Sunday, March 31, 2013

Red Flag Warning: Traditional Marriage - What Could Be More American?

This past week we were treated to not one, but two days of Supreme Court examinations of laws defining marriage. One case was about California’s Prop 8, a state constitutional amendment affirming that marriage was between one man and one woman. The second case was a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA.  I don’t know much about either case or specifics of the laws involved, other than to note both were attempts via the will of the people to define marriage as it has been traditionally defined for thousands of years: the legal union between one man and one woman.

I did hear several clips of the discussions brought forth by the Supremes and the lawyers for both sides.  The transparency of the court should be praised, as it enabled us to learn the thinking of all parties on the matter. The questions raised by several justices, left, center, and right, were enlightening. One particular exchange centered on Justice Sotomeyer about the issue of follow-on marriage of other combinations of humans.  Much of the discussion revolved around this kind of a point, unintended consequences.

I understand the plight of gays in their quest for some level of stability and normalcy in their committed relationships.  Having a means to lead a legitimate life with one another would enable stability and more enduring gay based relationships.  However, we tinker dangerously with the definition of marriage if our culture determines to change it to “fit” the modern push for marriage by gays, and by extension other possible permutations. 

I stand by this position because society, our civilization’s culture, requires a mooring on what has been accepted moral value for thousands of years.  This mooring is important because it sets boundaries that we can touch base with and know the edges of what is or is not acceptable by a majority of people.  In many ways, the traditional definition of marriage, one man to one woman, is the cornerstone of our nation. This concept was embedded into our national DNA with the early pilgrims and those who were fleeing monarchical tyranny of religion, free speech, and a host of other human rights violations.  Tinkering with or “editing” foundational values of any nation brings about moral erosion, which can doom the underpinnings of that nation.

A Mr. Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation Fellow, a conservative think tank was confronted by Piers Morgan, CNN talk show host and deeply blue liberal. In a one against many set of, Mr. Anderson seemed to come off rather well reasoned and respectful of the topic. Mr. Morgan was much less so.  Morgan having the last word labeled Mr. Anderson’s position as, “It’s notfair, it’s not tolerant, it’s not American.”

Not to denigrate Mr. Morgan, but he unfortunately does not have American DNA. He hails from England, where at the time of our nation’s founding, fairness and tolerance were oxymorons of the day under King George.  Holding to the definition of marriage, as it has traditionally been known, one man married to one woman, is as American as apple pie and baseball. All that Mr. Ryan was defending is the long held value of marriage and to exchange it for “marriage to whatever strikes the fancy of humans” is dangerous over time to our nation's well being.

There is one other obvious sticking point missed by all parties of the debate. The role of religion in marriage as it pertains to “legalizing” the act. Most religious denominations will not perform the marriage ceremony until the intendeds produce a duly executed marriage license. Thus we have the joining of church and state rather than the opposite argument commonly invoked by the liberals.  The state gives license to the act. The church or other authority consummates the act.  The two steps are separate and should be seen as a solution to the dilemma.

The solution is rather simple and why it hasn’t been embraced sooner is puzzling. Much of the push back on gay “marriage” has little to do with “moral outrage” as it has to do with “Money”. Business and government simply does not want to pay for benefits to gay couples as they do to traditional couples in marriage, i.e. one man in union with one woman.  Those economic issues could and should be sorted out in the market place.  The state, with an interest to see cultural stability in their citizenry, could easily recognize ‘civil unions’ as a legal union between gay couples. Just as a man and woman go to the county clerk to acquire a marriage license, for union of one man to one woman, the gay couple could appear to acquire a civil union license to the union of whom ever they attest to join.

The second step, consummation of marriage or civil union licenses, enables religious orders to determine their own policies in regard to the issue. Some will adopt a traditional marriage only position; others will accept the civil union as well. It may be for some couples, regardless of lifestyle, will opt for a non-religious ceremony, as the consummation step is in reality the act of making a public statement of the intention to form a committed relationship.

The outcome of this process should be more committed relationships by all and ability for those relationships to be economically secure as well.  The potential unintended consequence for employers, besieged by mountains of rules and regulations, as well as the specter of discrimination lawsuits, will be the discontinuance of employee benefits altogether.  As we’ve have seen with the moral complexities of Obamacare, some business with conflicting values, drop benefits for all.  The other tangential issues such as adoption by gay couples will eventually be sorted out by the states as they work through the complex social research on these topics.

What could be more American than traditional marriage? The resolve of its citizens to find the right solution befitting a great nation.

Monday, March 18, 2013



Dateline Cyprus: This news story should be sending shock waves across the world and especially here in America. I'm referring to the European Union's condition for ponying up $13 billion bail-out money to the nation of Cyprus is to receive immediate levies from Cypriot bank deposits. In essence the government of Cyprus is seizing citizens' bank deposits. This is what happens when a nation outstrips it's ability to pay its debts. The banker sets the terms and governments swoop in to take private property. We had better hope the 4th Amendment to our Constitution doesn't come under attack like the 2nd or we're in deep trouble.

Dateline Washington D.C.: If American's could only check out President Obama's college math scores! Apparently the President's budget proposal doesn't add up and even double counts past spending cuts. But not to worry....the budget proposes only another $7.3 TRILLION in deficit spending in the next ten years. See Dateline Cyprus above to learn what happens when the good times are over!

Dateline Serfdom: Yes Virgina, Big Brother is alive and well. Check out this article on "Productive Tracking Sensors".  Now if we could just put these sensors on government employees working at the GSA.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Red Flag Warning: Ban the Back Room Deals

Something the Watchman keeps running across are news stories about how one group in power hold secret meetings with other power groups to hack out some kind of deal. Or other stories about how groups in power use all kinds of backroom meetings and secret plans to foist off some controversial law or regulation on their fellow citizens.

One such example is where New York Governor Cuomo held a midnight session with fellow Democrats and crafted one of the most stringent anti-2nd Amendment laws in the USA.  The bill was then rammed through the New York legislature on a fast track, that now may cause the law to be held invalid.

“Cuomo and legislative leaders agreed on the bill in closed-door negotiations and put the politically dicey measure to a vote at night in mid-January. That was after Cuomo issued the message of necessity, which the plaintiffs say includes misrepresentations.”

The practice isn’t just done by the Democrats, although they have a good track record of such tactics.  The Republicans pulled similar tricks in Wisconsin over creating right to work laws. It is a practice that seems to be becoming the rule of operation rather than the exception. Simply put, this method of creating law circumvents the carefully laid procedures set forth by the founders.

The fiscal crisis also has been used as an excuse for the two parties to hold off-line, back room, secret meetings that are not exposed to the sunlight of a transparent government. The good citizens of our nation are robbed of the right to observe the deliberations of their elected leaders so as to make a fair assessment of their continued service come the next election.

A simple reading of the U.S. Constitution remands our leaders to conduct business of the people in the full light of public review and scrutiny.  We should be demanding all similar meetings be held in a public venue with full record of who said what, and why they said it.  The Constitution sets forth the rules for creation of laws in our nation and by these secret dealings the American people are being held hostage to actions that are not of our desire.

In essence these secret meetings of the powerful is nothing more in the end than rule by oligarchy, a select group of powerful individuals, who set law. The Watchman did not vote for Speaker Boehner nor Majority Leader Reid.  Thus I and many others are not being properly represented.  To make matters worse, the backroom deals hit the congressional floor, with no committee review, no amendments allowed, and virtually no serious debate or discussion on the merits of the law.  This is how the Sequester really came about.  It was a bad idea made behind closed doors and rushed through congress with little thought of the consequences.

The Watchman calls upon all good citizens to contact their congressional representative and local state legislators to create protective laws requiring all meetings to be done publicly and any “deals” agreed upon to be properly vetted through committee hearings.

If this trend continues, mark the Watchman’s words, we will rue the day we let this become the practice of government, as it will inevitably lead to tyranny. 

Monday, February 11, 2013


Here is a news story that hasn't received much coverage. It seems the Federal Government is squashing our 4th Amendment Rights to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. You and your electronic devices can be searched and seized for no reason what-so-ever within 100 miles of the US boarder. See Suspicionless Confiscation.  100 miles to day.....1,000 miles tomorrow? Will you resist when they come for your Ipad, Iphone, lap-top, or PC?

Sunday, January 13, 2013


RFD NEWS FLASH!!  Presidential Executive Order Proposal - Federal Employees to Report Gun Owership

The Watchman came across the below article published by Fox News 13 January 13 regarding a liberal think tank's submission of executive order (EO) ideas to President Obama. Among the ideas is a EO to order all federal employees to report gun ownership of weapons to their employer. This is unconstitutional when common sense reading of the 2nd Amendment is done. It violates the "infringement" clause"  as well as the 5th Amendment, since such an order would compel information to be divulged on threat of a criminal act that the EO would create.  While it is unlikely this EO would stand judicial test, given the lengthy time a lawsuit to wind its way through the system, thousands of workers may quit or be fired. It is just another example of how unAmerican some American's have become and as Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759,  "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The article appears below:
Liberal think tank vows national campaign to push for more gun control
Published January 13, 2013 / FOXNEWS. COM

The president of the Center for American Progress said Sunday the influential liberal think tank will mount a full-scale campaign to push for more gun control.

Neera Tanden told “Fox News Sunday” the Center for American Progress will “absolutely” launch a major campaign in states across the country.

Tanden also downplayed the fact that groups supporting more gun control were severely outspent during the 2012 election cycle in which the influential National Rifle Association spent $20 million in backing candidates.

“They had a really low return on their investment,” Tanden told Fox. “Still, the NRA is a very strong lobby.”

Tanden spoke after a report published by The Washington Post stated the group is recommending 13 new gun policies to the White House, including some that call for executive action that sidesteps congressional approval.

The proposals include requiring universal background checks, banning military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips and updating data systems to track gun sales and enforce existing laws, according to The Washington Post, which said the proposals “amount to the progressive community's wish list.”

Tanden said the idea of executive action would be on some of the smaller issues, such as federal employees giving gun-ownership information to the president.

She also argues that both sides can find common ground on tougher background checks.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, disagreed with that notion.
He argued that stolen guns were used in the fatal shootings last month at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed.

He called the ideas a “waste of time” and argued Washington should focus on ending gun-freeze zones because people who live within them cannot protect themselves.

President Obama has already expressed support for many of the group’s proposals.
And Vice Prsident Joe Biden is leading a task force on possible changes to the gun laws. After speaking with groups on both sides, Biden purportedly could give the recommendations to the president as early as this week.

The Center for American Progress’ 11-page report was presented Friday to White House officials, according to The Post.

Read more:

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Red Flag Warning: The Executive Order Danger

      The Watchman is observing Presidential actions regarding the emotional and almost hysterical gun control responses. However, there are issues that transcend this important topic that I wanted to make all aware of, and that is the use of executive orders by Presidents. What follows is a letter I sent to my congressional representatives and encourage all to take up similar action to curb this abuse of power by the executive branch of our government.


Dear Senator Udall and Congressman Lamborn, 

I am sure you are being overwhelmed with correspondence from every corner of the state regarding gun control issues and our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. As a gun owner and carry-conceal permit holder in El Paso County, I deplore and am greatly sadden when I hear of tragic attacks by criminal or mentally ill individuals such as occurred in our state and in Connecticut.  I do agree with the need for some levels of accountability, but not to the extent being advocated by the anti-second amendment lobby.  However, this is not the purpose of my letter.

My concern is more critical than gun control.  My concern is the appearance of our presidents to utilize their powers of executive orders (EO) in-lieu of lawful congressional action on this issue and many others.  It is not only the current president who seems to push the envelop in exercise of the power of EOs, but past presidents as well in recent times.  I believe this continued use of EO power to circumvent congressional action is very dangerous to our republican form of government.  

As you know our founders set up a governmental system to protect the rights of all citizens from the threat of a “monarchy”. They created separate, but co-equal, branches governing the affairs of our nation. The legislative branch has the direct power to tax and create law. The executive branch is to execute those laws, and the judicial branch to ensure laws, and their execution, are within the framework of our constitution.  I agree an executive must be able to order certain actions within the administration affecting compliance with congress’ intent or to clarify regulatory action, but in no case should an EO circumvent the constitutional process to create law on its own basis. 

I can understand the frustration by executives to achieve their policy goals and “make things happen”, however substitution of carefully considered legislation through the deliberative process by an executive order does not meet the Constitution requirements envisioned by the founders. Using an EO process to assuage raw, sensitive issues such as gun control may actually worsen the situation than if cooler heads worked in unison to craft public policy under their constitutional mandated powers.  EOs are drafted by unelected and unconfirmed staff which in and of its self should give rise of congressional concern.  Failure to curb these “short-cuts” certainly would lead to an ever-expanding push for greater use and abuse.

I encourage you and fellow congressional delegations to carefully explore all forthcoming EOs to jealously guard your constitutional powers, and thereby protect our nation from potential tyranny of one-person rule.  You may think the foregoing is over-wrought hype, but looking back at human history in other nations, the record is clear that by slow shifts, freedom was replaced by tyranny and dictatorship.  Unless our elected leaders stand firm and united in at least this one aspect of governance, then we may be assured of long-term liberties and the pursuit of happiness as promised by the Constitution.


Mark R. Bradbury

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Red Flag Warning: Constitutional change blowing in the wind - Just ignore it!

There are suggestions blowing in the wind that our U.S. Constitution is in need of change.  The Watchman came across an article in Fox Nation reporting comments from a New York Times pundit about the Constitution.  Fox Nation's Noah Rothman reports,

Georgetown University constitutional law professor Louis Michael Seidman has just about had it with the focus of his 40 years of academic study. As he writes in the New York Times on Monday, it is the Constitution itself which has allowed for the series of legislative follies that finally resulted in the “fiscal cliff.” Seidman says that it is time for Americans to realize what lawmakers have known since the constitution’s inception – it is okay to ignore it.

“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downrght evil provisions,” Seidman writes.

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

Read more:

Given his comments, the Watchman is wondering what concepts of law Mr. Seidman is spewing to the students. It is acceptable to ignore the law?  If so, no wonder we have so many educated Occupiers advocating anarchy!

What is important to note Mr. Seidman co-authored three books with a former Obama appointed czar, Cass Sunstien. (Mr. Sunstien was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and a close friend of President Obama’s from their days on the University of Chicago Law School faculty.)  Thus, it might not be too far fetched to believe Seidman's views, via Sunstien, may have been indulged within the White House. The Watchman isn't too fond of conspiracy theories, however if one looks at how the President has "ignored" the Constitution on several occasions using executive orders to skirt the legislative process, then this link might not be unfounded.

Even the current debacle of the "Fiscal Cliff" has certain aspects that ignore the Constitution's intent. Since when has our laws been negotiated behind closed doors of the White House? Bills are now created in secret, rushed to the floor of each legislative body, and voted upon with out any review by responsible committees or public debate on the floor of the chambers. In other words we have now a form of oligarchy in which a few have power over the many. This is NOT what the writers of the Constitution intended to occur. It greatly endanger's our freedoms when what is unusual becomes the norm. In the forthcoming debt limit crisis we will see for the fourth time this kind of circumvention of the process occur. 

We ignore the Constitution at our peril. Freedom and our liberties are in danger when good intended men attempt to short-cut the system carefully laid out by our founders. As frequently said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Let's get back to the fundmental functions and process of our Constitution requires. 

ACTION ITEM: Write to your congressional representatives to dispense with extra-constitutional actions and follow the time honored, proven, processes that protect our freedom.