THAD JONES
Monday, April 28, 2003 12:55:06 AM
To:bill oreilly
I would like to make some points about the Constitution and its place in the government of the United States of America.
With regard to sodomy laws in the various states: Homosexuality is a deviance from biological norms of sexual behavior. When individuals engage in homosexual behavior, it is by the exercise of their volition except in cases of incapacitation or rape. If the legislatures in the various states view such behavior as detrimental to good order or to the health and welfare of the public, then they should by no means be discouraged from prohibiting it.
Furthermore, since homosexuality is a volitional choice and is a deviation from biological norms of sexual behavior, individuals who choose to make this behavior the central focus of their identity and social orientation do so voluntarily and it is unreasonable for them to expect that society at large accept their choices as normal, appropriate, natural or even benign. It must be recognized that such choices entail no special rights, and citizens who regard such behavior as immoral or harmful have the Constitutional right to express their views and to choose not to associate with such individuals. Citizens must also be afforded the right to exercise this discretion in making decisions with regard to prospective employment. Individuals who choose to publicly espouse homosexuality must not be afforded special legal status because that would violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The weight of the law must come down on the side of freedom of association, which is general and non-discriminatory, and not on the side of one group's social or political agenda, which IS discriminatory. In other words, the court must uphold the rights of individual citizens in general over the rights of any group in particular. The Bill of Rights is for individuals, not groups. "Affirmative action" is for groups and is discriminatory by definition. It "affirms" the rights of groups over the rights of individuals to choose who they will associate with. Members of the various groups may also freely exercise this right. ( Start their own company, youth organization, religious organization, country club, educational institution, etc.) It must be ruled unconstitutional to mandate "tolerance" under color of law because such practice is antithetical to individual liberty. The potential for excess is self-evident. The nation is already staggering under the tyranny of "groups." It's in the air. People are afraid to openly express views that are contrary to the interests of certain groups that enjoy the patronage of the so-called intellectual elite in the mainstream establishment. "Political correctness" threatens to suffocate any vestige of true diversity in the country. American citizens should never be afraid to express any view, so long as it is lawful and respects the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of other INDIVIDUALS. (Not the fabricated "rights" of other groups. These have the effect of suppressing the rights of individuals.)
With regard to atheism: Individuals have a constitutional right to abstain from any observance of religion. Any grievance lodged, however, against expressions of belief in a Creator or Supreme God in the public sector must be ruled unconstitutional because the expression of the so-called rights of atheists (a group) has the effect of suppressing the rights of individuals who believe in a Supreme Being and the free exercise of their religion. Moreover, in the Declaration of Independence, humanity "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and atheism, by definition, is hostile to this concept and is a clear and present danger to the very basis of the Bill of Rights, which was derived from George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights." The American leadership invoked God's assent at the very launch of the new government. A court or government that has the scrutiny of the Almighty in view is far more likely to uphold justice and truth and defend the rights even of atheists than one that does not.
(Hence, the use of the Bible when swearing in witnesses and public officials.)
With regard to income tax and social entitlements: Article V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XVI notwithstanding, the use of public funds for purposes other than the common defense, the general welfare (i.e. infrastructure, projects for the use of the general public, the enhancement of government services to the general public, etc.) must be deemed unconstitutional. Once again, the interests of certain groups such as the poor and the elderly are used as a pretext for the taking of the private property of American citizens (i.e. their income) for public use without just compensation. Individuals who espouse such "generosity" should be regarded as enemies of the Constitution and the people.The American people must be freed immediately from the tyranny of such "compassion." It is unconstitutional for the government to be frivolous with the resources of the American people. It is not, however, unconstitutional for the government to encourage voluntary private assistance to the economically challenged. Care of the needy must be voluntary. Compulsory charity at the point of the government's gun is worse than armed robbery. It is extra-constitutional, unjust and hypocritical. Individuals who are concerned for the needs of the poor must appeal for voluntary contributions to the cause or contribute their own time and resources. The current tax structure actually presents an economic barrier and a disincentive to the disadvantaged. As such, it is doubly detrimental to the general welfare. And unconstitutional!
