web analytics

Tag: constitution

Dan Barker’s War on Religion, Though Childish, Has Adult Implications

Dan Barker’s Freedom from Religion Foundation is immersed in their annual war against all things religious.  That is of course how they view it:  a war.  In this war, they have had quite a few successes, in large part because they realized early on that public sentiment was not on their side.  That is, they could never achieve their goals legislatively.  Their only hope was to turn to the courts, and here the playing field is more to their advantage.  After all, it is easier to persuade one judge or three than it is a million, hundred thousand, etc.

In … continue reading...

The Jaffe Memo, Part 4: THEY mix religion and politics! – The Hyde Amendment

In Part 3, I promised to give an example of the totalitarian attempt to suppress religious expression in the public sphere.  Here we go.

Consider the HARRIS v. McRAE Supreme Court case of 1980.  This case revolved around the Constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment.  You will recall that Roe vs. Wade had made abortion on demand a ‘fundamental’ right in 1973.  Those who opposed abortion worked swiftly to at least ensure that government money, in particular through Medicaid, would not be used to pay for abortions.  This was the Hyde Amendment.

Now, it is very interesting to note that when … continue reading...

Religion and Politics Must Mix- Jaffe Memo reaction – Part 3

The last part ended with a question that this part shall now answer.

Why?  Because ‘religious’ views are just one example of a ‘world view.’  I asked earlier, “Ought not our attitudes and behaviors in political society be driven by our views about the world?  If not our own views about the world, then whose views?”  The very nature of a ‘world view’ is that it is all encompassing.  If we are not allowed to advocate for things personally and publicly because of our views about the world, then obviously we do not live in a free society.   Obviously, if … continue reading...

Why Religion and Politics Must Mix; Jaffe Memo reflections continued- part two

This morning I posted a lengthy post on the Jaffe Memo, a document provided by a vice-president of Planned Parenthood in 1969.  This memo has been making its rounds because it advocates for the encouragement of homosexuality, forced abortions, adding sterilants to the water supply, and so on and so forth.  All this, from an organization that we are told advocates for “women’s health” and “freedom.”

Of course, anyone who has studied Planned Parenthood knows that this is a crock.  It was always about population control and enriching elitists.  In the Jaffe Memo, they are uncharacteristically honest about it.  Read … continue reading...

Christianity and Libertarians, the Republic, and the Consent of the Governed

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

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 Declaration of Independence

The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives.  I’m on several … continue reading...

A Nation Held Hostage to Islam

I just posted this column at The Cypress Times and in the meantime, contributor Kathy posted her own post here at Sntjohnny.com which I thought had a lot of good points.  Click on her link to read what she had to say.  Click ‘read more’ below to finish reading my column.

This thing down in Florida where a pastor of a congregation not much bigger than my thumbnail has threatened to burn korans has reached the heights of absurdity. Pastor Jone’s one long publicity stunt has paid off in spades. It has attracted all kinds of attention. Even Obama has … continue reading...

To prison I go?

I have issued a statement indicating that I will risk jail or imprisonment rather than pay the fine for not getting health insurance as the new law mandates.  This is an outrage and frankly a little disconcerting that elected officials would so easily defy the Constitution to carry out their ‘reform.’   Also disconcerting is the still sizable portion of the public that thinks its a really good idea to nationalize health care, the banks, the auto industry, student loans, etc, etc, etc.  One of these days this is going to bite them in the… uh, well, you know… and they’re … continue reading...

Do atheists own public land?

Kevin Hundt of La Crosse, WI seems to think so:

Atheists do not have “more” say than religious people, we just don’t want government (public-owned) resources to be used to promote religion. Religious people already have tax-free churches; if you want statues and monuments, you can put them there. No one is demanding anyone “hide” their religious belongings – when you all put up those 10 commandments signs in your yards, did anyone complain? No, that’s your property. Put up whatever you want there. But government property is my property, so keep your backward magic superstition off my lawn.  … continue reading...

We have no rights, health care or otherwise, unless…

There are plenty of folks about insisting that there is a universal right to health care.  Obviously, health care is a hot topic right now, but the question of ‘rights’ permeates many other areas of our existence, so I thought I would address it.  I doubt I break any new ground, but it’s on my chest and I want it off.

We have no rights.  At least, not strictly speaking.  If there is a God, he has as much ‘right’ to destroy us as to sustain us.  If there isn’t a God, we have no more rights than an antelope … continue reading...

Principles for proper and moral legislation: in America, abandoned

I am a libertarian-constitutionalist.  By that I basically mean that the government should mind its business at almost every level but when it does become involved it should follow the letter of the law- and the highest law should provide for significant checks and balances to make sure that the government doesn’t overstep its bounds.

I’m pretty sure that the founders of this country had a similar view.  They wouldn’t recognize the bloated thing we have today.  One can guess what they’d say or do.  (I have some guesses).  Let us just assume that no one even tries anymore to … continue reading...

Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as Template for Today’s Liberal Lunacy

This morning’s post is inspired by this Wall Street Journal article.   Essentially, Moore argues that the government is currently engaged in exactly the kind of behavior witnessed in the book.

It is uncouth these days to say anything even slightly critical about the president-elect, excuse me, the Messiah.  No one wants to hear it.  The mass opinion seems to be that we should all at least swallow our partisan tongues for a little while and “Wish Obama a Successful Presidency.”

We are not permitted to ask exactly what would constitute a ‘success’ in Obama’s eyes.  For I certainly do … continue reading...

Hey! People! Even Blagojevich is Innocent Until Proven Guilty!

The continued trouncing of the rule of law in this country is really starting to get on my nerves.  I suppose everyone has heard about the allegations that Governor Blagojevich tried to sell Obama’s vacant senate seat.  Lisa Madigan, Democrat Attorney General, has asked the Illinois state supreme court to strip the governor from his position.

I have no love for Blagojevich.  Frankly, I have no love for any Illinois politician.  My five years in Illinois was like being front and center at a circus.  There is also no question in my mind that Blagojevich is guilty as sin- and … continue reading...

Liberal Outcry: Judicial Activism on the DC Gun Ban

Already I’m seeing and hearing reactions to today’s Supreme Court tossing of the DC gun ban saying that this is conservative judicial activism.  As I understand it (I haven’t read the decisions myself), even the dissent is making that accusation.

I don’t agree, personally.  I believe that the ruling was constructionist (which makes me wonder why Kennedy went with it) but let’s assume it was judicial activism.  Is this not then an illustration about the foolishness of a judicial system that is allowed to deviate at will from the words on the paper?  There is no right to an abortion … continue reading...

Supreme Court orders Military to Read Miranda Rights to Enemy Before Shooting Them

Well, not yet, anyway.  Just crossing the wire is the news that the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision (Liberals+Kennedy versus the Conservatives) that detainees at Gitmo have the same Federal rights under the constitution as any other American, at least insofar as being able to access Federal courts.   I’ll issue the same caveat I’ve heard elsewhere- this has just been released so more details on the decision might clear things up.  At this point, however, it looks like the Supreme Court has just extended the privileges and immunities of the Constitution to ‘enemy combatants.’

I am just … continue reading...