Taxpayer funding of the arts violates your 1st Amendment protection


With regard to this subject it is very instructive to recall what one of our forefathers stated concerning the limited power granted to Congress relevant to encouraging “learning and useful arts”.

***"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power.” ***Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page

Not only is federal funding of the “arts” not authorized by our federal Constitution, but taxing and spending for this purpose, has given us such things as Andres Serrano’s anti-Christian bigotry called “P*** Christ”; Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”; Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater; Karen Finley, “the nude, chocolate smeared women”; Kyle Abraham’s “The Watershed and When the Wolves Came In” focusing on sexual identity; a 2016 festival for sexual deviant singing groups who appeared in a “flash mob” in Denver; taxpayer financing for a sexual deviant festival in San Francisco; funding for the Feminist Press at the City University of New York to digitize classic LGBT titles; an open mic group in D.C for story telling about “Queer Culture in America"; and the latest venomous and hateful smut on display financed by tax revenue being Shakespeare In Central Park depicting the violent murder of President Trump ___ all of which is a plain violation of a working person’s 1st Amendment protections who has their earned wages confiscated to finance such crap. Let me explain some history.

In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in the case National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley that NEA grants are constitutional if content does not offend "…general standards of decency…" But the Court not only ignored the absence of a power granted to Congress by our Constitution to fund the promotion of art, it likewise ignored the carefully limited wording in our Constitution granting power to Congress *** To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts*** and how may this be done? *** “. . . by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”***

So, how does federal funding of the arts violate a taxpayer’s guarantee that Congress shall make no law …abridging freedom of speech? Federal funding does so by allowing A, who has received federal grant money taxed away from B, to vocalize and express their opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than B, who has been taxed to finance A’s expressions and feelings in public, while B’s financial resources are reduced by the hand of the federal government in its quest to fund A’s speech and expressions.

So, are we really ok with government force being used to confiscate a hard working person’s earned wages which are then transferred at the discretion of government to another individual so they may express their personal opinions and feelings more forcefully than the wage earner who has been taxed and who may disagree with the tax-getters personal opinions and feelings? Should we really support such tyranny?


”That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .” Jefferson, “A Bill For establishing religious freedom.”


No, we should not.


Our forefathers never intended the force of federal taxation to be used to tax one individual to finance the promotion of ideas or opinions of another taxpayer, and particularly not when the tax payer finds the tax getter’s opinions to be abhorrent and sinful. But this is exactly what the National Endowment for the Arts has been doing for decades, and it is our socialist/progressive crowd’s propaganda which finds favor when the NEA doles out “free”government cheese. For example see: The National Endowment For The Arts Funds Political Propaganda

”Name a liberal political issue—gun control, climate change, open immigration, gender identity—and you can find a government-funded art project that promotes it. Last month the agency doled out thousands of dollars for a play about activist lesbians who “are staunchly opposed to gun ownership.” They paid $20,000 for a series of “climate change-themed public art installations” in Minneapolis. Checking the immigration reform box, it approved a theatrical interpretation of President Obama’s deferred action program for $40,000.”***

And with respect to our forefathers and Founders wisdom, which our socialist/progressive crowd enjoys disparaging, it has been vindicated countless times over the years. Have the following words not come to pass?

***”The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.”***Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page


***“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’searned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals [chosen by the National Endowment for the Arts], to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.”***____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).


With regard to federal funding of the “Arts” and a factious group in support of such funding, Madison writes in Federalist Number 10:

***”By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”***

And who today falls within Madison’s definition of faction? Does the following partial list not meet the definition?

The advocates of:

Federally subsidized “art”; federally subsidized health-care ; federally subsidized food stamps; federally subsidized Section Eight Housing; federally funded unemployment benefits; federally funded student loans and grants; etc., etc., and millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders who are also the recipients of federal government cheese. Do these countless factions not have a devastating financial effect on Congress’ primary functions which are itemized beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1?

Does each of the above identified factious groups not encourage and demand the federal government to use the force of federal taxation to finance their cause by confiscating the property a wage earner has in their labor?

Do you not think our federal government having usurped a power over the above mentioned social needs and wants of the people within the various State borders has created a number of factious groups which put their personal needs and desire above our federal government’s assigned duties which are listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause, 1?

To avoid the dangers of such factious groups our wise founding fathers refused to delegate a power to Congress to care for the social needs of the people within the various state borders which, if not restricted, would create countless tax-payer vs tax-getter factions. In fact, by the Tenth Amendment, our founders purposely left the social needs of the people within the powers of the various State Governments. And how is this summarized and confirmed by one of our Founders during the debates which framed our Constitution? Hamilton writes in Federalist Number 45:

***“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”***

By limiting our federal government’s responsibilities to such matters as war, peace, the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, i.e., ___ those items which are enumerated beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 __ our founders avoided the danger of creating countless tax-payer vs tax-getter factions on a federal level.

But today, with this separation of powers having been breached and countless “federal entitlements” having been unconstitutionally created to satisfy the personal economic needs of the people within the various state borders, our country has been brought to the brink of financial ruin. Our national unfunded debt liability is an estimated $125 TRILLION and approximately 62% of our federal government’s expenditures are for social purposes not authorized by our federal Constitution.

As I have previously pointed out, if we don’t reverse our federal government’s tax-payers vs tax-getters redistribution policies, we most certainly will suffer the same fate as Venezuela, Chile, the UK, and other socialist countries which, instead of protecting the people’s inalienable right to succeed or fail at their own hand, have decided to use government force to steal the product of one person’s labor which is then transferred to another individual or group to be used for their personal economic needs, which in fact is an immoral use of government force.

And what is the fundamental reason for government as expressed by one of our forefathers?

***“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” ***

See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Association v. Topeka,(1875)