Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Public School Sponsored Private Cheerleaders for Jesus


I sympathize with the young Texas public school cheerleaders who want to spread the Christian gospel right out on the field at middle and high school football games. They believe that Jesus is watching the game from up in heaven and is on their side. After all, they don’t understand why anyone might object. They don’t understand the United States Constitution or the First Amendment Establishment Clause.  


I can forgive them for their youthful ignorance. But I can hardly forgive the Kountze Independent School District for caving in to their demands after initially prohibiting them from displaying banners containing religious messages during their cheerleading routines at school-sponsored events.  They should know better.
The banners represent the private speech of the students who made them, asserts Beaumont attorney David Starnes, who represents the cheerleaders. The school district, however, still contends that it retains the right to restrict content because the banners are government speech.
Well of course the banners are government speech – not private speech. Of course the school has the obligation to prohibit religious government speech. The cheerleaders just like the football players are representatives of the school. Their activities are school sponsored.
But Thomas Brandt, the attorney representing the district, said that the district would not forbid any banners that were religious in nature, but would do so if they contained language that was offensive or in poor taste.
Huh? The school can sponsor religious speech on the part of the cheerleaders but can censor all other speech? That’s preposterous! Jesus is OK, but swastika’s or “WHITE POWER” signs aren’t, is that it? If it really is private speech then the school cannot pick and choose what is acceptable and what is not; that would amount to viewpoint discrimination which the First Amendment prohibits.
If the school district permits Jesus banners, then it will have to permit any and all banners whether offensive or not. Suppose one of the cheerleaders, an atheist perhaps, held up a large banner declaring that: “NOTHING FAILS LIKE PRAYER,” or “GOD IS IMAGINARY.” I don’t think for one minute that the school would permit that. I think the school cheerleading coach would confiscate those banners and kick that student off the squad.
This also begs the question: Is it OK for the football players to display religious messages on their helmets and uniforms? Would that also be considered private speech?  How about the coaching staff and the referees? They’re all representatives of the school participating in school sponsored events. Shouldn’t they be allowed to display religious banners? Would that be private speech? No! Absolutely not!
The fact is that all those banners are perfectly OK if they’re displayed by students and private citizens in the bleachers, up in the stands or anywhere else off the field where no one could conceivably confuse them with government sponsored speech. In those circumstances it is definitely private speech protected by the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause which must not be censored. 

What's not permissible under the First Amendment is public school sponsored private cheerleaders for Jesus.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

7th GOP Debate: Another Fox News Circus

One can hardly blame Donald Trump for skipping the recent Fox News Channel presidential debate in favor of hosting an event to raise money for wounded military veterans. After all, just like the first so-called Fox News “debate,” it really wasn’t a political debate at all. It was just another show -- a circus performance for the purpose of audience entertainment – not serious intellectual edification.

Once again ring master (moderator?), “Megyn Kelly set the comedic tone for the evening: KELLY: “So let's get started… Senator Cruz, before we get to the issues, let's address the elephant not in the room tonight. (LAUGHTER) Donald Trump has chosen not to attend this evening's presidential debate. What message do you think that sends to the voters of Iowa?”

That’s not a debate question. Kelly candidly admits it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. It’s a deliberate provocation directed at Donald Trump with whom she has been engaged in a feud ever since the last Fox News debate wherein she deliberately provoked Trump with stupid, juvenile, unprofessional questions having nothing to do with the issues.

Megyn Kelly knows perfectly well why Trump skipped this debate. He wasn’t sending a message to Iowa; far from it.  She’s the reason. She doesn’t like Trump and the feeling is mutual. She’s biased and she wears that bias on her sleeve. Kelly doesn’t mind advertising it to the whole world. Her object is to scold and humiliate.

Remember, this is the same Megyn Kelly who confronted Trump then with: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals’... Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks.”

Naturally, Kelly’s first non-question of the latest “debate” gave Ted Cruz the perfect opportunity to mock his absent rival, which is precisely what Kelly intended solely for the amusement of her audience at Trump’s expense: CRUZ: “Now … let me say I'm a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat, and ugly. And Ben, you're a terrible surgeon." (LAUGHTER) "Now that we've gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way...” (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

Ha, ha, ha, clap, clap, clap; that Megyn Kelly girl is just too clever and amusing for words isn’t she? Look how she injected her jab against Donald Trump right from the get go and the rest of the candidates on the “debate” stage were reduced to being used as mere theatrical props in the Megyn Kelly circus show. It’s all about her.

She proved that next by turning her knife on Ted Cruz with another long, convoluted non-debate question designed to pit him personally against Trump: KELLY: “The divide between you and Mr. Trump has turned into one of the biggest stories in the country; And for six months that -- your campaign, during this campaign, you praised Mr. Trump as somebody who you thought was an effective voice against the Washington cartel. You said you were glad that he was running as a Republican. But when he started to criticize you, your message changed, and you suddenly started to portray him as the voice of the Washington cartel, and suggested he would do the Democrats' bidding. Which is it?”
This question wasn’t up for debate with the six other candidates on the stage. This wasn’t about a serious political debate issue. It was solely directed at one candidate. Kelly is not interested in moderating a debate in which the candidates’ debate one another. She wants to participate. She wants the candidates to debate with HER! She wants the spotlight on HER! She wants to shine.
Another example: KELLY: “Senator [sic] Christie, you began this campaign touting your record as a Republican from a blue state who knows how to get things done and reach across the aisle. However, many Republicans feel that reaching across the aisle and getting things done isn't great if you get the wrong things done. And they prefer to stand on principle rather than compromise. Why are they wrong and you're right?
Ted Cruz got it absolutely right when he observed: CRUZ: “Chris, I would note that…  that the last four questions have been, "Rand, please attack Ted. Marco, please attack Ted. Chris, please attack Ted. Jeb, please attack Ted… Let me just say this...."  WALLACE: ... “It is a debate, sir.” CRUZ: “... Well, no, no. A debate actually is a policy issue…”
You see, that’s exactly the point.  In a presidential debate it’s the candidates who are supposed to make the debate points – not the moderators – the candidates. It’s the moderator’s job to moderate – not participate in the debate – moderate. They’re questions should be short, precise and directed to all the candidates; for example: “If elected, how would you handle ISIS?” “What would you do about gun violence?” ”What would you do to improve the economy?  ”What do you think are the major threats to the homeland and how would you deal with them?”  They should begin the topic and then let the candidates do the debating; let them score the political points; let them bicker with each other. It’s not supposed to be an entertainment show. It’s supposed to be a serious debate.
Never-mind that, proclaims Megyn Kelly; she actually thinks that it is proper professional form for her as a monitor to produce a campaign commercial, complete with video clips, no less, targeting one candidate for the benefit of the others.
Case in point: KELLY:  “Live, in Des Moines, Iowa. Now, we move onto the topic of immigration. Senator Rubio, we'll start with you. When you ran for Senate in 2010, you made clear that you opposed legalization and citizenship for illegal immigrants. You promised repeatedly that you would oppose it as a U.S. Senator as well. Here are just a few examples. Watch:” (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) … (END VIDEO CLIP) … (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) … (END VIDEO CLIP) … (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) … (END VIDEO CLIP)  
The video clips purport to show Rubio flip-flopping on the immigration issue. Taken together it looks just like a 60 second negative campaign commercial) KELLY: “Within two years of getting elected you were co-sponsoring legislation to create a path to citizenship, in your words, amnesty. Haven't you already proven that you cannot be trusted on this issue?”
And on and on … WALLACE: “Gentlemen, we're going to turn now to what we call electability, issues that you're either facing in the primaries or issues that you're certainly going to face in a general election. So you may not be altogether unhappy if you're not included in this round.” (LAUGHTER) “Senator Cruz, you pride yourself on standing up to the D.C. cartel, but as we've seen to a certain degree tonight, there's a price for standing up to the D.C. cartel. Thirteen Republican senators have endorsed other candidates, none have endorsed you. You -- twice last year, you asked for a colleague to second a motion, a routine courtesy on the Senate floor, and no senator would do it. Top GOP officials worry that if you're at the top of the ticket -- some officials -- that not only will you lose the White House, but it will tank the ticket all the way down the line. The question is does your style sometimes get in the way of your ability to get things done, sir?”
The 7th GOP presidential Debate: Another Fox News Circus. 

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Animal Farm rules at school

What would you think if your district public school superintendent sent you a letter advising that the education authorities have the right to search a student’s room at home for evidence of any school rules or disciplinary violations if they have reason to think your kid is guilty? I’m sure you’d think that’s not possible, right? It plainly violates the Constitution.
Never-mind that Illinois lawmakers decided last year; they passed a law providing essentially the same kind of thing. Now Illinois parents are getting letters from school authorities informing them that their children's social media passwords may now have to be handed over, as part of school discipline rules.

“School authorities may require a student or his or her parent/guardian to provide a password or other related account information in order to gain access to his/her account or profile on a social networking website if school authorities have reasonable cause to believe that a student's account on a social networking site contains evidence that a student has violated a school disciplinary rule or procedure,” says the letter.

You see Illinois lawmakers and public school authorities believe that your kid can violate school disciplinary rules – cyber bullying, for instance -- even when he or she is not at school; during weekends, holidays and after-hours at any time and any place. And if their social media passwords aren’t handed over to the authorities on demand, there will be trouble – criminal charges.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and especially the First and Fourth Amendments don’t apply to students according to these Orwellian authorities. It’s Animal Farm at school. And no warrants are necessary; due process is not applicable. 

Well, not so fast. One school district in Minnesota found out the hard way that they can’t do that when a federal judge ruled that it’s policy violated a 12-year old student’s fundamental constitutional rights.

As it happened, the kid went on Facebook to criticize her hall monitor: “I hate Kathy because she was mean to me,” she posted. She also wrote about “naughty things” with a boy. One of her Facebook friends ratted on her to her school, so she posted: “I want to know who the f%$# told on me.”

The next thing she knew school authorities and the police paid her an unfriendly visit. They took her to an office, grilled her relentlessly, and badgered her until she gave them all her email and social media account passwords. Armed with the passwords, they rummaged through her Facebook account and found the “naughty” discussion she had with the boy.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled on a preliminary basis that the school appears to have violated the girl’s free speech and privacy rights. “For more than forty years, the United States courts have recognized that students do not check their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door … The movement of student speech to the internet poses some new challenges, but that transition has not abrogated the clearly established general principles which have governed schools for decades,” he wrote.

Following this ruling, the school district shelled out $70,000 of the taxpayer’s money to settle the case.


Maybe Animal Farm doesn’t rule at school after all. 

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Judge Napolitano is wrong!

I admire and have enormous professional respect for Fox News Channel senior judicial analyst and former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano.  When he opines and provides logical reasons, for example, that Hillary Clinton violated this or that federal statute, and therefore should be criminally indicted, he enjoys much credibility with me.

But when Judge Napolitano, a self-described Libertarian, insists that a human “person” must be legally defined as such from the moment of conception, as he does in his latest article: “Killing Babies,” he is simply flat out wrong. That’s not a credible legal opinion. That’s his religious belief.

Napolitano readily concedes that: “The linchpin of Roe vs. Wade [the SCOTUS decision affirming a woman’s right to an abortion] is the judicial determination that the baby [sic] in the womb is not a person.” He knows that if a fertilized egg is constitutionally defined as a “person, then all abortions, regardless of the circumstances, would be banned. That, of course, is exactly what he wants.

You see, Napolitano believes that God creates a new “person” and endows His creation with a full palette of human rights, specifically federal constitutional rights, at the moment of conception. In short, his religious beliefs have convinced him that a fertilized egg is already a “baby” at the moment of conception – legally a “person.”

Napolitano, like so many other fervent anti-abortion rights advocates, including SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, wants to impose his Christian religious beliefs upon all of us as a matter of law. Those religious beliefs are profoundly irrational, illogical, anti-liberty, and unconstitutional.

Moreover, this religious belief that a new “person” exists from the moment of conception, is a very recent one indeed. It’s not a traditional belief. No known ancient civilization, for instance, ever embraced the concept that the unborn were persons. That is an historical fact which is certainly true for Western Civilization as well.

One won’t find any support for the concept of unborn personhood in the Holy Bible. The Jewish tradition has always been that one becomes a person at birth. Jesus Christ was, as we all know according to the Bible, a Jew, and Christians have for many centuries observed the same Jewish traditions.

Catholics did not come to the belief that a new life begins at conception until well into the 19th century. Even then, though they considered abortion a sin, they still believed that individual personhood and the consequent acquiring of rights arose at birth.

Evangelical Christians, those who represent the core of today’s anti-abortion advocates, actually arrived at the belief much later than Catholics. As late as the 1970’s, they were generally indifferent to the matter of abortion, refusing to characterize it as sinful, and citing women’s health, family welfare, and social responsibility as justifications for ending a pregnancy.

As of 1976, Southern Baptists were in favor of legislation allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest, evidence of fetal deformity, and the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and/or physical health of the mother. Evangelicals then clearly didn’t regard abortions as killing babies. The unborn were not regarded as persons.

Napolitano’s assertion that abortion amounts to “killing babies” is offered, not so much as a factual reality, but to appeal instead strictly to emotion, and as such the title of his article is plainly misleading and disingenuous. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “baby” as a very young child or animal, especially one newly or recently born. (Origin: Late Middle English: probably imitative of an infant's first attempts at speech) It’s not generally understood to be a baby until it is born, e.g. “his wife’s just had a baby.”

Napolitano might just as well have entitled his piece: “Killing children,” “Killing kids,” or yes, perhaps even “Killing people,” since he asserts that the unborn at any stage of development are people in order to achieve the greatest emotional impact possible in support of his argument that abortion amounts to murder.

A “person” is defined in the dictionary as a human being regarded as an individual, e.g. “she is a person of astonishing energy.” Again; a human being is traditionally regarded as an individual at birth; not before. Eggs are not typically defined as persons.

People everywhere  traditionally celebrate their date of birth – not their date of conception – in regard to the moment they believe they became an individual person. When was the last time someone asked you where you were conceived? No one has ever asked me that question, but many have asked me where I was born. That’s because traditionally, conception doesn’t matter as far as individuals are concerned – birth matters. You became an individual person at birth. Judge Napolitano wants to change that longstanding tradition which has prevailed since the dawn of human civilization.

Governments certify your date of birth with a birth certificate. That’s the law everywhere. Do you know anyone whose conception was certified but not their birth? I don’t. No one is particularly interested in the date you were conceived. You acquired your personhood and your constitutional rights at birth – not at the moment of conception.

Ted Cruz, for example, acquired his American citizenship when he was born in Canada of his mother who was at that time an American citizen. Whether he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States depends entirely on the legal answer to the question of whether or not thereby he became a “natural born American,” which is what the United States Constitution requires. It all depends upon the circumstances of his birth – not his conception -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The child of a Mexican citizen conceived in Mexico but born in America is an American citizen by birth and thus has acquired all the federal constitutional rights every American enjoys. If that same child was conceived in America but born in Mexico, it would be out of luck; not an American citizen, but a Mexican citizen. Again; it all depends upon the circumstances of birth – not conception -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Why? It’s because one is not considered an individual person under the law until one is born. Napolitano knows that but he doesn’t like it. He wants to change it. Good luck, Judge. It will take a constitutional amendment to define eggs as people.

When the American founding fathers conceived of “We the People” in the Constitution, they were in no way referring to the unborn. Fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses have never been legally defined as people in the USA, or for that matter, anywhere else as far as I know. Only in the religious fantasies of folks like Judge Napolitano are the unborn regarded as persons.

The word “kin” is defined as one’s family and relatives; from the Old English word “cynn” derived from the Dutch word “kunne” meaning “give birth to.” Your “kin,” then, refers to your born relatives – not the unborn. You became your relatives “kin” and they your “kin” when you were born – not when you were conceived.

An “heir” is defined by the laws of intestate succession as “a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another upon that person’s death,” e.g. “His eldest son is heir to the throne.” Once again; one doesn’t become an heir by law until one is born. A fertilized egg, for example, does not qualify as an heir to the British throne. That status is acquired, if at all, only at and after birth.

A hen’s egg is not traditionally defined as a chicken at any stage of its development right up until it has hatched. That’s because, until it hatches, it is still considered an egg. The same is true for the eggs of all birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, mammals, and other animals, including human beings. A caterpillar, for example, is not defined as a butterfly until after it pupates in its cocoon and hatches out as a butterfly. 

Until birth, the human fetus, like other mammals, is still encased entirely in amniotic fluid within a membrane (equivalent to a shell) which is attached to its mother’s body by placental blood vessels by which it obtains all essential respiration and nutrients. It doesn’t breathe. It doesn’t eat. It is not considered an individual human being – a person or baby, if you will – until the membrane (shell) is perforated at the time of birth. Until birth it is still technically – just like with the offspring of a chicken -- an egg.

Remember as well that a substantial percentage of these developing unborn entities don’t make it all the way to live birth; they are naturally aborted as the consequence of many medical reasons; pregnancies are often miscarried; there are still births. It’s part of the laws of nature.

The reality of this discussion is that Judge Andrew Napolitano has been informed by his religion and his God that human eggs, i.e. the unborn, should be defined by the law as “persons” and be thereby accorded precisely the same legal and constitutional rights that all persons enjoy.

In his own words: “The (Roe vs. Wade) Court felt it was legally necessary to make this dreadful declaration (that the unborn are not persons) because the Constitution guarantees due process (a fair jury trial, and its attendant constitutional protections) whenever the government wants to interfere with the life, liberty or property of any person; and it prohibits the states from permitting some persons to violate the basic human rights of others, as was the case under slavery.”

You see, the judge insists that human eggs should enjoy equal protection and due process of law, the same as you and I:  “Roe candidly recognizes that if the fetus in the womb is a person, then all laws permitting abortion are unconstitutional. The Court understood that abortion and fetal personhood would constitute the states permitting private persons to murder other persons. So, in order to accommodate the killing, it simply redefined the meaning of “person,” lest it permit a state of affairs that due process and the prohibition of slavery could never tolerate. George Orwell predicted this horrific and totalitarian use of words in 1949 in his unnerving description of tyranny, “1984.”

But, did the Roe vs. Wade court really “redefine the meaning of “person,” in order to justify the murder of babies as Napolitano asserts? In a word, no – it most certainly and emphatically did not. Instead, after a careful and thorough historical review of the meaning and usage of the term “person,” the court rationally and logically concluded that the unborn are, indeed, not considered persons.

“Whose personhood will the government define away next?” Judge Napolitano concludes rhetorically. But it is he who insists that the word “person” must be re-defined to include eggs. Ironic, isn’t it?

Now consider for a moment just a few of the unpleasant consequences which would inevitably ensue if Judge Napolitano and the rest of his religiously oriented anti-abortion extremists actually got their wish.  Fertilized eggs would enjoy legal and constitutional rights as “persons.” Their rights, would, of course, in many cases, conflict irreconcilably and adversely with the rights of the persons impregnated with them.

Suppose that a “person” – a young girl perhaps -- just doesn’t want to be pregnant; doesn’t want to reproduce offspring; doesn’t want, for a million different good  and proper reasons, to bear the difficult and often dangerous physical and psychological burden of having her precious and only body used as a vessel for the benefit of succoring another “person” inside it?  Tough luck, the Libertarian judge would say.

Something tells me, however, that Judge Napolitano would probably change his attitude about fetal personhood in a New Jersey minute if by some miracle of biology he himself became pregnant, or if his wife were forcibly impregnated by a rapist or his nine-year-old daughter impregnated by her grandfather.  I can visualize “fetal personhood” flying out the window of his Libertarian mind in any of those nasty circumstances.

He proudly calls himself a Libertarian, who takes a backseat to no one on issues involving liberty, but his religion calls upon him to demand that women have no choice but to carry every pregnancy to term no matter what the circumstances, and regardless of the potentially dangerous consequences to her physical and psychological wellbeing, because all those fertilized eggs are “persons” with constitutional rights which may not be abridged.

What about her liberty? What about her constitutional rights?

Forget about birth certificates; they’d be superfluous and obsolete if fertilized eggs were “persons.” The new “persons” in the womb would require the government to issue conception certificates. That’s because the state would have a lawful interest in protecting them from the moment of conception – by means of force of course. And the state would also have a legitimate corresponding legal interest in the sex lives and reproductive status of every woman of child bearing age and every man who copulates with her.

Apparently, Judge Napolitano, the Libertarian, is good with the idea of the government being intimately involved with every woman’s reproductive condition right up until menopause because, after all, Libertarians believe that the major purpose of government is to secure the rights of persons, and fertilized eggs are persons, right?

So he’s fine with the idea of requiring women to report to the government the details of their menstrual cycles; whether they miss a period; whether they are pregnant. Those little fetus persons’ rights must be secured and protected from the moment of conception.

So nosy neighbors should, for example, be encouraged to contact government child protective services immediately whenever they happen to notice that the pregnant woman next door is not behaving in the best interests of that little “person” inside her.

In practice then, the mother’s constitutional rights would be subordinate to those of the new “person.” She would essentially become a slave to the new “person” inside her sucking the nutrients from her body whether she liked it or not. The state pregnancy authorities could dictate virtually every aspect and activity of her life during the entire pregnancy in the name of the best interests of the new “person” of course.

Women’s bodies would be enslaved by their own eggs and the men who impregnated them enslaved with an obligation to support the products of their own sperm whether they liked it or not. The fertilized eggs would have the legal ability to enforce their constitutional rights utilizing the police powers of the state as a matter of law.

The police would become involved, if, heaven forbid, there were a miscarriage. There would have to be a formal coroner’s inquest, a government investigation to determine, among other things, the cause of death and whether the pregnant woman should be charged with and tried for a crime, or otherwise be held responsible under the law for violating the legal and constitutional rights of the “person” inside her body.  

Thirteen year-old girls who, out of desperation, aborted their own pregnancies by any means would be charged with first degree premeditated murder. Doctors who assisted women with abortions would likewise be guilty of first degree murder and subject to the death penalty right along with their patients.

Naturally, if an egg enjoyed legal and constitutional rights as a “person,” it could,  with the aid of a legal advocate, sue the person carrying it inside her body in a court of law for any number of legal and constitutional violations of such “person’s” rights.

What, I wonder, would it be like to be sued in court by an egg? Could the mother sue that egg “person” inside her body for violations of her legal and constitutional rights?

It boggles my mind.

But one thing I can tell you for sure: Judge Napolitano is wrong!

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Obamahood

Barack Obama was a community organizer before he got into politics and became President of the United States. These days it appears that he’s still in the business of organizing communities in accordance with his left-wing socialist ideology.

Now the President wants to organize your community. He wants to reengineer your neighborhood; re-design it from Washington; diversify it; revise it; plan it; and change it to reflect his progressive ideological values.

He doesn’t like the idea of affluent people living alongside each other in affluent neighborhoods. He wants poor folks living right next door to rich folks. No more gated communities. Those neighborhoods simply aren’t inclusive enough. We all should live in the same kind of neighborhood.

That’s why Obama has instructed the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to make new rules to bring about what he calls “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.” The government is going to force communities such as yours and mine to diversify.

It will collect massive amounts of data on the racial, ethnic and socioeconomic makeup of thousands of local communities  It’ll look for signs of “disparities by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability in access to community assets.” Then it will target communities with results it doesn’t like and use billions of dollars in federal grant money to bribe or blackmail them into changing their zoning and housing policies.

In short, Obama wants the federal government to micromanage the housing and zoning policies of thousands of American communities in every state. He plans to force local governments to build “affordable housing” in affluent neighborhoods, thereby turning them eventually into crummy mediocre neighborhoods where affluent people won’t want to live.  The projects are coming to the gated communities. That’s the plan.

Maybe President Obama ought to try out this progressive new plan in his own neighborhood first to see if it works. I suggest that he set aside some acreage on the South lawn of the White House – right next to the fountain, perhaps – for the building of some affordable housing units.

Why should the President of the United States be allowed to live in an exclusive affluent neighborhood? Shouldn’t he and his family be accorded the privilege of living among the poor folks? I think the White House grounds should be diversified just like Obama wants to diversify your neighborhood.

We could call it Obamahood.

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Moore Judicial Constitutional Defiance

Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore is a pathetically deluded religious nut case who has a bad habit of defying the United States Constitution Bill of Rights in the name of his Christian God. That’s why he’s been the subject of this blog before. (See here and here)  Moore loves to substitute his Christian religion for the law of the land. The guy has no respect for the First and Fourteenth Amendments; disobeys the federal judiciary; and answers only to God.

As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court back in 2003 he stubbornly refused to remove a massive granite Ten Commandments monument centerpiece from the Alabama Judicial Building after a federal judge ordered him to do it. He commissioned that religious monument himself therefore he was not about to take orders from a federal judge. “God has chosen this time and this place so we can save our country and save our courts for our children," Moore proclaimed. "We need leadership in the legal branch… There's nothing in the first amendment that prohibits the display of religious objects."

That deliberate defiance of the law got him booted off the Alabama Supreme Court by the 9-member Alabama Judicial Ethics Panel. They unanimously removed him from his post as Chief Justice because he willfully and publicly put himself above the law by flouting the federal order to remove his religious monument. 

But the Bible thumping voters of Alabama love Roy Moore so much they voted him back to his old job. And he’s doing that job just like always. Now he’s defying a federal court judge who ordered Alabama county probate judges to issue marriage licenses to gays. He doesn’t believe that gays are entitled to equal protection of the law so he ordered Alabama’s county probate judges to ignore the federal court order.

Last week, Moore defiantly issued an administrative order to all of the states probate judges prohibiting them from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.  Alabama’s Marriage Protection Act, which bans same-sex unions, is still in effect regardless of the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, Moore declared.

Now he’s defying the United States Supreme Court. “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry,” US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “No longer may this liberty be denied to them.”


Oh yeah? Tell that Judge Roy Moore. He’s not listening.  

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Evangelist Franklin Graham quits GOP

Evangelist Franklin Graham announced that he is leaving the Republican Party.

Good!

Now if we could only persuade Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum and the rest of their ultra-right- wing evangelical Bible thumping followers to do the same, we just might end up with a Republican Party that would win the presidency in 2016 and lead our nation out of the stinking swamp of socialism forced upon us by the Democrats.

“Unless more godly men and women get in this process and change this wicked system, our country is in for trouble,” said Graham.

You see, that’s the problem in a nutshell. In recent decades our nation has been controlled by the right-wing “godly” on the one hand, or the left-wing “progressives” on the other. Both represent recipes for disaster. It’s high time for Americans to find their way back to the reasonable center.

Ideally, the frustrated religious extremists that have hijacked the GOP should form their own political Party – The Evangelical Party – where they would become marginalized by the vast majority of Americans who are sick and tired of the Hobson’s choice between either religion or socialism presiding over our government.

A new and revitalized GOP without extremist evangelical influence would attract multitudes of rational Democrats and Independents looking for a better alternative. It would become a bigger and better Party leading to a better United States of America.


Good riddance to you Reverend Graham. And you can take the rest of your fellow travelers along with you.