Sam Had It Right

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen."-- Samuel Adams


This has long been my favourite quote from any early American patriot and I wish more people could have it said to them. The passage via sneak attack of the REAL ID Act was an attack on the individual sovereignty and the rights of the individual states, as well. And now we have an early implementer in the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the state of Indiana.

Ostensibly, the BMV is implementing early to inconvenience illegal aliens, without regards to the inconvenience and invasion of the privacy of the people of Indiana. Information gathered by the BMV will be sent to and shared with the Department of Homeland Security. The Indiana BMV has, whether they will admit or not implemented a National ID in the guise of a state drivers license.

Bureau of Motor Vehicles officials say they implemented state rules to comply with the federal Real ID Act passed last year by Congress, which will take effect in 2008. The law demands that states increase the documentation they require for such things as driver's licenses to improve homeland security.
Citizens from those states that don't meet standards could find their licenses aren't accepted as proof of identification to board airplanes or enter federal buildings.

The heart of the problem seems to involve the bureau's revised policy on Social Security cards. A valid Social Security card is mandatory to receive a driver's license.

From The Indianapolis Star.

And there we have it. The odds of the Governor of Indiana, the former Bush administration OMB Director protesting the REAL ID Act or it's implementation is virtually non-existent. In Indiana this travesty will go through and become the law of the land. Despite the costs to the citizens of Indiana, Mitch Daniels and the Federal government will see to it that Indiana becomes a REAL ID beacon.

And here I take my stand and tell the supporters of this act, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen."
No more. I refuse to play this particular political game. I will not be made a number so that you and yours may sleep in your beds and pretend to a false sense of security. I, and many others were against this Act from the onset and spoke against it. With this new action, tho you have created something. You have created another rebel. A Real ID Rebel. Welcome to the rebellion.

I'm Tired Of New Orleans

Sick and tired of it, as a matter of fact. Let's forget about them and concentrate on those who were truly victims of devastation. The people of the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
New Orleans, a favourite city of mine with years of memories for me and my family, did not get hurt as badly as the Gulf Coast to the east. The Crescent city suffered some damage, some flooding and damage due to incompetency and humans. The Mississippi Gulf Coast, in comparison lost everything. The devastation was, and still is total for miles in from one side of the Mississippi Gulf Coast to the other. But, to hear the media tell it the only place really damaged was New Orleans.

Flooding is one thing. Complete destruction is another.


Scenes like this are all too common along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Even the worst pictures from New Orleans are no match for the levels of destruction that we have seen wreaked upon the coastal communities. Large sections of multiple cities have been scoured from the face of the Earth.

My family and I took our recent vacation to the Mississippi Gulf Coast this past summer, as we often do. We visited places from my childhood, went to the beaches and restaurants and took our children to see the places I grew up in. All of the places we went to are gone now. Not damaged, not flooded, not blown over. Gone. The White Cap Restaurant at the Gulfport Marina, gone.


Perhaps the owners of the White Cap will rebuild. Perhaps Marineland will rebuild. Maybe Ship Island Excursions will rebuild. But, as long as the press keeps America's eyes on New Orleans the Gulf Coast will be very slow to rebuild.

As someone who really wishes the government to stay out of the mess, as much as possible I would much rather see private companies thinking about the Gulf Coast than New Orleans. Just as many minority families in Mississippi have been impacted by the devastation wrought on the coast maybe more, but the cameras were there incidentally while on their way to New Orleans.

I'm tired of a nightly update on New Orleans. I want nightly updates on the people who truly suffered the greater loss.

"Do You Bruce, Take......."

It never ceases to amaze me that when a court orders some legislative body to fix a Constitutional oversight in any given state, that certain people who have an agenda they wish to espouse come forth and protest, with great vigour and much posing, for the cameras and then proceed to show the depths of their ignorance where the Constitution and our Founders are concerned. When our Founders gathered in congress to decide what sort of nation they would bring forth, they decided, one and all, that we would be something unique upon the face of the Earth. They would create a nation based upon the rule of law and the proposition that all men, (and women, by extension) were created equal in the eyes of the law. The rule of law which they set forth, based upon the works of the greatest minds in history, have seen that rule expanded to cover people once held in bondage as slaves, expanded to cover and comfort. as best as is possible, the people from whom so much of this country was taken. It covers the immigrant fleeing the wrathful hand of the tyrant or king. It shields the man and woman of differing racial backgrounds who fall in love and marry, for they, like all citizens of this country are treated equally under the rule of law.

But, this does not hold true where some are concerned. There are segments of our population who are not treated as equals under the law. They are not allowed the basic privileges given to their fellow Americans as a matter of course. If their loved one lies ill in a hospital bed they have no rights to visit, to instruct as to their care and wishes. If their helpmate dies they have no property rights that they have not had to beg the state for. If they have children the state, at the behest of certain agenda harbouring individuals, may come forward and seize the children, despite the best of home conditions. In the legal system one's significant other may be forced to testify against their loved one, unlike other couples afforded the legality of spouses not being forced to testify against each other.

Yes, friends I am talking about our fellow citizens who are homosexual, be they male or female. They do not currently have the same, full rights under law that you and I, as heterosexuals do. And that is a slap in the face for our Constitution, the men who devised it and the many who have sacrificed their lives, fortunes sacred honours to defend it.

I know that at this very moment some of you readers can feel veins throbbing in your heads and your teeth hurt from the grinding they are doing but I need you to step back, take a breath and set aside your preconceptions of what is, and is not, Constitutional. Not one single person can, in good conscience say that another American should be denied their basic rights, especially those enumerated in the Amendments to the Constitution we know as the Bill of Rights. Our Founders enumerated the most important of our basic, Universal Rights in that section and they also let it be known, via the 9th and 10th Amendments, that every other right not listed belonged to the people, (that's us, folks).

We heterosexuals enjoy many rights in common with our spouses without the necessity of jumping through hoops to attain those rights, (or jumping through hoops attempting to gain those rights only to have some pencil pushing bureaucrat deny them to us). We may exchange and dispose of property at will, without the interference of the State or lawyers (in most cases).
We may dictate to physicians what type of treatment our spouses shall receive, who is, or is not to visit, when care may be suspended or halted (as long as we are not in Florida), and what shall be done with our spouse in the event of a catastrophic illness. Our fellow citizens who are gay do not enjoy this basic right, no matter how long, how committed, or how strong their relationship. I know gay couples who have been together longer than my wife and I have been married and it pains me to see that they cannot share in the same basic rights as we do. And it is all because the State will not grant them the same sanction that they granted to me and my wife, or that was granted to you and your spouse.

In recent years activists, (that's not a bad word, folks) in the gay community, along with civil libertarians have lobbied the various States in order to secure these basic rights for their fellows. In some cases they have enjoyed moderate successes but, all too often they have met with failure. Not for any moral or ethical reasons but for the simple reason that the legislatures, courts, and their fellow citizens are ignorant of basic Constitutional writings. Our Founders wrote the Constitution so that every man and woman could read it and understand it. There was to be no defining of what "is" is. It was written in English in such a way that the "common man" could understand it. Politicians obviously are among the Constitutional illiterati, as are many judges and an overwhelming majority of the modern day citizenry of our country. Let's take a quick look, shall we?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, where does it say that we shall deny our fellow citizens the rights accorded to their peers? It doesn't say it anywhere. But it is certainly implied that our homosexual citizens should enjoy the same State granted rights as heterosexuals, doesn't it? I don't see any mention at all of targeted rights, or rights for heterosexuals only. Do you?

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And, I really must ask you, what part of the 14th Amendment do so many people fail to understand? I don't see anything there, or anywhere else that says, "Unless, of course you're homosexual." The odd thing is that we, as a nation, have been here before. We have heard the rhetoric, the so-called morality arguments, the religiously based arguments and all the chicken little screams of impending doom and destruction. In the now famous court case of Loving vs. Virginia, in 1967 it was stated categorically that laws against miscegenation were unConstitutional. That freed people of all races to marry as they wished regardless of skin colour.

At the time of the first trial, the Lovings they were convicted of miscegenation by a judge who based his legal decision on the same type of "logic" that others are today applying to the issue of gay marriage. He, and all the anti-Constitutionalists of the day, ignored the fact that we are a nation founded on the rule of law, and not a backwoods theocracy.

It is interesting to note that many of the same organisations speaking out so vehemently today against the rights of our homosexual citizens are the same ones who spoke out against inter-racial marriages, civil rights for minorities, and racial integration in our schools just a few short decades ago. It seems hard to imagine that, in a new century, the same retrograde thinking that allowed some people to be kept at the back of the bus is alive and well.

I have heard many people speaking out against this issue. But, I have yet to hear even one argument against it which can be borne up by our Constitution. The majority of arguments against this are based upon religious beliefs as put forth by various people and groups with a decided agenda. And other arguments against it utilise logic in ways that no philosopher at any place or in any time could make sense of.

"Marriage is a sacred bond." I hear this one all the time. And yet, divorce rates are at all time highs and divorce is still legal (apparently none of these folks is prepared to outlaw divorce, which is obviously a vastly greater threat to the "sanctity" of marriage). The fact of the matter is that at one time in our history marriage was a church recognised bonding for purposes of love, property, and money. Nowadays, marriage is a State sanctioned bonding requiring the permission of the powers that be and churches have no say in the matter.

"Homosexuality is a choice and should not be protected by law." Given the way that gay people are treated in the many societies around the world I find this to be one of the more ludicrous statements to ever issue forth from the mouths of the masses. No human being would choose to be gay given the depredations inflicted upon them by their fellows, States, and societies. The fact that modern science has yet to find the genetic sequence which determines ones predisposition for homosexuality does not mean that it doesn't exist. I think many of these folks are just afraid that there is a gene for homosexuality and they might be carriers. Many of these same people are philosophically allied with the pro-life movement and I cannot help but wonder if they would change their stance on that particular issue if there were a genetic test which could determine whether or not their unborn children might be gay? It might also be pointed out that ones religion is a choice. Should we therefore strip away the protections afforded religion by our Constitution? I don't think so.

"They will be an added burden on (Social Security, the Tax system, the Insurance Industry, Small Business, etc, etc, etc...)." One: They already pay taxes and do not garner the same benefits and protections as their fellow Americans. Two: They already have money stolen from them for Social Security. Money that is given to SS beneficiaries who are heterosexual. Is that fair? As for the others...there will be no more burden for any of those than there is currently if they hire or insure a heterosexual. Any citizen who pays taxes is entitled to the same rights and protections as any other.

And as for the outlandish "slippery slope" arguments we have heard from some folks...I won't even address that foolishness in depth. Marriage is a bond between consenting adults, not animals and humans, not children and adults, not inanimate objects. If a legal recognition of gay marriage results in a recognition of polyamorous marriages then all I can say is, "So what?". As long as all parties concerned are consenting adults it is none of our business.

So, let's take a moment to think about the rights we share in common with our spouses, and those rights that our children share, or will someday share with theirs and see if it is possible to overcome a few personal prejudices in order to keep our Constitution strong, intact, and well defended. I am sure that many of our Founding Fathers would have found the subject of gay marriage to be personally distasteful, but I have read what they have written and I know that they, unlike many today might at least try to set aside their personal prejudices and uphold that wondrous document they had created. Liberty for one, is liberty for all.

Barring a complete separation of State and marriage, (something to be greatly desired) recognition by the States should not be impeded by anyone. Special interests, the Feds, industries, whomever they all need to stand aside and put their agenda aside in the interest of equal rights under the rule of law.

And as for the rest...a few words from one of your sponsors, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".

In Liberty.

The 6th Amendment And Durance Vile

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


If ever any amendment to our Constitution has taken a severe beating, to the point of death, then it is a certainty that it is the 6th Amendment. No other Amendment is so routinely ignored by judges, lawyers, jurors, and the judicial system itself, as this one is ignored. The saddest thing is that no efforts are ever made to conceal the abuses of the 6th Amendment, indeed, it is so commonplace now, that most people take it as a matter of course that the abuse is the norm.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

This is one of the fundamental rights laid forth in the Bill of Rights by our Founders. An essential liberty that incorporates basic fairness, as well as fiscal and societal responsibilities. If an accused person is imprisoned until their trial then the State bears the responsibility of supporting that person until the trial, often at considerable expense to the taxpayer. And while that person is imprisoned their family also suffers economic depravation that may require them to seek public assistance for their very survival; this is especially so in the case of the poor. And when the accused has been released on bail this should apply as well, since the incentive to "jump bail" is much greater, even if they are innocent.

It is in the best interest of all parties, but especially the taxpayer, that trials be swift. Today though prosecutors will stretch cases out as long as possible in the hopes of cutting a deal with an accused person or to make sure that an appropriate amount of exposure is provided for the case by the media, thereby slanting public and jury opinions in their favour.

Many states have speedy trial laws in addition to the 6th Amendment. My current state of residence is one of them. A few short weeks ago I watched as a tough, law and order prosecutor completely dropped the ball and failed to bring case against an accused murderer to trial in time. The accused is now free, walking the streets and having, one assumes, a happy holiday season. Of course, the same cannot be said for his victim, may she rest in peace.

Since the advent of the USA PATRIOT Act even this fundamental right has been assailed. Recent trials of "suspected" terrorists have had large portions of their proceedings closed to the public, ostensibly for reasons of "national security". While this is within the bounds of reason for the court, it has been pointed out that it is the prosecution who has requested these closures. The right to a trial in public, as protected by the 6th Amendment, is a right which belongs to the defendant, not to the prosecutor. We are also endangering this particular amendment with the current administration’s continued threats to move the trials of "suspected terrorists" to secret military tribunals. The 6th Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because our Founders had seen the English Court of Star Chamber and the French lettre de cachet and the abuses these heaped upon basic liberties.

"…by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law...."

Other than the "impartial jury" section, this is one of the few parts of the 6th that sees relatively little abuse. The few times that a case is sent to a court outside of the area in which the crime was committed it is in an effort, usually in vain, to obtain a semblance of a fair trial. Finding an impartial jury, though, is a virtual impossibility in this day and age. With the sheer volume of information that is transmitted and seen on a daily basis by the average citizen the chances of a person being unbiased or uninformed in a jury trial is virtually impossible. When even the smallest crime makes the 6 o'clock news what is a person to do? Trust to the good will of their fellow man to be impartial in a day and age where everyone has a reasonably informed opinion?

"…to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…"

Somebody get the ointment. This poor section of the 6th has taken the world's worst beating and has been left to die in the ditch. The Federal government, in collusion with state and local police agencies, has seen to it that this section of the 6th Amendment is, as far as they are concerned, null and void. I'm not going to cite case names and numbers for this, I will simply point you in the direction of virtually any "Drug War" case. Confidential witnesses, (historically known as "stoolies"), are commonplace in these cases and their identities are almost always withheld from the defence and the jury. Warrants are routinely issued on the "word" of "confidential government witnesses" who never have to attend the trial of the accused.

Following closely in the steps of these frequently used tactics in the failed "Drug War" are the prosecutors and federal investigators in charge of our latest effort, "The War on Terror." Most notably we have seen the Federal case against Zacharias Moussaoui, for complicity in the events of September 11th, 2001. The Federal prosecutors refused to allow the defence to call witnesses who are in federal custody at this time, in an attempt to clear himself of the charges against him. The Prosecution continued to argue against this, citing (once again) reasons of national security, despite the fact that there was no overriding, nor compelling reason to do so as any refusal is a violation of a defendant's 6th Amendment rights. One would think that the government lawyers who, we presume, attended a school of law would be aware of this, but apparently they are not. Of course the presiding judge was aware of it and had made it abundantly clear that she would not allow such a violation to occur in her court. Not to be outdone, the Federal prosecutors threatened to move the proceedings to a secret military tribunal, where Mr. Moussaoui will be given a fair trial, found guilty and hanged. Goodness only knows what the status of poor Mr. Jose Padilla is, or will be. He has no apparent rights any more, as we have seen by the new charges against the man.

"....and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Fortunately, there are few judges that will allow someone to appear before them without having the assistance of legal counsel. Of course, if the federal government has you in custody as a "suspected terrorist" of some sort then all bets are off. You, like Jose Padilla, may have to wait years in secret prisons to get to the point were they will charge you. It has not been the policy of our country to hold a prisoner in durance vile. One must wonder what it takes in this new world order to gain access to legal counsel? Or to even be charged with a crime and have evidence and witnesses presented? The 6th Amendment is no help if you cannot even be afforded those rights afforded you by the 8th, as well, does it?

Welcome to our brave, new world. The Bill of Rights, Void Where Prohibited by Law.