Professor Elhauge presents as fact that these two mandates required engagement in commerce, thus setting  200+ years of precedent by the first Congress, “which was packed with framers,” as per his depiction. He then states, “Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.” The professor appears to subscribe to the oft employed licentious theorem of the Left that if it is not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, then Congress can presume it has unfettered authority to mandate, tax, legislate, control, and dictate wantonly. But, plausibly, historically, and factually, that is neither the intent nor the spirit of Article 1, Section 8, as it was not an enumeration of what the government should or could do, but rather a very narrow set of limitations constraining what the government can do. What the government cannot do is mandate commercial purchases under the Commerce Clause, as that power was not enumerated, intended, nor would it have survived ratification. Perhaps a perfunctory history lesson of why the Constitution was created, and the purpose of the Commerce Clause, may be the antidote to apocryphal balderdash.

Liberals, progressives, and a particular genus of law professors are wringing their hands in animated intoxication regarding these two particular mandates cited by Professor Elhauge. And reinforcing Professor Elhauge’s theorem of mandated purchases under the Commerce Clause, the Left are evidencing case law functioning as unsanctioned amendments to the Constitution, or as unsanctioned legislation fabricated by American jurisprudence. This benighted infatuation with stare decisis, this judicial inbreeding of the Supreme Court assigning dominion of past Supreme Court rulings as surrogates for the Constitution, has resulted in the passing of deleterious and recessive traits to each Supreme Court progenitor. As with genetics, if the Supreme Court reaches a faulty decision, or flagrant political or agenda driven decision, this trait is passed down to each successive Supreme Court that is indentured by the judicial genetics of stare decisis. Professor Elhauge appears to be erroneously attesting that the first Congress, “which was packed with framers,” mandated that the citizens of sovereign states, states that ceded very few enumerated powers to the newly created federal government, were forced to engage in commerce ad libitum.

Before brandishing adulterate case law and phantom mandates, one question must first be answered: What was the purpose of adding the Commerce Clause to the Constitution?

One must delve much deeper than the burlesque Supreme Court assembled by FDR and its league of handpicked ideologues parading around as judiciously inclined justices. These robe wearing sycophants infected American constitutional jurisprudence with the New Deal, and especially Wickard v. Filburn. Wickard v. Filburn breached the boundaries of the Constitution by affording the federal government an almost immeasurable expansion of powers via the Commerce Clause. And if this unburdened scope of power was the original intent of the Commerce Clause, what was the point of the founders penning the remainder of the Constitution if it is subordinate to the Commerce Clause? Indeed, it is necessary to delve beyond FDR’s reign, beyond Professor Elhauge’s imaginary mandates of commerce, back to the Articles of Confederation and the commercial dysfunction between the states.

Prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution, the governing document of the United States was the Articles of Confederation. Of the myriad weaknesses of this document, the focus will be commerce and the militia, as these two areas are what Professor Elhauge perhaps employed in some fashion of palmistry to arrive at his supposition.

Prior to the American Revolution, colonial commerce was regulated by Great Britain, and to a greater extent in the years just preceding the Declaration of Independence. After independence was declared, the framework of colonial commerce changed, immediately going from regulated to unregulated. Without a structured and enforceable set of regulations to ensure the equitable and uninterrupted flow of the transportation of goods between the states, counterproductive trade barriers between the states arose and jeopardized the necessary commercial alliances of the states essential for sustainability of the nation. The states having the advantage of ports charged exploitative tariffs on goods that passed through their ports en route to and from the states without ports. This started a series of trade wars pitting states with ports against states without ports, with both sides charging counterproductive tariffs.

To compound the problems created by discordant commerce, the Articles of Confederation lacked the mechanism to provide and enforce a uniform monetary policy to protect commerce as well. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states had the authority to setup their own monetary systems and print their own currency.

Article III of the Articles of Confederation addresses the states entering into a “firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense,” while Article VII addresses the appointing of officers of the land forces raised by the states, and Article VIII addresses the expenses and funding of “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare.” The government did not have to power to raise an army for defense, and the government did not have to funds to honor Article VIII regarding paying expenses of defense, as the government was unable to even collect the taxes due to pay off the debt from the Revolutionary War. The states generally ignored the federal government regarding taxes, and the Articles left the government powerless to collect taxes.

Even though the states maintained their militias after the end of the war, the inability of the federal government to raise an army left the newly sovereign states vulnerable without a united military front. Even after the Treaty of Paris was signed, the forts in Northwest Territory remained under British control and occupation. The states were not enforcing nor abiding by the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, and the government lacked the power to compel them to do so.

With the Articles of Confederation rapidly approaching critical mass of failure, the necessity of a revision of the document became imperative. A Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation was called on May 14, 1787 and lasted until September 7, 1787. James Madison’s solution to the failings of the Articles of Confederation was to create an entirely new governing document and government. The final result of the four month long convention was the greatest governing document ever created, the United States Constitution. Among the very narrow and limited enumerated powers the states ceded to the newly formed government was the regulation of commerce, and the ability to tax to support a military. Other than the very narrow and limited enumerated powers the states ceded to the newly formed government, and additionally narrowed further by the Bill of Rights, the states retained all previous powers not ceded in the enumerations in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment guaranteed the states’ sovereignty not ceded as well.

The members of the Continental Convention, while debating the structure of the Constitution, were guided by King George III and despotism, as charged in the Declaration of Independence, on one shoulder, and the anarchy disposition of the Articles of Confederation on the other shoulder. The genius of the Constitution was the equipoise between totalitarianism and anarchy. To manifest the ignorance of contemporary liberal legislation, jurisprudence, and the unprecedented abyss of nescience at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue we suffer, the boundaries of how much power the federal government would be able to exert over the states was set by James Madison with his Virginia Plan. Madison proposed that the newly created legislature have the power to invalidate state laws. The proposal was hastily withdrawn for obvious reasons.

The Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8, contrary to what the subversionary left postulates, the size of an industry, its percentage of GDP, or whether every citizen will at some point in their life utilize the industry, are outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. During the era of the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention, the term “regulate commerce” had a very specific meaning: All products and articles of trade, passing between the states, through the various ports, or along the waterways between the states, and their subjectivity to tariffs, were subjected to being regulated by the Commerce Clause as rectification of the Articles of Confederation. The Commerce Clause had no authority over intrastate commerce. The only aspect of commerce that the states surrendered to the federal government was their right to impose tariffs on the goods being transported. James Madison’s summation of the limits of the Commerce Clause reigns supreme over preposterous case law, law school and judiciary ideologues, and the vacuous ideology of the left: “A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter.”

It is also noteworthy that the term “commerce” during the era of the Constitutional Convention was categorically extraneous from the manufacturing or production of agriculture, fur, textiles, firearms, printing, farming, and all goods, as it was limited to only controlling tariffs and the transportation of these goods.

As narrow in scope as the Commerce Clause was intended, the powers of the federal government regarding the defense of the nation are extraordinarily expansive in contrast. In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the founders enumerated 7 clauses regarding the militia, navy, and defense of the United States:

• Provide for the common defense
• To declare War, grant Letters of      Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
• To raise and support Armies, but      no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two      Years
• To provide and maintain a Navy
• To make Rules for the Government      and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
• To provide for calling forth the      Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel      Invasions
• To provide for organizing, arming,      and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may      be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States      respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of      training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

To augment and clarify the expansive powers of national defense, the government passed the Militia Act of 1792, and it was this section that caused Professor Elhauge to have a mandated commerce epiphany, with the following directive:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

In Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution under the judicial powers is the phrase “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” In the founding era, the term “maritime” was recognized as the high seas, and the term “admiralty” was recognized as domestic water ways, including harbors and ports. Soon after the ratification of the Constitution, the federal courts, which were granted the power under Article III, Section 2, concurred with the legislation regarding its broad powers of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states, To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

In addition to the “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction” established in Article III, Section 2, Article I, Section 8 enumerates the government’s power of legislation over dock-yards.

Under its Admiralty power, the Congress created two acts. The 1790 Act required all ships more than 150 tons, and traveling outside American waters, to maintain a medicine chest, and the 1798 Act imposing a 20 cent per month tax to be withheld on the wages of seamen. These were explicit powers under the Constitution, and all ships, crew, and passengers were under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The 1790 and 1798 acts of requiring medicine chests and a 20-cent per month tax for the building of seamen hospitals were justifiable mandates under various constitutional authorities, including the power to provide for the Navy, which would include merchant ships that were regularly engaged in skirmishes with the French, as authorized by Congress, thus making them quasi-militaristic.

Prof Einer Elhauge’s entire argument is based on several untruths and inconsistencies. When the foundation of an argument is based on untruths and grandiose depictions, its prognosis is bleak once inoculated with the truth.

Professor Elhauge states in his New Republic article dated April 13, 2012, “In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms.” Contrasted with an article he wrote in the January 5, 2012 New England Journal of Medicine, “In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm,” Professor Elhauge’s ability of maintaining a static argument has been compromised. The difference between “buy firearms” and “obtain a firearm” is not a matter of semantics, but rather an inconstant argument.

But in contrast to either of Professor Elhauge’s statements, the actual language of the Militia Act of 1792 stated, “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock….” No citizen was required anything other than to have in their possession a good musket or firelock. There was not a mandate to enter into a commercial transaction to purchase a good musket or firelock, and if there was a mandate, it would have been justifiable under the powers enumerated to the Congress under the military powers.

Professor Elhauge takes his argument to an embarrassing level when rebutting Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett’s argument “it was different because it did not require individuals to buy guns if they got them from someone else.” Professor Elhauge uses the Obamacare mandate of requiring one to have health insurance as not a mandate to purchase insurance. He states that if someone else buys insurance for you, it is the same as someone buying you a gun. The difference between the two is insurmountable. A gun is tangible, and insurance is intangible. Someone cannot give you an extra health insurance policy they are not using, you cannot inherit a health insurance policy, you cannot be gifted a health insurance policy, a gun purchase is a onetime purchase, and a health insurance policy is a perpetual monthly purchase.

Professor Elhauge also takes liberty with math and context. He wields the phrase that the Congress was “packed with framers” too much too often. There were 55 delegates, with 20 of them being present at the Constitutional Convention. Less than 50 percent is not quite the mathematical or common sense definition of “packed.”

Professor Elhauge writes,

The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

As previously stated, merchant ships and their seamen were at times engaged in combat with the French, as authorized by Congress. It was during this time when treaties with France were repealed that the skirmishes at sea became more hostile, and the prospect that seamen could potentially be engaged with the French, that a 20 percent withholding from seamen for hospitals for their care was enacted. Contrary to Professor Elhauge’s claims, no seamen were required to purchase insurance, the 20-cent deduction was not an insurance policy, and the 1790 Act only required a medicine chest on board.

“History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1807 letter 20 years after the Constitution was written. Jefferson’s categorical delineation of the state of mind of the men tasked with creating a form of government with just enough power to execute its narrowly defined functions  has no equal.

Today Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, nescient law school professors, and mutineer judges are the archetypical foundation of what bad government, bad education, and bad jurisprudence are, according to Thomas Jefferson. Unlike the lack of the necessary power under the Articles of Confederation, today’s bad government is the presumption that the federal government has the power to regulate every facet of an individual’s life.

This country does have a governing document, the Constitution, and each and every clause contained within the document is the result of causality. Each and every clause within the Constitution has a spirit, a purpose, a precise reason for being, and can be narrowed to two primary functions: to correct the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, and myriad layers of the protection of states’ and individual’s rights from the federal government.

It is with bad scholarship, such as Professor Elhauge, et al. of …”trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed,” as Jefferson warned; and by creating meanings and events that never were intended nor transpired, teaching of case law as constitutional law, the constitutional illiteracy of Harvard Law graduate Barack Obama, and the malignance and willingness of the courts to rely on stare decisis as constitutional law that will be the undoing of this republican form of government more so than any other threat or crisis this country has ever faced.

This is because I live in the land of “you can’t get there from here.” Northern Virginia residents have only a very limited number of through streets and major thoroughfares. Drivers are forced to crowd into a handful of routes when they want to go east or west and even fewer when they want to go north. Any tourist ever stuck on I–95 knows what I’m talking about.

There is no way to plan a route avoiding dangerous, packed intersections because there are no alternatives. Much of this can be blamed on what I call the Stonewall Jackson school of traffic engineering: “Why Stonewall whipped the Yankee’s behind using this very road network. There is no need to improve on perfection.”

In effect this means replacing a one–lane corduroy road with a winding two–lane asphalt design is viewed as a technological breakthrough rivaling that of the flush toilet.

And it’s not going to get any better where I live.

County planners are in the process of approving a 22–acre mixed use development that will have 360 apartments, two hotels and an office building. And oh yes, there will be only a single exit from the development linking it to neighboring roads.

Once more state and local government succeeds where national government and Richard Branson failed. The county and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) have managed to monetize space. The right to drive into or out of a parcel of land makes it extremely valuable, because curb cuts are rationed tighter than ethics at a GSA convention. Gaining permission for that vital absence of concrete curbing often requires a lobbyist.

I’m sure the thinking here was you can drain a bathtub with a single exit, why not a real estate development? Yet the same planners would not approve a movie theatre with one exit and they wouldn’t approve a shopping mall interior with a single exit either. Maybe we should give the fire marshal authority to approve road and development design. Installing a sprinkler system in your car would be a small price to pay for more efficient transportation.

Fortunately, due to cul–de–sac laden, backward road design theory, most of the crashes here are low speed encounters. According to a press release from TomTom, the GPS people, the Washington, DC area has the most congested traffic and slowest average speeds in the nation.

Many drivers serve a positively organic role in the Capitol’s traffic circulatory system, functioning as automotive plaque that clogs the artery and slows us down.

I recently returned from a trip to Dallas and traffic there was a revelation. At 4 PM on Friday I was driving down LBJ Freeway and Central Expressway, two major thoroughfares that are packed daily with rush hour traffic. Auto density was the same as on I–95, but guess what? I was moving at speeds in excess of 40 mph! I felt like a Swiss neutron racing the speed of light.

What’s more, I passed two sets of parked police cruisers with their lights flashing and traffic did not grind to a complete halt. I know this is hard to believe for DC drivers, because here any blinking light more intense than a turn signal has a tendency to stupefy motorists. The sun glinting off a jack handle while changing a flat, the reflection from a trooper’s radar detector or shiny bling worn by someone waiting for AAA all cause motorists to immediately hit the brake.

The only hint of good news regarding our congestion is the number of teenagers who don’t have or want a driver’s license is at an all time low. Unfortunately, those with a new license are going to be just as incompetent as the rest of their family. This is because in Virginia getting a driver’s license no longer requires actual driving in a car with a grim state trooper waiting for you to make a mistake.

Instead teenagers are supposed to drive for 40 hours with their parents beside them and follow parental advice. Later, when they get the coveted license, teenagers can boast: “I drive whatever speed I like in left lane, just like peepaw.” “I always slow down when a car is stopped on the shoulder. It might be Uncle Tran.” “Mom says leave three car lengths between me and the car ahead at a stoplight, in case I start to roll while texting.” Or “Like granny, I always brake when approaching a green light, because you never know.”

And driving incompetence, with its accompanying congestion, will be passed down from generation to generation just like a genetic abnormality.

The election of Socialist Party candidate Francois Hollande to the presidency of France epitomizes the sorry state of contemporary democracy. By that, I don’t mean to imply that the French people should have voted for the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy. Neither would be capable of solving France’s intractable problems in a way acceptable to French voters, nor are the problems with democracy unique to France. To varying degrees they exist throughout Europe as well as here in the United States.

The first problem is: widespread economic illiteracy. Hollande campaigned on a platform of economic growth and expanded job creation, to be accomplished by raising taxes on the rich and increasing government spending. Well, good luck with that one. Even Lord Keynes himself advocated lowering taxes rather than raising them to stimulate economic activity. And the record of net job creation via government stimulus is one of dismal failure. Hollande’s program can’t work, and yet a majority of the French electorate voted for it. How sad.

The second problem is the utter cynicism of today’s politics. One wonders whether Hollande himself truly believes his own campaign rhetoric. One senses that he knows that his socialistic policies would drive France’s struggling economy into the ditch: According to the World Socialist Web Site (www.wsws.org)—who were cheerleaders for Hollande’s campaign promises of more tax & spending—Hollande’s team has told Reuters that he is going to change course and “carry out reactionary policies … and intensify social cuts.”

The third problem is that people sometimes believe in fairy tales. Who knows what Hollande believes or understands about economics, but let’s give him credit for being politically astute. He understood that the key to electoral success is to tell voters what they want to hear. In France’s case (as in the recent elections in Greece and northern Germany) most people are opposed to “austerity.” Hollande sized up the public mood and won the presidency on the theme of, “You don’t want austerity, and under me, you won’t have it.” That’s bunk. There is going to be “austerity” (in France and elsewhere) whether the people want it or not.

The fourth problem is that the public is in denial about reality. What is commonly called “austerity” is more accurately termed “sobriety.” For years, people in the democracies have been voting themselves economic freebies and subsidies—getting high on the drug of government wealth transfers. They became addicted to politicians who promised and voted more and more monetary fixes for their present and future desires. That means that politicians who indulge voters’ fantasies and play along with the delusion that the government is a bottomless cornucopia of goodies will have the electoral advantage over those who are courageous enough to tell people the truth about the hard choices that must be made.

What the voters didn’t reckon on—and what they are still in denial about—is that just as a feel-good drug addiction eventually brings one to the point where additional fixes could prove fatal, so the democratic Santa Claus state has neared the breaking point. Either the binge stops—that is, government spending and promises of future benefits are trimmed back—or the system breaks down. The ineluctable fact is that there simply isn’t enough real wealth in existence to make good on all these government promises. The penalty for not facing up to this painful economic truth will be either a market rejection of sovereign debt or a central bank “quantitative easing to infinity” that debases the currency, either of which will convulse markets horribly.

The biggest problem underscored by the French election is the degenerate state of modern democracy (with apologies to Aristotle and our Founding Fathers, who would consider “degenerate democracy” a redundancy). Democracy today is both childish and cannibalistic. It is childish in the sense that masses of people believe that if they want something, all they need to do is vote for it and they will get it—as if economic reality can be transformed by a mere act of will, and government can conjure desired benefits out of thin air. It is cannibalistic in that so many have fallen into a state of moral depravity and pathetic impotence in which they believe that the only way they can have the comfortable life is for government to take other people’s wealth and give it to them.

Many people believe that government is the answer to their problems. They are about to learn the painful lesson that government isn’t the answer. I doubt many of them will recognize that their pain will be self-inflicted. As H.L. Mencken once put it, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The French, the Greeks, and a lot of other people living in democracies are about to get a jolt of economic reality and sobriety “good and hard.”

Now that President Obama has publicly stated that he is for gay marriage, which he says is a result of his ‘evolving’ view on the issue, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” our nation is having to address the legality, and the core issues surrounding this issue: the causes and morality of homosexuality, again.

Also of note, in the ABC interview in which Obama announced his position, he also said his decision was based on his faith in Jesus Christ and the Golden Rule, applying, ”Treat others the way you would want to be treated,” to his view on the issue.

Even though Pres. Obama blamed VP Joe Biden for getting “a little bit over his skis” in publicly and preemptively announcing his embrace of gay marriage, thus forcing Obama to prematurely announce his own support for gay marriage, to which he said, “Would I have preferred to have done this in my own way, in my own terms, without I think, there being a lot of notice to everybody? Sure. But all’s well that ends well,”  the president made his announcement on the Eve of a huge Hollywood fundraiser (a $40,000 per person, $15 million raised event) for his re-election campaign. And we all know Hollywood predominately supports the gay agenda.

In today’s postmodern society, which has cast its moral compass to the wind and is running full force in making decisions based on feelings and group-think, rather than on non-emotional, well researched positions, it is critical to be informed, as well as able to communicate the facts on issues. This requires a knowledge of the  history, the stated motivations and agendas of advocates, the existing law on the issue(s), and wisdom based on time-tested truth. To make a decision based on anything less is, to say the least, faulty, and more often than not, disastrous.

So, when we look at the changing worldviews that are rapidly occurring in every arena of our nation today, there’s nothing more effective than direct quotes and stated positions to shine the light on the reality of the mentalities and motivations that surround an issue, such as in this case, “gay rights.”

For instance, Gay Rights Organizational Positions and Agendas: 

The Advocate (http://www.advocate.com/), the national magazine for the gay rights movement.

Then ACLU’s website (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm), advocates for gay rights.

The Lambda Legal website (http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/index.html), the “national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, the transgendered through impact litigation, education, and public policy work.”

Here you   can see Glaad’s media awards (http://www.glaad.org/), and the gay movement’s think tank National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Policy Institute  (http://www.ngltf.org/).

GLSEN’s (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) website (http://www.glsen.org/) “envisions a future in which every child learns to respect and accept all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”  From their Little Black Book given to junior and senior high school students you’ll read, ”Hey Queer Boys! Welcome to queer life in the 21st Century! Is this a great time to be gay or what? We are faced with important challenges every day like the right to marry, homophobia, coming out, STDs and HIV/AIDS, but queers have never enjoyed more visibility.”

And Youth.org www.youth.org is an online source of youth gay sites.

Keep reading…

This site, True Spirit, http://www.true-spirit.org/programming/03workshoplist.htm lists the workshops available at True Spirit conferences on such subjects such as the risk of breast cancer even after “…FTMs, transmen, or anyone born female-bodied who uses testosterone; ” and intersex activism ideas for “changing our world.”

Other conference workshops, remember these are for youth, were on, ”How to Do SM [Sadomasochism];” one devoted to “polyamory,” an activist term for multiple-partner sexual unions entitled, “Turning girls into boys” at http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26569.

See Americans for Truth article on the ethics of doctors surgically changing young women’s bodies into males:   http://www.americansfortruth.com/HRCTrueSpirit2002.html.

If you want to know the
outlined agenda of the gay movement with steps for America to accept homosexuality as normal, see “The Overhauling of Straight America: Waging Peace Part Two”  (http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/8142838.pdf). This was written in 1987, and states, “To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion…if you can only get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their sholders then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”

The Pro-Family Law Center’s website  (http://www.abidingtruth.com) as alot of additional information on the subject.

Focus on the Family provided additional quotes from an After the Ball event, which outlined key points of the gay agenda:

1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as      often as possible.”
2.  ”Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive      challengers.”
3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.”
4. “Make gays look good.”
5. “Make the victimizers look bad.”
6. “Get funds from corporate America.”

There’s many more resources available, and while it is not the intention of this article to list them all, nor to provide each of the elements I mentioned above as critical to being effectively informed on issues, hopefully these few websites can get you started in your own research, to help insure your worldview on this issue is based on the truth and not on rhetoric, agendas and falsehoods.

Gay Rights Advocates’ Quotes:

“We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives.” -Jeff Levi, homosexual spokesperson, in a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington DC
“What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality.”  -Barbara Gittings, gay activist, in an article entitled “Gays on the March” in 1975, Time magazine

“Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong.” -Bishop V. Gene Robinson, openly gay Episcopal Bishop

“We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.” -Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen, In “The Overhauling Of Straight America”

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgarities. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms…All churches who condemn us will be closed.” -Michael Swift, ‘Gay Revolutionary’ Printed In The Congressional Record, February 15/21, 1987

“Wouldn’t it be great if you could only get AIDS from giving money to television preachers?” -Elayne Boosler, gay activist

“There is nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. People should be very free with sex…(but) they should draw the line at goats.” -Elton John

I know, unbelievable.

Well, Joe Biden isn’t the first VP to support gay rights, again just for the record, former Vice President Al Gore was the first vice president to speak at a gay rights event, where he said, “It is time for all Americans to recognize that the issues that face gays and lesbians in this country are not narrow, special interests, they are matters of basic human and civil rights.”

See more quotes here.

So, whether we are talking about Pres. Obama’s so-called ‘evolving’ position on the issue of gay marriage, or any issue, it’s not enough to have an opinion on the subject, because evolving positions and changing worldviews do not necessarily define, or lead us to, the truth. And truth, of course, should trump everything else, right? Right.

No one can argue with the polls that show that a majority of people between ages 18-29 would side with gay marriage, even as most between ages 29-60 would reject gay marriage completely. Mr. Obama is busy trying to persuade the youth who have all the PC gab and Steve Jobs gadgets to gather in his camp. Most of those in the other age group are jumping ship before it hits the iceberg at full speed. The result of this awakening in the political realm; will be made known on November 6, 2012.

It goes without saying that since there is little chance or enough time between now and November 6, to enact a gay marriage bill or executive order that Mr. Obama has managed to buy the gay community’s vote for the mere price of a well timed statement.

In the realm of prophecy this is not surprising because a generation is predicted to come before the rise of all ‘last days’ portents that will be all but void of conscience, traditional morality and completely in rebellion against God’s revealed word.

All the business of polls, trends and evolving viewpoints take nothing away from the prophetic message or the moral teachings of the Bible. In fact, they only accent and punctuate the promises that solidly declare that in the days of that generation the world will change beyond recognition, but it will not end well.

The spirit of anti-Christ precedes the coming of the man who the Bible refers to as the Anti-Christ. All this requires that a generation of militant non-believers be present to welcome in the man and willfully and exuberantly give him the rule over the entire world.

Under this man ignoring God’s laws will become normal, but that will quickly capitulate to active open resistance against any that refuse to bend under the rule of anti-Christ. The troublesome non-compliant believers will eventually be put to death.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Rev 13: 7)

Even as the prophesied generation is forming; they will be denying that anything like that could ever happen – Witness today!

Like young people drawn to the noise of the party, an unsuspecting world will hear what their lack of morality falls into sync with, and will be drawn up like the sucking of a mammoth tornado.

I have warned for over half my lifetime that the generation spoken of in writ, has been forming and with the President’s proclamation, there is little chance for error.

With Europe chomping at the bit for one strong ruler and America falling prey to the liberal Godless mindset in its choices for leaders, the stage is set. Time is short.

For us, what time is left will be expedited if a national law supporting Obama’s recently evolved position is added to a generation long slaughter of 54,000,000 (54 million) unborn children. Our peace will be shattered by many interventions of God commonly referred to as judgments.

No nation in history has escaped God’s interventional rebukes and we will be no exception. Ancient Israel, Babylon, Greece and Rome all saw the same fate and yet our perversity makes them all look tame by comparison. They may have favored fleshy indulgence, but America has long since been flaunting it.

Almost everyday someone asks me to predict how much time is left. Others ask me if I think certain leaders are the false prophet or the anti-Christ. I tell them all the same; when these people are revealed the whole world will see it together.

Only the believers will understand who they are, because they will come up through normal channels of education, political persuasion and socially acceptable backgrounds. They will not look like devils released from the pit, although that’s where they will finally end up. Spiritual people will see, carnal people will move headlong down the path toward their own destruction.

There will be wars, rumors of war and social upheaval all around the world and changes and difficulties will arise faster than anyone can make adjustments. Out of the turmoil will come those who will promise better times, prosperity and peace for the whole world! But no peace will come.

This time known as the ‘tribulation period’ is short lived (seven years) and it culminates with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in power. He removes the rule of man from the earth and establishes his kingdom on earth.

There is no doubt that the remarks of President Obama are part and parcel to the coming world confusion. It is impossible to take a stand so diametrically opposed to the Bible, lay it on an entire nation, as a leader, and somehow be free of culpability and complicity with the thinking that brings judgment upon the entire earth.

I have been given no dates and since Christ said no man knows the day or the hour, I wouldn’t accept any. But Christ warned that we should all learn the lesson of the fig tree. (Mt 24: 32) He said when the branches and buds start to come forth the last generation was at hand. At this point we have long since passed the time of buds; look closely you will see the figs!

Actually the science of bursting bubbles has recently popped into the forefront of scientific discovery.  Conventional wisdom has taught since the beginning of time that when a bubble bursts it simply vanishes.  However, recent observations using high speed cameras has revealed that when a bubble bursts it leaves a circle of miniature daughter bubbles that pop so fast the eye cannot catch it.  There is even the thought that each daughter bubble leaves a ring and each daughter bubble leaves a ring ad infinitum.   All happening so fast it cannot be seen.  And yet, each succeeding bubble bursts.

The physics of bubbles tells us that the pressure on the inside works against the tension on the surface and a ratio between the two determines when the bubble will burst.  No matter how it bursts, no matter why or when it bursts one thing is certain: all bubbles burst.

In economics a bubble is the term commonly used for a cycle characterized by rapid expansion followed by rapid often dramatic contraction.  What causes economic bubbles is often a matter of dispute among economists.  Some believe they are a natural part of the economic cycle: everything goes up, and everything eventually comes back down.

Others believe they are caused by inflation.  In this scenario everything has a natural price which is the intersection of cost and demand.  The Bubble is the artificial rise of price over the natural price.  Eventually the economy must correct itself and the inflated product will return to its natural price.

No matter which theory you subscribe to, one thing is certain: all bubbles burst.

Remember theClintonyears?  Today the official History as dispensed constantly by the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media is that the wise and benevolent rule of the man from Hope was a time of plenty.  There was solid growth and balanced budgets.  As the Progressive narrative goes, President Clinton alone was responsible for the growth of the nineties which Bush the Younger proceeded to destroy leaving a mess for President Obama who has fought valiantly to restart the economy and save the day.  At least that’s the story as dispensed by the headlines and the talking heads.

The reality is approximately 180 degrees opposite of the spin.

President Clinton won a three way election with less than 50% of the vote (twice) and called it a mandate both times.  The policies he opposed for his entire career had recently won the Cold War, and President Clinton reaped the rewards.  He gutted the military and called it a Peace Dividend which he proceeded to spend on social engineering projects pumping up the economy with government spending.  Then the Dot-com Boom turned into the Dot-com Bubble and the economy was roaring.  Another plus for Clinton was the defeat of Hillarycare which would have torpedoed the economy just as Obamacare is now.  He also profited by the election of a Republican House in 1994 which kept the promises in the Contract With America and led the way in cutting spending and building a budget that at least appeared to be balanced.

Everything was coming up roses. The economy was growing and so was the Dot-com Bubble, which everyone just knew would go on forever even though anyone older than the milk in the fridge should have known that all bubbles burst.

In 2000 George II won a contested election, and before he had time to change the drapes in the Oval Office the Dot-com Bubble burst.  This led to a short sharp recession; this was the one that Bush didn’t blame on Clinton.  He instead passed the now infamous Bush tax cuts and mailed out what he called rebates in the form of free money to spur the economy.  All the while behind the scenes the housing bubble was beginning to inflate to epic proportions.   Federal spending grew, the government grew, and the bubble grew.

During the go-go years people with no job, no money, and sometimes no ID were able to buy McMansions for no money down and walk out with cash in their hands.  How could this ever go wrong?  I remember hearing of people bidding on houses, offering 10% over the asking price and losing out to someone who offered more.  Prices went up and up and up and somehow even sane people apparently thought it would never end.

Things looked good.  Things looked very good.  Following the recession which began seven weeks after President Bush took office,America had six years of uninterrupted economic growth.  There were fifty two straight months of job creation producing more than eight million new jobs, the unemployment averaged 5.3 %, after-tax income per capita increased by11%, from 2000 to 2007, and GDP grew by more than 17 % adding almost $2.1 trillion.  Exotic ways to paper over the fact that people with no money were buying houses fueling the boom kept everyone smiling and the bubble expanding.

The only problem was that eventually all bubbles burst.  And when it did John McCain suspended his presidential race to fly back toWashington and add his hearty, “Me Too” to the bailout and seal his fate.

President Obama took office as the economy crashed into the deepest recession since World War Two.  He immediately began blaming President Bush and hasn’t stopped yet.  He passed the largest stimulus bill in American History, began a record expansion of the Federal government, and the largest spending binge since the beginning of time.  All in the name of cleaning up the mess from the bursting of the housing bubble.

And what are all these trillions of dollars in reckless spending doing?  Are they inflating another bubble?  Change the words and you change the perception: spending becomes investment and responsibility becomes austerity.  Those who are manning the pumps aren’t blowing up a financial bubble they are showing compassion for their fellow man and investing for the future.  Anyone who warns of a coming crash or tries to slow the rate of spending is pushing grandma off the cliff for the benefit of millionaires and billionaires.

No matter how this mad dash to nowhere is spun one thing is certain: all bubbles burst

On the brighter side President Obama has perfected the cure for illegal immigration.  The economy has taken such a massive hit that the illegal immigrants are leaving looking for greener pastures.  And he has also brought the solution to a 10%+ unemployment rate.  So many people have become discouraged that they have dropped out of the labor market, and according to our current administration this is good news.  Perhaps we should take a cue from Mr. Obama’s favorite pastime and just consider his first term a mulligan.

Maybe the slogan for President Obama’s second term shouldn’t be “Forward.” Perhaps it should be “I deserve a re-do.”

Just remember: all bubbles burst.

Granted, when Bin Laden was executed, Obama did get a lot of praise and adoration from the young folks. But time is a wonderful medicament. The young people realized a year later that the death of Bin Laden did not make them any safer or prosperous. It could be argued that President Bush and his strategy and the use of water boarding has made the United States a great deal safer. But folks like Biden believe that it is only a matter of time before innocent people will pay the ultimate price for being infidels.

It appears that Obama’s female truth team forgot to do their homework. They should have sought the assistance of a focus group. The group would have found that the effect of Bin Laden is long over and it was allegedly buried at sea.

But more importantly it was not Obama that executed Bin Laden it was the United States. It was President Bush’s team that put Bin Laden into hiding. As a result Bin Laden was rendered useless and a coward. It is not like he was a leader of an army like General Lee; he was more like a Manson character in a movie.

President Bush through his CIA and advanced interrogation techniques kept the pressure on Bin Laden. And when they located Bin Laden, it was just a matter of time before he would be executed.

As you may recall Bin Laden was offered to Clinton many times and he was too busy to deal with Bin Laden, he preferred to do the Hokey Pokey with Monica.

The real question to ask: Who was the bigger coward? Was Bin Laden a coward for hiding all those years? Or was it Obama for executing Bin Laden without a trial?

It has been established that Bin Laden could have been apprehended without his execution. It would also have been prudent to hide him away while the CIA and other Intel agencies deciphered the captured information. It would also be wise to waterboard Bin Laden to see if he could lead the troops to other evil men like Bin Laden.

By executing Bin Laden, Obama put an end to all the trails leading to and from this Intel. Obama also put an end to using Bin Laden as bait. How many soldiers of Bin Laden would try to free Bin Laden?

Set the bait and capture the terrorists. It is not likely that they would try to negotiate his release… or would they? Another opportunity lost.

Some would argue that Bin Laden is not really dead but he is hidden in a room in the basement of the Whitehouse. But if he is hidden, then he can’t be used as bait. And if he is on U.S. soil then we need to have Holder read him his rights.

Remember when Obama was going to close Gitmo. He was going to try the terrorists in U.S. Courts instead of as enemy combatants in military tribunals. Remember when Obama told you to go blow up your tires and save millions of gallons of oil a … day? Where is that Obama? By the way, that same Obama is President of the United States!

So who is the biggest coward?

Would Governor Romney have executed Bin Laden? Would he have captured him if given the opportunity? Or would he look the other way like Clinton did?

We really don’t know what Governor Romney would do because Obama executed Bin Laden first. To raise such a question seems a bit stupid. Next Obama will ask if Romney can find a left-handed smoke shifter! It’s a question that is useless and really serves no benefit to Obama or the American Economy!

But I think it does show that Obama lost any benefit from the execution of Bin Laden. When you can take down his compound guarded by a few men, you should begin to wonder was Bin Laden actually set up. Did Pakistan leak the Intel to the United States?

It is possible that some where in the future the terrorists will strike again. This time they will not blame it on the evil infidels and their religion and prosperity. They will blame it on the fact that Obama killed Bin Laden and Obama did not give him a proper burial.

It just seems that Obama is clueless when dealing with these people. He had a trump card and he threw it in the sea. He could have destroyed what was left of Bin Laden’s organization after President Bush destroyed most of it. But instead Obama took the coward’s way out. He would have used a drone if he could, but instead he put his men in harm’s way while he was playing golf.

Let me see, do we really care if Obama is so full of himself that he assumes that he would be the only person in America that could capture Bin Laden?

If he didn’t kill him, maybe then he could try to benefit politically by his capture. But he put an end to his advantage. Wouldn’t it be great if Obama and his Truth team worked on the economy and getting those shovel ready jobs moving. I guess shovel ready means not that they are ready. It means that they are so well buried in the recesses of the liberal minds that we won’t be able to see them until 2013.

Maybe Obama should stick to fixing his failed economy rather then stirring up things he actually knows nothing about. Wouldn’t it be great if one person could say he saved thousands of gallons of gas by blowing up his tires! How about a quart of gas? The point is Obama didn’t know what he was talking about then. He still doesn’t know what he is talking about and do you really want to see him elected for another 4 years. Guess what, Obama still won’t know what he is talking about. For once I can agree with Hope and Change. I Hope the American people are smart enough to Change the person that sits in the Oval Office of the Whitehouse. Instead of playing with Monica, this Democrat president is playing with your future. Everyday they plot to take away your pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. Have you had enough!

And on January 20^th, 2009 he made history in becoming the first president who supports faux marriage.

Obama revealed himself in a Wednesday interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, saying, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, um, for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that, uh, I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

This statement was made after Obama explained his “evolution” on the issue, a hothouse transformation that included discussions with homosexuals on his staff.  But here’s the reality: the aforementioned “certain point” he reached had more to do with the electorate’s perceived evolution than anything else.  This is because Barack Obama has always been pro-faux marriage.

How do I know?  For starters, Obama isn’t a Christian, as he claims; he isn’t a Muslim, as some critics claim, although he is a Muslim sympathizer.

He is a moral relativist and de facto atheist.

But, unlike with my first two sentences, I repeat myself.

And being a thoroughly modern Alinskyite secularist, he will always be on the cutting edge of societal devolution, which includes support for the undermining of marriage.

If that isn’t enough for you, though, consider that, writes ABC News, “[i]n 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he [Obama] indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.”  Allow me to translate: “Our guy was dumb enough to reveal that he supported faux marriage when he needs votes in areas in which blacks are numerically strong.  And, as you may know, the black community doesn’t look kindly upon faux marriage.  So just ignore that man behind the curtain!  Barack is down!”

And now Obama is a bit down in the polls.  What’s his game?  Did loose-cannon Biden put him on the spot by announcing his acceptance of faux marriage earlier in the week?  Or was half-slow Joe’s remark a trial balloon?  Is Obama trying to shore up support among his demoralized base?  Whatever the case, know that the president’s problem isn’t that marriage, like the matter of when life begins, is above his pay grade.

It’s that morality and telling the truth are above his pay grade.

And now think about this: If Obama was willing to drop the marriage mask before the election, what masks will be dropped after it when, as he said to Dmitry Medvedev, he has “more flexibility”?

For sure, he will continue to evolve.  Heck, he may even announce that he’s a communist before 2016 is up – no doubt after discussing the issue with the Marxists on his staff.

It seems most anything goes now: bloated houses, bloated egos, bloated libidos, bloated bureaucracies, bloated government – except bloated bellies.  And a perusal of the news makes this clear, with a never-ending stream of stories about obesity this and obesity that.  For example, headlining Drudge the other day was a piece about how fathead officials in Massachusetts propose to ban school bake sales – even before and after school hours – to combat obesity.  This, of course, is just the next step in a progression that has seen localities purge schools of cookies and sodas along with the faith and patriotism that was deemed unhealthful long before.

We also had the San Francisco Stupidvisors, who run the city (into the ground), who banned toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals. Deliciously, the restaurant chain circumvented the law by charging an extra ten cents for those who want the toy.  I would’ve really rubbed the health Nazis’ noses in it and made it a penny.

Then there was the 2008 proposal by three legislators in Mississippi – said to be the fattest state in the nation – to prohibit portly people from dining in restaurants.  The politicians said they were just trying to make a point with their measure.  I wonder, though, given that the vast majority of gun crime (98% in New York City) is committed by blacks and Hispanics, would these bold statesmen seek to “make a point” by proposing to ban those groups from gun stores?  Oh, that would be discriminatory?  I see.

Although Mississippi Fat Burning never saw its opening day, other Orwellian measures have.  For instance, a Missouri judge was accused of delaying an adoption until the prospective father lost weight, and last year Ohio DCFS seized a boy from his parents because he was obese.  This, despite the fact that if the president ate like his wife does, the boy would look like Obama’s son.

The irony here is that the health Nazis would have had the overindulgent Ohio mother’s back if she’d ended her boy’s life in the womb.  But merely increase the chances of shortening his life by feeding him too many Twinkies?  You’re a derelict mother!

You see, when it’s the matter of a body within a body, it’s the bigger body’s “choice.”  But when it’s a matter of just a bigger body, you have no choice.  My, how the scales of justice tip when you tip the scales.

As for the busybodies – the politicians, gubmint bureaucrats and “public-interest” groups – how do we explain their interest in our health?  They really must care, right?  About you, about me, about all and sundry.  Well, I’d say so but qualify it with a paraphrased Rodney Dangerfield line: “They really care….

About what, I have no idea.”

Of course, there is the “Obesity hurts society” pretext.  The argument is that you fatties are burying our healthcare system with a knife and fork, as you cost it more money with your increased health problems.

Except that this is nonsense.

A 2011 study found that the obese and smokers actually cost the healthcare system less because they don’t live as long.  And while study leader Pieter Van Baal called the finding a “small surprise,” it’s thoroughly logical.  It’s the nonagenarian requiring frequent hospitalization and nursing-home care who rings up the bills, not the epicurean who collapses on his plate of chicken fried steak and cheese-filled French fries at age 61.  So you want to save ObamaCare?  Get all the different fat groups, copious amounts of sugar and salt and smoke one Al Gore tobacco farm a week.

So are we now left with the notion that the health Nazis really do care?  Well, they do, and about what I do have some idea.  And I’m going to delve into one little understood phenomenon that drives today’s obsession with health.

You’ll note that the people behind control-freak health measures are never Opus Dei or Southern Baptist Conference types; heck, unless it’s a prohibition against pork, they’re not even Muslims.  They are, I’d wager, secularists virtually one and all.

This is no coincidence, but a result of subordinating spiritual health to physical health.  A person of faith may believe that he’s enjoined to treat the temple of the soul well, but he will never elevate that imperative over that of caring for the soul itself.  He realizes that this life, relative to eternity, is as a drop of water in an ocean – and it is that ocean voyage for which he is mainly preparing.  Thus, recognizing the reality of God’s law (morality), he understands that of primary importance is avoiding what has traditionally been labeled sin.

But what about when you don’t believe in an afterlife?  This temporal life is then all you see.

And then staying in it for as long as possible can become the most important thing to you.

In fact, it can become obsession.

For where the believer may be mindful of Jesus’ words (I’m paraphrasing) “Do not fear that which just destroys the body; fear that which destroys the soul,” the secularist may believe the body is all there is.  This is, I believe, what has bred the Cult of the Body, with all its newly-minted “sins,” such as overeating, failure to exercise, smoking and drinking.  Why, we even call taxes on the last two “sin taxes.”

So my answer to those who warn of increasing obesity is, “So?”  “But, Duke, don’t you understand?  These people will die younger!”  Other than mentioning that they won’t die nearly as young as aborted babies, again I say, “So?”  We’re all going to die; it’s just a matter of when and how.  And when you realize that relative to the ocean, small, medium and large water drops are indistinguishable, you’ll understand my response.

Returning to a lighter note, I’ll have to now limit my keyboard intake lest this article get too fat.  Before concluding, however, I’ll say that I do have an idea for putting the health Nazis’ designs on a diet.  Since obesity is most prevalent among black women – with 48 percent having, uh, let’s say, generous proportions – cast any and all attacks upon the condition as “racist.”  If this tactic works when the matter is police tests, voter ID, immigration and school suspension, perhaps it’ll work with abdominal distension.

Their clouded atmosphere of questionable information, of most subject matter, has developed into a well earned distrust. They attempt to steer the populous into the direction towards their sick, warped agenda which can be affiliated with any particular person, place or thing. They bellow their own empty headed opinionated non-sense using manipulation of words that interprets their own philosophical viewpoints and statements.

These pre-determined explanations and dialogs places key suggestions, which are totally insulting with anyone that has the intelligence and ability to think for themselves. As though they’re administering this information to individuals that are intellectually challenged, without comprehension, yearning the need for someone to clarify and to define what was already said. This is an insult which further demeans and degrades us as clueless, incompetent morons.

Most news references, especially the main stream liberal press refuses to state the facts no matter how appalling or inhuman, when identifying a selective identification of a perpetrator in any hideous incident. They pick and choose their hostile reporting, which is usually aimed at the safe, easy, non retaliatory subjects. This not only proves they’re cowards, but also conveys a communication travesty to their viewers and listeners.

It’s their civic duty is to investigate the truth and inform honestly. They have lost touch with their true meaning relating to “The Power of the Press” by fabricating mistruths, and fantasizing pathetic past atrocities to manipulate and maneuver society into a frantic rage. They have the audacity to use and justify certain discriminations in races, creeds, colors, sex and religion that supports their liberal ideology, and protects their unholy alliances.

They single out what’s right and wrong, in their own sphere of uselessness, authorizing themselves to become judge, jury and executioner to all those who object. They display their bias, bigotry and cowardice with pride.

Here is a prime example where discerning information is geared to sway the community, which totally disregards the supreme right of every American citizen, who allegedly commits a crime, “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”. The heavily broadcasted incident down in Florida, where a young black man was allegedly shot and killed by a Hispanic White man, brought all types of innuendoes, false description and information which identified him as a racist animal. At that point in time there weren’t even any charges brought against him by law enforcement? This not only made a mockery and field day of our judicial system but it also placed the suspected individual in harms way. There was even a bounty placed upon his head, by the New Black Panther Party. Where was Eric Holder, The United States Attorney General when all this was happening?

How does a scandalous situation, of this caliber happen in America, which indicates the predetermined guilt of an individual without any charges or a trial by his peers? The fact is if any form of violence occurs to this person, then everyone involved should be arrested as accessory to the crime. This form of hangman’s mentality, of mob rule lead by some members of the Press must be addressed. They have a moral obligation to uphold the high standards of reporting non-opinionated investigative truths, without affecting their Constitutional right, because any reckless action on their part could possibly produce consequences.

There was another alleged bias crime, which happened in Norfolk Virginia, The victims were two white reporters. They stated that they were brutally attacked by approximately thirty Black individuals.

These were members of their own profession, in which they didn’t think twice about throwing them both under the bus. Their editor himself refuses to acknowledge that a bias crime was committed, without an investigation, and refuses to conduct one. He even waited to report the incident, to the public, why? If there’s doubt, then investigate? Just don’t assume, and bush it under the carpet. He’s supposed to be an experienced journalist? These two victims now have security because they are receiving death threats.

Why does anything that involves a person of color, it is immediately considered untouchable no matter how violent, uncivilized, brutal, ruthless or heartless, as long as this cruelty is committed against an acceptable prey? It’s never identified as bias, racial, or newsworthy and always swept under the carpet or placed on the back burner. Any violent crime, against anyone, racial or not, if found guilty, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

This form of reverse discrimination in reporting must be protested, by demanding balanced legitimacy. Unfortunately the Caucasians are easiest targets, with no established legal protective organizations. Even our established legal system, has demonstrated partiality, in protecting the rights of the criminal, over the innocent victim, without offering proper legal retributions. These are only a few examples, the list is endless?

Why does the most of the Liberal Press cower and live in fear, authorizing cover-ups and excuses when confronted with real life reality towards any particular group? Aren’t we a nation of laws, with the symbol of blind justice holding a balance scale for all? Or are we now totally accepting anarchy, dog eats dog, every man and women for themselves in their own self defense for survival. Will the laws of the jungle rule, where the lion picks and devours its prey, while the hunter’s arms are tied, and our screams are silenced by ignorance of those in authority? Wake up and smell the roses America, and discover that its sweet smell is camouflaged by the foul stench of hypocrisy.