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?

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 parent dependents to also provided 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 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 all 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.

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.

World Net Daily has published an article which includes the March 26, 2009 interdepartmental memorandum prepared by DHS for local law enforcement regarding the "extremist" groups of potential domestic terrorists.  The list is so lengthy it took over 10 pages in order to outline them all. 

You most likely are on the list, since it doesn't appear they left anyone out, unless you are a government employee drone or work in the mainstream media.

There was an interesting paragraph regarding who it was that actually identified these potential terrorists groups:

"Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials and
unclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops with
DHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism in
the United States."

I wonder if these "intelligence analysts" got their degrees online?  There is now an online university that is cashing in on this booming surveillance industry offering courses that can be completed in the comfort of your own home for less than it costs for two years at the average technical college.

The memo, Ms. Napoliano claims, was immediately yanked.  And I've got a bridge to sell you in Alaska.

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

"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 having to prove grounds for divorce, or fault in the event of adultery or abuse. This hasn't historically boded well for the children of some of the traditional marriages in this country since the actual "protections" have been 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 an property or inheritance issues, and anyone can purchase property under "joint tenancy" or hold "joint title" to cars or other 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 admission forms and such.

So what "privileges" or "equal protection" was lacking? 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. And a now potential challenge for a case at the federal level of the already afforded commitment statutes which exist in many states but where such moves in recognition as actual civil unions have failed in other states such as California in the future - most likely also funded by the taxpayers as there is a federal state which provides for taxpayer paid legal fees for such actions, which was secured long ago by the ACLU.

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.

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. And the state for the license fees in order to obtain "permission" to marry.

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

Be careful what you wish for.