Is America's governmental power a Right or Privilege

This is my proposal for the first case the Bench shall consider.  The Bench is a venue for 5 conservatives to consider evidence as argued for morality in line with the Constitution.  In this case, the power of the U.S. government to rule and protect its people shall be considered.  Much of what we've heard in the news over the past 8 years has been hype generated by Bush hatred from the left and the history changing media bias complicit with NGO's and PAC's operating from agendas charging the executive branch with everything from orchestrating 9/11 to torture of detainees at GITMO to bypassing the Constitution using modern technology to listen into private conversations of U.S. citizens.  We will attempt to cut through that hype to reach a consensus of our founding fathers' intentions for governmental powers and determine whether those powers are a responsibility and therefor a right or a privilege granted by the American public's ignorance or acceptance.  Keeping in mind that the next president will represent the Liberal ideology and push the envelop with regard to the precedence set by the current president, if we had the authority, would we forbid the executive branch the policies it has prosecuted over the past 8 years?  If so, which ones or to what degree?

The Marketing of Evil

Few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia. Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression."

Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the "gay rights" movement, which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes, faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking America Back

How can Americans take back their nation? The author says the only way we can reestablish our freedom, our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is to break the hammerlock of statism and the notion that moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people's passions and behavior.

"Taking America Back" exposes the weaknesses in America's current political and cultural systems and offers practical solutions, solutions that are real and doable that can revive freedom, decency, and justice in our nation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Liberals have produced a good marketing scheme for their agenda.  The populace have been told big lies for generations and the voters have been sold a bill of goods.  Given the expectations the people hold for the president, how will these policies affect an ignroant populace?  In light of the fact that few voters can describe how our government works, what can we expect the end result to be of the presidents' wide and widening powers?  How is the power struggle between the legislative branch and the executive branch cured.

Homework for the Jurors:

You have rights, the government has privileges 1-3

You have rights, the government has privileges 2-3

You have rights, the government has privileges 3-3

.

These are all videos and will not require a great deal of time to bone up on the issues relating to this case.

According to the latest census information calculated by Dr. Warren Farrell who authored a new book on gender discrimination, women are 1350% times more likely to commit suicide after their spouse has died.  In fact there are a number of factoids you should commit to memory for future reference when bills come up to be voted on.  Here are a few of them:

Women's health gets almost no funding while men's health issues are documented and studies are funded by tax dollars. 
Women are blamed for nearly 100% of violence between men and women when the truth is violence is initiated equally by men and women.
Women die on average 10 to 1 earlier than men.
Girls are scoring behind boys in school in every single area of study except science and math. 
Girls represent 90% of the dropout rate in high school.
The graduation rates are typically 44% girls and 56% boys.
Girls are 1 1/2 years behind boys in reading skills, verbal skills, writing skills.
Girls are over 90% of the discipline problems.
Girls are more likely to be diagnosed ADD.
For the last forty years there has been more medical research done on women than on men but that has changed.
There is no women's health department in any of the 50 states.

Are you outraged yet?  No?  Why, have I got my facts wrong?  What's wrong with my facts?  Surely you've noticed at least one or two are not what you've heard.  In truth, I have everyone of these facts exactly, perfectly wrong.  To correct them, all you have to do is swap male for female and vice versa.. 

Now are you outraged?  I have limited the information thus far so I could have you compare the gender bias against men.  Here are some more factoids:

More than 100 studies, most of them done by feminist organizations have observed that women and men initiate domestic violence equally as often.
Men do not report their injuries or make hospital visits almost to a man if they were obtained through the violence of their spouse.
Men die of 14 of the 15 leading causes of death earlier than women.
The excuse for ignoring this disparity is because they say that men induce their own problems.
Men over 85 are 1,350% more likely to commit suicide than women over 85 when their spouse has died.
Men over 85 are 10 times more likely to die than women over 85 if their spouse divorces them or leaves.

We have to understand that every society in history that has survived has trained their boys to be dispensable.  Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?  is the book Dr. Warren Farrell authored in debate with another scientist.
Marriage Divorce and Child Custody.  During the major successes of the feminist movement, women were saying that men do not have any more right to jobs than do women.  At the same time, when it came to divorce and child custody they were saying that women should have the right to decide who will retain custody of the children.  Okay, so the issue isn't what's right for women or men.  The issue is what's best for the child.  Well, hold on to your hats.  Dr. Farrell did research which led to the book, Father and Child Reunion, and found that what's best for children is for both parents to be equally involved in the child's life in a way that doesn't force the child to leave friends and neighborhood to do time with the other parent and that there is no bad mouthing from mom to dad or dad to mom.  Barring the perfect arrangement, he found that in many national databases recording the conditions of parent/child relationships and the consequential outcomes of their children, the children of single dads do better than children of single moms from about 20 of 26 measures and about equal in another five measures.  It comes down to the boundary enforcement that dads do that really benefit children socially, academically, psychologically, and actually having better physical health as well. 

Loving emotion is important, nobody denies that, but the feminization of our culture has resulted in the harm of our culture.  The elimination of boundaries and the softening of rules has done more to sicken our culture than any amount of spinning can cover.  Assuming that women are the ones who know better what is good for the child or that they are even willing or able to make this the sole reason for their consideration in the height of a divorce is profoundly foolish.  Yet this is exactly what the judges, sociologists, and society in general have done.  Suppose for a moment, sociologists, judges and society at large said of the medical profession, "We have to give doctors the option of whether women should be allowed to practice medicine."  After all, doctors are the ones who would know.  Doesn't work very well for the ethics of professionalism, why should it work for the ethics of parenting?

I am not a parent, but I watched my brother go through this discrimination and literally lose his child because his mother insisted on moving half way across the country.  Granted, my brother was no joy to have as an ex-husband, but discrimination is discrimination.  And men are suffering far more of it these days than are women.  My nephew is now an adult making his own way through life, but I've learned through discussions with my brother that they both regret missing much of their relationship.  (From about 7 years old except summer visits for a few weeks.)  Thank God the boy had a steady man to demonstrate boundaries and discipline so he is a capable, even successful young man entering the police services, but what could have been was entirely taken out of my brother's hands.

I get too many newsletters.  Back a couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article titled 'A Nation at War with Itself'  It would have been nice to have read this article by Newt Gingrich to include a few points about how the war is being fought.  I suppose I could call this a supplemental post, but the newsletter was there sitting in my inbox the whole time.  This happens on a regular basis, but more so in the last month or more.  I've addressed, so I should be able to do a better job of it now.  I've posted the article here so you can read it for yourselves.

Judges overstepping their authority is nothing new.  Newt informs us of the historical precedence of the presidential powers combining with the legislative powers to set them straight on their job description as I described in the original post.  He specifically cites a case pertaining to Habeus Corpus and presidential authority to make policy in regard to enemy combatants.  This authority may not be popular with the America hater crowd, but it is essential to the war effort.  Since we do have a fifth column seated in Congress and since the MSM is complicit with enemies of the state and since the term is coming to an end for the current president, he will not be the presiding president over the correction of the judicial authority.  Will the maverick do it?  Probably.  Depends on how far they go during his tenure.

Congress and the President Need Not Acquiesce to a Tyrannical Court

There is significant precedent in American history for believing that the legislative and executive branches can act to restrict the reach of judicial decisions as well as force the judicial branch into changing its views when they are out of touch with the constitutional values, practices, and traditions of America.

President Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonians successfully fought back against the Federalists' use of the courts to impose their agenda over the will of the people. After the Federalists lost the election of 1800, but before the new Jeffersonian congressmen took office, the Federalists more than doubled the number of federal circuit judges (from seventeen to thirty-five) and packed them with loyal Federalists. The Jeffersonians reacted by simply eliminating all eighteen new federal circuit court judgeships.

President Abraham Lincoln refused to treat the Dred Scott decision, which both declared unconstitutional a federal law that had limited the extension of slavery and that blacks were not citizens under the Constitution, as legally binding on the executive branch. For example, his administration issued U.S. passports to free blacks and signed legislation that placed restrictions on slavery in the federal territories, positions at odds with the Dred Scott decision.

And in June 1942, when German spies who had landed in the U.S. to carry out acts of industrial espionage were captured by the FBI, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted swiftly to signal to the Supreme Court that he was not going to entertain court intervention. First, FDR issued an executive order on July 2, 1942 that the detainees were to be subject to trial immediately by military commission. FDR also made clear to his attorney general what his reaction would be to any writ of habeas corpus: "One thing I want clearly understood . . . I won't give them up . . . I won't hand them to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus." FDR understood the Supreme Court was supreme in the judicial branch but it was not supreme over the other two political branches.

The executive and legislative branches possess clear constitutional powers to check and balance decisions of the judicial branch. The Boumediene decision requires that the executive and legislative branches act to reestablish a constitutional balance among the three branches. I will be writing more about this subject in weeks to come.

		Your friend,
		Newt Gingrich