Progressive Liberals Attack The United States Constitution

I read a Reuters' article by Dean Yates entitled "Indonesia's moderate Islamic image under threat". The title is a lie. The individuals under attack are allies of the progressive liberal movement, which is an atheistic religion posing as a political movement and certainly not moderate. Moslems seem to act violently when they feel their right to practice their religion is threatened which possibly gave birth to Al Qaeda. Some evidence I have seen indicates that America and the United Nations has been used by the progressive liberal radicals to promote their doctrine to other countries as well as within the United States. From what I have observed progressive liberals are not happy with President George Bush and definitely not with his plans for a Moslem backed democracy in Iraq.

These progressive liberals agenda brag about the divorce rate and the decline of marriage pointing out the positives and neglecting the overwhelming negatives such as dysfunctional families, women and children plunged into poverty, higher domestic abuse rates, higher child abuse rates including abortion and possibly others. Japan is one example of the multiple countries under this attack as can be seen from an USA Today article by Paul Wiseman and Naoko Nishiwaki. Then Scandinavia which may be the birthplace of the progressive liberal movement has suffered a destruction of both marriage and religions rates. The prime purpose of the progressive liberal party seems to act against the dominate religious belief system of the country and install their own atheistic dogma as a state backed religion under the guise of a secular government.

In America the ACLU seems to be one of their weapon’s to force their will upon the American people though the Court Systems. I have yet to see the ACLU back up a Christians right to religion though they have no objection to oppressing that right under the guise of protecting separation of church and state. They also support non-marital sexual relationships and homosexual marriages both which are part of the doctrine of the progressive liberals.

Now progressive liberal push their agenda in the courts and legislation by twisting and perverting the meaning behind the Constitution though the practice of an “evolving constitution” that sadly is taught as the truth in most law schools in the United States. Anyone believing this deceptive doctrine of law commits perjury and becomes an oath breaker as soon as they take vows to become a lawyer and thus are dishonest and a felon. These same lawyers go on to become Judges, Lawmakers, and other appointed and elected officials and thus gain the authority and power to force to misuse the constitution to advance the progressive liberal doctrine.

To fight against these extremist and their ilk an informed public is best and to have an informed public requires freedom of honest political speech and the freedom of ethical and unbiased media with reasonable access to and oversight of the government and political movements. I am afraid that though the press is not government run it is owned by corporate interest that place their own spin on the subject matter. Editors also can spin a story which has happened at various newspapers. An example of editorial bias is Todd Eastham, North American news editor for Reuters whom in 2004 wrote an angry email in response to a press release from the National Right to Life press release. The National Right to Life news briefs are also biased but that at least is an a known bias which does not bother me as I as a citizen can adjust for it in various ways.

Natural Law Demands Governments Consider Welfare Of Animals

I previous mentioned the government and its violation of the natural right to property of New Orleans evacuees by denying them permission to take their pets with them when they fled that environmental disaster. Some pet owners are obedient to the natural law of human dominance and regard themselves as the responsible to maintain the health and welfare of the animals they posses. These individuals of noble character should not be left out because they act with honor and mercy though placing them at the end of the line is acceptable when human life and health is at risk.

That is enough with history and now the good news. Texas, who in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster opened their hearts and their dwellings to those seeking temporary refuge from the catastrophe that stuck them is now facing a high powered storm of their own. I don't know if Texas learned from the mess-up of the evacuation of New Orleans or if they are wiser than the leadership of Louisiana, though I suspect the earlier. In any case Texas showed forethought in they instructed those evacuating the threatened areas to take their pets with them when they fled to seek refuge. Now I applaud Congress for considering passing a bill that requires that the welfare of pets be considered when making evacuation plans if communities are to get federal grants. From what I have heard the executive branches of all levels of government have failed repeatedly to come though in expediting the humane rescue of stranded pets from New Orleans despite the health problems and cost of letting them die and leaving their dead bodies to be picked up. I thank individuals National Guard members and other whom have taken it into their own initiative to help.

The action of those aiding animals is in keeping with the fact that before America became a country the welfare of animals and plants was considered the responsibility of humans and therefore the governments and had been viewed as such long before that as was enumerated in John Locke's "Second Treatises of Civil Government." Like Abraham Lincoln said when addressing the abolition of slavery, that even as our founders wrote and voted for the Declaration of Independence they realized that the ideals put forth in it were not a reality but instead were a goal, a goal the United States still struggles to reach.

Christianity and the U.S. Constitution

I read an associate press article by Richard N. Ostling about a bible textbook called ``The Bible and Its Influence.'' that is being considered for use in classrooms. The textbook attempts to take the hard road and neither ridicule the bible using scientific theories or support the bible with religious theories. It is also reported to have avoided embracing any particular denominations doctrine and is even supported by Jewish and Moslem religious organizations. If all this is true and the main message of the bible which is love other humans as you do yourself then it sounds like a good thing.

The Supreme Court will most likely have to field a case in which some conscious objector sues a public school district for violating the separation of church and state doctrine of the First Amendment to the Constitution. No such doctrine exist in the Constitution, what the First Amendment does say is that Congress should not establish a state religion and should not prevent others from practicing their own religion. It is obvious from reading the close of the Constitution that they were only speaking of different Christian denominations a fact that a certain liberal judge mentioned. Never the less if you read the Declaration of Independence you will find it is a violation of the right to liberty granted to human beings by that same Christian God to force anyone to violate their conscious by making them worship any particular deity or even no deity.

In point of fact if you actually read the documents the United States is founded on you will find that God and the bible were often mentioned and used for justification for the actions, laws, and beliefs of the legislators of early 18th and 19th Century America. Just look at Thomas Paine's Common Sense, John Locke's Second Treatises of Civil Government, William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, and The Declaration of Independence. So despite the fact that the writers of the Constitution only felt it necessary to mention Jesus or God once and then only in reference to the year, but at the same time acknowledged his sovereignty over them and therefore the Constitution they voted for and the United States which is built on it.

Speak Up For The Freedom Of Speech

I like to talk and on some points get very verbose so I am certainly a supporter of the freedom of speech which is an aspect of the natural right to liberty. So when I read an article by Associated Press writer Sharon Theimer about the Federal Election Commission suing a conservative organization called Club for Growth over ads it ran in that influenced a federal election I was disappointed with our lawmakers.

Our federal lawmakers that have no objection to taking “gifts” from lobbyist but they object to these same special interest groups actually paying money to someone else for an ad designed to inform The People on the issue they are supporting. As an example if a pro-life special interest group were to pay for ads that would tell people the following it would be illegal because it influences elections despite it being information The People have a right and need to know. My example is that according to the law at the time the Constitution was written it is known that children within their mother’s womb were considered persons according to the law with the human right to life and that killing them was a very heinous misdemeanor. That since that statement is true and the Constitution also states anyone commuting a misdemeanor can be impeached , then it would follow that it is the duty of every patriotic American to vote out active pro-choice politicians in order to uphold the Constitution.

If this is truly what our legislative lawmakers intended the law to stop then it is clearly a violation of the First Amendment’s ban of the abridgment of freedom of speech without any reasonable justification such as those enumerated in the Preamble.

Tell Lawyers To Strop Abusing The Religious Non-Establishment Clause.

Nicole Windfield wrote a short Associated Press article about a lawsuit against Pope Benedict XVI for covering up sexual molestation that occurred in the United States. The lawsuit is presently being pursued in a Texas court. The federal government has determined that has the sitting head of a foreign state he is immune to legal prosecution of the like. Of course the attorney for the plaintiff are yelling over violation of the first amendment which I cite below,

Daniel Shea said Tuesday he would challenge the constitutionality of the U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Holy See on the grounds that it goes against the First Amendment's of the Constitution ``non-establishment of religion clause'' that bars any laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Now the whole purpose of the First Amendment “non-establishment clause” is to prevent a Church of America from being set up as was done with the Church of England in Great Britain so how the plaintiff’s lawyer proposes that recognizing a foreign government that happens to be a Theocracy is setting up a state backed religion is beyond my comprehension. Personally I think the words slipped out of the lawyers mouth before his brain kicked in. The attorney failed to consider that Italy signed a pack granting independence to the Holy See in 1929 and it is now considered a independent country worldwide.

Of coarse conceding that the Holy See is a foreign country does lead to the seemingly reasonable conclusion that Catholic churches are foreign embassies and that the dictates of the Catholic church are foreign laws and regulations. The reality is that it is not presently treated that way, but that could be changed, which would get rid of some of the confusion.

Property Rights and Minnesota v Olson

An exerpt from findlaw.com's account of Minnesota v. Olson.

Police suspected respondent Olson of being the driver of the getaway car used in a robbery-murder. After recovering the murder weapon and arresting the suspected murderer, they surrounded the home of two women with whom they believed Olson had been staying. When police telephoned the home and told one of the women that Olson should come out, a male voice was heard saying, "tell them I left." Without seeking permission and with weapons drawn, they entered the home, found Olson hiding in a closet, and arrested him. Shortly thereafter, he made an inculpatory statement, which the trial court refused to suppress. He was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and assault.

The court was essentially correct in their majority decision that the police violated the right of property of the two women living in the duplex as enumerated in the fourth Amendment without significant cause. I agree with the statement made on findlaw.com that “All citizens share the expectation that hosts will more likely than not respect their guests' privacy interests even if the guests have no legal interest in the premises and do not have the legal authority to determine who may enter the household.” This statement was just as true in Minnesota v. Carter or if the property was a business yet the court has decided otherwise, thus contradicting the ideal of consitency expected from a just rule of law.

I do not agree with the remedy proposed by the court which was “The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Olson had a sufficient interest in the women's home to challenge the legality of his warrantless arrest, that the arrest was illegal because there were no exigent circumstances to justify warrantless entry, and that his statement was tainted and should have been suppressed. “ The police did indeed have a legal warrant for Olson's arrest it was invading and searching the property of the two women that was illegal.

One of the reasons I disagree is that Olson was not the owner/lessee of the house and since he is not he does not have standing. The wrong was committed against the two women and so granting a any type of damages to Olson does not in remedy the wrong did to their right of property. The women in question should be able to sue the police for damages which should be equivalent to the following factors.

1. The average full time Minnesota wage earner earns in the same period of time a burglar would serve in jail for the violation of their right to property
2. The average full time Minnesota wage earner earns in the same period of time a kidnapper would serve in jail for the violation of their duty to protect their guest
3. Multiple counts should be considered as should aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
4. The replacement value of any damage caused by the break-in and inconveniency caused by repairs.
5. The court cost including the cost of the women’s lawyer
6. Any other cost incurred by the illegal police action or its aftermath.

Olson can of course sue the women for failure to protect his right of privacy but such would be a wrongful lawsuit as when he became a fugitive he negated any legal duty they had to protect him . This action by the courts would of course would leave Olsen in jail which would actually satisfy the “establish justice” clause of the Constitution instead of wronging his victims a second time by letting him get off for the police overzealousness. The current system is unconstitutional in that is violates the “establish justice” reason for establishment of The Constitution and that it violates the right to property of the actual owners/lessee’s of the property.

Minnesota V. Carter And The Right to Property

The Right to Property is well documented and is according to Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise on Government by John Locke basically that a person is entitled to the all that he/she earns from the labor of his/her body and the work of his/her hands and can do with it as he/she pleases. Property also include territory which like an animal whom expects its territory to be inviolate, humankind does also. This natural right was well known and even written into the English Common Law at the time the Declaration of Independence was unanimously passed by all 13 Colonies/States. The Declaration of Independence takes these rights so seriously that it declares the following about them.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

These natural laws were so important that the Constitution includes the Ninth Amendment which mentions them as rights retained by The People and states that they cannot be denied by the inclusion of other rights in the Constitution. In the United States we respect the right of property by many laws. Among these laws are Burglary, Theft, Vandalism, Trespassing, Anti Peeping Tom, etc.


The first point I am addressing is that one principal of the Rule of Law is that all individuals no matter what their role in society, whether a police officer or a private citizen are treated equally under the law. In the case we are addressing a police officer received a tip from confidential informant and he investigated that tip by looking though a whole in blinds. The police officer at this point has violated at least one and probably two right to property laws. They are the trespassing law which is a misdemeanor under current Minnesota rule 6105.0210 and the peeping tom rule(voyeurism) in which according to the National Crime and Punishment Learning Center the first offense is Up to $700 fine and/or up to 90 days in jail. According to the practice of law in the united states the police may break laws when in hot pursuit of a accused lawbreaker that are equal or less than the crime they are accused of committing, such as pursuing a speeder if it is deemed necessary to apprehend the later. The questions are did the officer have significant reason to be suspicious, was this police officers action necessary to establish probable cause. If both of those are yes and in my opinion they are then the officers actions were appropriate considering the extent to which he violated the right to privacy are significantly less than the crime he was investigating.


The second point unlike the first is a point the Court addresses and that is the reasonable expectation of privacy. The ideal that if you shouldn’t logically have an expectation that you will be secure from a search or seizer then you are not protected from that search or seizer bears consideration. For example if a child were to drop a bag full of guns in front of a police officer is that officer suppose to ignore the apparent shapes outlined in the bag because of the fourth Amendment. Such an expectation is clearly unreasonable though courts have been know to rule otherwise. The same goes if you leave a bag unattended at a train station can you expect it not to be seized if only to turn it into lost and found or examine it to make sure it is not a bomb. Now the way it is applied in this case I do find bothersome. At work I have areas that are “mine” and I do hope that no one will search through or seize my property in these areas but unless they are locked up there is a reasonable chance individuals may steal, vandalize or trespass onto my property. Despite this I consider myself rational to expect others to respect my right to property under these circumstances. Legally since my place of work has authority over the workplace I am technically leasing the area from the organization I work for and because of that they can allow search or seizer of my property and this can even extend to my body under certain situations. This extension does not allow a search of my person on the items attended to me such as luggage. The clientele at a place of business are also subject to the right of property of that business which explains how a bouncer can legally expel someone from a nightclub. The extension of this ideal is that if you are on government owned property the judgment is the governments. What I am getting at is that contrary to the majority decision that even in a place of business or someone else’s home you have a reasonable expectation of privacy subject to the owners judgment.


Nerveless I agree with the outcome of this case and to a fair extent several of the Justices in that simply because the right to property violated, if any, in this case was both that of the lessee and the landowner and not those whom were temporarily using it. It is true that they temporarily subleased it from the lessee but since the payment medium and the terms of that sublease were illegal the sublease is rendered null and void. Since they have no lease then the can have no property rights in relation to the officer’s action and therefore they have no standing on this issue.

Ohio Federal Court Rules To Uphold The Natural Right of Parents Over Minors

I read a short 9/15/2005 article in LifeNews.Com about a director of an abortionist clinic named Carol Westfall whom after hearing a court case go against her organization and the ACLU in a U.S. District Court in Cincinnati stated that the Judge Sandra Beckwith should be lynched. She did this after the later give a 24 hour window for abortion clinics to comply with Ohio law on parental and informed consent.


Unlike Tony Perkins, the LifeNews.com reporter I am certain that Carol Westfall did not violate the law that forbids the threatening a federal judge under penalty of serving time in jail or a large fine. In fact such “threats” are an American tradition and a right under the First Amendment which was actually written to protect political speech. I am not saying a direct threat such as saying for an example I am going to kill Judge so and so is free speech. What I am saying is that saying a judge ought to be hung or that even hanging an effigy of a judge, such as the Sons of Liberty did, are protected by the First Amendment. If her use of free speech significantly violated any of the reasons given for the establishment of the Constitution or other rights then it should be illegal. I see no indication it had any real effect beyond possibly causing the judge to reconsider her judgment and create a wider window of time in which the abortion clinics had to comply with the law. Freedom of speech is a natural law that is dependent on the freedom of liberty and pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and its protection is one reasons why governments exist and if they become destructive of that or any other end it is the right of the people to abolish it.


On the other hand The Natural Right are backed up by the Declaration of Independence. The Right of Parents consent over their children's actions is mentioned as such in John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” . In addition William Blackstone often mentions the age of consent when children to longer need their parents agreement on making decisions such as marriage. The age of consent of a state and the reasons for overriding that consent should be uniform throughout a state but otherwise history has shown that teenagers are occasionally freed of the parents wishes if they are able to take care of themselves or both parents are unfit. If the later is the case than it is the duty of a judge to remove them from their parents custody and appoint guardians for them who will have consent over them. In the earlier case the can be emancipated from their parents or guardians and thus bare responsibility for themselves. In both cases the Constitution is clear that no one either the daughter or her parents can be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law which introduces a new wrinkle into the situation.


By the Constitution and the Natural Laws mentioned in the Declaration of Independence both the parents and daughter have the natural right to liberty and property yet the daughters rights are subject to her parents as by nature her brain has not completely matured. This maturation is not complete until sometime in a minor’s early twenties according to scientific studies, but as in general as a society we consider that at 18 as the age of consent. The purpose of parental rights is that parents being more mature and loving are able to choose the best course of action for their child while the child ability to choose is incapacitated due to lack of development.


Lisa A. Abraham at Beacon Journal in a 9/9/2005 article reports the following about the democratically passed Ohio law finally being put in to place.

Under the old law, the parents of a juvenile had to be notified about their daughter's planned abortion. However, a juvenile could go to a judge to seek an order allowing her to have the procedure without telling her parents. She had to convince the judge that the abortion was in her best interest, that she would face abuse by having to tell her parents or that she was mature enough to make the decision.


The new law requires that at least one parent give his or her consent to the abortion. Girls are still free to go to court to ask a judge for an order to bypass that consent requirement, but the abuse defense can no longer be used.

As you can see it supports the national rights of parents but the removal of the abuse exception makes sense provided Ohio law allows for minors to escape from unfit parents in another way. A minor should be able to challenge their parents fitness to make decisions for them and if not have a court ordered guardian appointed. The criteria for choosing that guardian should be laid out in law to help alleviate the risk of bias on the part of the judge. The greatest error I see in the law is it provides a way for the parents due process of law rights to be violated by having secret hearings. I can not blame the lawmakers for this breach of the Constitution as the federal judiciary insist that such an exception is Constitutional. The judiciary need to stop relying on precedent and start looking at maintenance what the Constitution and the law really say in order to stop such contradictions and thus uphold the Rule of Law.


According to the report in Beacon Journal the new law also does the following,

It also requires adults seeking abortions to meet in person with a doctor at least 24 hours beforehand to get a description of the procedure and information about alternatives. Under the former law, that information could be given over the phone or by videotape.

This makes sense to me because it is interest of the state that women make an informed decision when using their right to liberty. It does not make sense to me that the Supreme Court chose to violate the natural right to life of children that are yet in their mothers womb. A right that is retained by the people and written in the law that was practiced not only at that time the Constitution became law but at the time Roe v. Wade was decided.