Pulpit pandering

Article Six of the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part:

“The Senators and Representatives… and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This provision is straightforward. It simply means that the President of the United States along with every other official, elected or otherwise, of the federal and all state governments are required to support the Constitution, but none of them shall ever be required to submit to any religious test as a qualification for office.

Why is it then that a large group our nation’s most prominent Evangelical leaders, (including Southern Baptist Convention President Ronnie Floyd, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Penny Nance, Bob McEwen, Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association, Kelly Shackleford of First Liberty, and mega-church pastors Jack Graham and Ed Young),  have successfully talked Donald Trump into meeting with them privately before the GOP convention?

I’ll tell you why. It’s because they’re going to subject Trump to their own private religious test as a qualification for giving him their political support in the 2016 presidential election. Trump has agreed to meet with them. He’s ready to pander to the Bible thumpers. He’s going to engage them in pulpit pandering – private, by invitation-only, and off the record pulpit pandering.

I think it’s disgusting.

First of all, Donald Trump is not a religious man. At least he doesn’t wear religion on his sleeve. The evangelicals know that but they helped make him the Republican nominee anyway. In the primaries they wisely chose competence over piety. They did the right thing then.

Never-the-less they still remain worried about him. They want to make sure that Trump will do their religious bidding once he gets in office. In short, they want to subvert the United States Constitution. And they want to do it all in private.

“Our goal is to be able to have a conversation that could lead to a better understanding of what Donald Trump has to offer to the country,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. 

What he really means by that is he and the rest of the Bible thumpers want to try to influence Trump into promises to support the political imposition of their ultra-right-wing religious agenda in return for their political support.

“I want to be actively supportive of a candidate who can help turn this nation around,” says Perkins. “With Trump – I’m not there yet. I hope to be there – but I’m not there right now.” 

So, what they want to hear about in order to “be there” are detailed plans on potential Supreme Court nominees, the vetting process, as well as Trump’s intentions regarding “religious liberty,” and “pro-life” issues.

“This is about the possibility of being able to appoint the next four Supreme Court justices. This is about the dignity of human life from the womb to the tomb. This is about religious freedom,” explains Southern Baptist Convention President Ronne Floyd.

You see, they want Trump to promise to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will scrap Roe v Wade, uphold abortion bans, and permit them to employ the government to discriminate against gays.  

Floyd maintains that the conversation with Trump is a way for Christians to share their hearts with him because many people of faith are struggling to come to terms with some of Mr. Trump’s past statements – statements that are contrary to biblical teachings.

Alas! The Bible thumpers don’t want Trump to do anything in office as president that might be contrary to biblical teaching. 

No; they just want him to privately reassure them by pulpit pandering. 

Climate change hypocrisy is real

“Climate change is real. It is happening right now, it is the most urgent threat facing our entire species,” declared Oscar winning movie actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, during his Oscar acceptance speech.

Yeah, right. Climate change caused by human activity is the most urgent threat facing our entire species right now, but, of course, that doesn’t stop Leo from spending lavishly on private yacht and jet travel for himself all the time to classy destinations all over the world. This guy is determined to drastically reduce your carbon footprint on the planet – he wants you to sacrifice -- but he has no such intention when it comes to his own burning up of vast quantities of fossil fuels.

His conduct provides solid proof that climate change hypocrisy is real.

Leo was partying big time in the south of France at the Cannes Film Festival recently with model Georgia Fowler at the posh club Gotha. Then he flew to New York City on a private jet so he could accept, of all things, an environmental award at the Riverkeeper Fishermen’s Ball at Chelsea Piers where he was honored by the clean-water advocacy group and fellow movie actor, Robert De Niro.

With his environmental award in hand, Leo immediately hopped aboard another jet which flew him straight back to France, thereby expanding his own carbon footprint by an unnecessary 8,000 extra miles so he could hobnob with his peers, give a speech and attend another glitzy gala left-wing oriented fund raiser event.

All of this has prompted Environmental analyst Robert Rapier, to observe that Leo’s movie-star lifestyle “diminishes his moral authority to lecture others on reducing their own carbon emissions… [He] demonstrates exactly why our consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow. It’s because everyone loves the combination of cost and convenience they offer. Alternatives usually require sacrifice of one form or another… Everybody says, ‘I’ve got a good reason for consuming what I consume’. . . It’s the exact same rationalization for billions of people.”

Yes, even the most ardent climate change hysteria adherents are quick to admit that climate change hypocrisy is real.

Blocking a highway is not protected speech

A news article in the Christian Science Monitor last week was headlined: AZ: Inspired by Trump, new state law redefines free speech. Naturally, as a lifelong devotee of the First Amendment, I was curious to find out exactly what this was all about so I clicked on the hyperlink in the RRND to read the full story.

The headline implied that Donald Trump somehow manipulated the Arizona legislature into passing a law redefining the meaning of free speech. Of course, if that were true, such a law would be unconstitutional.

But (as is too often the case with the news media) the editor who wrote that headline was only demonstrating his ignorance of First Amendment law. Instead of redefining the meaning of free speech, the new Arizona law would penalize those attempting to deny others their First Amendment rights.

Yes, the law was inspired as it were by a Trump campaign event in a Phoenix suburb where a bunch of protesters had parked about two-dozen cars in the middle of a highway affording Trump supporters their only access to the event.

The protesters displayed signs saying: “Dump Trump,” and “Must Stop Trump,” which, of course, was a perfectly permissible expression of their First Amendment rights, however, the conduct of blocking a public highway to prevent others access to a campaign event had nothing to do with exercising free speech. Blocking a highway, if intended as a means of expression is not protected speech.

It’s a crime.

I saw the televised news accounts of the incident and was disgusted with the anti-Trump protestors for their outrageous conduct. The cops had every right to arrest the culprits and haul their vehicles off the highway to be impounded. It was this occurrence which “inspired” the new law which increases penalties on protestors who block traffic to political events.  

"That hopefully will create a deterrent for people intruding on others' abilities…There's a balance here of everyone getting their voice heard… If someone is physically preventing someone from participating in exercising their constitutional rights, that is unacceptable," explained a government spokesman. 

The new law addresses two objects. On the one hand it increases the penalty for anyone found to have intentionally blocked traffic for access to a political campaign event or government meeting or hearing to a six-month jail sentence. It also prevents state universities and community colleges from limiting where free speech can be exercised. In short, the law prohibits so-called "free speech" zones on college campuses, which attempt to confine constitutional free speech activities of students.

The bottom line is that protesters have First Amendment free speech rights; they have the right to protest; but they do not enjoy the right to deny others the right to free assembly and free speech.  The new Arizona law in no way re-defines free speech – on the contrary, it enhances the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and assembly.

Blocking a highway is not protected free speech. 

Conscripting Liberty

Politicians, bureaucrats, and authoritarians of every stripe within the United Statists of America think nothing of making up laws to squash our constitutional liberties whenever it might suit their purposes. They actually think that they own us and can force us thereby to do their bidding.

If the American statists believe, for example, that they need more soldiers – warm bodies -- with which to fight their endless wars, they won’t hesitate to simply conscript them whether their victims like it or not. Never-mind that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t authorize conscription – the Thirteenth Amendment strictly forbids it -- they’ll conscript anyway if they feel like it.  

I thought we put an end to military conscription more than 40 years ago after the disastrous conclusion to Vietnam War; I thought we had a volunteer military today; but no, we didn’t do that exactly because young men between the ages of 18 and 25 are still required to register for the draft just in case their statist overlords want more warm bodies for sacrifice.

And now for the very first time in United Statists history the authorities that be are scheming to do the same with women.

That’s right. The U.S. Senate Armed Services committee has approved legislation that would require American women to register for the military draft. The House of Representatives Armed Services Committee approved a similar amendment late last month. Defense Secretary Ash Carter already announced last year that all combat positions will now be open to women. So when the warmongering statists want more warm bodies in the future for sacrifice they’re going to start conscripting the ladies.

"It's what a man's got to do," says the Selective Service website. So why not just conscript the girls too? “Right now the draft is sexist. Right now the draft only drafts young men. Women are excluded," explains Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California. We simply can’t exclude the girls now, can we? That wouldn’t be right.

"We have not been in Vietnam or Korea, or World War II, where you have thousands of people a day dying, where you have massed artillery fires, where you have massed tank units rolling through people's lines we have not seen that," says Hunter. "That is what a draft is for… A draft is because people started dying in the infantry and you need more bodies in infantry, that is what a draft if for.”

"I actually support universal conscription; I actually think if we want equality in this, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription," said Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California after thanking Hunter for proposing the amendment.

Plenty of jobs in the military may need filling if a draft is put into action, chimed in Rep. Martha McSally, a Republican from Arizona. "There could be medical positions; we could need cyber warriors… There is all sorts of positions that we would need the country ready to mobilize for…”

You see, the statists talk about conscripting human beings against their will to go into harm’s way as though they were talking about cannon fodder, bullets, MRE rations, or any other kind of disposable physical resource that can be sacrificed for their cause. 

That’s what statism is all about in America… conscripting liberty. 

EPA extortionists back off

Last year I posted about the shocking story of Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson’s epic battle with extortionist government goons at the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I observed then that when it comes to the efficacy and efficiency of organized crime in America, particularly the extortion racket, our United States government has the Mafia beat hands down.

Johnson found that out the hard way after he excavated a small stock pond on his property to provide better access to water for his livestock. First he went to the trouble of obtaining all the proper permits from his state government before starting the project. “We went through all the hoops that the state of Wyoming required, and I'm proud of what we built," he explained

So he built his pond. But when the EPA found out about it they told Johnson that he was violating the federal Clean Water Act.  And they didn’t give a damn about all his State of Wyoming permits. Johnson was ordered to restore his property within 30 days to the condition it was in before he excavated the pond. On top of that the goons imposed $37,000 per day in fines and claimed that their hapless victim owed them $16 million.

All of this was attempted without affording Johnson so much as a scintilla of legal due process. The goons simply extorted a man in clear violation of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. There was no way Johnson could return his land to the original condition within 30 days. It was “physically impossible,” he claimed then.

"It was very threatening, Johnson recalled. “I was shocked and devastated and I didn’t know what to do… I’m sitting there thinking, 'I’m the only provider for my whole family. How can I fight this?'" He had no choice but to stand up to his government aggressors. So he filed a lawsuit against the goons in U.S. District Court claiming that they were overstepping their authority.

I wished the man good luck and hoped that he would prevail.

Well, now I’m happy to report that he did prevail. Faced with the prospect of losing in court, the EPA extortionists backed off. They’ve agreed that Johnson can keep his pond “as is” and not pay any fines. And the goons won’t pursue any further enforcement actions against him. 

"The EPA never identified any environmental problems with the pond," explained Johnson’s attorney. "In fact, it's been a boom for the environment." The pond created a wetland habitat for fish and other wildlife and cleaned the water passing through it.

“This is a huge victory for us as well as private property owners across the country,” Johnson said. “The next family that finds itself in our situation, facing ominous threats from EPA, can take heart in knowing that many of these threats will not come to pass… If, like us, you stand up to the overreaching bureaucrats, they may very well back down."

That’s what happened: The EPA extortionists backed off. 

Sore losers

As I recall, there were initially 17 Republican Party candidates running for president in the primary election contests leading to the GOP 2016 nomination. Every one of them, including Jeb Bush, the favorite in the pack at the time, signed a public pledge with great fanfare solemnly promising to support the eventual nominee no matter who it was.

The sole reason for this pledge scheme was to box Donald Trump into a position wherein he would remain loyal to the party and not be likely to bolt to a third party candidacy should he not get the GOP nomination. Trump was reluctant to sign it at first because he was wary of the GOP treating him unfairly, but he caved in to the pressure after all the other candidates promised to support him if he became the eventual nominee.

Well, now we have the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, the man who handily beat the tar out of all 16 of his rivals – especially Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham -- and it happens to be none other than Donald Trump.

But now Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham have indicated publically that they are not going to honor their pledge. They’re not going to support their Republican Party’s nominee for President, and not only that, they’re providing ammunition to the Democrat candidate with which to defeat their own Party.

It just shows us the kind of men they are – dishonest, treasonous and pathetic sore losers. They would rather have the Democrats win the 2016 presidential election and give us four more years of the Obama socialism nightmare than to suck up their pride and be loyal Republicans.

The entire Bush family, including GHWB, the elder, and GWB the incompetent, have shown themselves to be pathetic whining, and sulking sore losers. “Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character required to lead the nation… He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy,” said Jeb.

To put this matter into proper perspective, consider this: even Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the GOP, is supporting Donald Trump, because he has always supported the GOP nominee. He’s the last Republican I would have expected to support Donald Trump. 

So it looks like even the worst of Republicans are not going to be… sore losers. 

Hillary lies again

Hillary Clinton is a serial, congenital, and habitual bald faced liar. And she unabashedly lied once again this week when she looked a former out of work West Virginia coal miner in the face and claimed that she didn’t mean what she said at a CNN town hall campaign appearance just a month ago in Columbus, Ohio where she proclaimed to the crowd that in her administration: “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Of course, when she said that, she meant every single word of it. If you doubt it, just watch the video for yourself and make your own judgment. Her statement was not only an acknowledgement that she plans to continue waging President Obama’s “war on coal,” it was an unambiguous sign that she intends to accelerate the destruction of one of the country’s leading energy sector industries.

This woman is on a mission to destroy the entire fossil fuel industry in the United States and replace it with what she calls “clean energy. “ But when confronted in person at a campaign event with Bo Copley the unemployed miner in West Virginia she flat out lied to his face. He had only recently lost his job and came to question Clinton about how she could say such a thing and then “come in here and tell us how you’re going to be our friend.”

Clinton looked him in the eye and said softly with solemn sincerity: “What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time… What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say… I do feel a little bit sad and sorry that I gave folks the reason or the excuse to be so upset with me because that is not what I intended at all.”

Yes, now that she feels the political impact for what she said about putting people like Bo Copley and the rest of his coal miner friends out of work in West Virginia, she tries to lie her way out of it like she has done so many times before.

Hillary lies again.  

Statism involves using force

Statist North Carolina Republican senator Richard Burr, together with statist California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein, are conspiring to make a law that would force tech companies to assist law enforcement agencies in breaking into encrypted electronic devices belonging to suspected criminals or terrorists.

You see, the hallmark of statism is using force to accomplish political ends and statists aren’t the least bit shy about doing so by violating the United States Constitution. Privacy advocates are criticizing the measure as a grave threat to consumer privacy, and it surely is all of that, but it is also a grave threat to the constitutional rights of business owners.

The statists are claiming the authority over all individuals that they may not rely upon digital encryption technology to protect their personal privacy and secrets. At the same time, the statists are claiming the authority to enslave business owners to the whims and dictates of the government in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

If statists can force businesses to serve them against the interests of their customers then we are all in danger of losing our liberty. If statists can force businesses and individuals to do things against their own interests then they can force us to do anything against our will. The Bill of Rights would be nullified. 

"The proposed policy is misguided and will ultimately lead to increased insecurity rather than increased security," Dean Garfield, CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, said Friday. "This bill is a clear threat to everyone's privacy and security," declared a spokesperson with the American Civil Liberties Union.

The statists contend that since terrorists and criminals are increasingly relying on encrypted electronic devices to hide from authorities the government must have some recourse with which to defeat encryption. But free individuals are entitled to encryption. We are entitled to keep our secrets.

The statists do not enjoy authority to access our secrets by force.