80 million for artistic expression

This is old news, but I noticed that I had forgotten about it. At the time of the article, nearly 50 members of Congress were fighting fervently against this stimulus grant. One hundred thousand has already gone to some "risque art houses". Details of these houses in short include "kinky art porno horror films, men, women, and one gorilla, and a weekly production entitled "Perverts Put Out" (the long running production that invites guest to "join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun.") We could barely afford my sons birthday party this year in this economy, and then to read an article about the NEA receiving federal money (link PG-13) to allow furtherance of "artistic views" no matter how twisted, can be very frustrating. I can't even believe this stuff anymore, but at the same time, should I really be surprised given current events of the last 15 years? How is giving these 3 groups millions of dollars fiscally responsible? Do you know what we do in our house if we don't have the money? Nothing. What a slap in the face to Americans, 15 million now without work, just getting by, losing their homes, automobiles, etc, and we give 80 million dollars for "art". Maybe there is just something us ("dumb Americans" Bill Maher's thoughts) can't fathom about all this.

Considering the trillions of dollars of debt this nation is in, to even discuss the topic of irresponsibly giving millions of dollars out in the name of "freedom of expression" is bordering on insanity. That phrase never shows up in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. It has been tacked or invented to make allowance for the nations' degenerates. Washington elites, instead of reading it, have become accustomed to "interpreting" the Constitution and other documents to fit their own preferences, and many Americans have followed suit.

Freedom of expression? Certainly those 3 words could cover anything and everything imaginable and conceivable in a mind, and in a body (given the context). So anyone who wants to exercise their "right" can delve into the dark recesses of immorality, blasphemous and detestable displays of religious figures, carnality, self indulgence, and pornographic material or art. These citizens not only act out their abominable desires, but can also receive funding for it, and protection from the same document that grant us freedom to worship as one nation under God. I'm not gonna beat a herd of dead horses but a man photographing or filming explicit images of underage girls is not covered under "freedom of expression". Nor does a "shock-jock" on Sirius Radio talking about every kind of deviant sexual act in great detail fall under the protection of the Bill of Rights because of it's abhorrent and carnal nature. The founding fathers would have never even considered such a notion due to the explicitness of the subject matter. And the man or woman guilty of commiting such contemptible speech would have been flogged, tarred and feathered, and most likely cut off from society and run out of town.

I love paying taxes...

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical" - Thomas Jefferson