Our Governments Failure To Provide For The Common Defense Of The United States

Illegal Immigration and the threat to national security is real as this report about a Texas firm by the name of The Tollin Group which hired illegal aliens and supplied them with false employment eligibility forms. The illegal aliens were then employed to make meals ready to eat for our troops. This was discovered when a terrorist was arrested that provided evidence that McAllen and Wornick were where the illegal aliens were employed were terrorist targets. No direct links to terrorist were found though I wonder what anthrax or some other additive to those meals would have done for troop or disaster victim health and moral. The American Company that was fined and barred from defense contracts for three years, when we can take a risk on them again and hope they learned their lesson.

In the news is also the story of a naturalized citizen, whom originally came from India, accused of selling top secret technical documents of the B2 Bombers defenses to at least three different countries and possibly more.

Why do we need legal or illegal immigrant labor in sensitive and vulnerable positions? The answer is that we have a shortage of native born laborers. This shortage comes from the drop in native born children as abortion rained its deadly toll and the replacement by immigrants mostly from Hispanic countries as the following statistics show.

. In 2003, there were 73 million children ages 0 to 17 in the United States, or 25 percent of the population, down from a peak of 36 percent at the end of the baby boom (1964). Children are projected to compose 24 percent of the total population in 2020.
. The racial and ethnic diversity of America's children continues to increase over time. In 2003, 60 percent of U.S. children were White-alone, non-Hispanic, 16 percent were Black-alone, and 4 percent were Asian-alone.1 The proportion of Hispanic children has increased faster than that of any other racial and ethnic group, growing from 9 percent of the child population in 1980 to 19 percent in 2003.

So thanks to the politics of the suicidal left and their corporate allies like The Tollin Group we have suffered a larger loss of human life than in any of our wars which has aided an immigrant invasion in colonizing our country and risking our security. So if anyone is guilty of treason it is the self destructive left. We are therefore loosing in an undeclare war of cultures because our government has failed in their duty to provide for the common defence and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

ACLU's War On The Blessings Of Liberty, Which Are For Ourselves And Our Children

An Associate Press article was updated today, October 28, 2005, and concludes that more babies are born out of wedlock last year in the United States than in past years despite teens only accounting for only 24% of them. The biggest increase has been in women in their 20's especially in the age group 25 to 29 which is a good time to have a child. Many of these women are often living with their partners but are still counted as unmarried as they are not formally married. 80 percent of teens giving birth are unwed. 35.7 of the total births in the United States were to unwed mothers.

Studies have shown that unmarried women are more subject to domestic abuse especially cohabitating relationships. Their children are also more likely to be abused or killed through abortion. It is also known that children that grow up in single parent households are significantly more likely to end up in jail.

Planned Parenthood proposes killing the children before birth as a solution for these "unwanted children". Such a solution violates the ideals of natural law, as put forth by John Locke, upon which the United States was founded. It also contributes to a low fertility rate that fails to balance the death rate without immigrantion and a long average lifespan and is thus a threat to the United States.

The best solution is for the government to discourage cohabitation and sex outside of marriage in general by outlawing it and ensuring those laws are enforced. The ACLU is against this ideal suing to have a North Carolina law declared unconstitutional. That is not a surprise since the American Civil Liberties Union often works to destroy the general welfare of the United States and its People. We the people need to pressure our government to obey the Declaration of Independence and strive to secure our right to pursue happiness by creating an stable environment where we and our children are less likely to abuse or be abused.

Big Business Encourages Crime And So Deprives Us Of Our Rights

Paramount Pictures came out with billboard to advertise the movie Get Rich or Die Trying showing 50 Cent holding a gun in his left hand and a microphone in his right. An anti-gun group is protesting and makes their spokesperson made the true statement that "Gun violence is one of the leading causes of death for young black males in South-Central Los Angeles and across urban America,". Paramount Pictures is run by a white man and seems to be advocated the life of crime to people of colors as a way to get ahead in life.

Lets say it is not racism but greed which is causing Paramount to launch this attack on a vulnerable portion of the citizens of the United States by making criminal behavior seem normal or even desirable. Whatever the case it is the Governments job to step in and protect the rights of people of color and others from this infringement on their right to life and health and where the government is. Once again by not acting they have become destructive of the ends for which they are formed and thereby violated the Declaration of Independence.

With Marijuana the Government has Acted Against The ACLU To Insure Our Rights

According to the Constitution the Governments Job is to work for the general welfare of the United States and the federal government does that by making many drugs illegal to purchase without a prescription or at all. One of these drugs is marijuana and the Minutemen are guarding the north and south borders to aid the border patrols in stopping the flow. The ACLU in their alliance with the debauncherous left has of course opposed this attempt to stop this hostile assault upon our country. Read this article from a websight operated from that same debauncherous left to see what they think of the Minutemen's effort.

The ACLU is well aware of the effect of marijuana upon the citizens of the United States some of the short term ones which I list below from the cite familydoctor.org.

* Trouble remembering things
* Sleepiness
* Anxiety
* Paranoia (feeling that people are "out to get you")
* Altered time perception

Despite this the ACLU also supports the use of marijuana for pain control calling as in the following post. I like how they use the word “illegal”. The state of California is violating the federal trade jurisdiction of the Constitution as decided by the Supreme Court by making marijuana legal and the ACLU is well aware of this, yet they do not call that "illegal".

BURBANK, CA ? Confronted with the prospect of a jury trial set to begin next week, a Burbank city attorney today dropped charges against medical marijuana patient Valerie Corral. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Corral, was poised to challenge Burbank's illegal policy of pursuing prosecutions against medical marijuana patients known to be innocent. Despite having dropped the charges against Corral, the city attorney continues to insist that she is guilty and has refused to order police to return her seized medical marijuana.

The cite below of ACLU's efforts to advance the legalization of drugs in the United States is better covered in another article at their web site in an August 22 article.

WASHINGTON - Hearings opened today in the American Civil Liberties Union's challenge to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's policy of obstructing privately funded, FDA-approved scientific research that could lead to marijuana being approved as a prescription medicine.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the FDA are both under the President of the United States line of command. Congress has the right to create, destroy, or alter legislation to resolve this issue. So why does the ACLU have so much trouble with the way the Constitution set up the separation of powers or is their problem with the People of the United States and whom they elected?

In conclusion the ACLU has no problem with violating the Constitution in advancing their agenda that seems to be more influenced by the debaucheries left than by the civil liberties of the citizens of the United States. I am glad my government cares enough that they are looking our for my general welfare as the Constitution calls them to.

The Failure Of Our Governments To Secure Our Happiness And Safety

I previously posted on the effects of divorce on children and the need and duty of our legislators at every level to fight against it in order to fulfill the promise issued by the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Below I am giving some events that speak of the effects of divorce on children and the preventable aftermath. Molly Ball of the Las Vegas Sun contributed an article about the exploding epidemic of child prostitution in that city. In the article the girls choice of careers was partly attributed to broken families.

Part of what keeps girls in the game is their lack of alternatives, Fieselman said. They usually don't have job skills or education; they have health problems and children to care for; they come from broken families and have little support outside the streets.

The Murder of Vitale Horowitz wife of attorney and Daniel Horowitz who was reportedly murdered by a teen who was the victim of multiple divorces as well as having had his older sister killed in a car accident two years previously. Check out this report from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Dyleski is 16 and lives with his mother on Hunsaker Canyon Road about a mile from where Vitale lived with her husband, attorney and TV commentator Daniel Horowitz. His sister Denika was killed two years ago in a car crash at age 18, and according to court records, his father and stepmother of more than 10 years filed for divorce on Oct. 12.

Then there is Holly Ashcraft who is reported to murdered her baby and dumping the body in the trash. Below is a cite from The Los Angeles Times about that event. There is also allegations I heard on the O'Reilly Factor that she may have had a previous baby that disappeared.

Her parents separated when she was about 15, and Ashcraft had not been in close contact with her father since.

In a paper called “An Exploration of the Ramifications of Divorce on Children and Adolescents” by Sara Eleoff at The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine dated November 2003 concludes.

Adolescence (ages 12-18): Adolescents are prone to responding to their parent's divorce with acute depression, suicidal ideation, and sometimes violent acting out episodes…

So how many children and adults have to pay for the lack of action on the part of our legislators. How long will our rights to safetyand security, promised in the Declaration of Independence, be denied by the debaucherous left and their allies in government. You need to take to heart the words attributed to Edward Burk which are "Evil Triumphs When Good Men Do Nothing! Urge your federal, state, and local legislative members to take a stand against the evil of divorce and let them know you are as willing to fight for your rights and the rights of your decedents as your forparents before you.

Easy Divorce Is The Governments Violation Of Our Children’s Right To Happiness

The Constitution of the United States affirms that it was put in effect to promote the general welfare and promote the blessings of liberty for citizens of the United States and their descendents and our government officials take a oath to uphold it yet the do not lift a single finger to keep their word.

One reason I say this is that the incidence of divorce in this country is high and has been high as America has been attacked from the debaucherous left. One of the attacks is to make divorce more acceptable in our society. I ask what defense have the politicians put up against this attract? Here are a few effects of divorce in our country I obtained from paper titled "The Effects of Divorce on Children and Families" by Dr. Todd E. Linaman .

* Social science research reveals that the effects of divorce not only impact a child into adulthood, but they also affect the next generation of children as well.
* Children from divorced families drop out of school at twice the rate of children from intact families.
* The single best predictor of teen suicide is parental divorce and living in a single parent household.
* Children of divorced parents are significantly more likely to become delinquent by age 15, regardless of when the divorce took place, than are children whose own parents are married.
* Comparing all family structures, drug use in children is lowest in the intact married family. .
* Children whose parents divorce have lower rates of graduation from high school and college and also complete fewer college courses.

Politicians have this information as well as many more reason divorce is destructive of our society yet the do not act to limit it. Politicians can enact laws to make divorce more difficult such as mandating a long waiting period. They can also provide marriage councilors who will work with the husband and wife to aid them in overcoming their difficulties. Money spent to prevent divorce is money not spent picking up the shattered lives of the couples or their children. If our government does not act to secure our rights to a stable and secure family life then we need to consider the words in the Declaration of Independence which go like this.

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

We need to take these words to heart and stand up for our right to the blessings of liberty and if absolutely necessary go to war over them as our forbearers did. I hope and pray that we do not have to go that far to obtain the freedom we were promised by the Declaration and the Constitution.

The Legislation Has The Right To Legislate For The Public Good

Legislators have the job of engineering the society in a way that is more beneficial for the safety and security of all. They do it by regulating the rights of the individual members of society for such purposes that are best enumerated in the Preamble of the Constitution with the following words.

in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

The Declaration of Independence states the same though using different words with the following.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

It also acknowledges that the people have the right to change or abolish the legislature an action that we in the United States can do by voting or protest and in extreme cases by violence.

--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

So in Conclusion it is the right of the legislature to make laws limiting the rights of the people but only when necessary to protect those rights. They do this by writing laws and regulations "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to" Americans and their decedents. Obviously this requires the legislature to do a balancing act depending on the ongoing situation and environment An example of their limits is that the legislature cannot oppress the many for the benefit of the few or the poor for the benefit of the rich. An example of the later is taking a person’s home or land for commercial use even if that use will "benefit" the community. That is because a free enterprise is determined to be best for the general good and the businesses can bargain with citizen’s for the business’s wants without governments taking their side and oppressing the people.

The Natural Rights Of Property And Privacy

The Natural Right to Property is that it is your possession so you have the right to do with it as you will. This includes limiting or eliminating others use of your property. The limit to your right of property is that the natural law rule, which is that liberty does not justify license, still applies to it. Property is a person, place, thing, or ideal. Some examples of property are your body , parts of your body, information about your body, information you posses about you, .your artwork, your inventions, your house, your land, and much, much more. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments address the balance between the need to establish justice and the right to property ,

The Natural Right of Privacy is an aspect of property as you have the right to hide or conceal anything you posses. Thus you build a privacy fence to shield your yard or you have to give permission before doctors can share your files with other medical facilities. The Fourth Amendment addresses this right of privacy balanced by the need to establish justice by forbidding unreasonable searches without a lawful warrant.

One legal challenges to the right to privacy is whether the exudation from your property can be available to all comers. Thus if a helicopter flies over your house, do they have the right to take a picture of you in your back yard. Does anyone have the right to take a “picture” of the heat radiated from your house. What about using ultra sensitive microphones to pick up sounds that originate within your property. The courts have a doctrine in this case that is called expectation of privacy in which if you can reasonably expect privacy in a situation then the government has no right to invade that privacy without due process of law. This is justified because the government is using unnatural means to search the property . The unnatural means in the examples I gave was technology, even when the searching device is not located on the property itself.

While your privacy is protected from intentional attempt to breach it, it is not protected from unintentional attempts. That is because the earlier is searching, while the later is not. For example you are in an airport and your luggage is knocked over and breaks open displaying the contents for all to see you in which case you cannot reasonably expect privacy. Then take the case of an amateur scientist using sensitive mikes whom inadvertently picks up conversations from your house. In the second case the results from the use of the mikes was unintentional so the breach of privacy was no different than in the first case.

Convicted Sexual Predators Can Be Legally Stripped Of Their Constitutional Rights

The ACLU is in the news supporting parental rights. Yes this is the same ACLU that does not believe that parents have the right to be notified if their children are getting an abortion. I define parental rights as they were defined by John Locke and then made law through the Declaration of Independence in an earlier post that you may access for reference. Below I describe the situation in question.

The agency (Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services) took custody of the baby over the mother's objections. The baby was born Tuesday and the agency obtained an emergency court order Wednesday authorizing it to take the infant. Child welfare workers argued the infant boy's safety is in jeopardy because the father pleaded guilty to rape and sodomy two decades ago in New York. The agency also cited the mother's alleged history of drug abuse.

The ACLU who would deny due process to parents when their children are thinking of getting an abortion has no problem backing up a convicted child molester whom has been stripped of their parental right through due process of law. ACLU seems to also have trouble understanding the rule of natural human rights which is that liberty does not justify license. Thus the government depriving the father of his parental right because of fears he would molest his child does not violate his natural right of parent as his prior actions justifies the removal of that right from him. The same can’t be said of the mother which is just what the judge in the case rightly decided and so allows her visitation.

In this case the belief is that the father has done his time and should therefore not be subject to addition repercussions. This belief ignores the Thirteen Amendment of the Constitution allows for the enslavement of individuals whom have been convicted of committing crimes. As this is so, then according to the Dred Scott decision the state has the right to decide what rights they wish to revoke or bestow on convicted criminals even after they have “done their time“. The constitutional reasoning for this is to establish justice and protect society from known predators. The Fourteenth Amendment does bestow equal protection under the law and due process to all persons including convicted criminals but neither of those was violated by the actions of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services.

Correction Of My Judgment About The Pledge of Allegiance

Earlier I addressed the United States Pledge of Allegiance and a federal court case that determined whether it was Constitutional. In my blog I mistakenly agreed with the ideal that the phrase “under God” in the pledge was oppressive to those whom did not believe in God. I am hereby retracting that statement.

For reference purposes I cite the pledge below while I explain the rational that has caused me to change my mind.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

First of all the statement “one nation under God” is legally true as you can judge by yourself by reading the end of the Constitution where the signers claim Jesus as their Lord and thus make him Lord of the Constitution and therefore the Nation. Second the point at which my error took effect is that contrary to the claims of the plaintiff in the case the statement “one nation under God” is not an expression of belief in God by the individual making the pledge but merely a description of the United States.

So in conclusion to require students to say the pledge including the phrase “one nation under God” is no more and probably less of a restriction on freedom of religion than requiring them to describe a Sunni as a Muslim or a Catholic as a Christian.