Is Corporate Welfare A Violation Of Religious Freedom?

The auto industry and other companies are a large lobby and we the taxpayer fund their expenses as politicians extent them grants in a scam that in a legal version of money laundering. These funds that we the taxpayer give to these companies are not only used to advance the automobile manufacture industry but to advance their support for progressive social liberal activism.

I get this from combining reports from two vastly different sources. The first is Stop The ACLU who urges the boycott of Ford Motor Company and the second is Ralph Nador who urges the corporate welfare system be overhauled. Stop the ACLU accuses Ford, Chrysler, and GM of being big supporters of the homosexual agenda while also reproving General Motors for being a heavy contributor to the pornography industry.

Things do have appeared to have changed according to the organization American Family Association who reports Ford Motor Corporation is in talks with them over the homosexual issue, while General Motors has sold the Hughes Corp, which provided pornography through its child company Direct TV. News Corp who purchased it, already owns Fox News and other Fox affiliates.

We in the United States are fighting who care about our country are fighting a way against the self destructive doctrine of what I call Progressive Liberalism. Those we elect to represent us in the fight are using our taxes to fund those supporting our enemies. According to the broad interpretation favored by the ACLU, this would be a violation of the non-establishment of religion clause. This is because the whole purpose of that clause was so loyal Americans would not defile themselves by supporting organizations that practiced actions that violated their conscious. We need to push our legislators to correct this violation of our natural right to practice our religion as we see fit.

The whole ideal of our political representatives giving federal or state tax money to the very organizations that are lobbying them through campaign contributions and other donations smells of political corruption. For the sake of our democracy either the political funding of organizations or those companies lobbying has got to go. I favor making any organization that contributes to the government or its representatives by either direct or indirect means an any level ineligible for governmental financial assistance.

Religious Freedom And The Constitution

First according to the Constitution all the signers were Christian as they declared Jesus is their Lord with the words "in the year of our Lord". When someone declares another Lord it means the later is the ruler of the earlier's actions such as approving the Constitution. So it follows that the signers declared Jesus the ruler of themselves, the Constitution, and the United States with those same words.

But if you obey Jesus you know he commanded Christians not to use the weapons of the world but to preach the gospel with a zeal kept in check by their reverence for God and so the rights of others. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 below is an example of this.

NEW INTERNATIONAL TRANSLATION

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

James Madison who drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights agreed with this sentiment in writing his Memorial and Remonstrance to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in which he quoted that state’s Bill of Rights.

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…. “

Christians believe and hold to the doctrine do unto others as you would have them do unto you and this is an important doctrine when considering the application of the First Amendment. The First Amendment clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” is protecting the right to practice religion which in itself is an aspect of the right to liberty. That leads to the logical conclusion that the free practice of religion does not excuse license. We can also reasonable conclude that if we enforce the first clause in such a way as to violate the second then we violate both parts of the religious clause. To correctly interpret the clause we need to know what it is all about. The Antipaedobaptist churches in New England sent Isaac Backus with the below claim to liberty to plea with the First Congress of the United States.

we claim and expect the liberty of worshipping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support a ministry we cannot attend, whilst we demean ourselves as faithful subjects.

So the reason to forbid the Government from establishing a religion is so that citizens do not have support a religion that is not according to their conscious, which is just a part of their free exercise of religion. In applications this explains why chaplains are not violations of the establishment clause as the practice of an individuals religion often requires the consultation with clergy. Those chaplains also have the right to practice their own religion which may include evangelism, but in doing so they must remember that if their practice of that religion has a significant detrimental effect on their employers business then they are exceeding their right to liberty as liberty does not justify license. So it follows if you apply the non-establishment in such a way to forbid individuals from practicing their religion, even when they work for the government you are violating the Constitution and for all practical purposes establishing the Atheist religion. The wisest way to correctly apply the non-establishment clause is for the government to follow the example in Article VI and apply no religious test to their employees actions, the funds the government distribute or any other religious related action they might take.

Harriet Miers And The No Religious Test Clause

President Bush has appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and this has antagonized his conservative allies for two main reason I have heards of. One is that they have in the past has one too many stealth appointees. The secound are also concerned because apparently unqualified cronies such as Michael D. Brown have been appointed to positions of importance in the past. To reassure these conservatives of which I am one, Bush has mentioned that one reason he appointed Miers was that she lived a Christian life.

This in no way reassures me as the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians, go to church regularly and yet support views that violate the law of love your neighbor as your self. For example Roe v. Wade, a ruling expressing hate to human beings, would have been overturned as soon as it was made or shortly thereafter. Nerveless if he was declaring that Christianity was one of the reasons he chose her, he has opened another can of worms.

This invokes situation where the appointment of Harriet Miers could violate the Constitutional clause "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." . This clause in the Constitution is one that serves to protect our religious freedom. An example is that I have no wish to support a religion, such as Atheism, by electing judges or others based on their adherence to it. This being so, as one whom adheres to the doctrine “do unto others as you would have them do unto you“, I am therefore unwilling to force others to support my religion in the same way.

One of the lines of questioning the Senate needs to follow is to discover if Bush used Christianity as a litmus test, because if he did then they should not consent to Harriet Miers becoming a Justice. On the other hand if all he used as a litmus test was that she lives according to the philosophy love your neighbor as yourself, as I believe is the case, then she should be approved providing she is otherwise qualified. This is because the Christian ethics is the foundation of natural law and natural law was established as the law of the land in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The First Amendment Does Not Protect Lying

In several different situations I have found that there is a debate on whether the First Amendment protection of free speech protects the individuals right to lie. This question has come up in relation to politicians making political speeches, corporations and advertisements, and defamation laws.

There is some things that we in the United States have to agree on in order to have a coherent and functional government. One of those is the Rule of Law. According one precept of the rule of law the law has to be clear and coherent and understood by the vast majority of the people it regulates. A second precept is that everyone even the judge who judges by it is subject to it. The practice of law of this Country is based on the Declaration of Independence in that it declares natural law as fact. Natural law was defined in several philosophical and legal works the those that unanimous approved the Declaration of Independence were aware of.

One of these works is John Locke’s “The Second Treatise On Civil Governments”. In the second chapter of the aforementioned work he stated that the right to liberty does not justify license. So knowing this and that the founders of our country wrote it into law when they stated “we hold these truths to be self evident” we can apply it to the Bill of Rights whose purpose is to protect those rights from the government oppression. Since the right to speech is an aspect of the right to liberty it reasonably follows that the rules that apply to the later also apply to the earlier. The logical conclusion in knowing all of this is that the right of speech does not include the right to lie. Thus since this is so it follows that any judge whom rules otherwise is either lying or mistaken, or in other words corrupt or incompetent.

Aging America Due Roe v. Wade And Government Inaction

The population of the United States is aging and there is no one to blame for it but ourselves. We the people have allowed Roe v. Wade to stand for 32 years despite its injustice and unconstitutionality.

The result of this is that the young people who would be there to take care of their elders are not as they are dead and disposed of. This creates job demand in healthcare and computer related fields. This also creates a need to fill low paying jobs that is now being met by legal and illegal immigrants as natives are unavailable due to the fact that 1 out of 3 were executed for being excess population. The crime rate is down because the number of young men, between 9 and 25 whom are more likely to commit them is down. Abortions are down and pro-life groups claim credit but the number of young women is down so there are fewer women to get abortions. Social Security is not secure because there are fewer young to pay thanks to government sanctioned murder of those dependent on mercy. I have heard the ideal expressed that if you want world peace all you have to do is kill off all the people. It appears that our federal government has taken it to heart. It also appears that the citizens of the United States have failed in their duty to hold the excesses of our governments in check. That sadly makes us the Great Satan preached by some Muslims instead of the hope for freedom we promised to be at our founding.

Alexander Hamilton proposed methods to control a corrupt judiciary in his Federalist Paper #78 and Abraham Lincoln followed his advice. For doing that, the later was accused of acting like a tyrant. Hypothetically his actions may have caused the Civil War as the South responded to the perceived threat to self rule. Still that war and others have advanced the progress of freedom. War for freedom has always been considered a just war by patriotic Americans, as it is declared to be so in the Declaration of Independence. In fact according to Hamilton the Judiciary will only be a threat if it combines its powers with either the legislative or executive branch. He is correct as if the executive branch did not enforce the courts dictates they would be worthless. Consider that many a self proclaimed pro-life President including the present one has enforced Roe v. Wade and its vile offspring.

Those Who Embrace The Evolving Constitution Doctrine Are Criminals

All individuals, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, takes the following oath as stated in the federal codes at Title 5 Part III Subpart B Chap. 33 Subchap. 2 Sec. 3331.

``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

The President takes this oath that is written in the Constitution at the end of Article 2 Section 1.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Those that violate their oath are committing the federal crime of perjury described below.

Title 18 Part I Chap. 79 Sec. 1621. Perjury generally Whoever-- (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he
does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

The doctrine of an evolving Constitution is endorsed by a number of individuals which according to reports include Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Biden. Their doctrine conflicts with their oath to defend the Constitution making them guilty of the crime of perjury as I intend to prove below.

My proof is based on the assumption is that those endorsing the doctrine of an evolving Constitution have a competent knowledge of the Constitution. If they do not they should not be making a Constitutional oath.

The doctrine of evolving constitution is based upon the change in the meaning of Constitution of the constitution as new federal court precedents are set by the private interpretation of the Supreme Court Justices..

The errors in this doctrine that make those that follow it and vow to defend the Constitution criminals and guilty of perjury are that:

1. All legislative powers are Congresses and so the Supreme Court has no power of authority to make changes in the meaning of the Constitution. Article 1 Section 1
2. The Supreme Court is limited to just the Judicial power and thus only has the power to judge according to the law and not the power to intentionally alter the law. Article 3 Section 1
3. If due to erroneous judgment the Supreme Court does change the meaning of the Constitution it is up to them to correct their error at the first opportunity since statue law always supersedes court law.
4. The only legal ways for the Constitutional meaning or words to change is if a super majority of both Congress and the state legislatures act to change it or the states convene a Continental Congress and three fourths of the states ratify it. Article 5
5. The Constitution does not give legal authority to the federal courts to change either in meaning or word any part of the Constitution. Read the whole Constitution and you will find this is true.
   

According to Alexander Hamilton’s Federation paper #78 The legislative. the executive branches have the responsibility of not enforcing the mistake and challenging it by lawsuit, legislation, or other action. Those members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of state and federal government have an obligation to uphold their oaths and seek to remove the individuals who practice this doctrine from office because they are a domestic enemy of the United States Constitution. Urge your elected representatives to be loyal to their oaths and oppose anti-constitutional activism wherever it rears its ugly head.

The Right To Libety Does Not Excuse Excess

Since the start of the War in Iraq on March 19,2003 CNN reports the following casualties were suffer by the all volunteer U.S. forces in their fight for the right to life and liberty of the Iraq people.

There have been 2,147 coalition troop deaths, 1,953 Americans, 96 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of October 7, 2005. The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose families have been notified of their deaths by each country's government. At least 14,362 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon does not report the number of non-hostile wounded.

During the same period of time an according to DWI statistics on About.com an estimated 63,800 people have lost their lives on the highways in alcohol related accidents. The alcohol driving accident related wounded during the same time are 1.8 million and of those 188,800 are serious injuries. Just add in suicide, child abuse, domestic abuse and other injuries inflicted by those abusing alcohol and then make your conclusion what war the United States should concerned Americans be protesting. Please note while you are considering this that the casualties of alcohol are suffered in the name of having a good time and that many if not most of the individuals injured or dying are not the actual drinkers.

The limited action of government on the issue of alcohol related deaths and injuries is a violation of the social contract between the citizens of the United States and all the governments signed into law in 1776 and known as the Declaration of Independence. The contract states it is the responsibility of any and all governments to secure the natural human rights of life and liberty. Regarding the right to liberty as compared to the right to life John Locke states in The Second Treatise of Civil Government the following.

Chap. 2 Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license: though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.

What brought this to my attention is a petition that is being sent around spoofing Mothers Against Drunk Driving according to MADD. The intentions of its writers appear to be good but MADD states the action suggested is ineffective. The poem is good and if after hearing it you decide to take action then instead of signing a petition as the email implores you to do, you can make a difference by becoming a Friend of MADD and/or making a financial contribution to them. Both these actions can be done from the MADD web site. The Poem is below so please read it.

I WENT TO A PARTY, MOM

I went to a party,
And remembered what you said.
You told me not to drink, Mom
So I had a Sprite instead.

I felt proud of myself,
The way you said I would,
That I didn't drink and drive,
Though some friends said I should.

I made a healthy choice,
And your advice to me was right,
The party finally ended,
And the kids drove out of sight.

; I got into my car,
Sure to get home in one piece,
I never knew what was coming, Mom
Something I expected least.

Now I'm lying on the pavement,
And I hear the policeman say,
The kid that caused this wreck was drunk,
Mom, his voice seems far away.

My own blood's all around me,
As I try hard not to cry.
I can hear the paramedic say,
This girl is going to die.

I'm sure the guy had no idea,
While he was flying high,
Because he chose to drink and drive,
Now I would have to die.

So why do people do it, Mom
; Knowing that it ruins lives?
And now the pain is cutting me,
Like a hundred stabbing knives.

Tell sister not to be afraid, Mom
Tell daddy to be brave;
And when I go to heaven,
Put Daddy's Girl on my grave.

Someone should have taught him,
That it's wrong to drink and drive.
Maybe if his parents had,
I'd still be alive.

My breath is getting shorter, Mom
I'm getting really scared.
These are my final moments,
And I'm so unprepared.

I wish that you could hold me Mom,
As I lie here and die.

How A Wise Senator Interviews A Canidate For The Supreme Court

The super majority of the Senators have already been questioned by President Bush in the advise phase of his consultation of them. Whether he took their advice when he nominated Harriet Miers remains to be seen. Many question if she is qualified for the position of Supreme Court Justice as I do myself after hearing of a Justice whom seemed to admit he did not know Constitutional law before becoming a Justice and of other Justices who behaved in an erratic or irrational style.

According to an AP article by Hope Yen, Sen. Arlen Specter said he wants to question candidate Miers about her views on privacy and abortion. The fact that he and other Senators want to question Justices on the issues displays that they believe that Justices are swayed by their worldviews and therefore biased. I can understand this as I voted for President Bush and earlier for President Clinton to be biased in their governmental actions. The complication of this scenario is that Justices are supposed to be unbiased. Senitor Spectre is concerned about back room deals where Mier's gave assurances that she would overturn Roe v. Wade. Biasness from that quarter may very well be a valid concern and so he can ask her and James Dobson about it and then make his call based on what he concludes to be the case. The attorney associations and Senators allied to the President try to maintain an illusion of lack of bias by urging the candidates not to answer on specific issues that might come before them. I agree with them ,despite my opinion that they are acting political, for the reason that sincere Justices need time to consult the law books and their staff of law clerks to determine how to correctly apply the law. Despite this they at least need display a knowledge of basic tenants and understanding of Constitution law so they can prove their competency to do the job.

Each Senator has a limited time to consult a candidate and limited information to go on. The situation that resulted from the consultation about Robert Bork appointment displays that Senators are happy to nitpick a Justice about the issues if too much information is available. Candidates have learned it is smart to remain as silent on issues as possible since they can justify their silence according to precedent.

What the Senators should do knowing this is to question the Candidates on the following. What the Declaration of Independence has to do with Constitutional Law? What is natural law and how is it reflected in the Constitution? What is the relation of Colonial period English Common Law as written by William Blackstone and others to the Constitution? Does statue law more trump precedent and is precedent law or advice? Is a Justice whom interprets the law in such a way that he or she knows or suspects may be false violating their oath of office and therefore committing perjury? What relationship is their between the Constitution and the Preamble of the Constitution? In what cases do legislatures have the right to make laws or regulations restricting the rights of the people? What is the jurisdiction of the federal courts? What is the extent and limitation of the judicial power, executive power, legislative powers? What do the Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers have to do with the federal government? Is the courts declaration about trimesters in Roe v. Wade or defining persons an exertion of the legislative power and if not how does it fall under judicial power? There are many questions that do not ask about issues that still test a potential Justices qualifications to sit on the bench and Senators would be wise to ask them in order to keep the citizens informed and verify they are consenting to a high-quality pick.