Separation of Church and State – Revisited

Ok, I’ve thought about it, and here’s what I think: First the Constitution specifically forbids any religious test (Article VI, Section 3). So, Jeff Sessions was wrong on that point. You cannot exclude any candidate for public office or government appointee on the basis of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
 
HOWEVER, “separation of church and state” is NOT found in the Constitution at all. It was a concept lifted from President Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. What mudstream media fails to reveal is that the Danbury’s principle concerns involved governmental intrusion and meddling into the affairs of their church and the free exercise of their religion, hence Jefferson’s response:
 
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
 
The part of the First Amendment germane to this conversation prohibits the feds from BOTH of the following:
 
(editing)
 
1. Respecting (giving preferential treatment to) an establishment (denomination) of religion. (vernacular of the day translated to modern English)
 
2. Prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
 
Between the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions expand its scope to cover all jurisdictions throughout the United States, it is unlawful for any elected or appointed government official at the local, county, state, or federal level to either give preferential treatment of one religion over another, or prohibit the free exercise of any religion, INCLUDING RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED ACTIONS BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.
 
The only two remaining exceptions involve preeminent rights and moral decency clauses, meaning that no one, including a religiously-minded government official, can trample on the rights of others.
 
The greatest mistake that people make on this issue involves assuming that this “wall of separation” is two-way. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the “separation of church and state” phrase, routinely opened the doors of the U.S. Treasury to churchgoers during a period of rapid population growth in our nation’s capitol. Our Founding Fathers were men of deep religious conviction. Those who moved into government service let God and God’s word, the Bible, be their guide, the same as do many members within government do today. They opened each session, if not day in prayer, and we still do this today, not only in the federal government but throughout most local, county, and state governments, as well.
 
Remember that the next time you unlawfully propose that courthouses and legislative bodies remove the Ten Commandments from their walls. They do not administer the Ten Commandments. They administer the law, beginning with “the supreme Law of the Land” i.e. the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). The Ten Commandments are there to honor both the ultimate source of the law: The Lord (U.S. Constitution), God/Creator/Supreme Judge of the World (Declaration of Independence).
 
Now, you may not LIKE this, but like it or not, 70.6% of all U.S. citizens remain Christians. That’s down 10% in 30 years, but it’s actually been on a slight rise over the last decade. Freedom OF religion is NOT freedom “from” religion. That is reality, and all the atheistic / agnostic railing against this reality will not change it.
 
By the way, both atheism and agnosticism are on a slight decline per capita in developed countries, including the United States of America. 🙂

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

This article raises a very good question:  “Does the First Amendment protect global warming deniers?”
The answer is, unequivocally and resoundingly “YES.”
No federal, state, county, or local entity, nor any law enforcement or public business may restrict people’s expression concerning the pros freedom of speechand/or cons of various viewpoints on global warming, climate change, denying, etc. We live in the United States of America, which holds both the freedom of speech and the press in the highest regard. This is NOT Nazi Germany, which repressed the vast majority of free speech and severely punished violators.
 
Our First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
First, once they are properly ratified, all amendments are fully a part of the Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses rightsshall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” (Article V).
 
Second, although 1A specifically limits Congress from passing any such law, the Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded that through the “the supreme Law of the Land” clause (Article VI) to mean the United States Constitution supersedes all federal, state, county, and local (municipality) law. Thus, no action by any executive, legislative, judicial branch, or by law enforcement or member of the public can legal violate any provision of the Constitution, including “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
 
Third, countless case law refers to “freedom of speech” as applying to oral utterances, regardless of source, whereas “the press” refers to the written Franklin_the_printer-by-Charles-B-Mills - Young Benjamin at his brother's Printing Pressword, regardless of form (print, offset type, electronic, billboard, etc.). Thus, my blog, as was Benjamin Franklin’s backyard printing press, is every bit as much “the press” as is the New York times. Although Nancy Pelosi would like you to believe otherwise, well, what can I say? She’s the last person I would ever consult on matters Constitutional.
 
Fourth, countless case law willfully ignores the content of free speech when determining whether or not it’s “allowable” under Constitutional law. Thus, t-shirts supporting the murderous revolutionary Che Guevara, are every bit as protected when worn by a teenager cruising the mall as is a t-shirt sporting a happy face.
 
Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld very strict scrutiny for the exceedingly few restrictions on freedom of speech. Specifically, the only exceptions involve the following:
 
1. Content: Cannot be based upon content, i.e. any restrictions must remain content-neutral, even if the content is highly objectionable. This is the reason the Westboro Baptists can continue to protest military funerals despite the fact that 99% of society finds their behavior utterly reprehensible. Thus, no municipality can allow public protests supporting one side of an issue while denying those who are protesting the opposite side of the issue.
 
2. Time, place, and manner. Municipalities can place limited restrictions on time, place, and manner. For example, driving at 3 am (time) through neighborhoods (place) while blaring one’s point of view over loudspeakers We Will Not Be Silences(manner) violate all three. Such restrictions, however, must remain content-neutral. Thus, you cannot ban one group of protesters under any particular combination of time/place/manner while allowing another. The courts have also observed “similitude,” such that one time/place/manner is considered for all practical purposes as being substantially equivalent to another even details differ. Thus, a municipality cannot ban protests in one neighborhood while allowing them in another.
 
3. Prior restraint: “If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must be able to show that punishment after the fact is not a sufficient remedy, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people” (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
 
Bottom Line: Any and all claims related to “global warming” and “climate change” must stand on their own merits. The freedom to question the validity of ANY public opinion or policy directly relates to the ability of the people of our nation helping to keep our nation free by limiting the power and authority of all entities, most notably various institutions, including local, county, state, and federal governments, from infringing on our freedom of speech and of the press.
freedom of speech - Charles Bradlaugh

Separation of Church and State Primer

“The religious group, which will run the ark’s operations, won a federal court ruling in January that clarified that it can make religious-based hires even as it seeks a Kentucky tourism tax incentive worth millions.”
 
“We are a religious group and we make no apology about that, and (federal law) allows us that,” Ham said Thursday. “We’re requiring them to be Christians, that’s the bottom line.”
 
Those of you who think for one second that “separation of church and state” is a part of U.S. law need a history lesson. Most people, including a lot of anti-religious historians, get this horribly wrong, possibly by intent, as the many letters our Founding Fathers wrote clarifying the matter are readily available in the Library of Congress, if not online. I know this for a fact, personal first-hand knowledge, for I spent an appreciable portion of the summer of 1982 holding them in my white-gloved hands as I read through hundreds of the more than 50,000 documents kept in what was then The American Heritage room of the Library of Congress.
With that in mind…
 
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
 
The first part prevents Congress from allowing the establishment of any official religion or church. It was craft specifically to avoid the problem of the period, whereby England had established the Church of England as the “official” religion while persecuting all others. Some folks in Congress wanted to establish Christianity as the official religion, but most of the authors of our Bill of Rights wisely knew that if they did that, the next step would be to define which denominations were “acceptable” as “Christian,” and the saga of religious persecution that drove millions out of Europe would infect the United States and fester our freedoms forever.
 
The second part is much clearer, and simply means that Congress can NOT interfere with the free practice of religions. Subsequent decisions by various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have established this applies at all judicial and legislative levels throughout our country.
 
BOTTOM LINE: Those who attempt to use Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” clause found ONLY in his letter to the Danbury Baptists are committing the SAME religious intolerance and persecution our Founding Fathers escaped from Europe and were trying to prevent here in the United States.
 
If you believe otherwise, you’re a Constitutionally illiterate idiot and are in serious need of an objective Civics class taught by someone who is not an anti-Constitutional atheist.
 
 

The World is Going to Hell. Here’s How to Fix It.

The world is, yet again, going to hell because of the ridiculous and over-indulged “sensibilities” of the bleeding heart, politically correct liberal left.

Being the practical individual I am, I am most concerned with how America can restore our country!

The simplest answer involves a three-pronged approach:

1. Educate everyone. Despite the media’s best attempts to keep the masses in the leftist dark, the Internet has provided a grand pathway to sway the tide. We the People, as I collectively call all Americans who support and defend the Constitution, have made very good use of the Internet over the last eight years doing just that. We didn’t do enough to sway the 2012 elections, but with 60% of conservatives sitting on their butts instead of voting in the polls.. That’s another story. In the meantime, Nielsen ratings for mainstream media are down across the board as Americans grow more disillusioned, waking up one after another to the reality that idealism doesn’t put food on the table. The fact that a number of well-known Democrats have pledge their support for Trump, by far the most Constitutionally-oriented GOP candidate, reflects the change of America’s heart, even among the left.

2. Use key Constitutional points such as those listed in the Bill of Rights as a bellwether. If candidates haven’t fully supported the Constitution as it’s written, then we cannot reasonably expect them to adhere to their oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution.” Such candidates should never be allowed to hold public office. If they’re currently in office, vote them out. If they’re aspiring to office, use these bellwethers as a score card and vote only for those candidates whose track record is most closely aligned with the Constitution.

3. Aggressively pull the rug out from beneath those who believe otherwise, revealing their folly for all to see in a clear, concise, easily understood manner. Some of these people are idiots, while others are brilliant (aside from their political discombobulations). Some actually believe what they’re saying, either out of idealism or ignorance, while others push the mantra in support of their own and/or certain collective agendas. Regardless, their efforts have proven hugely damaging to our country, and exercising the first of our Bill of Rights en masse is the most effective way to pull the rug out from beneath them. Exercising the second of our Bill of Rights en masse is the most effective way of protecting the rest of our rights, not to mention life, limb, and property, against both ordinary criminals as well as extraordinary criminals such as the seven militants who murdered 129 Parisians as of last count. To date, they and others like them have murdered more than 270 million people over the last 1,400 years. That’s 528 people per day, and more than nine times the total death toll racked up by Stalin and Hitler combined.

Back to the good, old, U.S. of A., we’re not currently headed down a viable long-term road, at least not collectively. Some states have bucked the trend, and they’re doing just fine.

Hooray for Coach Joe Kennedy!

In yet another blitheringly idiotic attempt to squash the First Amendment’s protections for the free exercise of religion, the Bremerteron School District told a coach he was not allowed to pray…

…AFTER THE END OF THE GAME.

Thankfully, a good, savvy lawyer had the presence of mind to note, “It is a violation of the First Amendment, and other federal Coach Joelaws, to prohibit Coach Joe from going out on the field and praying after the end of the game.”

ABSOLUTELY.

We need to take our country back from ignorant people like Ken Aulgur who said, “It’s a downer to my daughter who’s one of the cheerleaders here, ’cause its not about the fun of Homecoming and the dance and everything else.”

Gee, Aulgur, THINK.  Your daughter wouldn’t HAVE a Homecoming dance “and everything else” if it weren’t for the coach joeprayer of righteous men and women who fought and died to establish and preserve your freedoms.  Prayer has been a VITAL component of the religious faith upon which this country was founded and maintained.  It’s at the base of all its freedoms, which YOU and your daughter enjoy to this very day.  Yet you ignorantly sit there and say, “It’s a downer.”

Really, Aulgur?  Here’s a thought:  YOU’RE a downer, literally, when you attempt to bring down the freedoms that make our country great.

Would you rather live in a faithless society where social strata, caste systems, and slavery is the norm?  Not I.  Where the right to a free trial is a myth, and the government can bust down your doors any time it wants?  Not I.  How much more of a downer would that be for you?

No thank you, Aulgur!  You’re one of the same class of sheep Hitler lead to the slaughter in Germany, the ones who went willingly.  NO WAY I’m going to sympathize with your brain-dead position that praying after the game is “going to the extreme.”

YOU’RE the extreme – blight, that is, on American principles and values.

This veteran will keep my FAITH, and I will continue to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”  I will continue to back our First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.  They didn’t give us our freedoms.  God did that, which is one of the reasons WHY we pray, for Thanksgiving, not only for our freedoms, but for the fact that none of the boys were injured during the game.

The First Amendment does, however, protect our freedoms, including the free exercise of Joe’s religion right alongside your freedom of speech.  If you want to disparage Joe’s freedom to exercise his religion, I strongly suggest you start by giving up your own freedoms and SHUT THE HELL UP.  If you believe that’s not fair, well, you’re right.  It would not be fair.  Neither is it fair for you to keep blabbering your mouth on CNN while disparaging Coach Joe his own right to freely practice his religion as protected in the same amendment that protects your freedom of speech.

Ham Sandwiches, Sausage Rolls, and Halal

The headlines are reading, “Ham Sandwiches and Sausage Rolls May Be Banned from Office Kitchens for Being Offensive.”

I’m sorry, but I find the very idea of this nonsense offensive, not to mention a direct violation of my Constitutional rights.

First, this is America, not Nazi Germany.  I’ll eat anything I please.  Our nation is all about freedom, not restriction.

Second, I will not cow-tow to a mindless cult that calls itself a “religion” while continuing to slaughter hundreds of millions of my fellow humans in the name of Allah (Satan) at an ever-increasing pace.

The only restrictions we have — or ever should have — in the United States of America involve measurable physical and hamfinancial harm.  Our courts have repeatedly ruled that “offenses” exist largely, if not only, in the eye of the beholder, and that the individual accused of causing an offense is not responsible.  It’s up to the beholder to not be offended, particularly when I exercise my freedom of speech under the First Amendment to our Constitution by eating a ham sandwich.  No one has a “right” to use their being offended as an excuse to force other people to change their behavior.

Decency laws are a different matter, which is why 99% of America’s beaches remain “swimsuits required.”

Do we need a “Right to Exercise Our Constitutional Rights” bill?  No, as that would be absurd.  We might, however, require a ham“Freedoms in the Workplace” bill that prohibits employers from banning certain foods just because those foods might “offend” someone.

In fact, I seem to recall my doctor telling me that I need to continue eating ham sandwiches and sausage for my health.  Yes, yes…  I’m reasonably sure he mentioned that a while back…

If someone is allergic to peanut butter, it’s up to them to bring suitable food from home in order to prevent contact with food items containing peanuts.

In precisely the same vein, if someone is offended by ham sandwiches and sausage rolls, it’s up to them to bring suitable food from home in order to prevent contact with food items containing pork.

In closing, I strongly encourage you and other members of Congress to resist the severely biased drivel that comes from the halal“interfaith” group CoExist House.  It’s largely a pro-Islamic group around with a few overly politically correct and misguided individuals have aligned themselves.  They have absolutely zero qualms about trampling our Constitutional rights through the advancement of their highly anti-American agenda.

Inciting a Riot, Obama? Shamir of the New Black Panthers? Congrats – YOU’RE FELONS

Neither Obama nor Shamir may have pulled the trigger, but they have most certainly behaved in a manner that greatly increased inciting a riotthe number of crimes perpetrated by certain segments of blacks in America against both whites as well as against law enforcement officers.

Their racist comments from the media and White House pulpits are akin to inciting a riotinciting a riot and constitute a clear and direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2102, and under federal law, they are just as guilty of the crimes and murders perpetrated against cops and whites as if they had pulled the trigger themselves.

Here’s the excerpt from FEDERAL LAW:

(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

It doesn’t get much clearer than this, folks.  Remember the sharp surge in “knockout game” attacks by blacks against whites following comments by Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton

inciting a riot

during the Trayvon Martin case?  All three of them are guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2102.  They and several others, including the New Black Panthers, have violated this law many times since then.  The First Amendment affords you no more protection under the law than shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.  You can be convicted of manslaughter in both circumstances.