The ACLU Moves To Opress Free Enterprise And Religious Expression

The ACLU shows it is ignorant about religious freedom in a June 1,1995 article on its web site. There is absolutely no mention of religious freedom as a fundamental right. They do mention reproductive rights, which do exist but they have enlarged the definition beyond its natural borders once again showing their ignorance of natural rights. Reproductive rights is a right to property issue as well as a right to liberty issue in that your body is your own and you have the right to do with it what you will in regards to reproduction. To be technical all that means you can choose whether or not to have sex and who to have it with, since that is all the birth control choices nature provides you with. The use of birth control devices which are not natural falls under the right of liberty, not reproduction, since you have the natural ability to make a choice and the devices are artificial. It is clear that abortion is a violation of any right to liberty our forefather mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution since according to John Locke's theory of natural law which they held to be self evident, liberty does not justify endangering either yourself or any living creature. Below I critique the ACLU paper mentioned previously.

The ACLU wrote "Patients are often not informed of policies that deny women reproductive health services. "

I thought the ACLU were for separation of Church and State. It must be they mean only when it fits in with their politics. I could not verify the truthfulness of the story of this Oregon woman but I wonder if she bothered looking at her bill or if she discussed the sterilization procedure with her physician. In other words there is not enough information here to go on. In addition one case that itself remains unproven hardly makes a frequent occurrence.

The ACLU wrote "Religiously controlled hospitals evade a legal obligation to provide essential reproductive health services. "

And what law is the ACLU speaking of. The only obligation I have heard is that hospitals can not turn away patients who are in need of emergency medical care. Even in critical cases they can deny care for ethical reasons such as what happened in Texas when a hospital refused to take care of a critical ill baby by the name of Sun Hudson, despite the mothers wish to keep him alive.

The ACLU claims "Mergers with religiously controlled hospitals restrict women's access to reproductive health care services, even at non-sectarian institutions. "

Yes many religious hospitals are ethically opposed to abortion and in some cases sterilization.

The ACLU evidence is "For example, in 1992, 14 Catholic hospitals in the Chicago area denied 1,004 rape victims access to the morning-after pill. Of these 1,004 rape victims, 45% were low-income women seeking services in Catholic hospitals in poor and minority communities "

Catholics are ethically opposed to birth control of any type. In this argument the ACLU is attempting to convince us that the ACLU’s ethics should trump the ethics of the Catholic Church in hospitals owned by the later in blatant ignorance of what religious freedom is all about.

The ACLU stated "Clinics that provide abortion services must be affiliated with hospitals. "

Now we have the real objection which shows ignorance of the free enterprise we have in the United States. So instead of spending money to oppress people maybe the ACLU should exercise their right to property and start up some hospitals that go according to their doctrine. Never mind that abortion oppresses people who are still in there mother’s womb already.

The ACLU reasoned "Because these hospitals are forbidden from providing a wide variety of health services, women who need reproductive health services must find them elsewhere. "

Wide variety? This is an overstatement of reality as all we are talking about are population control procedures which hardly comprise as large variety. The Catholic church is opposed to the population control agenda as they believe people are to be fruitful and multiply. Their own statement displays thate once again the ACLU is ignorant of way the free enterprise system operates in the United States.

The Government Can Secure Our Rights By Encouraging Marriage

In a previous post I did a study on marriage and its effects at reducing crime. I am not a professional so I decided to look if any more qualified individuals did such a research. What I found is an 2002 article in the University of Florida News that may explain why marriage has such an effect on crime. Below is a summation of why this is so.

In a study of paroled men, the UF research team found that the most hardened ex-cons were far less likely to return to their crooked ways if they settled down into the routines of a solid marriage, said Alex Piquero, a UF professor of criminology and law who led the study.

This tendency to stay on the straight and narrow was common among whites, blacks and Hispanics, according to the study published in the September issue of the journal Social Science Quarterly.

Crime deprives the victims of their natural human rights and according to the Declaration of Independence it is the job of the United States government to secure these rights. I can think of several ways one way is advertising while another is legislation. My hypothesis is that a combination of the two would be more effective than either by itself.

Pornography And Sexual Explicit Shows Violate Our Right To Life

According to the Declaration of Independence the Government has a duty to insure the right to life of it's People. The United States Constitution agrees with the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble. So the government has the duty to act against significant mental and physical health dangers one of which is the rate at which it is pressed on television and the internet.

In an Associated Press article by reporter Jennifer C. Kerr she mentions that sex on television has doubled in the last seven years. Below is some excerpts from the article.

The study examined a sample of a week's worth of programming on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS, Lifetime, TNT, USA Network and HBO. Sexual content, as defined in the study, could be anything from discussions about sex to scenes involving everything from kissing to intercourse.

The study found that 70 percent of all shows included some sexual content, averaging about five sex scenes per hour. That's up from about three scenes per hour in 1998, and from nearly 4.5 scenes an hour three years ago.

This is the known effect on children.

`Kids who have repeated exposure to sexual content become sexually active at an earlier age. The research is absolutely there,'' said Tim Winter, executive director of the Parents Television Council.

This is the suggested solution.

But an advocacy group funded in part by the entertainment industry says the V-chip and other tools can help parents screen the shows their kids watch.

Weaknesses I find in the solution are that not all parents are responsible and those that are still want help. Also children have the right to watch television and parents like to watch mature shows with their children under their supervision or are they going to have a baby sitter take over every time they want to sit and watch television.

Here is a complaint about government regulation.

``Some activists will only see another opportunity to push government as parent, but parents make the best decisions about what is appropriate for their family to watch and have the tools to enforce those decisions,'' said Jim Dyke, executive director of TV Watch.

Please! The government has an interest in the mental and physical health of its people that goes beyond the authority of parents and not even the Supreme Court debates that. Responsible parents are grateful for all the help they can get. They do not want government interference as happened in the Ninth Circuit Court when teachers could override parental consent on sex in school questions and when this years proposition 73 which denied parental consent on their minor child’s abortion decision was voted down in California.

Then there is a report by a progressive think tank that proves that minors between the age of 12 and 17 are the largest users of pornographic sites on the internet. It also proves that porn sites target children with domain names that are misspelled versions of those commonly visited by children.

Here is a report about internet addiction

Greenfield has conducted one of the largest surveys on the topic to date: a 1998 study of 18,000 Internet users who logged onto the ABC News Web site, abcnews.com. He found that 5.7 percent of his sample met the criteria for compulsive Internet use. Those findings square with figures from smaller studies done by others, which range from 6 percent to 14 percent. Study participants who met Greenfield's criteria (adapted from criteria for compulsive gambling) were particularly hooked on chat rooms, pornography, online shopping and e-mail, he found. About a third said they use the Internet as a form of escape or to alter their mood on a regular basis.

And some of the results

Meanwhile, 75 percent of "addicts" said they had gained "feelings of intimacy" for someone they'd met online, compared to 38 percent of "nonaddicts." Of those who met Greenfield's criteria for Internet addiction, 62 percent said they regularly logged on to pornography sites, spending an average of four hours a week viewing the material. And 37.5 percent of that group masturbated while online, they said.

Here is a definition of sexual addiction whose existence is not in doubt according to this report.

Sexual addiction is best described as a progressive intimacy disorder characterized by compulsive sexual thoughts and acts. Like all addictions, its negative impact on the addict and on family members increases as the disorder progresses. Over time, the addict usually has to intensify the addictive behavior to achieve the same results.

Here is a cite of The National Council on Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity where is defines sexual addiction.

The National Council on Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity has defined sexual addiction as "engaging in persistent and escalating patterns of sexual behavior acted out despite increasing negative consequences to self and others." In other words, a sex addict will continue to engage in certain sexual behaviors despite facing potential health risks, financial problems, shattered relationships or even arrest.

I do not have the space here to go into depth on the known harm to our society from sex outside of marriage and divorce.

In conclusion pornography and sexual content are indeed harmful to both children and adults and because of this it is not only the government's right but also its obligation to act to protect society.

A Debate On "In God We Trust" And The Constitution's "In The Year Of Our Lord".

The phrase "In God We Trust" is in the news this week first with the Supreme Court dodging whether it should be on government buildings or not and then with Michael Newdow's attempt to erase it from the currency of The United States.

"In God We Trust" is an exclamation of faith. It is obviously not an evangelist message no more than someone who states I believe in God is evangelizing. On the other hand if someone were to make me exclaim In Satan I trust I would balk and would not be happy to support a nation who held such beliefs but as to the later case the morality taught and practiced in that nation would be more important. Below is some fine words from the June 12, 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights on this subject.

16. 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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

The other side of the coin so to say is that the vast number of American claim to be theist of one sort or other that all hold faith in a God though not necessary the same God. Between 6 and 9 percent is the number of professed atheist and agnostics is the country and of them only the atheist can reasonably object to the phrase. So one question becomes do you oppress the majority by denying them an expression of their faith in the name of granting the religious rights of a minority or the minority by having them support an exclamation of faith they don’t believe in in the name of the right of the majority to practice theirs. Another question which can render the first irrelevant is whether the cost of adding the phrase "In God We Trust" is significantly different than not adding the phrase because if there is no harm then there is no foul. My conclusion so far is that the government should not spend a significant amount of money for no other reason to make a exclamation of faith or lack of faith for either the majority or minority of the People; nor should they stand in the way of anyone making such declarations even on government grounds by government employees unless the declaration is harmful to themselves or others.

Another point is that the Constitution itself professes belief in Jesus and therefore God with the phrase in the year of our Lord and the First Amendment is obviously not a way to amend it but rather to rationalize it as the above quote above from the Virginia Bill of Rights shows. So to remove the equivalent expression of belief in God from our coins and our buildings would be to deny the Constitution itself and the justification behind it.

The Far Left Forget Congress Holds Hearings And Declares Wars Not The President

Democrats of the extreme liberal persuasion are complaining about how Bush led the United States into war on false pretenses. They say he had more intelligence available than he passed on to him. This may or may not be true nor is it relevant. It is not relevant because Congress has the ability to do hearing on issues that are important to the United States such as going to war. According to Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution Congress and not the executive branch is the one to declare war. So the blame for getting us into Iraq rest solidly on the shoulders of Congress and not the President a fact no one seems to want known. You could accuse the Republican congressional members of rubberstamping Bush’s action but I have not noticed the Democratic members being shy about obstructing him in any other case.

Congresspersons of any party don't want it mentioned because they are covering their own backsides while President Bush is protecting his party and his reputation. The question I ask is why the media is reacting to what the politicians choose to let out instead of doing some investigating journalism to find out what the real deal is. Don't they realize a reactive media is not a free media? To be free you must be proactive so as not to be directed by the politicians actions.

The Iraq War started in March of 2003, and the decision to go to war was based on evidence supplied by the Intelligence community. This is the same Intelligence community whom were found to be at fault in gathering intelligence to prevent the attack of 9/11 by the 9/11 Committee over a year later on July of 2004. Congress has already moved to resolve that problem and the faulty information supplied to them by addressing the 9/11 Committees concerns in legislation they passed at the end of 2004 and which President Bush signed into law. So in short the evidence fails to support any advantage beyond political spin in addressing a situation that has already been addressed by legislation and such spin has the potential to damage the faith we have in the democratic process of the United States for no other purpose that one party may claim more political power than another.

Political Correctness VS. A More Perfect Union

In the interest of a more perfect union where people of diverse races coexist I bring is a report of injustice at a Michigan School that aids the forces of oppression by dropped a song from their concert because a parent said it offended him in reminding them of slavery. It is obvious that not one of those teachers involved bothered doing research on the song or they would have realized that it was a teachable moment to instruct others on black history.

The song was "Pick a bale of Cotton" and is a black folksong that emerged out of the cotton culture of the south that was both before and after the abolition of slavery. Huddie William Ledbetter a black songwriter featured in the Songwriters Hall of Fame wrote one version that is very similar to the one that offended the Michigan parent. Sonny Terry, a well known black harmonica player, and two other singers sang this song on the recording Get on Board: Negro Folksongs by the Folkmasters, Folkways FP 2028, the copyright which is owned by Smithsonian Folkways Recordings.

So these so called teachers find it easier to give in to the censorship of black history than take the opportunity to instruct both parents and children of the glories of black history. It certainly sounds like the blessings of liberty for our posterity are being denied in one more way, for it is never a shame for a person no matter their race to work hard to provide for themselves and their family or to take a break and sing a song or dance a jig.

A Study Of How To Obtain Our Safety And Happiness

In order to advance the constitutional requirement to establish justice I did a small investigation using several sources such as Areaconnect.com on crime and population statistics, a report from the Bay Area Center of Voting Research on the most liberal and conservative cities, and DCJobsource.com on the richest and poorest cities.

What I found is that the 4 conservative cities that were also on the DCJobsource report all were in the 20 cities that had the lowest rate of violent crime while of the thirteen liberal cities 11 were in the 20 cities with the highest crime rate. The conservative cities are Anchorage, AK; Okalahoma City, OK; Colorado Springs; CO, and Arlington, TX while the liberal cities are Seattle, WA; San Francisco, CA; Newark, NJ; Boston, MA; Minneapolis, MN, Oakland, CA; Cleveland, OH; Washington, DC; Buffalo, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Detroit, MI; Baltimore, MD; and St Louis, MO. The conservative cities have a mean average of 642.8 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants with a standard deviation of 193.4. The liberal cities on the other hand have a mean average of 1320.0 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants with a standard deviation of 394.0 which indicates that violent crime is approximately twice as common in liberal cities. Though individual city rankings do not necessary match up to the hypothesis that more conservative cities have lower crime rates the mean average rankings do with liberal cities with a negative deviation in the amount of crime being on average two rankings more conservative than those with a positive deviation. This is even more pronounced in the conservative cities with a six ranking difference.

Wealth is another indicator of crime level with the twenty poorest cities having a mean average violent crime rate of 1187.4 per 100,000 inhabitants with a standard deviation of 407.4. The 20 wealthiest cities on the other hand have a mean average violent crime rate of 714.2 per 100,000 inhabitants with a standard deviation of 341.1. In examining the rank between wealth and politics I found that of the cities indicated as more conservative only Oklahoma City, Ok was in the 20 poorest cities and its rank was 18 while seven of the most liberal cities were in the same group and 6 of them in the top 7 poorest cities. Even though twice as many of the top most liberal cities number in the twenty richest cities the mean average wage is approximately $1800 more in the conservative cities or about 5% greater. Wealth may account for some of the discrepancy between liberal and conservative political models but is obviously not the only factor.

The mean average number of married-couple households of total households in the 39 cities I have statistics for is 39.92 percent with liberals dominating the bottom part of the scale with a range from 26.16 to 34.04 percent while conservatives were in the upper range from 45.81 to 51.63 percent. According to the statistics available for the cities in the top 20 richest and poorest you can calculate the mean violent crime rate of a city based on its marriage rate. The calculation assumes a base of 27.5% of the inhabitants living in house holds and a mean average violent crime rate of 1482.0 per 100000 inhabitants and is phrased like this for every 5% increase in marriage rate the crime rate drops by 181.1 with a standard deviation of 162.3. An interesting discovery but I have my doubt it would hold true outside the study I have as violent crime would be virtually eliminated when the number of married household hit 80%. Nerveless it does show there is a strong correlation between marriage and the level of violent criminal behavior and the need to strengthen the institute of marriage.

I am of the be tough on criminal mindset but my grandmother said a once of prevention is worth a pound of cure and I agree with her. Looking at these statistics I advocate spending money to strengthen the institute of sound marriages and aiding the poor in preference to keeping villains in jail. Still something has to be done to protect the rights of the average citizen from those lawbreakers that have already been created by society.

An Answer Why Women's Self Image Is A Governments Right To Happiness Issue.

Our society is sick. Why do I say that? One proof I enter is an Reuters article that reports of a study that body image not menopause is the cause of lack of sexual desire in women. To put this in reference lets address 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.

I have seen reports of studies that indicate that a person’s happiness depends on how they compare themselves with others in many instances. Given that and the desire some woman have to please men I can see where a woman unhappiness increases as she no longer even compares favorably in her own eyes with herself at a younger age, much less the models that are displayed in the media.

According to the Declaration of Independence it is the governments duty to nature and nature’s God to insure the right to pursue happiness on the part of its citizen’s. How can the government resolve this problem with regulation and legislation. Off hand they need to advance the ideal that women can be attractive to men at any age. One way is to commercials featuring sexually active married couples of all ages perhaps through an alliance with companies hawking their product. Another way is to encourage marriage as then the husband becomes their ally in insuring his wife’s right to happiness.

The Secular Atheist Establishment VS. Scientific Methology

Once again I am going to address evolution which I find oppressive as it is the atheistic theory of creation and not the scientific theory it proposes to be. The reason I am doing so is that according to First Amendment to the Constitution of the United state my tax money or work is not to go to an established religion such as Secular Atheism and an Reuters article by Carey Gillam about “scientist” fighting back against intelligent design. First I wish to make clear that my hypothesis about Judeo-Christian and Moslem creation is that the account of creation in the bible was given by God and his references are not ours so a day could be a thousand years and a thousand years could be a day. I wanted to make it clear that I am not necessary opposed to the theory of evolution itself but will not go into my beliefs any further since this is not a theological blog.

Now I am going to criticize these so called Scientist for behaving is a unscientific method. Science is the search for knowledge with an open mind to all possibilities using a methodic and logical model. This model of scientific methodology requires that you form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis if possible. You then refine your hypothesis until hopefully a factual account of what exist in nature emerges. Several flaws exist that make the changing of one species to another unlikely though not impossible. One of the larges flaws is that in a two sex species the same event that transformed one individual to a separate species that is unable to breed with its parent species also has to happen in an individual of the opposite sex within the same brief period of time and the same limited area or the new species will die out. The chance of such dual equivalent random events happening at the same time is statistically impossible. Intelligent design is therefore a much more reasonable explanation. On the other hand I am unable to prove that either Intelligent design or chance was responsible for the change. In fact I know of no evidence that such a hypothetical change as I proposed above has even been proved to occur in nature.

Now these so called scientist who are really liberal elites or their allies are preaching evolution as science are misstating the situation at best. Evolution is a possible explanation that is backed up by the similarities between modern and extinct features and the dating methods we use. If given enough time I am sure I can come up with several congruent theories that would fit the same evidence. The truth is to embrace the theory of evolution via chance you have to embrace atheism or a theism which set things rolling without maintaining control of chance. In either case you have government establishment of religion which violates the non-establishment clause of the Constitution.