The venue is owned by a Methodist group and it seems one person complained about the building’s religious symbols and Christian-based references – among them a 20 foot white cross above the auditorium’s entrance. The ACLU wants the school to remove or cover up the cross and three other religious signs.

In an attempt to reach an accommodation with the ACLU school officials agreed to change the graduation program to remove the student-led invocation and two hymns, to rid the ceremony of any religious references. But of course this was not enough for the ACLU, who is still threatening to sue if the school doesn’t fully comply.

The first amendment to the Constitution states:

The original intent of the first amendment with regard to religion seems unambiguous. Congress shall make no Law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.  The New Jersey school is making no Law nor is it prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is simply a graduation exercise.

But over the years the first amendment has been distorted and perverted to fit the political, social, an moral tenants of various parties. Even the Supreme Court has endorsed these distortions and perversions.

It has now been established that the first amendment now refers to states and municipalities, in addition to the federal government. In the middle to late twentieth century the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. No longer did it have to be a law, now it is simply a perceived preference of one religion over another religion or non-religion.

Now it has reached the point where the first amendment is being interpreted as not being able to even acknowledge God in public. The infamous “separation of church and state” has grown out of this distortion and perversion. As Ronald Reagan so eloquently said:

To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny

The New Jersey school is not trying to create a state church, not trying to repress freedom of religion, not enacting any laws, and not discriminating against anyone. They just want to continue a 70 year tradition. Yet from a series of Supreme Court decisions and manipulation by other courts, government agencies, and organization like the ACLU, the first amendment is being used as a weapon to attack religion wherever it raises its “ugly” head.

The first amendment has gone from being a 45 word sentence with clearly stated intentions to a muddle of leagaleze that bears no resemblance to what our founding fathers intended. Unfortunately, the same could be said of many of the amendments to the Constitution. I am constantly amazed that our country is fast becoming a country where the good of the few outweigh the good of the many. How sad.

But the real story is much worse. Nearly 8% of Americans work directly for the government while an additional 9.6% of Americans work as contractors for the government. Taken together, more than half of all Americans make their living directly from the government. “We have reached a tipping point,” says Grassfire Nation’s Steve Elliott. “That’s why what is happening in Wisconsin could have huge ramifications. Unless citizens stand now for less government and fiscal restraint, the government-dependent class will demand more and more government and our nation will be destroyed from within.”

The reaction by the unions and Democratic legislators to this proposed bill is saddening but not unexpected. Unions have long had their way, to the detriment of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. As for the Democratic legislators fleeing the state to prevent a vote on the bill, that is an unfortunate tactic that sadly has been used by both parties in the past.

The unions argue that the bill is an attack on workers and the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill  is about fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget. Does anyone without an agenda honestly believe the Governor would propose a bill like this if the government was rolling in dough? As for an attack on the middle class, unions only represent 12% of the workforce, which hardly makes it an attack on the middle class.

Collective bargaining is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a privilege that federal employees do not have. As previously stated, only 12% of the workforce is unionized, with most employees choosing not to belong to unions. So collective bargaining is not something that most employees need or even necessarily want.

The old argument is once again raised that teachers are underpaid for the important work  they do. While this may have been true in the past, it is hardly true today. Union workers in Wisconsin make substantially more in salary and benefits that do their counterparts in the private sector. The percentage of salary that union workers in Wisconsin pay towards their pensions and health insurance is far below what federal workers and private sector workers pay. The compensation packages that union employees receive at retirement are much more generous that packages received by non-union employees.

Union workers seem to have no qualms about receiving these kinds of generous benefits at the expense of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. They also have no qualms about keeping their students out of class while they protest in the capital. They have no qualms about having doctors right them phony sick leave slips so they can continue to protest.

The overall behavior of the union protesters in Wisconsin has also been deplorable. They have occupied the capitol building and been loud and disruptive. Their signs and chants show a lack of civility that is disturbing coming from supposedly educated professionals. If you were to follow the coverage provided by the liberal main stream media however, you would think they were all a bunch of angels. Comparing this to the coverage by that same media to Tea Party protests is very enlightening. The immensity of the differences in coverage is a  reflection of  the bias held by most media.

The bottom line is that if something is not done about the out of whack benefits that have been granted to unionized public sector workers in Wisconsin by collective bargaining, real damage will be done not to the union employees, but to the students that these same employees are supposed to be teaching. Furloughs will happen simply because the state of Wisconsin can no longer afford to keep funding these types of benefits. So it the union employees are truly concerned about their students, instead of their pocketbooks, they should accept the bill, as should the absent Democratic legislators. With the economy of the country in the state it is presently in, sacrifices have to be made by everyone, including union employees.

Of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The following information is compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:

* 83 percent of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

* 86 percent of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

* 75 percent of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

* 24.9 percent of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 40.1 percent of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 48.2 percent of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 29 percent (630,000) of convicted illegal alien felons fill Arizona and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

* 53 percent plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

* 50 percent plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens

* 71 percent plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes.”

* 47 percent of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47 percent, 92 percent are illegal aliens.

* 63 percent of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63 percent, 97 percent are illegal aliens

* 66 perent of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens.

* 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the United States to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.

* 97.2 percent of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers

A federal judge ruled recently that South Carolina can’t issue license plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase “I Believe.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the license plate was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion by government. Apparently Judge Currie needs to take a remedial course on Constitutional law or else she is deliberately misrepresenting the true meaning of the First Amendment to promote a political agenda.

Let me just quote the First Amendment and then I will endeavor to explain why Judge Currie’s ruling is unconstitutional and misguided.

First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn’t seem so hard to understand, yet it seems many Liberals have their own special interpretation of those simple words. As long as Congress doesn’t make a law that tells Americans that a particular religion is the official state religion to which all people must belong or passes a law that prohibits us from worshiping or not worshiping the religion of our choice, the First Amendment has not been violated. It is as simple as that.

So where does the much abused term “separation of church and state” come from? It is certainly not in the Constitution. The phrase actually came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist Association fifteen years after the Constitution was written. The Baptists were afraid that the state of Connecticut had not granted them an inalienable right to worship their religion, rather the state was allowing them to worship as a “favor.” So they wrote to Jefferson seeking guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would.

Jefferson responded with the words of the First Amendment and also mentioned the “establishment clause” created a “wall of separation between church and state.” What Jefferson meant by those words was that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around. There is also no constitutional protection from being offended by a religious display on government property.

So when a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State said government must never be allowed to give favorable treatment to one faith above others, that is not what South Carolina is doing and not what the First Amendment protects against. Putting a cross on a license plate is not the equivalent of the state of South Carolina making a law telling South Carolinians that Christianity is the official state religion to which all South Carolinians must belong. Neither is it passing a law preventing Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Atheists from practicing their religion. South Carolina is not prohibiting placing religious symbols of those faiths on license plates and only permitting Christian symbols to be used.

So if the agenda of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is to separate church from state, all I can say is good luck because you certainly cannot use the First Amendment as the tool to further your goals. What groups like this really want is to eliminate religion altogether from our country. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are replete with statements that show that the Founding Fathers believed that religion was vital to the continuation of our Republic. To quote President George Washington in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.

So when groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State attack religion on false grounds, what they are really advocating is the very destruction of our Republic.

]]> http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/11/11/federal-judge-usurps-state-rights-and-misrepresents-first-amendment/feed/ 0 http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/07/27/guns-religion-freedom-of-speech/ http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/07/27/guns-religion-freedom-of-speech/#comments Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:03:12 +0000 Michael Tefft http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/?p=1896 Three of our unalienable rights that are being destroyed by an ever growing and unaccountable government.

Declaration of IndeDpendence

To understand what happened you have to understand the Honduran Constitution. The current Honduran constitution was adopted in 1982, after more than a dozen previous constitutions. Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely changed or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed. It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions.

It also contains 7 articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address critical issues. These 7 articles include the form of the government; the extent of the borders; the number of years of the presidential term; a prohibition with respect to the reelection of presidents, and eligibility for the presidency. There is another article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

What happened during the “coup” was that a Honduran citizen was arrested and sent out of the country by soldiers obeying the constitution of Honduras. He had stripped himself of the presidency through his own actions.

President Zelaya had issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office. Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. The publishing of the decree to initiate an “opinion poll” contravened the articles of the Constitution that dealt with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term.

No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for 10 years. The poll to convene a national constitutional assembly was in order for Zelaya to extend his term as president, in violation of the Honduran constitution. This is the exact same thing that President Chavez of Venezuela did to illegally extend his term in office.

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely- is what happened in Venezuela and is what Zelaya was trying to do in Honduras. The instant sanction of Zelaya by the Constitution successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general of Honduras ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.

Yet the world, led by President Obama, condemned Honduras, calling the proper functioning of the Honduran constitution a “coup”. Obama took sides with tin-horn dictators like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and the Castro brothers. The United Nations chimed in on the wrong side, as it so often does, along with the Organization of American States.

It is particularly disturbing that the leader of the free world so readily condemned Honduras, ignoring the facts of the matter. Here is a President who was very reluctant to condemn Iran for its obvious sham elections and subsequent brutal suppression of its citizens who peacefully protested the illegal actions of their country. But he was quick to join the chorus of voices condemning Honduras for legally preventing another Latin America dictator.

There are some in the United States government who see the events in Honduras for what they really are and are voicing their opinion on the matter. One of them is US Senator Jim DeMint. The world should be praising Honduras and its brave people who stood up for the rule of law in the face of world condemnation and the threat to their freedom from another wannabe dictator. The world, and President Obama, should be ashamed of themselves for taking the side of tyranny over liberty and freedom.

(source – Christian Science Monitor)

1. Medicare for All will create shortages in health care services forcing providers to ration care and increase wait times for patients (12-18 month wait in other countries)

2. Currently, Americans do not pay taxes on employer provided health insurance benefits. If you have health insurance through your company, you are about to be taxed on those plans. The Government will require all Americans have health
insurance and impose FINES on those who do not.

3. The REAL GOAL: Government insurance seeks to eventually squeeze out and eliminate private health insurance companies altogether, forcing Americans to become dependent on a “one plan fits no one” Medicare system.

4. The Government will have access to and control over your health records intruding into the privacy and confidentiality of the doctor patient relationship. We all know how the Government handles confidential information.

5. The current Medicare and Medicaid programs are flawed and full of corruption.
What will happen when we add another 100 million Americans to the program?

6. The President’s current plan will add another TRILLION dollars to the deficit.
Another government program on an already strained economy will bankrupt the
United States.

7. How will Congress pay for their new plans? TAXES. The President campaigned
that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut. However Democrats are now
planning to increase taxes on everything from sugar to cigarettes as well as creating
new taxes, such as Value Added Tax.

8. No one in the country is currently denied access to health care so why is the
President rushing a plan for socialized medicine without thoughtful debate and
consideration? The Government should not be allowed to tell you what health care
you are entitled to and how to live your life.

9. Government controlled health care takes the decision making out of the hands of
individuals and families and puts it in the hands of politicians in Washington.

10. What legal recourse will you have if the government denies you or a loved one
medical care? None.

Help us win the fight against Medicare for All. Visit
www.smartgirlpolitics.ning.com for more information.

It seems another Democrat, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, has found a “terror gap” that must be filled. Democrats are always finding a gap or a loophole in existing laws and policies such that if the gap is not closed or the loophole eliminated “it will threaten our families and our communities.” The “terror gap” that Sen. Lautenberg has ferreted out refers to the government’s terrorist watch list.

The terrorist watch list is a list that is maintained by DHS that contains over a million names of supposed “terrorists” that are a threat to the security of the United States. If you are on the list you can be prevented from flying on a commercial jet and denied a visa. Now it seems that being on the list may prevent you from purchasing a firearm.

No matter that the list contains tens of thousands of names of people who were erroneously added to the list and have broken no laws or committed any acts of terrorism. According to the NRA chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, the “integrity of the terror watch list is poor, as it mistakenly contains the names of many men and women who have violated no law.” “In fact, a March 2009 report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice concluded that many people whose names were mistakenly placed on the list remain there even after their cases have been vetted and closed.”

Since 2004 963 background checks for the purchase of firearms using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System “resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records; of these matches, approximately 90 percent were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no prohibiting information,” the GAO report says. Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms because they appear on the terrorist watch list. This according to the GAO’s director of homeland security and justice issues, Eileen R. Larence.

According to Sen. Lautenberg, this is “proof positive” that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major “loophole” in our law. The “loophole” that Sen. Lautenber is apparently referring to is something called the Constitution of the United States, specifically the 2^nd amendment to the Constitution. As previously stated by the GAO, unless the person on the watch list has committed a crime or has some other factor that prohibits the purchase of a firearm under existing laws, the simple fact of being on the terrorist watch list does not prohibit you from purchasing a firearm. This is as it should be.

Sen. Lautenberg is introducing legislation that would give the U.S. attorney general “authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists.” But the problem is that many of those who are on the terrorists watch list are not in fact terrorists at all. In most cases they are people who are vocal in their support of certain issues that run contrary to the current policies of the government. They are not terrorists, have not committed any crimes, and are protected by the Constitution as are all other citizens. Simply being on a watch list does not and should not strip you of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The legislation proposed by Sen. Lautenberg would deprive innocent people of due process as well as illegally strip them of their rights. I am sure that the existing laws and procedures that apply to all citizens when applying for the purchase of a firearm are more than adequate to prevent any real terrorists on the watch list from acquiring firearms, even if they were not on the watch list. All Sen. Lautenberg’s bill would do is deny everyone else on the list who is not a terrorist and has not committed a crime the right to purchase a firearm.

Lists of citizens who are “suspected terrorists” based solely on their political beliefs date back to the days of J Edgar Hoover. Hoover had extensive files on many Americans, including Elvis Presley, whose only crimes were that their political beliefs ran counter to what Hoover thought they should be. But the most disturbing thing to me about this whole issue is a CNN poll in which readers were asked whether people on the terrorist watch list should be allowed to purchase firearms. An amazing 89 percent thought it was perfectly acceptable to deny someone their Constitutional rights based solely on an inaccurate, outdated and politically motivated list maintained by an organization who is notorious for trampling on the rights of citizens.

I can only assume that the vast majority of citizens actually think that the terrorist watch list really contains the names of a million known terrorists who have committed crimes against the United States. Of course if this were true you would think that there would be a huge federal manhunt under way to apprehend these “threats to our families and our communities.” But the real facts are that the majority of the people on the terrorist watch list are our families and our communities and are no more a threat to the security of our nation than you or me. In fact I would submit that Sen. Lautenberg and AG Holder are more of a threat to this great Republic than most of those on the list. I hope that when I go to board my plane this August for our trip to Hawaii that my name does not show up on the list. After all, writing this article is probably grounds for being added to the list. (Not to mention being involved in 2 Tea Parties.)

]]> http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/06/23/too-many-are-ready-to-see-others-stripped-of-their-rights/feed/ 0 http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/05/06/its-time-to-fight-back-against-attacks-on-the-2nd-amendment/ http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/05/06/its-time-to-fight-back-against-attacks-on-the-2nd-amendment/#comments Wed, 06 May 2009 20:56:05 +0000 Michael Tefft http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/?p=1730 Now that the most anti-gun President ever is in office and has surrounded himself with an equally zealous anti-gun cabinet, it is time for everyone who is as concerned about their 2^nd amendment rights as I am to become a citizen activist. With Attorney General Holden pushing to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban and H.R. 45 Blair Holt being pushed by the Democrats, it is no longer sufficient to simply join the NRA or a state advocacy group such as the VCDL.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) wrote a guest editorial in the June issue of Guns & Ammo magazine in which he set forth a few practical steps that you as an average citizen can take that will help you calmly, credibly and persuasively educate others about the 2^nd amendment and undo the ignorance that is most often at the root of differences in opinion over this amendment.

Congressman Franks quotes Margaret Thatcher who put it quite simply.

First you win the argument, then you win the vote.

The steps put forward by Congressman Franks are:

• Commit to educating yourself thoroughly on the issue.

• Write an op-ed or letter to the editor in your local and national papers.

• Start a blog on the topic and network with other 2^nd amendment bloggers.

• Form a local working group with other citizens who want to advocate for your issue.

• Start a petition. Post the petition on your website or blog.

• Coordinate with your working group to take out an educational, informative ad in the local paper.

• Call your local as well as national talk radio shows.

• Make sure you take the time to call or write your Congressional Representatives in the House and Senate.

• Lastly, don’t yield to discouragement. Patient persistence is perhaps the most potent tool in your arsenal as an aspiring activist.

It is up to you to protect your 2^nd amendment rights. Don’t expect someone else to do it for you. If you don’t take personal responsibility someday the government will come knocking on your door and take away your right to defend yourself and your family. As Samuel Adams stated,

It does not take a majority to prevail …. but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.