The Government's Support Of The God Of Science In Unconstitutional

The Federal Bill Of Rights was made law to limit the Federal Government and not the state governments as they have their own Constitutions to do that. The federal courts either incompetendly or purposely misinterpreted the Due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and their motive was most likely so they could better control the states. In the following comments I am following their misinterpretation.

If you read the First Amendment of the United States Constitution then you will find all it does is forbid Congress from showing favoritism for any religious organization or prohibiting the exercise of religion of the same organizations. This of course also meant the members of such organizations as the people of that time believed in social contracts.

The separation of church and state doctrine is a lie base on an incompetent or intentional misinterpretation of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist which also mentions natural law which according to the U.S. Declaration is the law of Nature and Nature’s God.

Evolution is called science but the Board of Visitors at Virginia University also called religion a science while Thomas Jefferson was overseeing them. I call evolution a religion because believing in it takes an act of faith because we do not know what really happened as no one recorded the events that evolution talks about and the “evidence” evolutionist put so much faith is may be and probably is misinterpreted.

As proof of my claim I enter the recent discovery that biologist have decided they have gotten the relationships between the four major grouping of insect wrong and have to redraw it. This is not the first discovery of a mistake as the family tree of primates has been restructured and the theoretic relation between placenta, partial placenta, and egg laying mammals has been changed. The later was done after fossil discoveries but the other two were attributed to genetics. Even the configuration as it is now is theoretical which means that believing in it is based on faith. Fossil evidence which lacks genetics for the most part is even more tenuous than that which includes genetic evidence.

Evolutionist refuse to recognize the possibility that an intelligent entity had anything to do with anything as they claim they existence of such an individual can not be proved. If that claim of evolutionist is true then their theory becomes an opinion as they are saying their assumption that God is irrelevant is not falsifiable. As an opinion that makes the theory of Creation or any other theory that accounts for the evidence just as valid.

So why are we teach the faith based theory of evolution in public schools and disregard other faith based theories that explain the diversity of life in the World. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment as the government is showing bias for a particular religious belief and should be fought by all true patriots who believe that the government should show not bias toward any religion.

Source 1 is about evolutionist restructuring the insect family tree.

Character Assasination v Good Character

The GOP is blamed for an ad that accuses Democrat Harold Ford Jr. or going to a party sponsored by Playboy. The ad is said to be racist because is shows a white blond woman who tells him to call her. My perception when I saw the ad was that Mr. Ford engaged in the same kind of womanizing parting that certain politicians have engaged in for years. The facts of the matter are actually a little different as the party though sponsored by Playboy was celebrating a sports event.

Though deceptive the ad does bring up an important question about good character which is prized in our politicians. Do we want a politician that supports a pornographic organization such as Playboy to have a legislative position and is merely attending an event sponsored by Playboy testimony that a individual supports pornography. You should not be deceived as Playboy does have a reason for sponsoring any event and I doubt it is because they like sports.

This is one of many character assassination ads that are criticized by some individuals. I do not see it the same way. The problem with the ad like many ads political or others is that they present one biased viewpoint. This is something the average person should already be aware of and act to counterbalance by finding out what the whole story is much like I did. Mr. Ford and other politicians have the opportunity to respond or get their story out in one way or another. If the worse case occurs then all that happens is that the other politician wins which is at worse a sad comment on the wackiness of some Americans. I have know of no method that will stop wacky people from voting without infringing on the right to vote of everyone which would do more damage than the disease it is intending to cure.

Some of the defenses of those accused of character assassination otherwise known as defamation of character are as follows. A true statement is not considered to defame the character of the person targeted. This includes any statement made in good faith with a reasonable belief it was true. It also includes opinions since they are not falsifiable. It is also not defamatory if the target consents or has such a poor reputation that they can not be defamed.

As you can see it is difficult to prove that character assassination actually occurred in any of these cases and in politics the courts have left it up to the people to decide since they felt it would do to much damage to the political process for the courts to interfere. I agree with them.

Source 1 is my source about negative ads.

Politics And The Border Fence

The Comprehensive immigration reform Ted Kennedy wants amounts to amnesty for millions of law breakers who are mostly from Mexico. This of course leads up to the what the Mexican administration stated supporting the so called comprehensive reform as being no real surprise since such a process favors Mexico over the United States. Bush takes the same viewpoint and may make some concessions on insisting that English becomes the official language of the United States. I question this as the Republicans on the last issue as they had an opportunity to make all election in English but passed it up. That action makes me suspicious of their excuse for insisting on voter ID since the two moves seem to contradict each other. All Aliens who become citizens are supposed to know English to be meet the qualifications so the question is who is voting that does not know English good enough to vote?

Back to the original topic which is the fence which provides for the common defense and which our American compatriot Mr. Kennedy and his Mexican ally Mr. Fox are criticizing. The planned fence will cover only seven hundred miles of our 1951 land miles between Mexico and the United States. From what I know this “fence” may be either an actual fence or a virtual fence which is left up to the Homeland Security Department(HSD) to decide. In addition the HSD can decide where to put this so called fence up which gives them the option of placing it on inhospitable deserts which well may be an ineffective place to put them. Combine this with the idea that the National Guard troops were sent to the border to be support for the border control and to build roads. Roads can be used by anyone including drug smugglers, terrorists, and illegal aliens.

I believe Congress should have insisted on a fence being build and not let Homeland Security decide but the later being an executive branch is given the power to decide what tactics and strategy best serve the interests of the United States. The problem I have is the loyalty factor as Director Michael Chertoff is part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America which to all appearances compromises the independence of the United States. It is also a program the violates the separation of powers idea written in the U.S Constitution. Another question is whether it is giving power that is reserved to the representatives of the United States to a foreign organization in violation to the guarantee of a representative form of government.

There have been claims that “the fence” is not funded and that claim in untrue since 1.2 billion dollars have been allocated to begin the building. This is of the estimated 8 billion needed to build the fence. The 8 billion if it even costs that much is a drop in the bucket to the Federal government. With Homeland Security in charge someone needs to keep a close watch on them to make sure they are not wasting the money either accidentally or purposely.

We the people have to be persistent in our demands that the job done on time and done right. If we do not give up or get bored and stop paying attention then we can get the government to do its job. The government will twist and turn to try not to do their job and Mexico will aid them because there are special moneyed interests that do not want our border secured. I am sure the U.N. will rule against the wall because they already did so with Israel’s wall which was to stop terrorist and had proved effective. We can not let our politicians give into that pressure.

Source 1 is about the signing of the Border Fence Bill.

Judicial Activism v The Rule Of Law In New Jersey

The Courts in New Jersey disappointed both the traditionalist and the homosexual movement when they chose to compromise on the issue of homosexual pseudo marriages by ordering the legislature to pass a law in 180 days that granted homosexuals the same rights as married couples.

This violate the idea of separation of powers that is in the United State Constitution but the New Jersey Constitution may not maintain a similar separation of powers device. This ruling is definitely legislating from the bench as it is up to the legislators to decide what laws to pass and revoke and up to the judiciary to judge according to those laws. The question I have is does the NJ Constitution give the judges the power to legislate from the bench and if it does can New Jersey government still be considered a republic in accordance with the mandate of the U.S. Constitution. The same type of legislative ruling seems to have occurred in Vermont in 1999.

The three dissenters backed homosexual marriage which means that all seven judges on the New Jersey Supreme Court are activist and most likely violate the rule of law. That is a sad state of being for a state and for a country.

I am curious how much the American Bar Association who is a non government organization that has agreed to uphold the principles of the United Nations and supports the homosexual agenda has to do with this and other rulings.

The legislation should condemn the activism of the NJ Superior Court and use what ever powers they have to bring the courts back into compliance with the rule of law but I doubt they will in such a progressive state.

Americans are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to keep our government in check if we do not let our biases sway us to work against the rule of law. If you to have a part in ruling yourself you do not allow judges to legislate from the bench even if the law as it stands is against you point of view. You work for change within the system. The homosexual movement have proven again and again that they would rather force their agenda on the rest of us than leave up to the people to decide what they decide what is best. The judges need to be brought in check and according to an article I read at the Washington Times this is being tried in several states. I believe the effort needs to be tried in every state and in the federal government. This we need to do for the freedom and liberty of the people of the United States.

This equal rights arguments for gays v heterosexual couples is questionable since I am wondering what rights a married person has that a unmarried person does not. My guess is these rights are not really rights but powers given to each partner to deal with contract obligations. If that is so then without a contract there are no obligations and therefore no need for such power. If you say the close relationship should give you these powers then there is no reason why any roommates no matter if the relationship is sexual or not should not have the same powers. This later argument was used by Dr. James Dobson in his support of Colorado Senate Bill 166. From this article the same kind of bill will satisfy the requirements of the political decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court.


Source 1 is about the N.J. Superior Courts activist ruling.

Source 2 is about action being taken to bring activist judges under control.

Source 3 is about Dr. James Dobson’s support of Colorado Senate Bill 166.

The ACLU Supports Online Preditors Who Are Exploiting Children

The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) who is connected to the United Nations(UN) through a non government organization(NGO) agreement where they agree to carry out the policies of the UN is representing the plaintiffs who are against a law meant to protect children from online predators who wish to introduce children to pornography. The law was passed by a Republican Congress in 1998 and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton much to the credit of all that backed it.

The federal government does have the power to legislate in this matter as Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives them the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” and the internet is a place of commerce even if it is just the trade of information.

The issues as stake are freedom of the press/speech. This freedom is limited by the same rule that limits and other freedom and that is that you are not at liberty to harm yourself or any other creature in your possession except for a noble cause. The stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution supports this as in one clause it states it was enacted to “promote the general welfare“. Some other clauses of the preamble may also apply to this situation.

The second issue is parental rights which have recognized as a right longer than the United States has been a country but are not specifically defended by the U.S. Constitution. It would be a good idea to place a parental right Amendment in the U.S. Constitution for this reason. Parental rights are that you have complete authority over your children and those children legally put in your charge because you are responsible for their welfare. The exception to this is that you do not have the right to use this authority to harm yourself, the child, or any other living creature except for noble purpose.

As you can see parental rights makes the freedom of press/speech argument irrelevant to this case as the law merely gives a tool to parents to control what their child views. The Ninth Amendment allows them not to be surpassed by the right to press/speech. It does not stop the legislation from writing laws to that infringe on them. The so called “vagueness” of the law is irrelevant since in the end it is left to the parents discretion to decide what is appropriate and what is not even if the government if over zealous . The argument that overseas content is not regulated just means the law has a loophole in it, which does not make it unconstitutional as such loopholes are not forbidden by the U.S. Constitutions. The ACLU argues that the law accuses parents of being too stupid for not using filters which is placing the work in the hands of often overworked parent who may well be ignorant of how to install filters and maintain them. I know that computer viruses are often passed around. So does this make most people stupid?. The law just makes it so the parents have to make a decision to give child the credit card information or some other proof of being 18 or older that they can use to access these sites.

The bottom line is that these sites want to sell to children who are our most vulnerable and hopefully cherished resource. The federal courts who are an unelected oligarchy that hands down unjust dictates on a regular basis may not see children as a cherished resource. The ACLU who also backs the North American Man Boy Association(NAMBLA) almost certainly does see children as precious and to be protected.

We the people have to demand that Congress controls the excesses of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Article 1 and other parts of the U.S. Constitution. If the candidates that represents us on the federal and other levels of government will not do control the courts then we need to assemble in groups and find other candidates to represent our interests. If we do not do this then we as responsible because we chose not to do the good we can do but instead choose to be quiet even though we should know that silence is seen as surrender.

Source 1 is about lawsuit involving federal law designed to protect our children from online predators.

Whatever Happened To Free Expression Of Religion?

This is a case about the free exercise of religion and applies the Federal Bill of Rights to a state. This is a legal fallacy that in currently practiced by the federal government to give them authority over the states in place the U.S. Constitution does not grant them any. The people have chosen to tolerate this act of tyranny and the violation of the U.S. Constitution. The federal courts began selectively applying the Federal Bill of Rights on states beginning in the 1897 to protect corporations from state regulation which is a conservative action. This violation did not really get going until the 1940’s and 1950’s when the liberals took over the unelected oligarchy that is known as the Supreme Court. From what I understand they use the due process of law clause. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to define what the due process of law is so as long as every individual receives the same due process of law then the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated. In the Federal government the military and civilian courts have two different due process of law. Court proceedings were overturned in the 1878 Reynolds decision, which I mention later, because Utah state due process was violated when federal due process rule were used. It is my hope the people will get sick and tired of the federal governments usurpation of their rights and demand that they live according to the rule of law. In violating their constitutional oaths and the law the Justices who defend this unlawful action prove they do not have the good character required in federal Justices according the U.S. Constitution.

Since we have to work with the current situation as unpleasant as it is the Catholic Church has a point when they state their freedom of religion has been infringed on in this case involving manditory supplying of contraceptives. First I will mention the court ruling in the state of New York which mandated that the Catholic church has to obey a state law that forces them to provide contraceptives in contradiction to the church's free exercise of religion. The state decided that because the Catholic Charity organization, even though owned by the church, was not a religious organization because it employed non Catholics. Since it was not a religious organization then the New York exceptation to the law did not apply.

I can see the state court's reasoning though it seems to violate the legal lie known as secularism as it gives the idea that an organization may be separate from religion as long as it employs people of various religious affiliations. I do not know of very many if any government entities including public schools that employs only members of one religious sect. The only time the U.S. Constitution mentions religious practices is when it forbids Congress from infringing on the free exercise of them. There are exception such as granting the President Sunday off which is obviously a blue law.

Judges whose duty it is to smooth out such contradiction in law often make them when they choose to legislate from the bench. Legislation is best accomplished by legislators and Judges should stick to what they are supposed to be good at and that is judging through the correct application of the law.

The Catholic Church is the one who calls up the First Amendment and states that their freedom of religious expression has been infringe by the state courts interpretation of this law. This brings up a The Reynolds Decision otherwise known as the 1878 Supreme Court Case of Reynolds v The United States and about whether the government had the rights to infringe on Reynolds free expression of religion in the case of polygamy. The Court found that the government had the authority to outlaw polygamy because it had always been “odious” among the nations of northern and western Europe and because it led to “stationary despotism”. Neither of these can be said for contraception and its use has even been “odious” among the People of the United States until about fifty years ago. I doubt that a case can even be made that it improves a woman’s health since pregnancy is not a disease contrary to the claim of some New York judges. The side effects would actually say the opposite.

In order to win their case on free expression of religion the Catholic Church will have to put contraceptives on trial. That would be interesting to see. I do not see a way for contraceptives to win considering the evidence against it starting with the fact the Sexual Revolution and all its damage to our culture is linked to a number of Supreme Court rulings that include the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut that stuck down the legislation banning contraceptives distribution. The problem is the pharmaceutical industry makes a lot of money off contraceptives and will be weighing in against overturning or weakening Griswold v. Connecticut. The other cases were were mostly linked to the pornography industry which is also a large money maker.

Source 1 is article about New York court ruling infringing on the Catholic Churches free expression of religion.

Source 2 is The Reynolds Decision.

Source 3 Griswold v Connecticut.