Don't Ask, Don't Tell: California Judiciary Does It Again

After the gay marriage issue and the unconstitutional denial of prisoners' voting rights (even while on parole, after serving jail time for low level criminal offenses) now this...

Apparently, a San Diego judge has placed an injunction on the military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, again just weeks before an election according to a published AP article.

My question on this issue has always been, just how many in even the gay community serving at this point even care or would actually prefer to keep such a private issue as their sexual preference truly private?

I mean, the military is not supposed to be a dating service anyway, so just what has this particular rather personal issue have to do with serving in the military in this country, other than without such disclosure it does make battlefield housing and living arrangements a bit more complex?

This article also set forth that the American people at this point are less concerned with "social" issues such as these and the war than they are with the economy. Which again goes to prove just how far off the mainstream media are, and wonder just who is conducting and what segment of the population are being used for their polls.

The war has much to do with the economy, and joblessness and homeless in this country. After all, the costs for continuing this war for now nine long years has escalated and added to our deficit far more than even those discretionary expenditures for those bridges to nowhere. And will so for decades in all the veterans benefits and costs that will be needed for the next, oh say, fifty to sixty years.

A decision such as this should not be made by a federal or state judge, but as a policy decision, especially in times of war.

I believe this goes along the lines of all those policies regarding "fraternization" while serving, and also during times of war. I mean, just how much time do most of those serving really have for developing romantic attachments?

Maybe we need to rethink this entire "standing army" concept, or leave those decisions to those who are more aware of the ramifications. And again, just how many gays are actually serving, is what I would like to know, since it would seem that the majority of gay individuals are not exactly also supportive of this ongoing war either at this point to begin with, at least from my experience.

So just how many really are enlisting, and I would not hesitate to guess, not many and many of those that are or have, don't seem to be those which continue to push this agenda, but the civilian activists that somehow perceive that in keeping such a fundamentally personal issue private is denying them their "rights." But "rights" to what, I'd like to know.

Solicit?

The courts do seem to be continuing to accept cases and extending standing to "disinterested" parties more and more, including those now brought on behalf of "foreigner's" rights somehow in this country, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights ("We the People of the United States...for US and OUR posterity"), or using some perceived injustice or disenfranchised individual on behalf of a special interest group in order to feed the legal industry most of all under those federal statutes that provide for the payment of legal fees, at the taxpayer's expense, for any and all actions which can in any way be perceived as a "civil rights" case.

Your sexual preference is a "civil right," but while serving in the military (which is not a "civil" organization, in more ways than one, it would appear as of late) is not.

The military and its members are fighters, after all, not lovers.

Just think of the complications of a totally gay and separate unit with such a policy, and the additional questions that would need to be asked in such an event for at least housing purposes.

For example, "What are your tendencies, "butch" or "queen?"

California and its judiciary does it again, and no wonder there continues to be more at least generational Americans leaving that state, than new residents.

I just wonder whether they also just might work, through their political connections, for the AP which more and more does tend to focus on sensationalize, explosive and exploitive politically charged journalism and their "polls" each and every decade, rather than even questioning a military policy being addressed in a civilian court outside any true Constitutional basis or intent of those founders whatsoever.

Who would most likely hold that gays are more than welcome to serve in the military and volunteer army to protect the homeland if it is their desire.

But disclose they would have no time for dating, and if that was their objective than maybe the career military or a foreign engagement during a time of war wouldn't suit their primary or the military's ultimate aims.

Ninth Circuit Denies Voting Rights To Prisoners

It was announced in the mainstream media that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a prior panel ruling (?) which had found the State of Washington's prohibition banning voting by felons unconstitutional.

The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling.

After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process. Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).

Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel. I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"

Huh?

In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?

I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."

The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.

Many times, for budgetary reasons.

I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has?

I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons. This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily.

Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.

And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes. I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.

I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.

This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more.

Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs. Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.

In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now.

Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression.

The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is. After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it.

Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.

It just might not be the budget at all If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train. Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.

But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others. You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation.

Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return. I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.

Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country. And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.

Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process. And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."

Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.

And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even. With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set. The very definition of fascism, actually.

So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.

High treason.

I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.

I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?

Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.

I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.

Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution contrary to those Bill of Rights primarily and fundamentally, and not U.S. true law at all, as this ruling to this writer flies in the face of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Weighed against the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals for even prosecution matters not to mention their appeals paid for through Americans taxes for those numerous appeals before deportation for true capital offenses, who are not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as by this court especially, as opposed to Constitutional intent in the entire foundation of America's intended form of government.

Whose "prisoner" voices should be heard most of all really, as those who have been many times "politically" convicted due to "budgetary" restraints, or whose crimes have been criminalized which under the common law are merely civil crimes without a clear "victim" to begin with.

While those pardons are given to high level Wall Street officials whose "direct victims" were literally hundreds or thousands of individuals in property theft, rather than banning them from any further employment in the financial sector for at least a good many years, the pot smokers and low level DUI offenders under those three strike rules are banned from the political and voting process, or those plea bargained lower felony "civil" victimless offenders "for life" in a few states?

Or how about those foreign drug dealers and auto thieves who are peddling their wares to America's youth most of all or stealing cars cross borders, who then are afforded to gain "standing" somehow in the U.S. courts and turn around and sue for "emotional distress," as what occurred by at least one foreigner after having been shot in the rear by the American border patrol, to then profit from their crime?

San Francisco, your "heart" seems to be misplaced, along with this Court's fundamental understanding of Constitutional government.

The Mexican Civil Liberties Union Strikes Again

The MCLU (Mexican Civil Liberties Union) has taken to the newsprint media in order to attempt to blast a small, mostly rural town in Nebraska for having the gaul to attempt to pass city ordinances (similar to those attempted in Pennsylvania) banning both the hiring, and affording housing rentals to illegal immigrants.

It appears, however, the town of Fremont which is involved is getting prepared for the onslaught of "foreigner" rights groups that they foresee will challenge the ordinance if it is passed into "law" after today's voting.

How so?

By advertising that they will institute additional taxes, and cutting city services in order to fund the lawsuit challenges, without of course disclosing that if the municipal governments are like those in Arizona (and county), they have used much of that tax revenue they collect in order to purchase insurance policies indemnifying any and all municipal employees from liability in the event of such lawsuits. Whose, of course, premiums then will go up accordingly and for which the city and state will plead the need for more revenue from the citizens in order to cover their then budget shortfalls.

Which also then provides them with an impetus to continue to pass more and more unconstitutional legislation for individual politicians benefits no matter which side of the aisle they claim to hail from. Both use politics and political maneuvering and backbiting in order to remain in power, while the citizenry then continues to be adversely affected both monetarily, and in quality of life issues - and whose children will also be burdened then with such clear treason in not carrying out their Constitutional, or even charter functions.

The municipal government are in the same positions the state's are, beholding and accountable not to the people but to their "feeder" big brother dictators.

Unbelieveable, actually, and just goes to show what is really going on here - since the municipal governments are, after all, state actors of the state government and it is the state government that continues to increase those requests in most states throughout the country for foreign workers in order to feed their corporate backers and sponsors and for them to save money on those taxes inflicted on Americans so they can continue to contribute to their future campaign coffers - and now potentially in unrestricted sums.

The criminal activity in our political systems seems to be getting worse by the month now.

These proposed ordinances are being compared to the steps Arizona has undertaken, and truthfully most of these measures simply seem to be frivolous and rather transparent actions taken by vulnerable politicians in order to use for future campaign purposes, and to feed those civil rights lawyers, many of whom are writing these laws for their own benefit, it appears and also who are receiving federal and state taxpayer dollars for the defenses or prosecutions of the laws they are writing using their legislative lackeys to actually undermine the Constitution and its provisions also by the month or legislative session.

The ACLU has become one of the biggest drains on the taxpayers ever, and is using a federal statute which was passed years ago which was meant simply to provide for their legal fees for true AMERICAN civil rights actions in order to mask most of these lawsuits they are initiating on behalf of foreigners as somehow within that statute's provisions or its intent.

The ACLU, of course, is promoting this as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which was actually meant in order to protect American citizen's rights in this country, not "corporate" entities in any manner whatsoever.

And since foreigners actually have no inherent civil rights in this country under America's Constitution unless and until they go through the naturalization process (the Preamble does state We The People of the United States....for US and OUR posterity), it can only be the corporate and the ACLU's own self serving interests that is behind all the blustering.

I wonder why the ACLU isn't actually bringing the needed lawsuit on behalf of American civil liberties in this country in upholding the Constitution's provisions in reinstituting the tax on foreign labor, and removing the tax on domestic labor, which just might turn this country's economy around and bring more jobs to Americans in this country than any "jobs bill" of Congress, which will simply provide for more government or taxpayer paid jobs at the American public's expense, and thus create more and more homeless and a widening gap between the poor and the rich and facilitate the agenda here truly of wiping out America's middle class.

So that we can then be more like Great Britain, Mexico, and a host of those other "socialized" countries with "sovereign" governments, instead of as ours is supposed to be - of the people, by the people, for the people - the American PEOPLE, not the corporate special interests such as the ACLU and their corporate backers.

The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the Pennsylvania municipal law does not surprise this writer. It has been clear that those justices on the Supreme Court have not been able to read the Constitution for literally decades.

The ACLU also stated that it is "immigration reform" that is needed, not these segregated attempts by the states and their "state actor" municipal corporations to institute such measures. Although since there is already a process for immigration on the books, can't see where the ACLU also is taking such a stance.

But what they truly really want and mean is nothing more than "amnesty" in order to again feed the legal profession who, of course, will be needed and necessary in order for these individuals to eventually gain that coveted prize - citizenship. And in which most of those truly seasonal and migrant workers will not apply for in any such instance anyway as they didn't for the Reagan amnesty.

Since most of them couldn't afford the fees, and the rest were merely here in order to feed their families back home and dollars brought their families remaining in Mexico a higher standard of living than their remaining and working in Mexico would.

If you wish to work here, apply for a green card before entering, and wait your turn.

Temporary work visas are available in abundance, but you do need to leave after that seasonal work is done and if you migrate to another area than for that which the original work visa was granted, you do need to visit INS to get it extended from my understanding.

And it is the large corporate agribusinesses in Nebraska and meatpackers that hire the most of them to cut their labor costs, since the small farmers as in decades past usually shared seasonal workers, and also provided for housing, meals and medical care for those workers for which the small towns and community as a whole shared during planting and harvesting season - as one who knows who due to marriage, had grandparents who owned land and a farm in the Midwest at one time and used migrant or seasonal workers to plant and harvest their crops. And whose grandmother took them out their lunches, or prepared full course breakfasts, suppers and dinner for them during the season and also arranged for housing if necessary in the old "bunk" house.

If you overstay your "visa" longer than the proscribed period, and are not granted an extension by the State Department or by INS (now ICE), then you are suppose to go "home," not be working here illegally, or renting an apartment.

And these laws, I'm sure, are much less stringent than those you will find in Mexico, Canada, India, or any other of the number of countries in which the U.S. has taken in literally thousands upon thousands of those who wished to immigrate legally.

If it is the expense that is the problem, then that is a simple matter of reducing the fees and original costs to that which those in some of the poorer nations can afford, such as in the "olden" day, and the original application process one in which it doesn't take a lawyer charging $300-$400 per hour to complete.

The immigration process was not intended to be one which fed the lawyers in this country, civil rights, immigration, criminal or otherwise. But that is exactly what has occurred due to the illegal extension of civil rights to even these civil rights groups that are not at all representing Americans, but foreigners.

Although with the amount of jobless and homeless in this country during the biggest recession/depression since the Great Depression, this country still in an ongoing war due to an attack on it by foreigners from within, and the shear number of immigrants this country has taken in progressively due to unconstitutional wars of the past, at this point in America's history the federal government is once again negligent in not exercising that other provision in the Constitution and not only restricting immigration, but banning it altogether at this point.

Until this "war" is over, and there are few Americans in this country without gainful employment and these corporate entities start using America's labor pools and fighting for removal of that 16th Amendment also which has circumvented and placed this country's government in a lopsided and unaccountable position across the board with the feds now reining "Supreme" over the citizens, and the states, progressively.

With even now funding this MCLU, MALDEFF and a host of other "educational" for profit non profits headed by mostly "civil rights," immigration, corporate or criminal lawyers with American taxpayer dollars illegally.

And with the Obama Administration threatening Arizona's new law, I simply hope that the Governor of Arizona files a countersuit under the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act in order to get the funding for that fence the feds promised forthwith - instead of once again feeding the industry in which the majority, it appears, now come in all three branches of government illegally representing their own self interests more and more by the decade.

That other offshoot from the Brits, and a country which more and more of these Supreme Court justices are actually educated and hail, the American Barrister's Association which has progressively returned its educational focus, it is quite clear, to not American jurisprudence but foreign jurisprudence - mostly Britain's or the UN's "accords" (created inially by Britain post World War II) and the country we fought that original war over to establish this sovereign nation and to protect its citizens from "foreigners" abuse or influence in our country's government or political matters.

So in essence in all of these ACLU, MALDEF, and other foreigner focused groups, it is the American people actually who are paying for their own abuse in most of these court actions - and in which these groups are contributing to our out of control deficits more and more for their own "welfare."

And the only true Constitutional funds that the federal government has within their powers over foreigners are:

1. To provide a naturalization process (which we have)

2. To provide the federal courts for any prosecutions against foreigners for "crimes committed against the nation" before naturalization;

3. To regulate commerce insofar as the hiring of those foreign workers in monitoring the impact that foreign outsourced labor and products affect domestic labor and production;

4. To tax the states for any and all "foreign" labor which is needed and for which those green cards are issued at their request, since it is the states that request and petition for those "guest worker" visas and work visas annually, and then forward those requests to the federal government. These taxes were meant to both protect domestic labor and commerce from foreign competition detrimental to the U.S. economy and workforce, and also provide for the needed revenue for their needs while working or visiting this country, such as the increases in "use" taxes for roads, state provided benefits for community services, etc.

So other than the costs which are now involved, and re-evaluating the process in order to make it similar to that which was in force and effect at the turn of the century, in which there wasn't this influx of illegal foreigners in any manner whatsoever (since at that time there were even restricted ports of entry for any and all of these permanent or temporary foreigners through Ellis Island primarily), just what type of "reform" is actually needed?

Perhaps enforcing the existing law on the books insofar as letting the punishment fit the crime, and not providing "immigration hearings" for those which have not immigrated legally and returning them forthwith back across those borders when proof of citizenship cannot be provided or legal guest worker status verified such as the laws in Arizona are attempting to do in codifying that federal law at the state level?

Or turning over those that commit felonies while in this country to the U.S. Marshall, and the state attorney generals actually doing their jobs and prosecuting them through the federal courts in order to get the true criminal element off the street which have been progressively victimizing the Arizonans and American people in other states in greater and greater numbers by the decade?

Enforcement and a rewind to the procedures which were instituted while I as growing up in Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's is what is needed here, in my educated opinion as both a victim and one who is familiar of the long history of this issue from personal experience, appears is what is needed, not "comprehensive" reform at all.

With the federal government actually doing their primary job - providing for the common defense, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of the American people first and foremost.

AARP To Endorse Its Own Bill On Health Care Deform

Just to continue to point out now how ludicrous this health care deform continues to be, and how unconstitutional actually instead of regulating those corporate interests rather than getting in bed with them as those on the Hill did all last summer, it was reported in the mainstream media that AARP is now on the bandwagon in order to facilitate passage of this massive bill that was written by AARP, the AMA, corporate labor unions, and financial sector and health care industries.

The spokesman, however, it was reported didn't want to "jump the gun" in the piece published today, since he said it was scheduled to be announced on Thursday by the "corporate" offices of AARP.

AARP ceased to be a senior advocacy group literally years ago, and is now nothing more than a front for the various special interest groups and insurers mainly that those members are marketed to for the supplemental insurance plans under Medicare at the present time.

Policies that in most instance are merely gravy for those insurers, since as the primary care provider Medicare actually calls the shots and approves the levels of treatment. And many doctors due to all the red tape involved with Medicare actually have posted notices that the are now refusing to accept any new Medicare patients.

And you think things would change in that respect with any 'socialized" Washington plan for health care?

The doctors will simply once again shift the costs for their reduced rates to either those that can afford it, or in upping the ante for their research grants and other already government welfare that these industries at the present time receive.

This story, however, was under the story about the cat in Iowa that was discovered to have swine flu, now politically renamed H1N1 so as not to upset some of the faith that believes pigs are satanic and unclean, as they were a part of pagan worships from the Roman age in Greece and Rome.

And those Iowa farmers do deserve a little kick in the pants apparently for getting all heated up after an Iowa judge "legalized" gay marriage "rights" in the State of Iowa, over the protest of a good deal of the population since it did appear that Iowa already had a civil marriage statute that actually already was in force at the time the case was brought by those gay activist civil rights lawyers who are also getting paid their legal fees courtesy of the American taxpayers for these state and federal actions under another one of those "hush hush" 1,000 page bills that Congress no longer reads.

And if this country has to now pass a formal bill and law stating that all members of Congress must read a bill before it is voted on, this country is in a good deal more trouble than most of us already have concluded watching the past Bush and now Obama Administrations since our government now resembles more Barnum & Bailey than the Stars and Stripes at this point.

While it continues to be the civilians and American people who are being victimized and made homeless and jobless more and more by the day.

You know, the GM workers, and those real Joe the Plumbers, not the Mayor Bloombergs, Arnold Schwartezneggers, and other venture capitalists who are selling off this country's prime real estate, and industrial base now right and left.

Congress, the Supreme Court, and Executive office are now titles that are merely the politically correct terminology for "insider traders" and "corporate lobbyists" themselves at this point.

As a matter of fact to show that AARP is not at all an elder advocacy group, I got an application from them many years ago actually.

Before I was even 50 hawking their "reduced rate" insurance policies and other trade affiliated vendors.

I guess 45 is the new 65.

Governmental Overkill: Woman Fined 1.9 Million For "Pirated" Works

CNN reported another incidence of corporate/governmental overkill now going on in our nation with respect to the recording industry's pursuit of any and all Americans that download songs or sounds without paying for them from the internet.

Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes.

And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works.

Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions.

That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.

The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court. It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.

And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.

There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion. This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.

Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000. "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.

There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity. So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.

Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.

It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution. Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently.

I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.

True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment.

You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.

If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.

And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.

More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything.

This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.

Unbelievable.

Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.

We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.

That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders. And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Lawyers Strike Back: Gore v. Bush Lawyers to Challenge California Ruling

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation. All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions. And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted? It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it?

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense? Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

Freedom of Religion: The Founders and Framers View

As a point of reference in interpreting what the founding fathers wished to avoid with respect to the language in the Constitution on religion as contained within the First Amendment, it might be informative to read the text of Ben Franklin's speech on the day it was ratified.

The failure to provide a "Bill of Rights" for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government actually was what was responsible for holding up the Constitution's ratification, hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments.

And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries and then establishment of the state-wide Church of England, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide.

The provisions also with respect to the exclusion of "religious tests" for holding office were actually meant to protect religion also since the requirement of the British people to swear allegiance to the sovereign over the Pope or God was the cause of much of the religious strife in their homeland whose entire belief system was based on biblical foundations above man-made or "sovereign" law.

"Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is toward banning religion and religous reference from all public forums and squares.

Below is Franklin's pre-ratification speech:

"Mr. President,

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.

It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.

But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right -

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.

For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die.

If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects; great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength; efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors.

I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." (Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia)

And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and misconstrued, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the "separation" of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the "interference" of the Christian faith at all.

The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion in this country as an individual right in and of itself as primarily Christian or deists themselves, but who abhorred the positions many were placed in during their lives in England having to swear allegiance to king and country when the sovereigns edicts were against their moral and religious principles and beliefs.

The government of the founder's acknowledged religion and religious beliefs and provided for it in our national culture, with the specific provision for its inclusion attempting merely to avoid the differences in the scriptural teachings with respect to the Protestant and Catholic sectarian differences having application at a governmental level nationwide, since the federal government actually was intended to have few and limited powers over the states and people over-all.

Historically in its origins, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim beliefs and their wars were primarily due to intolerance of other faiths, each desiring a "country" of their own where their faith was clearly "nationwide," while the Christian wars were fought over sectarian differences between Catholics and Protestants and the various denominations, scriptural interpretations, rituals and practices within them in their former country of England.

Thus this is what the founders were intending to avoid, and also placing the government as accountable to the people and not above it, so that religious tests and fealty to government over the "supreme" Nature's God's laws in the event of moral conflict when the federal government overstepped itself in any respect would then be lessened or avoided.

Tolerance of other religions practices and beliefs is actually uniquely Christian in it's origins in its scriptural provisions, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parable of the Good Samaritan in loving one's neighbor or enemy AS oneself, and doing unto another as you would have them do unto you - allowing them their freedom to worship God in the manner that you yourself enjoy, whether affiliated with a specific church or not, so long as it does not impinge upon the rights of other of his children to worship in the manner they see fit.

And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in a language other than English.

Mixed Messages: Obama Speaks At Notre Dame, Protestors Escorted Out

Recently Barack Obama presented another one of his speeches to the graduating class of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana - a private Catholic University.

Since the announcement of Mr. Obama's handpicked universities for his appearances, there had been much controversy and debate with respect to his choice of Notre Dame due to his clear advocacy and support for unrestricted access to abortions in this country, even going so far as to oppose an Illinois bill attempting to ban the heinous late term "partial birth" abortion practice within that state prior to his election to the Senate, which did come up during the election campaign a few times and which he never convincingly explained.

This practice has also been known due to its brutal method, to cause trauma and injury to the woman in the process, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld its ban due to both the timing and the method which is then used, and the risks to the mother.

The Catholic Church, of course, takes exception to this position as in violation of their church teachings on the sanctity of human life.

There was much build up reported in the mainstream media in this country, with some in the academic community vocalizing their objections, and others apparently more interested in the press that such a visit would entail for the university who attempted to downplay the conflict.

Its hard to fault some at the school, since they were in a "no win" political situation. Although if ever there was a time for the head of the university to take a stand for his Church's teachings, you would think this would have been one of them in order to set that example for those graduating seniors. But does appear that there was some force preventing him from doing so.

Perhaps this was the point all along.

It truly was interesting in light of Mr. Obama's positions that he would choose Notre Dame to begin with, and sort of makes one wonder what his true agenda actually was all about.

There are literally thousands of college campuses in this country, and it did appear there was a method to his madness in that of the three universities selected - Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona; Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana; and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland - one was a public university, another a private religious institution, and the third a military academy.

According to the local South Bend newspaper, the final event was pulled off without a hitch. The reason being, of course, that as soon as some of the more vocal members of the student body decided to use their freedom of speech, they were summarily escorted from the auditorium by the security detail assigned for the event.

Interestingly, the piece from the local paper also summarized the gist of the message Mr. Obama had chosen for those graduating seniors. The final paragraph of which quoted Mr. Obama's final instruction and message:

"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated," he said. "Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse."

Based upon the treatment of those in the audience who were "unafraid to speak their minds when their values were at stake," and their subsequent ejection from the event, I hope I'm not the only one that caught the hypocricy there.

Although Notre Dame is a private university, it receives much in the way of public funding in grant monies from the American taxpayers, and is not at all truly privately funded at all. And most of those private funds also come from members of the Catholic community.

I wonder who spoke at Mr. Obama's graduation ceremony from Harvard as one who was schooled and would gather passed his Constitutional law classes?

Mikhail Gorbechev?

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090518/News01/905189969/1011/News

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

House Passes "New and Improved" Hate Crimes Legislation

On April 29, 2009 the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League was victorious again in complicating unnecessarily civil rights actions in this country with respect to criminal tort actions, and the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009.

The Bill was passed by a vote of 248-175, with 18 Democrats voting against the Bill, and 17 Republicans voting for. Which, in and of itself, demonstrates that there was much politicking and backroom wheeling and dealing with members of the House concerned about their re-elections affecting some of those votes. The Bill now goes on to the Senate.

This piece of legislation expands the Hate Crimes legislation passed several years ago to include crimes connected with gender and other biases. It also affords the ACLU and other civil rights legal organizations an "economic stimulus" and bigger pool of clients for their taxpayer paid legal fees for civil rights cases.

And also increases the tax burden in expanding government in order to provide the sums in order to enforce this new law at the local level in providing for a surveillance detail to the tune of 10 million over the course of the next two years.

Since there is already provisions for equality in criminal actions based upon the actual crime committed, such as stalking, harassment, assault, and bodily injury or property damage, it does appear that our Congress continues to expand its reach even though it appears with the current U.S. economy and ongoing war it has more than enough on its plate already.

Since there are grant monies involved, it will also strain local law enforcement personnel, even with the added sums, and take them away from pursing the property and violent crimes that are actually committed and increasing in most states across the nation. Local law enforcement and the states actually know what crimes their particular states and local communities actually have the most trouble with, and each state's needs inherently different in that respect. Now we again will have political arrests for state budgetary needs and revenue, and the also more federally funded actions for outrageous fee awards and lawyers welfare needs potentially for any and all crimes against ever increasing protected classes when all taken together in total are now the majority of Americans.

The crimes which most often occur in the border states, for example, in drug related crimes and property theft will once again be shoved aside - since we all know that all federal grant monies come with strings and performance standards attached. Such as the now low level DUI and social drinking enforcement actions.

Since there are already state and local laws for each and every criminal action which occurs irrespective of race, sex, gender, etc., shouldn't the motivation for any such crimes be left for a jury to decide as a fact matter, and the punishment for provable intentional biased-based criminal activities be up to them depending on the evidence presented at the actual trial?

Why is the federal government involved in handing out and dictating the punishments now for state criminal actions, in direct violation of our Constitution and outside their jurisdiction?

Now the federal government is involved in dictating local police actions and priorities. Just when will it end?

What will be next, a law providing extra penalties for telling blonde jokes at the water cooler, or male menopause jokes at the local gym?

I don't mean to make light of this, but it does appear that Congress does have greater priorities at this time, and also the fact that these laws simply seem redundant and really should be left to state and local authorities, and the jurors as "crimes against the state."

The power of the jury and voice of the people continues to be whittled away due to a great many of these recent interferences by federal officials in what the founders provided were state and local criminal matters under both Bush with the social drinking taxs and laws, and now Obama in state and local civil and criminal matters at an ever-increasing rate.

FBI Hiring Candidates To Fight Right Wing "Extremism"

An announcement appeared in the local Phoenix, Arizona newspapers that announced that although the FBI has significantly increased the number of agents since 9/11, they are now on a push to hire more under monies gained from the stimulus. It appears that since now over 3/4's the citizens are on the "watch list," the number of agents isn't equal to the task.

As one of those identified potential terrorists on the list as a 45 year former resident of Arizona and three time victim of illegal immigrant crimes, who has been actively involved in addressing through the state and federal levels the open borders situation still existing now seven years post 9/11 with decades of border state resident victims preceding even that tragedy at the hands of foreigners, I wrote another "Letter To The Editor" and plan on sending a copy to the local Phoenix FBI office, and state and federal officials:

"It definitely seems that 9/11 has been the greatest "economic stimulus" for increasing government and the surveillance industries ever - not to mention the military budgets.

It does seem that the only real new jobs being created are in the surveillance and gadget industries. And spying on Americans and those dreaded right wing extremists.

I do wonder how they train agents to scope out and identify a potential Catholic anti-abortion extremist? Or an illegal immigrant victim/extremist?

What physical descriptions and profile do they use?

Someone wearing a crucifix?

Someone who avoids Mexican restaurants, and puts a May Day sign out the week of Cinco de Mayo?

Those that watch their state college football game rather than the Army/Navy game?

Those that don't stand up with their hands over their hearts for the Pledge of Allegiance for which the words "liberty" and "justice" have not been their experiences as of late or fly their flags upside down?

Those that write "letters to the editor" on the political corruption and broken promises?

Those that speak out or confront the hypocricy of politicians who arrange for photo ops at local soup kitchens or when speaking to disabled veterans groups putting in their two or three hours in order to assauge some of their guilt against their fellow countrymen?"

Just how many agents has the Department of Homeland Security budgeted for this now monumental task?
http://faddaeart.blogspot.com/

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.

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.

Who Owns the Federal Reserve?

The following is a listing of the owners:

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Israel
Moses Sieff Banks Of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank Of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank Of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank Of New York.

So we have an ex-employee of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, and upcoming current employee, Mr. Geither who were/are charged with overseeing that 700 billion September bailout outside the scrutiny of Congress or the American people. With AIG a London based global insurer.

And Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers, who recently were declared in financial straits but who are actually owners of the Federal Reserve. Congress then is borrowing money from the Fed owned by two banking concerns claiming financial distress but are part owners of the Fed, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs.

What's wrong with this picture?