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.”