For Any And All Constitutional Conserve-atives:

Another story beaten to death by the mainstream media and the Obama Administration came to a conclusion Thursday at the White House with Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, Dr. Gates and the Cambridge police officer who "arrested" Dr. Gates purportedly due to a "crime in progress" call he received at the Gates residence having a cold one for all the news cameras.

With all the spin that has been occurring in the mainstream media, much of which since 9/11 has left much to be desired in the way of factual journalism and which act more as media reps for "their" politicians due to Big Business corporate ownership and who merely play off each other with respect to political news on the Hill, even the details of this supposed "crime" have been questionable.

Starting with the fact that it has now been reported it was a "senior citizen" who made the call. I'll let that one go for now, since it appears now the seniors are going to be brought into this political circus perhaps for poor eyesight in not recognizing Dr. Gates in the middle of the afternoon, mind you.

The spins on this "story" have been just too incredible to believe at this point.

And appears at least in my educated opinion watching how this has progressed now for almost a week and a half, this was a staged event being used for political purposes most of all. Especially now that even Colin Powell was on Larry King putting in his two cents with respect to supposedly a dereliction of protocol in that an "adult supervisor" (or SWAT negotiator?) hadn't been called in to mediate.

Mr. Obama has been losing points fast with the American public, especially in light of his "solutions" which have not been solutions at all per his campaign rhetoric but simply continuations of the same agendas and even upping the civil rights violations now on the American people of the Bush Administration.

Other than calling for closing Guantanamo he is really 0-3 on his promises to end the war, look out for Joe the Plumber and the middle class (tell that one to the laid off GM workers in Detroit, I dare you), and solving the mortgage mess and crisis.

There was just something a little strange about the "convenience" of this entire incident, and the amount of press it received for my liking. And it appears a good many other Americans also. Good way to shift the pressure and heat off the Hill for the next tax scam on the American people, the L. Ron Hubbard/George Orwell "Science Based" Universal Health Care Plan.

And also keep the racial thing alive as a diversionary tactic and method to use to facilitate civil unrest since civil unrest means the government can use it also as an excuse for much of its extra-Constitutional now security measures against Americans so long as they can keep the fear factor alive.

Inciting civil unrest actually is how many communist leaders and governments came to be. And just why aren't our own borders secured, or some of these foreign individuals from Middle Eastern countries with active terrorist cells not simply deported at this point?

Or, in fact, since America is still at war (although never called Constitutionally or "legally" declared under Bush or that Congress) then why aren't all non-green card holders deported at this point until we have ended this "conflict" or "engagement" or whatever the heck it is since it appears those on the Hill have about as much clue as the American people why we are STILL now eight years later over there? 

And all foreign entry visas denied until it is? 

After all, I'm sure Mr. Powell is aware of this.  After any attack on any military installation in this country is it not SOP that the "base" is locked down until any additional threats are addressed, and all passes then denied to any and all entering or leaving the base until the crime is solved and perpetrators brought to justice?  The military bases in this country actually have far greater "common defense" provisions than our entire country - especially for those living in the border states most of all due to the criminal activity, theft and violent crimes that can be directly tied to it. 

Many Americans could sure use those jobs.

I know, the finale for "So You Think You Can Dance" is next week and Nigel and that other British MC just might have to miss it and the shows producers and network would then have to get an American replacement that might result in a point or two drop in the ratings.

That health care "solution" in appointing a Health Care "God" using actuarial tables for treatment plans is looking more and more like the "science based" Cap & Trade scam which was propagandized to the hilt, and quite obviously meant to feed the Wall Street bankers for that carbon credit market that will be initiated on the backs of the American public in higher utility bills that wipe out that little crumb of a tax rebate and credit thrown out at election time.

Especially now when those inflationary taxes and utility bills start soaring off the charts, in addition to the continued loss of jobs and homes that is still escalating.

I wonder how many members of Congress are heavily invested in energy development and utility companies. Or for that matter Wall Street itself. Maybe 100%?

And then the "spins" on the Beer Summit being a "teachable moment" for America and America's children.
 Please.

Does Mr. Obama and those serving now in our federal government in all three branches truly think that they are examples that America's children should use for role models? A Commander in Chief that speaks of transparency, while hiring three law firms to prevent disclosure of his birth or academic records in order to even verify that he meets the minimum qualifications of the Office of the Presidency? 

A Supreme Court that has gotten increasing more and more political and sovereign favoring in its rulings with respect to Americans Bill of Rights protection, and has refused over six legal challenges to Obama's citizenship status? 

And A Congress that just engaged in a "sleight of hand" in order to also circumvent all those challeges in using a bogus "Resolution" congratulating Hawaii on its 50th anniversary as a state by including a cute little sentence introducting this Resolution with respect to Mr. Obama's birth again without any clear evidence or documentation, in order to also deny the people their right to review the evidence that Obama meets those absolutely minimal requirements (although clear that his status, from the founders "intent" with respect to that provision would clearly make him a foreigner and not "natural born" or "naturalized" American at all, due to reasons behind that provision itself, and their intent in so providing).

Forget the next Beer Summit. Our taxpayer dollars would be better spent in group therapy for those holding federal office, and would assist in at least minimally reducing that federal deficit and taxpayer bite that already has left more Americans homeless and jobless than at any time since the Depression.

Do I hear "Cheers" out there in the South, West and Midwest?

It appears now the sixth state in the nation has "gone green," in passing legislation with respect to gay marriage in the United States with New Hampshire now joining the pack in the "liberal" and blue New England states.

New Hampshire's Governor has cowtowed apparently to the lawyers and Bar Association lobby (largest lobbying group by far at both the federal and state levels in some capacity or another), Chamber of Comerce, gay rights activists and New Hampshire, Inc.'s desire for more state revenue by passing into "law" several bills now affording gay couples the supposed "rights" that are guaranteed under the New Hampshire Constitution to traditional two sex couples with respect to "marriage", rather than prior laws with regard to domestic civil unions.

No matter that the institution of marriage is actual governed under the common civil law as set forth in the Magna Carta and under the "natural" law in which the founders created this great nation over 200 years ago.  It appears the U.S. Constitution also is not one in which the New Hampshire state government gives any credence, in addition to the federal government at this point in any manner whatsoever.

An article written by a writer with the the Baptist Press announcing the new legislation indicated that the citizens of New Hampshire have really no recourse to this action other than voting those members of the legislature and the governor out of office next election, rather than as the citizens of California had in initiating a state constitutional amendment after an off the wall California Supreme Court ruling also affording such "rights" in California.

The writer stated that the New Hampshire Constitution has no such provisions.

This writer would disagree.  In a government of the people, and since this really is a federal matter and "institution" that is involved here there are several courses the citizens of New Hampshire can take with respect to this legislation - either filing a lawsuit in the federal courts with respect to the common law upon which marriage is based and the founders intent with respect to those "natural law" provisions, or initiate their own Constitutional amendment as California did, since there is no need to provide in codified law a "right" for such an undertaking within any states constitution. 

It is an "assumed right," and also common law right in any government specifically declared "of the people, by the people, for the people," as the U.S. Constitution and founding documents so state, and also clearly "codified" in the provisions contained within the 9th Amendment.   And also volumes of writings of the founders on just what "unalienable" rights were (as contained in the Bill of Rights), as "endowed by the Creator." 

I think the Creator's views are also pretty well documented on such an issue.

And those new "laws" have yet to also be placed before a jury for evaluation as to also their applicability, since juries also in this nation have the right to not only review the facts in any case before them, but also whether or not the "law" is Constitutional, or applicable in the matter placed before them.  This is what is known as "jury nullification."

So don't lose hope, citizens of New Hampshire that support traditional marriage and "natural law."

It appears this was more of a "job stimulus" for the legal profession and Chamber of Commerce members in the wedding industries and resorts  in New Hampshire as has been the "jobs and the economy" excuse for literally thousands of unconstitutional statutes throughut the nation for this legislation and these judicial "opinions" as with most of the other states.  Think of all that tax revenue the states will also gain now in violating the Constitution and the sums for all those "license" fees.

And the hefty sums that will be paid to those New Hampshire domestic relations attorneys for some of those divorces.

And how much more taxes the state citizens will be required to pay to give even more jobs to the legal industry in the form of the judges that will be needed for some of those "divorces."

At a time when the economy in most states throughout the nation is now in the toilet, the state legislators and governors  really are getting on the "gay marriage bandwagon" in order to help pay their future salaries and their future campaign coffers most of all, it appears, and in times such as these apparently the true Rule of Law can be suspended at will in the interests of "state benefits and interests."

Look for that excuse to be brought up if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, along with the "equal protection under the law" garbage - since there is absolutely no "protection" in marriage for either party anymore in traditional marriage due to community property laws, and no fault divorce, and prior to state involvement on any level, simply recording such "contracts" in the country recorder's office or courthouse records was the "common law" procedure, especially since now there are even laws that have to do with people who die intestate.

And in Louisiana and quite a few other states, it isn't the spouse who automatically inherits all separately owned property at all due to the availability of  "joint ownership" designations now within most contracts for home, auto and other purchases,  it is actually the "legal" children of the decedent.  And adoption papers secure those rights for gay domestic unions involving children since they cannot "procreate" naturally without medical intervention in some form or another, outside adoption.

Most other civil "rights" in marriage now can be satisfied with simple powers of attorneys, wills and joint ownership contracts which cost nothing to prepare and the forms for which can be obtained at your local bookstore.

"Natural law" is one which is not recognized now in New Hampshire, one of those thirteen original colonies.

And Madison is spinning right about now.

http://townhall.com/news/religion/2009/06/03/nh_6th_state_to_legalize_gay_marriage
 

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.  At least that of the Christian faith, the very faith that was responsible and affords the freedom in practice of other religions in this country.

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.

Recently Barack Obama presented another one of his speeches to the graduating class of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana - a 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 it would appear that there was some political politicking within the Church or other 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 truly privately funded at all.  And most of those private funds also come from members of the Catholic community.

Here is an instance, again, of the over-expansion of the federal government being involved at all in education, since it truly is not one of its enumerated powers in the slightest - these should be state and local issues and funded accordingly either privately or through charitable donations as education was handled and as Jefferson and the founders planned. 

They warned that if the federal government got involved in education, it could use such power inappropriately.  As it appears just may have been the case here with the political subterfuges in selecting that university in the first place that clearly most likely would become controversial given Mr. Obama's position.

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?

Maybe rather than traipsing around the country on one PR tour after another, Mr. Obama should remain in Washington at his desk earning his salary as the final check on the checks and balances for legislation, and reduce his carbon footprints in the process.

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