factbat.com

The problem with the subject of male homosexuality within contemporary American society is that everbody but Elvis appears to have an opinion as to what these men's rights and responsibilities are; regardless of the fact that the majority of Americans are never, actually, directly affected by male homosexual behavior.

There are females with an opinion, unattractive and obese men with an opinion, politicians, special interest groups, human rights organizations, and any number of other literal "outsiders" whom are incessently brow beating the primary victims of homosexual males with a protagonist plethora of boisterously bombastic, and nearsighted, opinions which invariably ignore the rights of any actual vested party to the opposition.

While it is certainly true that all people in a society are affected by male homosexuality - and many of them negatively so - the fact is that those whom are primarily affected are young and adolescent boys, and attractive men. And the manifestations of injuries caused them are as diverse as the people damaged.

America is a horrifying place for an intelligent, attractive - heterosexual - single man to live in these days. There is almost nobody worth talking to, or hanging-out with. The adult males who aren't idiots or homosexuals are either married or in a serioius relationship, and thus, while they may not be ogling your noodle in the restroom, are generally intolerably ignorant and boring, regardless of their mental capacity.

Moreover, if an adult male is particularly interesting and youthful to the eye, the chances of any man treating him with reasonable regard is extremely slim. And the behaviors exibited by homosexuals are vampish, stealthy and vicious. Nearly inhumane in their perversely sexual nature, wherein the object of affection becomes entirely obscured by obsessive, deviant desires.

As for the subject of pedophilia and the existence of organizations such as NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) -- which actually exists regardless of the fact that it is unconstitutional -- there does not appear to be any lobbyists, or their political counterparts, who give a rat crap about the kids or the young and impressionable. At least not enough to actually protect their interests by staying out of the "same-sex marriage" debate. Or protecting child sovereignty by restricting adoption to qualifying, safe households with both a male and female parent. Or prohibiting the funding of abortions with federal and state monies -- i.e. tax dollars of even those whom act sexually responsible, and do not engage in killing babies, nor agree with those who do.

America's children are first to be dragged into the epicenter of the fracturing grounds of obscenity, slipping through the cracks of this nation's foundation as the documents which bind and secure it are distorted and denied by a bloated and blustering percentage of political hacks. And now the primary perpetrators of shameless perversion are being allowed to play "house" with America's homes. Pretending to marry eachother, and adopting young lives whom are not in any way able to give informed consent, as they are relegated to veritable guinea pigs of impetuous idealism in the laboratories of mad sociology.

Likely, these bright-eyed national resources are so often neglected and marginalized by the Washington "Pansy Politics" machine for the simple fact that they are mostly silent victims whom typically are too young to legally vote. And rarely are politicians noted for their generosity and honor. Excepting, of course, those very-few, staunchly-egalitarian and reliable statesmen such as Ron Paul. A man who does not merely go-around kissing babies for cameras, he is an obstetrician who has delivered many of them.

It really is high-time that this nation, as a whole, begins to actually treat children with the respect and dignity they deserve. But, unfortunately, that conversation cannot even be engaged until the majority of men and women confine their social skills to building respectable and functional relationships on a regular basis, and quit lying to their children...about anything!

Further complicating matters in this veritable "who's who" of tabu is the fact that far too many Americans find it fascinating to precociously indemnify even the worst of homosexual depravity by claiming that heterosexuals also abuse children, rape and kill each other, idefensibly pronouncing homosexuals somehow equally qualified to procure primary status within society.

However, the fact is that regardless of the quid pro quo of animosity and abuse that occurs exclusively between males and females in this society, there is no reciprocal blame or behavior, whatsoever present between adult males of diverging moral conduct.

Heterosexual men and women, both, are equally responsible for the despicable debacle sex has become in this nation. The majority of adults treat sexual intercourse as if it were a carnival ride, lining up like juveniles at the barker's belt.

Few Americans -- heterosexual or homosexual -- have any real respect for the act of procreation in its literal sense, and even less for the spark of life, as so many callous deviants argue it reasonable to circumvent, manipulate, debase and destroy it on a regular basis.

However, much unlike the "war of the sexes", there is no equal perversion occurring between homosexual males and heterosexual males. Heterosexual males whom become the focus of homosexual males' salacious interests are not in any way contributing to the devolving, predatory environment these deviants typically cultivate. And are rarely, if ever, anything but stalked, spied on, flashed, attacked, manipulated, and generally treated like crap by carnal creeps of their own gender.

It is truly a nauseating realm of twisted torment to be the object of sexual obsession and repression by both genders in America, suffocating in a cesspool of indiscriminate denial and neglect, gawked at and mocked by blind passion that renders the few of conscionable character socially invisible to an empire of eyes.

The rights of the individual are placed in imminent peril by special interests when people are granted rights based on any choice, whether it be sexual orientation, political affiliation, religious belief or personal determination.

Homosexually behaving persons are no more or less entitled to their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" than anyone else. Inalienable rights are equally afforded or they would not be inlienable.

However, homosexuals are being allowed to encroach upon "life" in their open denial of the crucial elements of gender relations and procreation, defiling the institution of Marriage. Upon "liberty" in their constant clawing at social real estate, swearing to destroy it rather than lose it as they grope gyrating genitalia in parades celebrating their choice to flamboyantly flaut natural law. And upon "the pursuit of happiness" in that they have certainly done everything they felt they could get-away-with in making this author's life as miserable as inhumanely possible.

Moreover, the "gay" group is no less a religious one than is Christianity or Catholocism. They are merely differing doctrines of an identical structure, based entirely on belief rather than on "those truths we find to be self evident."

How unremarkable that yet another group of sterilized progressives, weaving a web of distorted perception, emulates and romanticizes the demise of humanity. Just one way in which monotheists and homosexuals are similarly deviant.

But I digress. The pressing point is that regardless of anyone's opinion, this aberrant group -- according to the United States Constitution's very first amendment -- is precluded from official recognition by The State. And thus off-limits to the personal aspirations of any legislative body which seeks to tip the balance of their approval, or peceived equanimity, within society.

One noteable parameter of capacity which characterizes American propriety -- and indemnify's this analysis -- is the very real fact that choices make the person. And thus, people of any free society are gradiently unequal, regardless of the levels of equal opportunity which may exist within their collective environment.

Unless, of course, every person in the nation is forced to think the same way, and believe the same things. Which, as everyone knows, is the complete antithesis of Americanism, and a social fabric far too easily tailored to authoritarian bodies of corruption, oppression and brutality.

The diversity of thought, and thus self-determination of individuals, is the only existential factor capable of preserving the posterity of this species. And no monochrome mentality of any kind possesses the elements of discovery that are so critical to human survival.

No person's rights exist above or beyond their choices, and thus, actively biased persons -- such as homosexuals -- remain legally accountable to anyone they may injure, due to either deviant or negligent behaviors.

Just as a plumber will never be equal to a brain surgeon, in capability or specialty, a homosexual will never be equal to a heterosexual, in capacity or diversity; and a society composed entirely of homosexuals would physically disappear in less than 100 years without medical manipulation.

Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with such discriminations, or finds them offensive, is more than welcome to have their head examined by Roto Rooter. It could only be an improvement.

Congressman Ron Paul, a true conservative republican from the state of Texas, has been the voice of reason and sober analysis within this nation's legislative body for decades, indefatigably honoring his oath of office as he courageously and unceremoniously upholds, protects and defends the principles of equal opportunity and personal accountability outlined in the documents so long ago drafted by America's founding fathers. And he has done so with a grace and poise that is rarely, if ever, seen - and even less appreciated - on capitol hill.

Dr. Paul, an obstetrician (i.e. a champion of the gift of life) who has delivered thousands of babies during his fastidious career, is so dedicated to this country, and its promise of liberty, that he graciously eschews his own personal viewpoint on "right to life" out of respect for the constitutional values of autonomy and accountability which indelibly place the "power to choose" - and thus the duty to correct any inequity created - directly in the hands of the people and the state legislatures wherein they elect to reside.

His ability to speak, absent the aid of a teleprompter, on any topic, to large crowds of people, with credible confidence and accountability belies a noble soul which proves him to possess the leadership qualities of an illustrious Captain, commanding spirited action through example rather than callous threats and demands; thus courageously preserving life in the face of death rather than complacently delivering subjugate flesh to the slaughter.

Under a Ron Paul presidency, the power of this nation's national defense would exceed all others for the past fifty years, while simultaneously reducing the military budget by streamlining the chain of command, opening channels to communication rather than blind collaboration, and bringing nation-building troops back home where they are most needed.

Ron Paul is quite obviously a man who literally resonates with the principle forces of nature as he clearly defines his position to be that of a public servant who's unwavering compliance with the "truths we find to be self evident" prohibits him from misusing the Executive Office as a station of power.

It is the man who readily admits his powerlessness over others whom remains prepared to "hit the ground running" in defense of all.

Paul has been delivering the identical message of limited government, fiscal responsibility, legislative accountability, transparency, American self reliance, free market economy, auditing the Federal Reserve, and respecting the inalienable rights of all people, during his entire time in office. He is not simply mouthing the words like so many other candidates whom are now agreeing with Dr. Paul because his logical and ethical analogies have become popular sentiments.

Remarkably, one of the only accusations Paul's opponents can sling at him is that he is allegedly racist. And merely due to the fact that a few - less than objective - pamphlets which voiced concerns about the illicit actions of racial groups were printed with Dr. Paul's organization's name on them. And his opponents publicly accuse him of bigotry regardless of the fact that Dr. Paul has denounced the statements as obscene and unwarranted, and has explained that he never had any specific knowledge of the statements, or any direct affiliation with those who printed them.

Furthermore, Dr. Paul has always demonstrated a clearly unbiased character in both word and deed in all of his personal and professional affairs. And there is not one example anywhere of him ever behaving even remotely racist; either for or against anyone.

The first of two guarantees in this article is that Ron Paul does not even possess the ability to be a racist. His primary focus, directed pointedly at personal accountability and autonomy, does not provide the room necessary for a scope of racially biased dissemination; thus preventing him from discriminating against anyone based on a birthright attribute such as the color of their skin, their gender or nationality.

Some would also attempt to claim that Dr. Paul wants to "legalize drugs", insinuating that his supporters are merely criminals. However, this mendaciously deleterious sentiment - denigrating a great deal of law abiding, hard working and intelligent citizens of significant note - ignores Dr. Paul's conctrete Constitutional compliance, since he has only ever sought to "decriminalize" the act of smoking cannabis (as California has done), and informed the public that this nation's Constitution does not allow the government to prohibit, by law, the use of any illicit substance. This nation's founding documents only provide protection against the parameters of criminality, of which the "freedom of choice" issue of drug use does not even come close to satisfying.

His support for relaxing the government's strangle-hold on the illicite drug trade is the result of a reasonable and honorable position, wherein he realizes that Richard Nixon's profligate "War on Drugs" has shamelessly destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of unwitting, emotionally exasperated, people, and literally overnight built the empires of the most brutal and powerful criminals this world has ever seen.

Those who have found themselves in an environment which drives them to seek escape from reality are not merely suffering from drug addiction. These people are an pervasive example of our most severe societal dysfunctions, and are easily rehabilitated when one truly disseminates a reasonable acount of their plight, thus seeking to indemnify the persons themselves rather than their addiction.

Ron Paul is a man who full-well understands the gravity of this nation's currently perilous situation, and the fact that "the government does not have the right to tell the people what to do", or what to like or not like. He realizes that it has been the government's excessive meddling in the personal affairs of the people which is responsible for the many meteoric eruptions and cataclysmic crashes - both social and economic - that have nearly torn this nation assunder over the last century.

The government's responsibilty is to uphold, protect and defend this nation's Supreme Law of the Land; namely, the United States Constitution. It is neither their right nor their responsibility to create special rules for specific groups of people or individuals, nor take sides on any issue other than that wich shall reflect the primary tenets of this nation's founding documents.

Unlike Dr. Paul, many in this nation's government exibit absolutely no respect, whatsoever, for The Constitution, or its principles. But, on the contrary, seek only to craft orations rife with empty words which they can spew upon the masses, riling them with obscenity in an effort to procure, or retain, a position of authority.

Unfortunately, this exposes the fact that America's citizens are the ones whom are, first and foremost, responsible for the corrupt debacle the government has become. Much like the majority of politicians, the majority of this nation's citizens have no respect for their Constitution, as they incessantly demand that those they vote for ignore their oath office, and instead act in deference to the collective bidding of constituents, regardless of whether their demands are Constitutional, or many times, even ethical.

Barrack Obama was primarily elected by people who were expecting him to take sides against those whom they despise. The majority of those who voted for Obama are people who live a vengeful and recalcitrant existence, blaming any number of people and places for their personal predicament. Many of these people are the "occupiers" and malcontents who believe that the government should be granted the power to take from the rich and give to the poor.

The majority of Obama's supporters appear to be shameless racists, and have been rewarded with extreme bigotry on many levels, regardless of the fact that Obama campaigned - quite deceptively - as the one who would end racism in this country. The problem is that Barack Obama's underlying message - for those who were listening - was that he would merely seek to tip the scales in the opposite direction.

Just as poorly motivated are those who voted for the George Bush's, primarily because they were both "company men" who could be counted on to accept personal rewards for protecting the criminal exploits of the bankers and Wall Street cronies, while simultaneously crafting a web of control that would allow the felonious Federal Reserve, the Clinton coddled IMF, and the Kissinger crafted Counsel on Foreign Relations to enter into unabashed nation building.

Truth be told, all of the Bush men are depraved hawks who are entirely willing to feed every last one of this nation's patriotic sons and daughters to the gold plated war machine that lines their pockets with oil-stained dollars.

Contrarily, Ron Paul is the kind of man who, as president of the United States, would actually save lives during any armed clash of ideals, by preventing naked aggression with reasonable conflict, and thus preserving humanity's natural proclivity to disagree. The man, himself, is an expression of progress in that he never attempts to avoid dissention, but rather welcomes it with aplomb. His unwavering respect for the purity of the argument sets him apart from nearly every other legislator on the hill.

Paul's decorum during nationally televised debates shows him to be an expressly shrewd negotiator who will not bend to weak winds, and will force any true threat to bellow its impediment. He, as a congressman, routinely votes against bills of his own crafting if other legislators have introduced unconstitutional amendments and pork barrel spending into its text in their attempt to sneak them through an unsuspecting body of voters.

Dr. Paul is, of course, a kind and sharp spoken man, his is the nature of a true closer. A man moved not by petty regards of blustering sycophants and despots, yet sensitive to the quizzical glance cast by the oft-disregarded and marginalized granite of this nation's foundation; the working class.

Ron Paul is a man who, as president, would steer America's ship back onto its initial course of true prosperity, braving the swells of carpetbaggers and califates which have smothered nearly all of the last ten presidencies with a mendacious morbidity of pleas for the plight of the poverty stricken and oppressed, cutting their cream nearly to the bottom

Ron Paul's message is that of capabilities rather than disabilities, heart rather than hope. His egalitarian presence, seasoned with a paucity of pragamatism, is the essence of a character rich in personal accountability, seeking to master the equations rather than pretend to manipulate the solutions.

This nation need not suffer the poor, but rather, properly reward the efforts of the many whom suffer the rich. Take not from the wealthy, for it is the frugal whom have gifted them their station. Men are not created equal, simply equally allowed. The essential formulae must be designed to shift the balance by reducing poverty with nothing more than an increase of equal opportunity, and thereby bless this nation, as it so well deserves.  

Take heart, one and all, for this nation is still so great that, against all odds, it created a Ron Paul...Yeah, baby!!! And he has been serving this nation like a benevolent and loving father for decades, shining like a beacon of liberty at the edge of a jetty staunchly piercing this nation's pounding sea of sanguine senility and powerful corruption.

The man possesses an unflappable courage few even understand, and is a leader of the finest order.

So the question remains; is America truly worthy of - or ready for - a "Ron Paul Presidency"?

This author worries that it is not. And for anyone who disagrees, I dare you...no, I double dare you, prove me wrong, and vote for this honorable man. Vote for an executive public servant who will hold you accountable to the principles you claim to fight for.

I challenge you all, prove your true worth. Prove you are a real American, and vote for a just commander in chief...vote for Ron Paul.

Guaranteed, once this nation gets a taste of Dr. Paul's executive office, his re-election will be by a landslide.

It is likely that the most conclusive evidence exposed by the Casey Anthony trial is the evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there are many American citizens whom would sell their very soul to the dark side, and flush their entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, and every ounce of the freedom and liberty these documents protect them with, down the toilet. If they could just be allowed to employ their ignorant vengeance and feral hatred as tools of reprisal against another person, regardless of the fact that there is no proof that the person was guilty of the crime for which they were indicted.

This nation is being destroyed by the citizens because far too many of them have no true respect for the rule of law, or the fact that it is inexplcably confined to a protective capacity. Instead, the majority of this nation's populous consistently demands that the law be employed as a mechanism of reprisal and punishment, where far too often the penalties are expected to reflect the court of public opinion rather than that of the Judiciary.

This is the primary reason why corporations are being allowed to "get away with murder", both figuratively and literally, but the individual is consistently placed in jeopardy of life and limb for much less injurious acts.

The unfortunate facts surrounding the Casey Anthony trial are many, however, they primarily consist of those which show the prosecution's case to be so full of holes it would not hold peanut butter.

While it may be true that there are facts and evidence which would support a finding of guilt, the primary question is "guilty of what?". The prosecution failed to include any reasonable suspicion of murder in the case. Furthermore, they obviously refused - or simply neglected - to base their indictment of Casey on those things they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The primary method of indictment was almost entirely hinged on various forms of circumstantial evidence, wherein jurors were expected to draw their own conclusions as to what the evidence maintained. Regardless of how convincing any prosecutor can present his or her case - requesting or begging that jurors base their decisions on the conclusions reached by the prosecution - this environment of mere supposition is not one which is hospitable to the scope of objectivity required from a jury.

The job of a jury in a criminal case is clear: to weigh the facts, and only the facts, presented by both parties in determining whether the prosecution has presented their case for guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". The evidence sustaining these facts is such that it is the only malleable instrument in the case, since the jury's job is also to determine whether the evidence presented at trial is such that it can be conclusively determined to be fact, or based on fact - as opposed to evidence which can only be expected to support a finding of suspicion and probability based on mere supposition.

The jury's job is not one of assuming facts to exist, or making determinations of guilt or innocence based on assumptions. Neither is the jury obligated - nor even allowed - to introduce into the case anything that was not presented by either party at trial.

This structure of impartiality is critical to the maintenance of the legal system, and is the foundation of the freedom and liberty that all Americans enjoy.

That so many citizens of this nation have proven themselves to be quick to undermine this crucial structure, and debase the very Constitution that protects them, in an effort to persuade the law to wield a gavel of passionate vengeance - seduced by an atmosphere of mere "belief" that a person is guilty of an infamous crime - is an extremely worrisome development. And their behavior goes a long way in exposing the fact that a vast number of American citizens neither understand nor respecting their freedom, and thus are in great peril of destroying it with a "mob mentality".

This social sentiment is especially destructive to a democratic nation such as the United States, where the politicians have proven time and again to be more than willing to exploit such unconstitutional mentalities for their own gain, and at nearly every opportunity.

The prosecutors in the Anthony trial failed miserably - as they rightly should have - because they neglected to confine their case to the facts. And instead intended to fabricate an atmosphere of simple "belief" based on emotions and expectations. They never presented a factual finding that Casey was guilty of murder, especially that of aggravated, or first degree, murder. There was only evidence of neglect-after-the-fact for failing to report her daughter missing. As well as reasonable suspicion that Casey had intimate knowledge of her daughter's disappearance.

For the prosecution to have failed to initiate investigations based on this evidence, and confine their efforts to uncovering the facts which would conclusively determine what, how, where, when and why Casey did, or didn't, do whatever it is she did or did not do, is what caused their case to crumble under the scrutiny of the jury.

Simply the fact that Caylee's body was found gagged with duct tape, and bound in a laundry bag from the Anthony home, does not prove that Casey murdered her daughter. Nor does it conclusively show evidence of intent on the part of Casey.

There is always the possibility that her daughter, Caylee, did actually drown in the family pool, and that Casey was both unwilling to report it - in an attempt to avoid what she may have viewed as excessive consequences - and also incompetent enough to attempt to make it look like somebody kidnapped her and murdered her.

Furthermore, the fifth amendment, wherein one cannot be forced to incriminate their self, was critical in this case, as it is to the entire structure of the legal system that protects all citizens equally in this nation. Because it both prohibit's the use of coercion or torture as a means of forcing innocent people to admit they are guilty, and also prevents a defendant from unwittingly offering evidence that can be severely manipulated within the strict confines of the courtroom setting, by prosecutors who are biased toward a finding of guilt.

There is absolutely no excuse for holding the jury in contempt for their verdict in this, or any other, case. Regardless of how much people may dislike the verdict, the jurors did their job, and did so in exemplary fashion.

Furthermore, the selection of the jury - which is a rather arduous process that is determined by both parties in any jury trial - lasted for over a week (11 days to be exact. Most are chosen within hours). And the fact is that if a party loses at jury trial, then they are the ones most responsible, since they have every opportunity to choose jurors who will best adjudicate the case - not only in their favor, but also in compliance with the law. (Wikipedia.org/ Death of Caylee Anthony)

For the prosecution to lose a case, it shows that the jurors were primarily chosen for their ability to abide by the law, and determine the outcome of the case based on an impartial ruling that is confined to the facts.

However, in stark contrast were the actions of the prosecution, wherein they refused to confine their case to a strategy based on facts which could create defensible reason within the minds of a discerning jury. But instead consistently intended to merely "preach" to the jury, and undermine the legal duties of this twelve member peer group by attempting to insult their intelligence. And this type of strategy is an extremely perilous one for any legal professional. Especially a prosecutor who, was not only seeking an indictment for first degree murder, but also demanding the death penalty.

The prosecution failed miserably in many respects, regardless of how adroitly their sophistry was able to appeal to the "court of public opinion".

Thankfully the days of "lynching" and "mob rule" are slowly being forced into the background - denying so many in this society their ignorant love of vengeance and reprisal - or the Casey trial could have easily turned into just one more tragic example of injustice in this nation's history.

How fortunate for Casey that the citizen jury was willing to forgo their personal concerns, and hold prosecutors accountable to the law they claim to uphold.

Conversely, how shameful that so many citizens in these United States are now publicly attacking the twelve members of a peer group whom just proved that the entire population's very freedom and autonomy are dependant on little more than the honor and tenacity of juries just like this one.

One can only hope that every person now demanding that acts of veritable injustice be perpetrated against Casey and the arbitrators of her case - simply because the evidence showed her to be not guilty - will one day find themselves indicted for a crime they did not commit, and have the fortunate experience of being protected by a jury that is as effective as the one which reached the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial.

Reference:

Wikipedia.org; Death of Caylee Anthony, @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony

In a land where freedom and basic inalienable rights are the definitive monikers of American society, one cannot ignore the fact that some people still find themselves languishing in an environment that is inhospitable to them.

Expressing one's beliefs through freedom of speech or self determination can, in many cases, reduce one's opportunities, or set their personal aspirations out of reach.

Often, the controversial figure finds their self, and their right to self determination, under attack by the very thing that is expect to protect them from discrimination.

In America the system is such that it can create perceived inequities for those who are convinced that the promise of equality grants them the right to demand that others accept, and even support, their personal choices.

The United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, while certainly documents that guarantee freedom and inalienable rights to each and every citizen individually, were primarily drafted as written mechanisms which could be expected to direct and protect the nation as a whole.

These documents are declarations of liberty and autonomy that are said to be sustained by truths that are found "to be self evident", and they do not exist as personal beliefs or individual assessments of opinion.

The enumerated protections within the Constitution, and which are present in the Bill of Rights, are not those which can be invoked by an individual without it be shown that any such invocation is concordant with the most important facet of the promise of freedom inured by these documents: that no individual's rights shall ever be allowed to either directly or indirectly infringe upon, or promote an environment that is found to infringe upon, another's inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

In the realm of Civil Rights, any laws intended to further this bill must be confined to those which are found to protect all citizens equally. To be clear, any prohibition of discrimination against any one person must, in turn, provide equal protection for all people or it is not legally binding under the Constitution

Laws enacted to protect a persons rights based on gender or race are those which satisfy this requirement, and are such that they prohibit discrimination against, or exclusions of, persons based on defining human characteristics that cannot be naturally altered.

Conversely, laws which are enacted to protect a persons rights based solely on their choice to engage in homosexuality do not contain this required element. The Constitution only prohibit's acts which can be shown to infringe upon the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that can be experienced by all persons equally. And this basic tenet could actually cause the law to sway more decisively in favor of prohibiting homosexuality if, and when, any such acts be determined socially regressive to a demonstrable degree.

However, the fight to protect homosexuals from abuse and violence is just one of many social issues that require clear boundaries be defined, based on Constitutional values, in order to prevent the resulting legislative measures from creating an equally repressive environment of unjustifiable bias against a new group.

There have been various backlashes experienced by numerous people in America as a result of Civil Rights laws that are designed to protect against racial and gender discrimination, but are sometimes misused or redefined to justify furthering discrimination in the workplace.

As for the subject of racial equality, the common belief is that Civil Rights laws are basically necessary to prevent discrimination against members of specific races whom were oppressed and exploited in the past.

However, simply the fact that the need for racial equality was determined to be a "self evident" truth during a time in American history when laws were necessary to emancipate and protect minority groups, does not constrain the issue to a realm of bias that favor's those races, or any particular race.

The right to racial equality extends just as openly to white people - whom are generally believed, however unwittingly, to be members of a privileged group - as it does to black people, whom are often considered - again, however unwittingly - to be members of an underprivileged group.

Furthermore, a person's nationality has also been found to play a significant role in determining one's ability to exist equitably as part of even their own racial group, and thus has been determined to be a proponent of human distinction that must also be Constitutionally protected from discrimination.

As for the never ending "battle of the sexes" pervading every society, the need for humans to cohabitate and collaborate within an environment that often requires either gender to assume roles that appear beyond their prospective capabilities - largely based on traditional ideology - has required laws that respect and promote gender equality, thereby cultivating an atmosphere which respects and rewards males and females equally.

Recognizing women's right to vote, and protecting their right to choose where they work are not the only reason there are laws against gender bias. It is just as socially destructive and demoralizing to discriminate against men, as it is to discriminate against women.

There are exceptions, of course. Such as gender discrimination that is reserved to actions which seek to protect that which is not shared equally between the sexes. Such as legislation aimed at protecting pregnant women from discrimination in the workplace. The fact that women are designed to nurture a fetus, and therefore retain specific authority as to sexual consent, including choosing whether or not they will become pregnant, laws are necessary to prevent discrimination against them based on their choice, or the results of such a choice.

Moreover, rape is not only illegal and abhorrent in every context, it is highly unconstitutional, since no woman can be legally impregnated against her will, or be forced to abort a pregnancy.

What Constitutes a Legitimate Individual Right

Primarily, any legitimate individual right is that which can be invoked by any person, at any time, with the same level of effective protection against whatever abuse that right can reasonably be expected to prohibit; regardless of race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or disability.

As pertains the actual reasoning behind the creation of any and all individual rights outlined in the United States Constitution - regardless of the specific nature of a particular inequity, or any personal perspective upon which it may evolve - they are all simulative statutes of governance over personal autonomy that exude results which are eventually felt by the entire society. And this or any other nation is held to dire consequences should any law be enacted which shall deny any right that is found to be "self evident", as this is a clear denial of the rights of all persons.

Logically, this must also Include protection of the rights of those things on the planet that are found to cohabitate within, and contribute to, the environment that humans now find themselves a part of.

The recognition that each and every individual contribution within a society is inexorably reflected upon the entire sociological structure is why treason is found to be such an egregious crime, thus warranting severe penalties. This type of personalized betrayal exists in a realm that is, without exception, an attack on the very structure of an entire nation, and thus is an attack on all who pledge their allegiance to it. Furthermore, Congress is the only entity granted the Constutional authority to define treason.

How Gay Rights Fail to Satisfy the Requirements of a Legitimate Individual Right

The statutory mechanisms created to protect against racial and gender discrimation satisfy, in every way, the parameters of evidence - as defined by those things which can be empirically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have been shown to extend equitably across all relevant boundaries known to exist within the human social structure.

Conversely, laws designed to protect and promote homosexuality do not cross all social boundaries, or even all human boundaries, equitably. Neither does homosexuality exude any broad inference toward the manifestation, or reflection, of a truth that is found to be "self evident". Gay Rights do not contain the critical element of "commonality" required when enacting laws that protect the rights of all citizens within a society, and certainly not in the interest of social equality.

Gay Rights are a demand for personal privileges that do not extend to all persons. They exist as a bias for one very specific group only. And this group exists in utter contrast to the basic social mechanism of human survival: heterosexuals.

Furthermore, most homosexuals often display complete disregard for basic human design functions, of which no person can logically deny or defy without admitting that there could exist, as a result, repercussions of a particularly odious nature.

Regardless of the fact that many proponents of homosexuality argue that procreation is a negligible concern, there is not one human being on this planet who can conclusively determine that any such clear violation of natural human functions will not, at some point in the future, present mankind with a crisis that will be unmanageable due to recidivist genomic factors that could manifest in response to excessive repression by a homosexual majority. Especially considering that some may find it conscionable to tip the debate in their favor through genetic manipulation.

The Dangers of Preferential Rights That are Not Shared by All Citizens

Preferential rights are those rights which are found only to be specific to one group of people, or one specific classification of individual. Such as a homosexual person, or a rich person, or even a specific ethnicity such as a white person, or a black person.

These laws do not exist in compliance with the basic design function parameters of human beings. But instead are typically concocted by various religious groups whom follow a doctrine that is solely based on the allocation of rights as set out by the teachings reported to have been given them by their god.

Refusing to structure laws in strict compliance with the basic design function parameters of the human species sets the stage for a vast array of unsustainable, unmanageable and increasingly destructive mechanisms of social interaction that will manifest escalating conflicts which could often culminate in naked aggression, either within the society, and on the scale of a full fledged civil war. Or against another society, again to the extreme manifestation of full scale war.

Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. And the relevance of natural, human biological functions will become expressly more profound as the envelope is pushed to its limits. And there will certainly be pivotal moments in the future of mankind, where choosing facts over factions will resoundingly decide the fates of millions.

It can be clearly proven that the dual nature that balances the forces of this Universe, and the cyclic effects determined by the attraction of opposites, is the primary mechanism which has secured the future of humanity, and enabled the evolution of the species to occur along a fine line of the divine cosmic schematic.

Historical events, and scientific analyses, have both shown that any dictatorial, personally biased, mono-elective, or one-sided approach to just about anything has inexorably doomed such respective structure, and its confluent constituents, to catastrophic consequences.

The divergent realm of heterosexuality is not merely reserved to the creation of another human life, but rather is the critical, social dichotomy of complimentary, opposing forces which drives the species to evolve upon a trajectory that requires cooperation with a known opposite. Thereby pushing the natural human survival instinct into accord with elements of personal austerity that teaches humanity to seek the promotion of others as a means of sustainability, and indelibly employing any number of the many alternatives that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

There will always be an insufficient number of finite variances available to that which is confined to a single, self-styled mode of operation. Homo, or mono, structures are absent the stringent parallax that promotes a viewpoint capable of recognizing redundant components necessary to prevent utter annihilation should any critical portion of such structure fail to perform.

Healthy, functional and adroit societies require persons that are willing and able to engage, at all levels, the divergently-cooperative structures of co-committed opposites. And forgo the temptation to manipulate the process through self-gratifying, deviant behaviors that are easily maintained due to guaranteed conviviality's, such as the physical and emotional relationship between homosexuals.

In large part, gay rights activist are not seeking the attraction of opposites, nor voicing concerns for the nation as a whole as pertains the need to "cooperate" with expected opposing forces.

Proponents of homosexuality also consistently take the position that a refusal to engage the opposite sex - as an equal gender, wholly legitimate and necessary in all facets, and on all levels of human interaction - carries with it no negative consequences. And more often than not, homosexuals will refuse to allow themselves to show any concern for such negative effects even when they are shown to be apparent.

Gay rights activists typically stand behind statements of personal determination such as "we will continue to fight for what we believe in" as in a recent video where protesters were upset that the Tennessee Senate passed Bill SB49, a law prohibiting homosexuality to be taught as part of the curriculum in sex education courses in that state's public schools.

How Government is Overstepping its Constitutional Bounds in the Interest of Promoting Gay Rights

The government's push for political correctness in speech, and Gay rights, as a part of legislation expected to promote acceptance of homosexuality, is such that it expresses the government's intent to show clear favoritism, and even go so far as to recognize an established belief structure that is tantamount to a religion.

This is a clear violation of the first amendment, wherein it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Homosexuality is by-and-large an "establishment of religion" in that it exists in practice alone, and is based solely on a doctrine bound to a belief, rather than based on truths that are found to be "self evident".

Congress is not granted the authority, under the Constitution, to either condone or condemn the act of homosexuality. Neither can the government prohibit anyone from engaging in either. If one is unwilling to support or condone the act of homosexuality in any way, then they have the right to do so. Even if that means denying a person a job based on the fact that they are homosexual.

Neither does the government possess the authority to determine, or delineate, what citizens will accept as proper behavior within the society. Nor do they have the right to tell people what to like or not like.

However, regardless of what the Constitution commands legislator to do, it is becoming more and more common to find government promoting an environment that favors the desires of homosexuals over the rights of the society as a whole. And at times, outright demanding that homosexuality be lauded as an equally legitimate alternative to heterosexuality. Some federal legislators are attempting to promote the teaching of homosexual behaviors in public schools, and they have no constitutional right to do anything of the sort.

Legislators, fueled by a desire to win votes by any means possible - and often spurred by efforts to protect their own lifestyles, as they expose themselves, choosing to be openly homosexual - are even going so far as to attempt to debase the very foundation of marriage by stripping it of its core facilitation wherein it is designed to promote and protect the rights of children - which can only be produced through a heterosexual union - under the auspices of the truth "found to be self evident" throughout history, wherein familial posterity has been an essential facet of human survival.

As for the courts, far too many legal sophists - with their perverse definition of freedom - are attempting to redefine the law by changing the meaning of words to support whatever position their clients are determined to force upon the public at large. And they are, far too often, being allowed to ignore the "evidence", and persuade magistrates - who rule absent the Constitutionally required element of prudence, through peer review - to offer mere "judicial opinions" that exude a clear bias where none otherwise could, would, or should, exist.

The Constitution of the United States is such that it provides for the prohibition of acts that are found to be those which abuse, exploit, debase or in any way degrade one's ability to exist, and are written in clear language that is expressly simple in its determinations and definitions, and based on nothing more than that which is found to be "self evident"; nothing more, nothing less.

Therefore, when intending to elucidate the mind-frame in which the rights set-out in the Constitution were conceived, and the manner in which they were composed, all inferences much naturally be bound to extrusions of like evidence. And the unfortunate fact is that homosexuality - according to all the truths that humans "find to be self evident" - exists as an entirely deviant behavior that is not constrained by any of the "checks and balances" this species has come to understand are crucial to properly disseminating the currency of human social interaction, and setting limits that can protect the species from aberrant mechanisms with the capability of catastrophically destabilize the structure of civilization.

What is imperative is for Americans to fully analyze each and every facet of homosexuality, and conclusively determine the negative effects it has, and can have, on all parts of the society. The conversation on the subject of homosexuality, gay rights and gay marriage must progress logically, directed by stringent objectivity, absent any influence by individual preference if America has any expectation of creating a lasting respect of each and every citizen who calls this nation home.

The future is not a place which has ever been hospitable to anyone who has dared enter its reticular realms through reciprocal portals that were unlocked by keys fashioned with materials which are absent the elemental "truths we find to be self evident".

Reference:

Coming Out video, 22 May 2011; nytimes.com @ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/23/us/20110523-coming-out.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

President Barack Obama, in a deft display of intuitive ingenuity, announced today that it is possible to slice bread and - hold on to your hats folks - actually suggested using these slices to construct all manner of edible erections that can be held between the fingers and gobbled with delight. Ah, the audacity of hope ensured. What won't he think of next?

In an article appearing in the Associated Press, Obama hail's the efforts of Intel Corp. who has committed to a $200 million program designed to promote math and science education - touting it as an example of 'how corporate America can make money at the same time it builds the country.' (AP, Erica Werner, "Obama promotes jobs by way of education" 19 FEB 2011)

While one may initially find it fitting to kneel appreciatively in wide-eyed praise of this veritable dangling carrot, the flaccid truth is that the idea is not a new one, nor is it even an avoidable one according to the United States Constitution. (ok, I'm done with the salaciously suggestive, sarcastic super bowl cynicism).

First of all, this smacks of child brainwashing and denial of opportunities, much like the largely defunct "School to Work" programs that the Bush administration attempted to woo school districts with.

This was a program that offered grants to schools, and their boards of supervisors, that agreed to seduce students with promises of guaranteed employment in specific lines of work, offering various incentives and correlating narrow-minded courses of instruction that were tailored to the local business sectors. The curriculum was typically laid-out by local corporations which would provide a list of capabilities they deemed were necessary to operate within the company.

The implications here are alarming, and I will briefly offer a couple of scenarios.

One: Johnny is being offered only two classes this year. Metal shop and first aid. because the only open jobs are in local manufacturing plants.

Two: "Good morning girls, today we are going to learn about fellatio, because the local government has decided it is time we allow legal brothels to operate in our county."

Obama is quoted as saying "Companies like Intel are proving that we can compete." A rather dubious statement since nobody ever insinuated, or likely even believes, that this nation cannot.

He then pontificates the utter obvious like it is an epiphany he just discovered, stating "Instead of just being a nation that buy's what's made overseas, we can make things in America and sell them around that globe."

However, what is most advantageous to the American public is selling the things manufactured in the U.S. right here in America. This not only reduces waste and conserves resources, but it cuts down on the Carbon Footprint of distribution and delivery that Obama claims to be attempting to reduce with Cap and Trade.

Obama then furthers his kindergarten lesson (that a kindergartner could expound upon) saying "Winning this competition depends on the ingenuity and creativity of our private sector. But it's also going to depend on what we do as a nation to make America the best place on Earth to do business (yes AP the word "Earth" needs to be capitalized, by the way).

First of all, while this is a gregarious sentiment of some sorts, the fact is that America is not some manufacturing plant or fish market, it is the place that Americans call home. It is the place where Americans live and breath, hope, help sing and play. It is the reflection of our dreams, and the refraction of our means.

America has always been, and will always be, a great place to do business. However, this is not, nor will it ever be, America's primary function. Neither is business the primary function of any nation. Business is merely a complimentary cohesion that nets a force of social interaction capable of sustaining the daily lives and livelihoods of the nations of the world.

Attempting to push these many separate social sections into one confusing pile of profit and paternalism is never going to satisfy the requirements placed upon humanity by the roles commanded under Universal functions.

It truly is time that Obama refrain from with this incessant pandering to those who daily whimper and whine that the New World Order is losing steam simply due to a lack of self-promotion. It is time to give up the ghost and let the reality of 'it will never happen' sink in. The truth is; the New World Order that so many power-brokers are envisioning, is not actually possible. Suffice it to say, that anyone whom possesses the ability to rule the world, is inexplicably also gifted with the wisdom to never even attempt it. But I digress.

The article goes on to say that Obama's 'West Cost swing' was also attended by big names in California's Silicon Valley, such as Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg (the young and old of the government/corporate, civil spy ring) who are both sure to bow graciously before his lordship, kissing the budget proposal band on Obama's middle finger; drooling over its diamond studded spending increases in education, research and development, and high-speed internet. But taking great care not to lacerate their lying lips on the razor sharp nick in the reticular rock's beveled edge ... cuts in 'other areas'

These cuts in 'other areas' so conveniently unmentioned (and rightly so) are of services for the poor and underprivileged, such as college grants, programs to aid working poor, and assistance to help the needy heat their homes.

Coming from a politician who hail's from the sub-zero shadows of Chi Town, the towering Mobster Mecca of the Midwest, these cuts appear surprisingly 'uneven handed'. This attempt to show bipartisanship, unfortunately, lends little credence to his propose goal of job creation, and exists in complete disregard for the fact that the majority of this nation's corporate-level businesses are currently flying high on the magic carpet they literally ripped out from under the majority of this nation's citizenry during the '07 to '09 economic meltdown that was bailed out by American tax dollars.

Furthermore, the needs of the people will always be met, regardless of what Obama or any other deranged and delusional dilettante of destabilization demand's is a fiscal demonstration of decency.

These cuts will merely appease the Republicans (aka fake conservatives) with a turbid trail of tepid fiscal responsibility that will lead to more budget shortfalls in many states where the feds will propose rescue efforts to save them from bankruptcy. Of course, the slush funds that will be set up in tandem with the corporations who help to create this bait and switch, will then be used to purchase control over entire geographical swaths of the United States, to be manipulated as they see fit.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that the alleged conservatives are demanding deeper cuts in what they call "entitlements", such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. When, remarkable, these are not actually entitlements at all, they are part of a program that was created and implemented more than a half century ago, and which those who claim benefits under these programs, for the most part, are people who paid into the program for several decades.

If these politicians truly desire to speak of cuts to entitlements, then they must first be required to cut the fat from their own pensions, and return all budget surpluses to the peoples' trusts rather than routinely pad their retirement accounts with them nearly every year. These politicians, and their criminal cohorts in corporate business and finance have been incessantly bailed-out of trouble by the tax payers so many times, they all deserve a pay-cut and loss of their pensions. Furthermore, far too many of them need to see the inside of a jail cell so that they can reflect on their utterly depraved insubordination and insolence perpetrated at the expense of an entire nation.

If these sycophants truly want to talk "entitlement reform", then how about talking about the fact that the people are entitled to representation by their government, absent the bias for any profitable endeavors?

How about the fact that the people are entitled to a legislative process that is transparent and compliant with the United States Constitution?

How about the fact that the people of this nation are entitled to an accountable government that is required to coin the money, rather than outsource this nation's economic foundation at the behest of pontificating parliamentary pragmatists who demand that the prosperous American system be kept in check by a satellite agency which can spread the nation's wealth across the globe at will, and with utter treasonous impunity, to prevent the downfall of the world's oppressive monarchial controls?

How about the fact that the entire world is entitled to fulfillment of promises made to so many countries by the United States Government and its national security pawns, in the name of the American people who, incidentally, were never privy to the low down, back stabbing, false flag flying, fire-sale freak show that occurred during the average black hand, back room, butter ball feast of felicitous flesh that organizations such as the Bilderberg Group, Common Purpose, the Counsel on Foreign Relations, and so many others attended, never intending to do anything but wrest every last molecule of dignity and autonomy from their peoples?

Back before the advent of what can only be termed as "Rockefellerism" - which was essentially the act of building corporations on the backs of the American people, and paying government to crack the whip of market manipulation; allowing them to operate above the laws and the people who respectively both constrain and support them - this nation's business sectors were regulated by what were called 'Charter Agreements'

These were contracts with the people, if you will. And any corporation that desired to operate in the United States was first required to submit an application that detailed the intentions of that corporation. If for any reason it was determined that the corporation's projected status would operate outside of the "good of the people" then the application was denied.

Furthermore, if the corporation was found to be eligible, the Charter Agreement could only be valid for either 5 or 10 years, or until completion of a proposed project.

However, John D. Rockefeller considered this type of agreement to be inhospitable to his primary goals (everything from xenophobia and population control to plutocracy and authoritarianism). Therefore, he petitioned government to allow him to operate above this agreement by, essentially, offering them a "piece of the action". if you will.

Considering the evolving decline of American meritocracy that ensued, and the complicit actions of the Federal Reserve and its creators, this ushered in an era that combined Church and State, while simultaneously dissolving "we the people" by dividing citizen and government.

Now, as the hood is burning away from the collective head of the people, politicians and corporations are beginning to back-peddle, albeit with sword and shield in hand, and attempting to still rise above the turning tide on a sunken vessel.

Obama's current protagonist platitudes are nothing more than doublespeak that expects the public to decide for themselves how to come to terms with a complex web of government malfeasance in concert with corporate misfeasance designed to further fleece and fracture the American people.

Just how does Obama intend to expect any form of compliance from entities that obviously have their pockets open to the legislators in this country? How does he explain the Supreme Court's decision that "money equals speech", or that the term "navigable waterways" is such that it can be redefined to allow corporations to dump toxic waste into rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries and oceans with utter impunity?

Where is this man's compunction? Does he truly expect this nation's sovereign citizens to just hand over the keys to their front door because he say's that the corporate sycophants have suddenly offered to give back to the people some small pittance of what has been stolen from them for over a century?

I initially did everything I could to find the good in President Obama's latest kibble of crumbs offered to this nation's burgeoning rolls of good-natured and far-too-trusting citizens, and it just devoured my mind yet again in the gaping jaws of a bloated and morality masticating corporate/government beast of bombastic bureaucracies.

Regardless of claims to the contrary, any company that ever intends to operate in the United States must first and foremost be held accountable to the American people. The Constitution is explicit in its many references to the separation of business and government. It expressly prohibits holding any office of public trust while also holding any position of profit.

To digress for a moment, this type of reasoning also extended to the mechanism of impeachment in that it displayed the founding fathers' understanding that any person who was found impeachable under any article of the Constitution (ahem, Mr. Kenya), was thereby prohibited from holding any "office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: [and] the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to the Law." (Article 1, Section 3 Clause 7; U.S. Constitution).

No corporation ever shall be operational in this nation but that it is supported by the people who sustain it, both in proletariat production and consumer confidence. And it can never be allowed to exist but at the pleasure of the people.

Government has both far overreached its authority and fully undervalued its people for much too long in this country. And the market manipulation that it has engaged in has enabled corporations to, not only profit and proliferate, but fraternize and fulminate a growing populous with mechanisms of social distortion that promises everything from puissant positions of anonymous control, to plagiarized partnerships and associative roles; balkanizing the entire society with distorted reveries of decadent denial, parsing them with bloated and vacuous accounts that are said to exist absent any accountability.

This is yet another false frigate set adrift in this sea of menagerie, mined and maligned with the fallacious fragrance of explosive talk. When will this government bend to save itself?

The clock is ticking, oh mendacious morbidity.

Reference:

Werner, Erica; AP, 19 FEB 2011. "Obama promotes jobs by way of education"

@ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110219/ap_on_re_us/us_obama