A Call To Unestablish The Secular Atheistic Church

I read a CNN article about intelligent design going to court as eight family accuses the discussion of intelligent design of improperly promoting religion in general. I hate to tell them what they already know and that is that Evolution as it is taught already promotes the secular atheistic religion. Separation of Church and state is a courtroom doctrine that has little to do with the United States Constitution except to deny individuals their right to practice their religion freely. The passage in the Constitution that is addressed is the clause in the First Amendment that goes "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

It is true that I have no will to support a religion I do not agree with through my actions or my tax money. Nor do I desire to have someone force me to follow a religion other than the one I choose to follow. But in stating this it is obvious that both statements include atheism as a religion as I have no wish to support it or be forced to practice it instead of the religion I have personally chosen. Evolution as it is preached is in fact an atheistic doctrine of creation as it relies on the hypothesis of random mutation, or non-deity directed mutation, which is a hypothesis that remains unproven. The hypothesis of intelligent design has as much validity as random mutation as no way has yet been determined to prove or disprove either. All we know is that mutations do occur and that we do not know all the factors that cause them to occur including whether or not there is intelligent direction behind their occurrence.

The courts in general have decided that atheism is not a religion and so have conspired with the legislative and executive members to force the atheist theory of creation on the people of the United States to the later's harm. A growing number of people have embraced the state religion of Secular Atheism as has happened with other religions in the past when they were established by the leadership of the country, a case in point is the Church of England in Great Britain. We are no freer than our founders were before they rebelled against Great Britain for they sought freedom from supporting the Church of England while we seek freedom from supporting The Secular Atheist Church of America. Maybe some families will stand up, get a high quality lawyer, and sue the government for forcing them to learn the atheistic theory of creation. When and if they do so hopefully they will find judges that will judge by the law instead of defective precedents.

The Carrot And Stick Aproach To Immigration Reform

According to a Los Angelos Times article Congress is considering passing a legislation that would cause a fence to go up between Mexico and the United States. They are also expanding the enforcement and judicial arms of the border security services. This sounds like they have finally taken the provide for a common defense clause in the Constitution more seriously. But that is only half the equation since the Mexican people are in desperate straits.

I believe that the requirements for entering our country have to be changed. The requirements I propose to satisfy the desire for a more perfect union is knowledge of the English language at a level where the individual can conduct the basic of everyday business with the average American. They should also know the Declaration of Independence, John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, The Virginia Bill of Rights and The Constitution. To satisfy security and justice needs of the United States a background check needs to be run on each individual and a reasonable waiting period of 3 months. The government would also require a DNA sample, fingerprints, retina scan, and picture before allowing anyone to enter the United States legally.

All of this would be a cost of entering the United States. I would do all of this because I believe all humanity has a right to liberty but that right can be limited for the noble purpose of defending our country and preserving our culture. I do not believe that anything I propose here puts an unreasonable burden on those who desire to become American citizens.

A Discussion Of An Amendment For A Congressional Override Of Judicial Decisions

Wicopedia states that Robert Bork desires a Constitutional Amendment that would allow a supermajority of Congress to overcome a Supreme Court Ruling. If this is so he is obviously basing this ideal on the ability of the President to keep Congress legislative power in check as is indicated by the following passage from Article 1 of the Constitution.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

I see no reason why such is even necessary as the Constitution already gives the Senate the ability to impeach sitting judges for perjury if two thirds concur. The Constitution does not grant judges immunity for crimes committed in making their decisions and therefore they do not have it. On the other hand the Constitution does grant The Senate the power to end their term of office as it places the term duration of during good behavior on federal judges. It is also obvious that if a judge violating their constitutional oath of office they are not exhibiting good behavior.

A Legal Precedent Is An Unconstitutional Aplication Of The Law

With Harriet Miers withdrawing herself from consideration President Bush has given up on the stealth nominee and presented Samual Alito. Judge Alito is an experienced judge and has left quite a paper trail for the Senators to go through and nitpick as they did with Robert Bork. This time Bush has decided to select someone the Conservatives would have confidence with to tilt the Supreme Court in the conservative direction.

Despite how John Roberts and Samual Alito are billed as strict constructionist I would hardly agree that such billing is correct as to be a strict constructionist is to go by the letter of the law. Contraire to legal doctrine the law is legislation which was legally passed by the legislative branch of the state and/or federal governments and not judicial precedent. Both judges show ignorance of the Constitution by acknowledging precedent as law as that is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution itself for it clearly states that all legislation will be performed by Congress and no other. Alexander Hamilton when defending the Supreme Court in the federation papers clearly states that it would not be a threat to American democracy as long as it was constrained to judicial powers.

To balance the branches The Senate was given the judicial power of impeachment and all branches of government were made to take Constitutional oaths in order to keep t them from exceeding their power. This power has seldom been used and has resulted in The United States lack of freedom. When a federal judge renders a decision that a Senator finds unconstitutional that Senator has the duty to the people imparted by the his/her oath and the Constitution to attempt to get that judge impeached. They also have the duty to attempt to stop individuals intent on misinterpreting the Constitution from getting on the bench by denying them their consent. Perhaps it is time that the Senate sent a message to the federal judges that only the legislative branch has the right to make laws by rejecting Samuel Alito for his unconstitutional stance on precedents, many which were set by activist.

Three Amendments To The Constitution President Bush Must Recommend Be Passed

President Bush is faltering but he can strengthen himself if he remembers those whom voted for him.

Families are concerned for what he can do to strengthen families including parental rights. I suggest that he move to place a parental right amendment in the constitution. The parental right amendment should rely heavily on what John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise on Government. The amendment should be that parents have responsibility for their children’s actions and so authority over their children’s right to liberty prior to their 18th birth day unless deprived of it by due process of law.

He should also suggest a right to liberty amendment be added to the Constitution. The right to liberty should also be based on John Locke’s writings and should go that any citizen has absolute liberty to dispose of himself or his posses but he has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than that liberties bare preservation calls for it. It should also define liberty as all rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

He should also suggest an amendment that states that any terms in the Constitution whose meaning is left in doubt are to be defined by the applicable state or federal legislatures.

Those three amendments can be combined into one amendment and whether or not they are they can strengthen Bush and the Republican party even further if he mentions he is proposing them in order to fulfill the Declaration of Independence’s requirement that the Government is to act to secure the peoples rights. He should also mention it is his duty to the God of the United States who the signers also claim as theirs at the closure of the Constitution and also to his oath to preserve, protect, and defend that same Constitution to insure the blessings of liberty for all citizens of the United States and their decedents.

If he does this he will tie the Republican Party in with loyalty to the ideals embraced as truth by the founders and start a debate that has the chance of returning the United States to the ideals of liberty and justice for all. Another plus would be that the ACLU and their allies will be furious to say the least.

Stand Against Envy And So Against Prostitution And Pornography

Slavery is the owning of one person by another that regard the owned individual as property that gives one the right to control the use, transfer, sell, or exclude others from the use of the enslaved individual. Prostitution and pornography are limited slavery in that a women will sell her body to another individual who is usually a male to do with as he pleases with limits negotiated beforehand. According to the Dred Scot decision a slave is merchandise and therefore has no rights and so women in general are regarded by the customers that pay women for sex. These women whom envy men and devalue themselves betray their fellow women by debasing themselves in order to satisfy the baser needs of their customers. In Birgit Petersson’s paper titled “Envy and Paths to Equality” she stated the following.

Many women react to this with an idealization of the man. But the price to be paid is a repression of her own self, e.g. the way many women fear not to be chosen by a man. To avoid ending up single, these woman by all means try to live up to the current ideal of a "real women", displaying a caricature of the much too skinny model woman. In short men can "fill up" women cannot.

Instead of envying men women need to stand up and be confident that just in the fact of being women they are gifted with abilities that men can merely aspire to. These abilities that include sex and child bearing but are not limited to either and do include individual skills such art, science, math and much, much, more that can be marketed.

It is true that sex pays and can attract a partner that may or may not help around the house but is the tradeoff worth it. Do you really want to encourage men who see women as a sex object to be disposed of when they no longer need it or have found another better one.

As a women you are more likely to be the one pursued and that gives you the power to choose whom obtains the prize. Use the power wisely. Do not seek to please the man but instead seek to meet your own needs. Look for a man that will treat you special without expecting something in return. Sex is good but loyalty is better. You are the boss of yourself and your body, so do not give that power away for money or false security.

For the sake of the empowerment of women, sexual slavery and degradation through pornography and prostitution need to be outlawed and the laws enforced. To free women the lies about pornography being a form of free speech need to be stomped out as it is known that liberty is not an excuse for license.

Rosa Parks And A Just Act Of Defiance VS. The Unjust Rebellion Against Prohibition

Rosa Parks was and is a great American that in her action of defying authority by not giving up hear seat when commanded to perform such a demeaning task . She stood up for the promise uttered in the Declaration of Independence that all human beings are created equal and therefore was more loyal to America than those who stood against her. Her action was in tune with the right of liberty as it was not licenseous in nature.

The same can not be said of those whom defied prohibition. Prohibition limited legal social alcohol to beer of .05 percent or less. It achieved its goals of reducing alcohol consumption, deaths from cirrhosis of the liver, and admittance to hospitals of alcohol caused depression. The negative came from those whom defied the law and purchased it from dealers. The illegal trade and the competition the unregulated competition therein caused violent crimes to rise. Those that defied the ban, were betraying the ideals on which the United States was founded and which are enumerated in the general welfare clause of the Constitution. The Virginia Bill of Rights states it best.

15. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

I personally believe that Prohibition was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. One is that at the present time beer which was legal is a major cause of alcohol related deaths. Two is that binge drinking is a major cause of alcohol related highway deaths. Three is that light drinking no matter what the percent alcohol content of the drink is can actually be beneficial. So in truth you just need to keep heavy and medium drinking under control, not all drinking over a certain proof, as was attempted during prohibition. During World War II the United States used a rationing system for certain products. This system could be reactivated, modernized and applied to alcohol. The upper consumption level could be set to a level the general population would be willing to bear so as discourage heavy drinking and possibly moderate drinking. The government would then sell the ration cards to the public of drinking age at reasonable processing fee. The card could function much like a debit card and allow a certain number of “drinks” a day based on volume and alcohol content. Of course individuals would try and perhaps succeed in scamming the system, which is to be expected and discouraged.

Rosa Parks by one act of defiance helped to win freedom for many while those tyrants who defied prohibition have caused many to be killed and abused both physically and mentally. For the sake of America and the ideals that made it great all human beings have to be treated equal and enjoy the right to liberty but that liberty in order to be true must not endanger the right of life and health of themselves or anyone else.

Free Us From The Tyranny Of Tobacco And Its Effects

I must applaud the Minnesota Government on making a noble action by banning a grocery store from being a participant in WIC, a subsidy program for the poor when the store charged a pack of cigarettes to the voucher program. The state and federal laws addressed are obviously justified as they are acting to protect the right to life of Americans. Perhaps the sale was a mistake on the part of the cashier but I have heard of schemes that are very similar to this event so in order to discourage the dishonest and careless, tough measures are necessary. If it was indeed a scheme then individuals, such as the mother in this case, whom turn in corrupt or careless organizations that misuse this benevolent program should be well rewarded. A sad item this case highlights is that there are people that believe welfare is a right and not a gift of charity.

The ACLU of course weighs in on the tobacco issue with their right to privacy and lifestyle discrimination. Most everyone else refers to the later as the right to liberty, but then they are not attempting to push the homosexual lifestyle either. John Locke answers that charge with the following words.

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.

The ACLU;s charge that places of employment have no business regulating what you do when off the job because of your right to privacy is correct as far as it goes. The right of places of employment to regulate their employees self destructive actions begin when those action effect the job such as an alcoholic coming to work drunk or the significant effect of added health cost, increased absences and decreased performance suffered by smokers and overweight individuals.

Remember the ACLU is pro drug legalization and tobacco according to them is just another drug. They believe that the negative repercussions of a drug are no business of the government of the People to regulate despite knowing that according to the Virginia Bill of Rights written a month prior to the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution that the following is true.

That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

From these documents upon which our foreparents based the free government we were promised we know that legalizing self destructive behavior such as smoking tobacco is not an exercise of freedom as the ACLU preaches but is instead an exercise of corruption and tyranny.

The Tree Of Liberty In The United States Is Overdue For Refreshing

There is many that argue that the United States is a free government and I laugh at there ignorance. It is true that we are a representative democracy but that does not make us free. To be free and enjoy the blessings of liberty we need a curb on our self indulgent behavior. The Virginia Bill of Rights on which the Constituition Bill of Rights was based was passed in June of 1776 and stated the following.

That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

John Locke in his 1690 Second Treatise on Government stated it as follows.

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; 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.

William Blackstone in his Commentaries On The Laws Of England wrote the following.

And also the law of England wisely and religiously considers, that no man has a power to destroy life, but by commission from God, the author of it: and, as the suicide is guilty of a double offense; one spiritual, in invading the prerogative of the Almighty, and rushing into his immediate presence uncalled for; the other temporal, against the king, who has an interest in the preservation of all his subjects; the law has therefore ranked this among the highest, crimes, making it a peculiar species of felony, a felony committed on oneself

These documents expound on the viewpoints of our founding fathers and what they held as the truth when they wrote these sanctified words in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — 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.

I call those who desire the true liberty and freedom to rebel against the debaucherous tyranny that controls American and elect new representatives that are more interested in fighting against the self destructive practices of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, tobacco abuse, abortion, easy divorces, the sexual revolution, and others practices that are known to be harmful to our society and therefore deprive us of the blessings of liberty. Follow the instruction in the Declaration of Independence and be ready for war but hope that lesser means will prevail in obtaining the liberty promised to us by The Constitution.