The Attack Of Individual Anarchism On The United States

The Cultural War in the United States is just one front of a world wide conflict. The side with the most strength is anarchist individuals who find religion as restrictive of their freedom. They may claim they adhere to one religion or another but actions speak louder than words. If you support the spread of Atheism you are an Atheist or Agnostic whatever else you claim to be. The second side is a group of diverse religions including some that are Atheist or Agnostic that are often opposed to one another as well as to the spread of the Secular Atheist Religion.

The individual anarchist base their moral beliefs on the doctrine that all human beings have complete control over their own body and possessions. The only limit is the right to liberty of other. Thus a homosexual relationship is an expression of liberty even if it is harmful to both or to society in general. A man can legally commit murder and cannibalism, if his victim consents. A woman can marry a dolphin. These have all happened and are continuing to happen. In the United States the Democrats are the primary Champion of this morality though it has a strong Republican presence.

The classical liberal theory of liberty is described in detail in John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. It states that human have total liberty but that liberty does not justify license. That means homosexuality, adultery, pornography, fornication, rape, murder, and other immoral actions are all civil rights violations. It also states that an individual has total liberty but not the liberty to harm themselves or others except for noble purposes. Abortion, suicide and animal abuse are civil liberty violations. Even environmentalist have some claim since the wanton destruction of plants and animals would be ignoble. Most classical liberal have been forced into the Republican Party.

There is a third party who believes the ideology of individual anarchism can be mixed with religion. In religion and individual anarchism mix worse than water and oil. As Jesus once said “No one can serve two Masters”. A attempt to do that is performed by those that believe that religion is private and you have no right to express it publicly. That sounds more like the actions of the Jews under Catholic or Muslim oppression than a separate doctrine of liberty.

In the end it comes to this will you fully embrace the doctrine of classical liberalism that was established as the law of the land by the Declaration of Independence and is based on love your neighbor as yourself or will you embrace Josiah Warren’s 1833 vision of socialism mixed with individualism where tyranny from your neighbor is acceptable in the name of individual expression.

Another Look At The Establishment Of Atheism By The Supreme Court

Earlier I stated that Everson v. The Board of Education established Atheism as the State religion of the United States. That is so only because of how it was later handled by the Supreme Court. The later Justices seemed to agree more with the minority than the majority in the case.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

The majority used this case to outlaw the use of a generic form of the Christian religion as a state religion. They also state the government can not establish atheism instead. The minority opinion believed that the establishment of atheism was legal.

The opinion held previously to this case was that a generic version of the Constitution was legal and this is well known to be true. All the Constitution outlawed was setting up a specific denomination as the state religion like the Church of England.

From the Library of Congress I obtained the following cite about religion and the Congress of the Confederacy.

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

I find the correctly applied meaning of the establishment clause is oppressive to non-Christians and even to some Christians. Still I have no right to change accept for pushing for an Amendment to do so or legislation. In the court both the majority and the minority decisions were knowing unconstitutional. I say knowing because not only did the Justices have Supreme Court precedents available but they had the Library of Congress.

Insuring The People's Right To Life Through Science

The cites below are from an Agence France-Presse report titled “Scientists locate stem cell which may hold secrets of breast cancer”

Researchers in Australia say they have grown new breasts in mice after discovering the stem cell responsible for mammary tissue, a find which could pave the way for new treatments for breast cancer.

This sounds like a benefit from adult stem cells.

Scientists at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne said it was the first time that a complex organ -- other than skin -- had been grown from a single stem cell.

So if they can grow breast and other organs in humans with adult stem cells will their still be a demand for research using embryonic stem cells.

"What we really want to do it to try to understand breast cancer."

That is a noble goal and at no cost of human life unlike embryonic stem cell research,

Both researchers said it will take "another 10 or 20 years at least" to develop a drug that will counter breast cancer cells.

This sounds like a good place to spend money and the recently passed adult stem cell bill by our federal government does just that.

This is a right to life issue in many different ways and the Declaration of Independence states it is the duty of our government to insure the right to life of all of its people.

An Answer To How Our Border Can Be Defended And Liberty Can Be Respected

The cites below come from the Associate Press Article “U.S. Faces Severe Worker Shortage in Future” by Jim Abrams

The United States faces a severe worker shortage in the near future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday in advocating better education for Americans and changes in immigration law to allow in more foreign workers.

What do you expect since we have arbitrarily and deliberately killed off 44,670,812 million people between January 1973 and April 22, 2004. The pro choice enemies of the people are not satisfied with that atrocity and wish it to continue. Hitler’s genocide rampage only killed off a quarter to half that many people which means the Democratic party is worse than the Nazi Party ever was.

He dismissed as a "crummy argument" criticisms that the business community wants a guest worker program to secure access to cheap labor. "What American companies want is labor, and we are going to be significantly without it," Donohue said.

Supply and demand. If the supply of labor is high and the demand for labor is low then the price of labor goes down. If the supply goes down the cost goes up. Illegal aliens are the reason labor prices stay down. If they don’t pay taxes then you have another hold on them and can reduce the price of labor even further.

We have yet to secure an adequate supply of working taxpayers to run a growing economy and support an explosion of retirees," he said in his organization's report on the state of U.S. business.

Considered that illegal aliens do not pay taxes this is suspicious reasoning at best. The guess worker program advanced by President Bush seems insane since as far as I know we have no way to hold the guest workers or their employers accountable.

To insure justice and defend our border policy a tough border solution is mandatory. but immigration should be allowed if for no other reason than we believe that all humans have the right to liberty. I propose a solution to clean up the effects of the devastation enacted on America by the social anarchist morality of the Democratic Party. The solution is that if a immigrant of any nationality wants to enter the United State we let them provided they do several things.

* Submit DNA Samples, are Finger Printed, have their picture taken and other requirements needed by law enforcement.
* Pass a criminal background check and are not connected to terrorist organizations.
* Have passed a basic English language class with a 80% or better grade.
* Have passed a course on John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Civil Government”.
* Have passed a course on Thomas Payne’s “Common Sense”.
* Have passed a course on William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”.

The courses should take no more than 1 semester to complete. That time should allow a more complete background check. Applicants should be allowed to proficiency out of the courses though a sufficient delay for a background check and other processing must still be had. With this behind him or her an immigrant is probable better equipped to be a good citizen than most native born citizens. The immigrant can then decide whether he/she wants to continue the process to become a citizen or just be a guest worker.

The Liberal Extremist Hate Democracy And How They Undermine It

Here is a case that shows the liberal homosexual movement hate the Democratic process. They were able to get corrupt Massachusetts judges to rule that prohibiting gay marriage was a violation of the state Constitution. A group of the people struck back by getting a petition together to make a voter referendum to overturn the courts 2003 ruling. The homosexual movement appealed to the Attorney General Tom Reilly to have it ruled illegal but he did not agree with them. Now they are filling a lawsuit in order to take it back to their allies in the court system.

This is the problem with allowing activist organizations like the Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation to give grants to the American Bar Association which supplies many of the judges of our justice system. $75,000 and $142,790 respectively in 2002.

If we do not bring the legal system of the United States under control we will be completely dominated accept for the little freedom they allow us. Petition your state and federal legislators to stop activist funding of any bar association. I know the ABA approves law schools which just sued the military over the issue of their don’t ask, don’t tell homosexuality policy. They have an Admissions Committee and I wonder what input they have on the Bar Admission requirements.

The Oppression Of The Right To Life By Scientist

The cord blood stem cell research bill that President Bush recently passed was a strike for science which is supported by the Constitution. This support is only in a small passage. That clause is in Article 1 Section 8 and goes like this.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

But the some medical researchers are not satisfied with this bill as they believe embryonic stem sell have more potential as attested to by this cite from Health News at Monster and Critic.com.

Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, told United Press International. However, 'It is not,' he argued. 'Embryonic stem cells are more pluropotent. That is, they have the potential to become any cell in the body. They are extraordinarily important for medical research,' Greenwood maintained.

If you watched the movie or read the book Comma by Robin Cook he warned about the unethical excesses of the medical research industry interested in prophets over morality. In the story medical personal were intentionally inducing commas in patients so the could use their bodies for parts. Most people say this can not happen in the United States but comma patients are already being parted out as organ donors. Here is a cite from student donor.org.

Many organs and all tissues are donated by deceased donors—most often a person who has been declared brain dead.

This explains the successful media campaign of Karen Ann Quinlan some years back.

The medical research establishment is making many sometimes outrageous claims about how beneficial stem cell research will be if they are allowed to carry through on it. President Bush actually attempted a compromise with them by funding a number of stem cell lines that are already in existence. They are not happy with this compromise and keep demanding more. Stem cells are really a human being at an early stage of development that has been parted our. The cells of the human being at this stage have not specialized yet and so contain the potential to become any cell of the human body. Scientist do not know how these cells know what cell they will become but hypothesize that is has to do with relationship to one another and exposure to chemicals. What they have to do is turn these cells into a specific organ and then grow that organ to the correct age to be transplanted into a human body. The body would of the donor would have to be brain dead but you can kill the brain before the body is born and it will not be considered murder by our corrupt government. Would we pay women to carry these donor bodies or would we wait until the research in artificial wombs progressed. How would we speed mature these bodies since an adult would hardly want to wait 18 or so years for a transplant. I do not see any significant progress made in embryonic stem cell research for years and what research is accomplished will be completely unethical. “The Island “ is a very real possible future.

The Constitution states that it was put in effect to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You can not do that if you kill our posterity, even if you choose to call them embryonic stem cells instead of human beings. Yes we are talking about human beings that our evil culture dispose of in the trash without a thought but perhaps if we start looking at them as the precious life they are we will be turned back to the pro liberty and pro life roots of our country. I sincerely hope so.

Congress Has The Right To Protect Civil Rights Of Its Citizens

I was watching Fox News and they brought up the Case of Terri Shaivo. Their opinion was the interference of Congress in the case was a very foolish action. I beg to differ. The United States Constitution gives Congress the primary jurisdiction over rights of United States Citizens enumerated within it. It does this in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it states “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Those who said otherwise were lying or mistaken.

On the other hand the federal judiciary was not awarded the same power but often takes it anyways is not criticized for the unconstitutional action. You will find no statement in the Constitution that grants the power to judge between a state government and its own people when you read the federal courts jurisdiction Article 3 Section 2. The Eleventh Amendment even restricted federal government more by forbidding suits in law or equity to be prosecuted against a state by citizens of another state or foreign government. The Supreme Court used the clause “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” to justify their actions. The same clause is just a paraphrase of “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” That clause is in Article IV Section 2 and was never intended to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts as the original Constitution would have contradicted itself. The Slaughterhouse cases assumed the courts had supreme jurisdiction on all constitutional issues. I see no explanation of how they came to that conclusion.

Looking at the Slaughterhouse cases I do see why the Justices should not have assumed that jurisdiction over the case. The deciding Justices said “Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government.”. If you commit a crime in a foreign country the executive branch petitions the foreign government but you do not get to appeal to the federal judiciary. In the United States you have a similar situation where the state courts judge according to the constitution and laws of the state as well as the United States Constitution. The later being the highest law of the state. If the federal government disagrees then the executive branch can start a dispute with the state government and that dispute if not resolved in other ways can be taken to the federal courts. As mentioned above the federal Congress can make laws that can be judged by in the federal courts.

Congress was concerned that Terri Shiavo’s rights were being violated in Florida’s courts and made a law so the case could be reviewed by the federal courts. That is what Congress is supposed to do when they are concerned about someone violating the rights of a citizen of the United States. It is also what they should have done in the Slaughterhouse cases.

The reason the designers organized our government is clear because it was the separation of powers. The Supreme Court could not rule on anything until at least one other branch determined it was a problem. If the people of the United States considered it a erroneous ruling they could remove the elected officials who supported it and put in other elected officials that were more in tune with the general public. The way the courts corrupted it leaves the federal courts even isolated from the control of the people which causes tyranny. That was most likely their intent.