The Conservatarian

Well, I was an ardent creationist- until I noticed these pictures:

I created this to show the world I was indeed in error. Thanks,

The Conservatarian

http://theconservatarian.blogivists.com/

Normally, I do not post overtly religious content on this blog, but I feel compelled to do so today. I do it without apology, because as a Christian, I feel I need to make a stand for right and wrong, and declare the standards our God has laid before us.

The Sin:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Hanuman_idol_for_Obama/articleshow/3160730.cms 

 Psalm 33:12-22 12  ¶Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. 13 The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. 14  From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. 15  He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works. 16 There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. 17 An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. 18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy; 19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine. 20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield. 21  For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name. 22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.

 The Warning:

If this unrepentant Obama is elected, it will be an abomination, and the people will bring God’s wrath upon themselves. However, God is right in His judgments, and He does all things well. Perhaps God will use this foolish man to bring about a restoration of the country to Him. However, if He does, it will take a long time, and we will suffer for a while, but may He receive glory for it. God desires righteousness, and He tells us that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). It isn’t unreasonable to believe probably half, and likely more than half, of the voting population in this country supports Obama. If so, then as a nation we are guilty of the same thing the church at Galatia was guilty of- returning to false gods and going back to bondage. The Apostle Paul said this:

 ¶Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.  But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? (Galatians 4:8,9).

We will be turned to bondage very shortly. God tapped us on the shoulder with 9/11, and he is tapping us on the shoulder again with the floods in the Midwest, fires in Florida, fires in California, earthquakes everywhere, droughts last year, high fuel costs, high food costs, and economic woes. Tolerance is preached, but Christians are persecuted in other countries. Soon, American preachers will be sent to jail over the words they preach, and it will be under the guise of hate crime legislation. Globally, we are having volcanic activity, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Plague and pestilence are making a return with antibiotic resistant drugs, just to name a few things. Gaiaism (earth worship) in the form of global warming/climate change legislation is upon us. The fools of this world err, not knowing the scriptures which tell us “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” (Romans 8:22). 

The Hope:

God’s people must continue to be lights in this fallen world. Let us proclaim the message of freedom and hope that is found in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. All the things I have written here are already written in the scriptures. Keep in mind, however, that God gives grace to His people. Let us stand in the hope of the glory of God, for Christ is soon returning. We would do well to realize it is most likely, and almost certainly going to get rough before He does. Remember the words of our Savior- when you see these things beginning, look up, for your redemption draws near!

Let us keep in mind, however, our responsibility as believers in Christ, that we have an obligation to pray for our leaders. If Mr. Obama is elected President, I will pray for God to grant him wisdom to lead our country. I pray he will be turned to Christ in the real sense of faith and repentance of his sin, and be redeemed. I will also pray that this idol that is being sent to him will somehow be lost or destoyed. Let us also pray that through all these things, we can see the hand of God move in our country, and that He will be glorified. Keep your heads held high, fellow believers, for God is still in control!

Well, Tennessee’s most famous (infamous?) treehugger has once again proven that eco-activists are not only wrong, most of them are hypocrites as well. According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al’s energy consumption rose 10%. And that is WITH the energy conservation renovations he made to his home. At Snopes.com, one can also consider the inconvenient truth of Al’s energy hungry and decidedly enviromentally UNfriendly home, vs the alledgedly oil-crazed George W. Bush:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST:

House # 1

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and
natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an inconvenient truth.”

Sources:

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, what should the average American think of these facts? Well, for starters, he should immediately recognize the environmental agenda for what it is: it is a means of enslaving and impoverishing the populace through guilt and misinformation. The environmental agenda is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for rising oil prices (because we cannot drill or build refineries), high food prices, and starvation in many areas of the world. It has crippled the freedom to dissent on global warming views, causing many scientists to become pariahs within their fields of study. It has created a sham industry of trading carbon credits, which actually allows companies to POLLUTE MORE if they buy credits from a company that has not polluted as much. One dare not blaspheme the name of Gaia, for her followers will see to it you are labeled as uncaring, unsymapthetic, and get this, even dangerous.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not litter, I am going to try to start a campaign to recycle aluminum cans at work, and I try to conserve whenever I can. However, I do it because it is common sense. The left’s version of doing the right thing ultimately leads to a point where the eco-elite have rule over the people, and place unfair and heavy burdens on them. Instead of each person doing the right thing because they want to, they are taxed into submission until they cannot afford to buy anything they can pollute with. Pretty nifty plan, huh? Oh, and get this, tax the evil corporations until they have to raise their prices, or go out of business. If they raise prices, tax them more so they pay for environmental evils their company has brought upon the earth. And then, when they shut down, the former employees will have to create fires (ooh, that is evil) to stay warm, because they have no other means and cannot afford anything else.

So much for leadership, Al. You are the finest example of the difference between leadership and eco-elitism, and quite frankly we could do much better without your hypocritical bully pulpiting.

It was with quite a bit of alarm that I read this article at inforwars.net today. I was not alarmed because of what was being done in the name of security, I was alarmed by the deafening silence of it. The government is now legally able, within six months, to get a DNA sample from every child born in the United States. Be it from a cheek swab or heel-stick blood sample, the parents will have no right or say whatsoever in the matter of submitting their children’s genetic samples to the government (at least that is how I am reading this).

Let us step back and look at the implications of this genetic data collection:

1. Unconstitutional collection of your or my child’s DNA 
2. Unwilling experimentation on my child’s DNA 
3. Insurance companies datamining to see who is or is not “insurable” based on the genetic predisposition toward certain diseases (cancer, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sach’s, diabetes)
4. The outright lack of neccessity of such a program as this

And America is uttering not a word- no, not even a peep.

It is too late to block it by calling your senator, congressman, or the Oval Office. This act was created right under the noses of the American public. I consider myself pretty well plugged into the media, but I have not heard of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007. Two thousand SEVEN. Last year! And it was signed on May 2nd. We have two options in my opinion: the individual states will refuse to participate (which is unlikely) or we the people can take it to court. Thus far I have read the act, and I can find of no religious or conscientious objection clause in it (if someone knows of one, please point it out to me). This is indeed a frightening thing that has come upon us. I believe Big Brother is trying to become a little god.

Entire aticle at: http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/020507DNA.htm and excerpted below:

——————————————————————————————————–

Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns’ DNA
Health Council, Congressman Ron Paul warn new law could pave the way for a national DNA database
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, May 2, 2008

President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.
Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”

The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”.

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.

Read the full bill here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1858).

One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF; http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/S_1858_NBS-DNAWarehouseFINAL.pdf) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study “secondary conditions” of individuals and their families.
Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

“Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research,” Brase writes. “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research.”

“The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research.”

The other day I was having a conversation with some friends about the electoral college system. It appears that both of my friends feel that this system is antiquated and unfair to the voting populace. I thought I would write a short article about one aspect of the electoral college: balance popular votes with state populations.

The electoral college system was started for two reasons. One, back in the horse and buggy days, it was difficult for people to travel to vote, so this system of vote representation was devised to represent the vote. Secondly, the system was created in order to balance the sheer number of the majority vote with the ability of the the less populated states to have representation.

In the electoral system, each state has a number of electors equivalent to its total Congressional representation, with the District of Columbia receiving three electors. The reason for this is simple. Let me list some major cities for you:

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population)

The population of the top 10 cities in the United States is 25,247,504 (if I punched the numbers in correctly). Now, let us consider that this is 8.4% of the population of 300 million. This does not sound like a big deal, but numbers like this sway the vote. Why else do politicians focus their energies in highly populated areas? Not just for numbers, but electoral votes- they need both. This graphic illustrates this quite well:

These maps show the amount of attention given to each state by the Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of the 2004 election. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29)

Let’s imagine for a minute, for the sake of mathematical simplicity, that there are only 1 million people in the United States. The population is concentrated in two cities, and sparse in the rest of the U.S. Suppose 550 thousand people lived in two cities, New York and Los Angeles. The rest of the population (450 thousand) lived in the rest of the country, evenly distributed in each state, for a total of 9,375 votes per state. Based on this ficitious country’s rules of representation, the 48 states would each get three electoral college votes, for a total of 144 electoral votes. The other two states would get 61 votes each, for a total of 122 electoral votes (again, I am trying to prove a point by having close numbers between the states- this is not how numbers are allocated in real life). Now, the balance of power has shifted away from two highly populated areas to a more evenly distributed balance across the nation. The two cities can not decide the president on their own- it takes other smaller states to decide. These two large city-states have their own special interests, good or bad, that may be different from the smaller states. The city-states are still influential, but they are not all-powerful. Plus, the candidates have to give time to the other states to get elected.

In this very simplified form of the electoral college system, one can see the wisdom of our founding fathers in that the electoral system provides equity and protection to the less populated states from the whims of highly populated states. Our founders were intent on preventing tyranny in any form, whether it was the tyranny of the crown or the tyranny of the states.

A bill called “The Restroom Access Act” may soon bring some relief to 30,000 Tennesseans who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases. I am opposed to this for quite a few reasons:

1) I’m sorry, but it is not the government’s problem to provide facilities for the bowel afflicted.

2) This adds to the slippery slope of government instrusion into private areas.

3) If government can force these businesses to provide this sort of service to people with bowel problems, when will the far stretch to providing quarter to soldiers be forced upon us?

Here is the whole story:

Restroom act would bring Tennesseans relief

http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8205205

A bill called “The Restroom Access Act” may soon bring some relief to 30,000 Tennesseans who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases. Those who suffer from inflammatory bowel diseases often need to instantly find a bathroom, or face an embarrassing consequence. Finding a restroom can be an issue for people like local bank executive Vickie Storm. “My daughter had been diagnosed three years earlier and for me to be diagnosed two years later, I was in denial,” the senior vice-president at Avenue Bank told News 2. Their condition was diagnosed as Crohn’s disease. Both control it through medication, but Storm said so many others out there need help. That is one of the reasons for “The Restroom Access Act.” The measure would provide entry to private restrooms, like those in small businesses without public facilities, for sufferers of inflammatory bowel disease. “We are a society and we all have to live together and sometimes we have to reach out and do things for citizens that have special needs and that is what we have done here,” said Sen. Doug Jackson, a sponsor of the bill. Storm thinks eventually it might mean that she would carry a card informing the business of facility of her disease. “Without having to go into an uncomfortable or embarrassing explanation, just the fact you have this card would allow you to present it so that you would have access to the restroom facility you so desperately need,” she said. The need appears to be heard on Capitol Hill. “The Restroom Access Act” is expected to pass both Houses and signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. 

Has Ron Paul pulled out of the race? No. But the media would have you think so. He is not missing, he has just been dismissed from the attention of the media. From the debates to the primaries and caucuses, the media has had an extremely effective blackout on Dr. Paul. His voice has not been heard in the media, and I think I know why.

The Media is afraid. The fourth estate, which is predicated upon the freedoms of speech and press, is suppressing this man’s voice. He did not have the CEO good looks of Romney. In truth, he looks more like someone’s grandfather than anything else (actually he reminds me of John Mahoney, who plays the elder Crane on the television sitcom “Frasier”). He is only a year and a few days older than John McCain, so age should not be a factor for him, if it isn’t for McCain. He is not the eloquent speaker that Obama is, but at least Dr. Paul speaks on facts, and not emotion. And compared to Hillary, well, enough said there.

America, do you want change? Write in the name of Dr. Paul if he is not on the November Ballot. Vote for him if there is a caucus or primary in your area. I agree with Obama that we need change, but not the kind of change Obama espouses. We need a change back to the gold standard of currency to keep governmental powers and inflation in check. We need a change back to the form of goverment that ensures that states oversee the central government, and not the other way around. We need a military presence on our on shores to stem the tide of illegal immigration. We need to change back to the philosophy of less governement, and more personal reliance. Yes, we need a change to move from the solcialistic policies of today to the independence driven, non-government-dependent value system of our forefathers.

You want a vote for change? Vote for Ron Paul.

by Ron Paul, Dr.   February 13, 2008

Madam Speaker, 

I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies.  Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish.  In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk.  Money makes the transaction process far easier.  Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes. 

This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties:  it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.

Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people.  Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce.  It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments.  A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government.  Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.

At this country’s founding, there was no government controlled national currency.  While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established.  In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins.  Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades. 

On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.”  Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people.  Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency.  In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.

The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws.  Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts.  States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency.  However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws.  We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender.  Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender. 

Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency.  Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase:  bad money drives out good money.  An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold.  Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies.  As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded.  We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver.  The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation. 

These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation.  Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency.  By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.

In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham’s Law no longer holds.  If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society.  Merchants would have been free to reject the king’s coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.

The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints.  One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar.  Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November.  Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued.  None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.

The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California.  California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage.  There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins.  As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and in the interest of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency. 

The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins.  Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes.  Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent.  Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement.  As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases.  The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly.  Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.

Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states.  Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry.  Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year.  Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver. 

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government.  The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral.  Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess.  With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system.  I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/1057/statement-on-competing-currencies/

Well, it appears the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled “that a roommate-finding site (Roommates.com)cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.” (quote from Reuters article, link below)

Now I don’t know about you, but if I am looking for a roommate, I’d be looking for someone with similar tastes as mine. If I am a straight male, I want to board with another straight male. I’d want to know what kind of roommate I was getting. Heck, moral or not, if I was a straight male and wanted a gorgeous, straight, female to bunk with, I’d ask what her gender was and what her, um, proclivities for adventurousness was (that is the libertarian bent in me, I guess, because it is no one’s business what I ask someone else. However, being a Christian, I myself would not do that). However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has specified that asking such questions is now a no-no. Never mind that this is not Equal Housing Opportunity, nor is it discrimination of an UNPROTECTED class (gays), this court has went over and above it’s lawful jurisdiction and said “No, you can not ask that question.”

 So I have a question: does the person looking for a roomate have recourse because he/she suddenly finds out the new roommate is gay? What are other ramifications here? This ruling is a prime example of judicial activism of judges running amok.

For the full article, go to http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0347688720080403?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Now how many of us knew this was ever on the docket at the US Supreme Court?  Or perhaps knew that the justices were giving their ruling this week? I certainly didn’t. Don’t know what I am talking about? Read this excerpt:

States win over President on criminal law issue 

The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court.  The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984).  Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S.  That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.

The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules.   The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said.  And the World Court ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added. (For the full article, go to http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/states-win-over-president-on-criminal-law-issue/). Posted Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 10:10 am UPDATED 1:49 p.m. 

I have a great feeling about this Supreme Court. I believe they are going to be making rules according to the wording of the Constitution, and not make rulings based on the changing whims of societal mores. I especially liked this part:

The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S.  That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.

Finally, checks and balances are being recognized by one branch of our government, at least! I just can’t help but wonder why there was so much in the press last week about the Heller gun case than there ever was over this HUGE case regarding states rights and national sovereignty. Makes you wonder about the agenda of the fourth estate, doesn’t it?