended by the agreement of all parties to the contract as outlined within the contract itself.

It is interesting to note that the "progressive movement" in this country consider the Constitution "archaic," and not suitable to the times in which we live, nor the added dangers which we face in the 21st Century.

I would have to disagree with that analysis. In point of fact, the founder's actually faced far more dangers, with far fewer resources than we have today. Those small 13 colonies had an entire Eastern Seaboard to protect and defend, with nothing but canons and musket. There was no running water, or toilets to speak of , so faced numerous diseases and ecological problems that we can only imagine. Although trials were held relatively quickly in the cities for criminal offenses (the "due process" and "speedy trial" provisions, since rooting out truth was better served if justice was handed out swiftly for all), the offenders charged with capital offenses remained in jail until trial, by and large. There was no DNA testing then nor plea bargains, and due to the harshness of the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt meant clear physical evidence, untainted by the media exposure some of today's high profile crimes receive which has resulted in higher costs due to tainted jury pools) few "political" convictions were made.

The judiciary used the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority, and gave secondary consideration to "judge made law," from other states or jurisdictions. Cases did not continue for year upon year, and since all cases in civil and criminal law in which there was a clear victim were heard by juries, one appeal usually was all that was granted in the event new evidence unheard by the jury was discovered.

The laws which were passed by Congress and signed by the President consisted of few pages, and all were well versed in our Constitution and their oaths of office to it -an oath that also supersedes the "will" of even the majority of the citizenry those 535 members felt any legislation was in violation of it. The Supreme Court was the "court of last resort" for all civil matters involving the citizenry on Constitutional issues, and were not given any real power with respect to "making law," simply "interpreting the Law" using the common usage language within it.

Marbury v. Madison is the case in which the judiciary then violated the Constitution in giving themselves more power to than it was ever intended to have. "Judicial review" of legislation then became the ultimate test for application and Constitutional of state or federal legislation, and the powers of the juries have progressively been eradicated ever since. The most basic problem as has been the assumption that Supreme Court rulings carry "precedent" throughout the states, when the Supreme's were merely intended to have limited juridiction over certain issues, and appellate jurisdiction over others, and their "findings" actually only applicable to the "case at bar," or according to the actual facts in the case before it.

Thus, the "liberal" movement was born within a few short years of it's signing. To be a "liberal" actually meant that the Constitution was a "living" document and the language could be twisted, turned and redefined for political purposes or public opinion. Throughout our remaining history, there have been exceptional Judges on the Supreme Court who actually understood exactly why those checks and balances were written the way that they were, but they have been few and far between.

Barack Obama took an oath not once but twice which states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The provisions, duties and limits on the Office of the Presidency can be found in Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4 which state:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the Bush Administration had a well reported aversion to the Constitution and all it stood for and the limits of office contained within it, he may have ran on one or two conservative issues, but was fundamentally a liberal and globalist subscribing to the U.N. and it's governance clearly more than our own. Mr. Obama ran as an agent for "change" and as a Harvard educated "Constitutional lawyer." Granted, Harvard is a well known liberal institution of higher learning, especially with respect to the law and our Constitution, more along the lines of Oxford in England (the country which we fought a war to escape their form of government, although several of our Supreme Court justices obtained their educations outside the U.S.).

The President is supposed to be ready on Day One with at least a fundamental knowledge of the limits of his office, and his oath to "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Somehow, knowing that the future President was a Constitutional lawyer, I had hoped that the "change" Mr. Obama represented would be a "change" in the fundamental way he approached his role and with a better understanding of the allegiance he owed in the execution of his duties.

Unfortunately I, and many other Constitution believing Americans, were gravely disappointed. It does appear that now that this spending package has unconstitutionally been signed into law, Harvard should be one of the first to receive some of that debt so that maybe, just maybe, our children will get some benefit out of this travesty, along with the debt.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii