Buget Cuts And The Declaration Of Independence

An Associated Press article by David Espo indicates that the GOP is faced with a dilemma in that they have a desire to cut cost or raise taxes to balance the budget. This is America so raising taxes goes against the general grain as King George and Parliament discovered to their loss. Taxes can also stifle the economy in that the people have less money to purchase services and supplies with. Katrina and other disasters have cost taxpayers huge amounts of money and the Iraq war has made its own demands. Where to cut is a question I would not want to face but our Congress people were elected to make those hard decisions and to compromise in a timely manner. I will be looking to make sure they do so.

Nerveless I hope that they renegotiate the cuts proposed as many will more likely cause an increase in children murdered by abortions, since poverty is one reason given by women for getting an abortion . Poverty also gives birth to other types of crimes as it causes more stress on the individuals. Cutting the social programs that are aimed at reducing that poverty is not acceptable unless there are no other options to balance the budget. According to the Declaration of Independence the responsibility of the government is to insure the right to life, health, and the pursuit of happiness of its people and the unnecessary cutting of those social programs would be destructive of that end.

The hypothesis, as proposed in an article by Chuck Hagee, that local governments and charities would pick up the bill is not completely stupid but does have some flaws. A major flaw is that some communities are poor and some are rich which leads to the conclusion that the communities that need the most help will not have the resources available to meet the demand. On the other hand the ones with the most resources will not have the demand for the social services.

The tax cuts that President Bush proposes are of doubtful worth as even if the individuals whom benefit from them invest their money in corporations what guarantee do we have that the jobs generated are even in America. If he can prove that the tax cuts benefit the poor or miiddle class whom will spend their money on products sold in the United States then I can understand them but otherwise I see no advantage in these cuts when we can not pay our bills.

The GOP forget one tenant of society in that you need to take care of your poor and let your middle class and rich take care of themselves. You can do this by addressing the natural capitalistic economic imbalance where the rich tend to end up with all the money while the poor starve by taxing the rich more than the poor. The flat tax is therefore oppressive as is the sales tax as poor spend more of their money on purchases. On the other hand getting rid of all tax deductions would be a good ideal as it would reduce the overhead of the IRS and most cannot be claimed by the poor.

Congress And The FDA Need To Pull The Birth Control Patch To Insure The Right To Life Of Women

According to a report by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention strokes were the number 3 killer of women in the United States in 2002. 8 percent of the deaths of American women were attributed to strokes compared with the 5.2 percent of men which means a woman is approximately 54% more likely to die from stroke than a man. This is even though men are more self destructive; numbering suicide, homicide and other such causes of death in their top 10.

Are the lifestyles of men and women so vastly different or is it that women are more susceptible to strokes? Perhaps, but there is a certain difference in that women use birth control products that are known to cause stroke. The FDA approves these products for the "noble" goal of population control and considers the women loss of life and health to side effects such as stroke as acceptable casualties.

Here we have a report of Ortho Evra birth control patch and the increased risk of stroke it carries which is 14 times higher than the pill. I wonder what percent of women using the pill or patch that comes up to? What I do know from the article is that there were 500 reports of serious complications from the patch while only 61 of all types of existing oral contraception.

The reports tell me that the FDA in regards to their duty under the Declaration of Independence to protect the right to life and health of all human beings should pull the patch since there is evidence of serious complications to women and the benefit is small and can be duplicated by the use of safer products. Considering the number of women dying of stokes and the risk of stroke to those using oral and other types of chemical birth control, I hope the FDA has done a number of long term in-depth studies. What I do know is the FDA felt the need to only warn women of the possible consequences of using the patch, an action I consider is insufficient considering the possible outcome.

Bush Provides For Our Common Defense By Being In Iraq

The United States is not the only nation under attack by far liberal forces that are dedicated to forcing their beliefs unto us no matter what the cost to our right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. In this copyright 2004 question and answer paper from the Council of Foreign Relations that addresses the motivation behind the 9/11 attack, you can see that much of the terrorism breeding in the Middle East is also caused by the Moslem response to the same Secular Atheistic Religious attack that they perceive as Western attempts to destroy Islamic law and culture. Check the below excerpts to see what I mean.

Al-Qaeda, the network of Islamist terrorists that the United States says was behind the terror attacks, subscribes to a militant form of Islam that seeks to rid the Middle East of all Western influence and establish an Islamist state.

Al-Qaeda and like-minded extremists believe that violence, including killing civilians, is justified as a means to restore sharia (Islamic law) and maintain Islamic cultural identity.

Behind the attacks against the United States lies an effort by Muslim extremists to foment a wider Islamist revolution and topple more secular Arab rulers, The extremists also have accused the United States of supporting authoritarian governments in the Middle East while promoting democracy elsewhere

The war in Iraq is aimed at addressing these concerns as it installs a democracy and the new Constitution attempts to combine human rights and Islamic law. This of course infuriates the far left as it is a direct attack upon their agenda. The far left has once again proved that they do not care how many Americans or anyone else get killed as long as they have a chance to further their destructive agenda.

A Kansas School Launches An Attack Against The Secular Atheist Establishment

Once again I am addressing the non-establishment of religion clause and the free exercise of religion. First Benjamin Kang Lim and Chris Buckley bring us the story via the Reuters News Service of China whom has fully established Atheism as the state religion and regulates the practice of any other. In this case a minister and his family were sentenced to jail for the unauthorized publication of the Christian bible and other Christian publications.

In the United States atheism is not as fully established as the state religion as it is just forced on our school aged children and the personal of their schools. A Kansas school board has fought back and attempter to apply the Constitution practice of no religious test to their biology course on evolution. Their story is mentioned in the Associated Press by John Hanna whom states the following giving me the impression he disproved of the boards action.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

It is strange because I was always taught that science was defined as a branch of knowledge based on logic, objectivity and involving observation and experimentation and not a search for "natural" explanation or phenomena as such a view would be biased and thus non-objective.

On the other hand the board decision is objective as well as Constitutional since it allows both the equally valid atheistic hypothesis of random chance mutation and the theist hypothesis of intelligent directed mutation to be taught.

An Attack On Religious Rights

In an Associated Press article by Dan Elliott I have heard of a group called the Alliance Defense Fund that wishes to intervene in a case involving the Air force and Mikey Weinstein, a former Air Force officer and Air Force Academy graduate because it infringes on religious rights. Their justification for the request is that they are defending the right to free exercise of religion and free speech of a pilot and a chaplain. Granting their request makes reasonable chance as the actions of chaplains and military personal are at the root of this case and if their is at question then Weinstein's suit becomes groundless. This is why his lawyer, Sam Bregman, objects with the following words.

``It's hard to believe someone could object to having the Air Force follow the First Amendment,'' he said. ``The idea that we are somehow infringing on somebody's freedom of speech is ridiculous.''

Now if you look at what the article states about Weinstein's suit you will see that the lawyers statement is false and that his clients suit is baseless since it is not the judges' job to do what military personal do but rather job of the Congress as the legislators or the Air Forces as the employer.

Weinstein's suit seeks to prohibit Air Force members from evangelizing, proselytizing or trying ``to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.''

The judge can rule in his favor if he decides Weinstein suffered personal damage and decide on restitution but according to the Constitution it is the legislation that regulates government organizations not the judicial branch.

The non establishment clause is to prevent the taxes or work of loyal citizens of the United States from going to spreading a faith they do not believe in. The question then is if the government is contributing money or workers to spreading a religion. I see no evidence that the Air Force contributes money or labor to evangelizing. By all accounts the actions in question are performed by individuals on their own initiative that just happen to be Air Force personal. For the government to prevent them from doing so would in fact be a violation of their free exercise of religion and of speech. The Air Force could take action under the Civil Rights Act if they can prove significant damage from the religious actions of their personal but that has nothing to do with Weinstein.

Do Religious Organizations Have A Freedom Of Speech

I read an article of how the IRS is threatening a liberal church with withdrawal of its tax exempt status for preaching against the Iraq War and Bush's tax cuts. The IRS is credited with giving the following warning to the church. The IRS warned the church in June that its tax-exempt status was in jeopardy because such organizations are prohibited from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

According to the research I have done in seems that an amendment was passed by Congress in 1954 at the urging of Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson whom had trouble with an opponent assisted by two tax exempt groups. In all the years since Congress has not seen fit to withdraw this amendment.

I would give the government its due in that if you make a deal with the devil, then do not be surprised at the cost. The government in this case made a contract with the religious organization in that they gave the organization their tax exempt status in exchange for the later not making political speech among other reasons. Therefore no violation of the right to free speech as it is part of an exchange of goods and if the church backs out of the contract they are free once more to say what they wish.

There in one flaw in the above argument that the government can demand anything of those they sign a contract with, and that is that the United States Constitution also includes a preamble which governmental officers have sworn to uphold. The preamble holds them to several action, of which one is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" which they would be violating if they write a contract that deprived Americans of their freedom of speech or religion. So in conclusion, the amendment of Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson is unconstitutional because it deprives non-profit organization of the freedom of speech a freedom they need to further the service they provide for the community.

Tom Delay vs Judicial Activism

According to an Associated Press article by April Castro she reports that County District Attorney Ronnie Earle requested Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub a Republican withdraw from consider after Rep. Tom Delay challenges District Judge Bob Perkins a Democrat the donated to John Kerry and Moveon.org. The article goes on to state the following half-truth.

Lawyers on both sides in DeLay's case have argued that political contributions by judges have harmed at least the appearance of impartiality. But in a state where judges are elected and free to contribute to candidates and political parties, it could be a challenge to find a judge who meets both sides' definition of impartial.

Why I state it is a half truth is the Delay has made similar complaints about federal judge whom are not elected as you can see in this excerpt from an article by Charles Babington in the Washington Post.

Liberal activists criticized Cornyn's remarks, and compared them to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments last week following the death of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. DeLay (R-Tex.) rebuked federal and state judges who had ruled in the Schiavo case, saying, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

When he “apologized” for the comments he also expressed the need to curb activist judges according to this Washington Post article by Mike Allen,

Nevertheless, DeLay said he wants the Judiciary Committee to look for ways to deal with what he called "judicial activism," and suggested possibilities such as curtailing certain courts' jurisdiction and even redrawing boundaries of the federal circuits.

"Congress has constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities over the judiciary," he said. "We would be shirking our constitutional obligations if we did not look at these issues as they come up."

Tom Delay is correct in that Congress and more specifically the Senate has a constitutional mandated oversight responsibility over the judiciary. The are given that responsibility by their ability to impeach judges, make rules for the government, regulate jurisdiction, and exercise of other powers. My opinion is that at least in Texas the judges are open about their affiliation and don’t keep them secret as they do other places.

Does The Issue Of Security Letters Violate The Fourth Amendment

According to an article by Associated Press writer Hope Yen the constitutionality of the below issue is under question before federal courts.

The security letters, which were first used in the 1970s, allow access to people's phone and e-mail records, as well as financial data and the Internet sites they surf. The 2001 Patriot Act removed the requirement that the records sought be those of someone under suspicion.

As a result, FBI agents can review the digital records of a citizen as long as the bureau can certify that the person's records are "relevant" to a terrorist investigation.

The Forth Amendment ,which I cite below. is the part of the Constitution the issue of security letters may conflict with.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do not believe that the Fourth Amendment was placed in the Constitution to stop reasonable investigation so from Minnesota v. Olson I got the follow cite which was held by the Court Justices in that April 1990 case.

The State Supreme Court applied essentially the correct standard in holding that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry: An entry may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, the imminent destruction of evidence, the need to prevent a suspect's escape, or the risk of .

The concerns of the government in this case could be the security of the court system itself and its ability to keep information away from potential terrorists or their friends. That would fall under any of the above situation since a leak could lead to any of the above. The solution is to have special judges and support staff for security matters and to vet them to the appropriate security clearance in advance of the request.

As for if Congress has the right to change the requirements of what is a reasonable reason to search. They are the legislative branch of the federal government acting in a federal jurisdiction which gives them the power the define what is and is not reasonable, when the Constitution leaves such a definition is in doubt. The judicial branch is then to determine if the particular request fits those criteria. It is the job of the voters to hold their legislative members in check.

A federal judge has the authority to say that section of the Patriot Act is unenforceable until Congress amends it to include the use of a judge. The federal judge should also state that Congress has the right to decide whether or not that judge and his/her staff need a security check.

Defending Our Shores Against An Attack By Concaine

Here is an article about the attack launched on the United States by political groups within Columbia that are both the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or their paramilitary foes. This attack is through the shipment of cocaine via high speed powerboats called go-fast. Each shipment of drugs is worth millions of dollars and the money is used to fund operations at home. Cocaine use is a large killer of Americans. According to a survey of Crack and Cocaine on the National Institute of Drug Abuse an additional report is as follows.

Use of cocaine in a binge, during which the drug is taken repeatedly and at increasingly high doses, may lead to a state of increasing irritability, restlessness, and paranoia. This can result in a period of full-blown paranoid psychosis, in which the user loses touch with reality and experiences auditory hallucinations.

Our government is attempting to fulfill their obligation to insure the peoples right to life and stop this flow of product into the United States that results in many American lives lost and families destroyed. Legalization is an option but our lack of control of alcohol says that even with regulation destructive products continue to destroy American lives and homes. For the good of the general welfare of the people of the United States a way must be found to filter out those vehicles entering the country carrying cocaine illegally.

Where Have All The Children Gone Long Time Since Now?

Here is another effect from the government sanctioned deliberate and arbitrary killing of children in the United States. According to this article the developed nations who mostly suffer the barbaric scourge of legalized abortion have such a high demand for doctors to take care of their aging population that they have attracted doctors from developing country who suffer from Aids, infectious diseases, and other health problems. I wonder what happen to the younger generation of the United States? I guess they were killed because they were “unwanted”. Though they are certainly wanted now.

The government has wantonly failed at protecting the right to life and liberty of the people of the United States because of abortion and now that failure to insure that blessings of liberty for all generations has caused those developing nations to suffer because of our wrongdoing.

As a people we need to rise up and demand a return to the pro-life values of our fore parents who believed that life was a gift from Nature and Nature’s God and plainly put this belief in the Declaration of Independence for all to see.