President Trump on Freedom

As President Trump commemorated the 2017 National Day of Prayer by signing Executive Orders protecting religious liberty, he noted where this fundamental first freedom is derived.

Gary Johnson: Religious Liberty is a Black Hole

If one wonders why Libertarian Presidential candidate labeled Religious Liberty issues as a black hole in the Washington Examiner, consider the colloquy in the Libertarian debate with Austin Peterson.

Not knowing the law, the constitution nor respecting religious freedom of believers to act in accords to their conscience may make Johnson's words a black hole for votes in November.

Trump on the Constitution, Suicide Pacts and Religious Liberty

As Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) pivoted on his GOP primary promise to ban Muslims from entering the US "until we know what the hell is going on", Trump made some interesting inferences on Meet the Press.  

Trump analogized that adherence to the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Despite Mr. Trump's extolling the Constitution is great, something which he loves and cherishes as he lives under it, there is a clear understanding that it can be suspended if it threatens the life of the nation.  While President Abraham Lincoln did effectively suspend parts of the Constitution (e.g. habeus corpus) during the Civil War, that was controversial in a war time environment and temporary.  To be charitable, Mr. Trump's incoherent articulation of how and why such a drastic measure could be invoked was not elucidated on Meet the Press. 

While aides to Donald Trump seem to have influenced their leader to modify the Muslim ban (which would have been unconstitutional), they failed to educate him on how zealous adherence to sharia law could be incompatible with the American Republic's pluralistic and secular rule of law.

Some might think that a territorial ban solves the problem of "immi-vasion".  But those who are jihadi inclined or zealous sharia proponents are not just coming from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.  France, the United Kingdom and Germany had plenty of citizens who may have attitudes which mirror the ones who would be banned from a problemed territory approach.

What is disconcerting is Mr. Trump's blithe blather about cherishing the Constitution while laying the groundwork for super-ceding it.  Moreover, Mr. Trump's understanding of religious liberty seems to be confined to preaching politics from the pulpit, rather than living one's faith beyond the church doors. Trump may rightly be considered about sharia in America (and terror which seems to be attached with it through militant jihadists), crack downs on religious liberty might extend to other creeds either in fairness or judicial invoked equanimity

Playing the Trump Card on Political Correctness

During a revealing NBC Today Show Townhall, Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump commented about the North Carolina Bathroom Bill, which in most circumstances prohibits men who claim to be transsexual to use the womens' bathroom.

Trump's concern seemed to be that Tarheel State businesses are suffering from the LGBTQQ? inspired boycott, which has allowed artists like Bruce Springsteen to choose not to perform in North Carolina. 

Trump mused that allowing men to urinate in women designated bathrooms is fine because it does not cause problems, which echoes current politically correct sentiments. It seems in Trump's weltanschauung Obviously, celebrities have more rights than bakers, pizza makers,  photographers and wedding planners to exercise their First Amendment right of Religious Liberty.

In the same townhall, Trump opined that he would change the longstanding Republican National platform plank about opposing abortion in all circumstances.  This is yet another abortion position as several weeks ago Trump took three allegedly pro-life positions in one day then later settled on a position to maintain the status quo, as he praised the virtues of Planned Parenthood for womens' health issues.

One of the virtues of the Trump campaign is an appeal to political incorrectness as the angry silent majority is tired to caving to progressive PC whims.  Trump will say outrageous things which his fanatical following will excuse as just being politically incorrect.  Well, Trump's New York Values seem to be shining through  and his anti-PC schtick is losing its cover. 

Surely the voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana should take a measure of Trump's character and discern if it aligns with their values.  However, there is little doubt that Trump supporters will follow the flip flop and vigorously promote the line of the day from their dear leader. 

Ted Cruz on Religious Liberty

Senator James Lankford on Religious Liberty

Cupcake Kasich's Casuistry on Religious Liberty

As a Republican Presidential hopeful, Governor John Kasich (R-OH) has been bold about practicing his faith on the campaign hustings.  Kasich has used modern Manichean metaphors which crib from scripture of allusions to Prince of Darkness and Light Worker. Kasich justified his expansion of Medicare thru Obamacare as what one tells St. Peter at the pearly gates for personal divine judgment.

Thus it seems incongruous that Governor Kasich takes such a restrictive view on religious liberty.  While campaigning for President, Kasich tipped his hand towards appealing to LBGTQQ? voters by noting that bakers should make cupcakes for everyone.  Prima facia, this seems fair.

Of course, this is a fallacious simplification of the Sweet Cakes Oregon bakery.  A lesbian couple sought out a Christian bakery to make a same-sex wedding cake but Sweet Cakes owners Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to do so on religious grounds. Homosexual activists advocated a boycott of Sweet Cakes.  Moreover,  Oregon prosecuted them on state discrimination grounds which includes homosexuals and denied their First Amendment Religious Liberty claims.  The Kleins were fined $150,000 and had to close their retail shop.

Selling cupcakes to everyone is quite different than being participants in a wedding ceremony.  The Kleins take their Christian convictions seriously and did not want to be made party to the ceremony, but had no problems selling cupcakes to any customer.  This was not an isolated incident. The rural Indiana pizzaria which was harassed when asked a hypothetical on whether it would cater a same-sex wedding not to politically correct responses also was lambasted, even though they do not cater.

It is not about selling cupcakes.  It is about abrogating American's fundamental freedom in the First Amendment, namely the right of religious liberty and the free exercise thereof.  After the United States Supreme Court usurped marriage contract authority from states in Hodges v. Obgerfell (2015) through Justice Anthony Kennedy's nebulous "right to dignity" claim, faithful Americans must not only tolerate same-sex marriages but must be willing to participate in facilitating the ceremony despite what their consciences dictate. 

So taking Kasich's comment for what it's worth, he believes that there is a freedom to worship behind the doors of a church but there are no rights for ordinary citizens to live their faith in the public square.  

No wonder Tim Allen thinks that Kasich is a Republican that a Democrat would like-- it's tool time!

Ted Cruz Honors the Legacy of SCOTUS Assoc. Justice Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia on Religious Neutrality

Rep. Refuses to Attend Pope Francis Speech Because of Papal Politics

This week, the hot ticket in the District of Calamity was getting tickets to see the Pope.  Only 25,000 people were allowed entrance for the Mass at the Basilica in Catholic University.  The White House allowed 15,000 people to see the Pope on the South Lawn of the White House (along with a couple of uncomfortable invitees for the Vatican). On Capitol Hill, 50,000 tickets were issued to see the Pope's address to the Joint Session of Congress, albeit many watching on the lawn.

But Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ 1st) rejected his two allotted tickets because of his belief that Pope Francis is too political. The Papal Encyclical Laudato Si was trumpeted by the secular press as being a bull about climate change (instead of being properly read as a all encompassing missive about the ecology of humanity).  So Congressman Gosar made his protest and is presumably sitting at home for the speech.

While it is true that Pope Francis did speak in glowing terms about enacting climate change legislation, the pontiff did not let the power that be in the White House off easy.  Pope Francis' remarks at the White House started with a subtle slam for President Barack Obama about respecting the fine American tradition religious liberty.  Later in the day, Pope Francis made an unscheduled stop to visit the Little Sisters of the Poor, the religious order being forced to cover contraception against their consciences under Obamacare.

As a Jesuit, Pope Francis is all about dialog and encounter.  It's a pity that Gosar as a practicing Catholic chose not to participate in that by politely hearing out a visiting Head of State and Holy Father to 1.2 billion Catholics. As a faith leader, Pope Francis is not bound to American ideological boxes of conservative or liberal and ought to instruct his faithful in ways that may make people feel uncomfortable.  If Rep. Gosar has proper catechesis, he ought to know that not everything the Pope utters is infallible.  In fact, Paragraph 189 of Laudato Si urges robust but honest and transparent debate over the matter.  It is a pity that politics nowadays is sometimes degenerated to trolling for attention instead of seeking solutions through honest debate and deliberations. 

On Being Offended and Campus Speech Codes

Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.

 

Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.

Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.

One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish our rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.

Of course, this ban on “disrespectful” speech is really only illusory. The university that created these speech restrictions then turns around and sponsors plays like The Vagina Monologues, which is loaded with profanity including the c-word – the most offensive and disrespectful word a person could ever possibly apply to a woman. It is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

So, the university position can be roughly summarized as follows: Public university administrators have a First Amendment right to use disrespectful profanity but public university students do not. This turns the First Amendment on its head. The university has its free speech analysis completely backwards. And that’s why they need to be sued.

Before we go, let us take a few minutes to look at the last page of your syllabus where I explain the importance of coming to class on time, turning off your cell phone, and refraining from talking during lectures. In that section, I explain that each of you has God-given talents and that your Creator endowed you with a purpose in life that is thwarted when you develop these bad habits.

Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.

Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.

First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt. 

Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.

Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.

                                                                                                                                                    

Professor Mike Adams is no stranger to controversy.  This tenured conservative professor ruffled the feathers  progressives by having the temerity to assert that marriage consists of one man and one woman.



Considering the ferocity of condemnation from his colleagues, it is a reminder that the Theory of Gender is all about intellectual totalitarianism transferred to the polity. It seems such elitists intellectuals are leaders of the idiot tribe, influencing the otherwise apathetic hoi polloi.

H/T: Mike Adams
        Townhall.com

Washington Archbishop Cardinal Donald Wuerl on Same Sex Marriage

Tammy Bruce on Same-Sex Marriage

Greg Abbott on SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Tammy Bruce on the New (In)Tolerance

  

 Tammy Bruce is a media pundit with an iconoclastic experience.  Bruce is a lesbian who was the former head of the Los Angeles chapter of the  National Organization for Women (NOW).  But her journey to being Out, Proud and Conservative began as she discerned that she could be herself, and make choices which are best for herself (without necessarily agreeing with everyone) and not fear retribution on the right.  Whereas, Bruce concluded that:

"I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda."

This liberal intolerance is also exemplified by the gay lobby rabble rousing over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).



The tactics which same-sex marriage proponents have applied to civilly crucify those who might have religious objections to participating in such a ceremony strikes Bruce as intolerant at the least and may be deemed as gay fascism.

However such former advocates of tolerance, free speech, and the patriotism of dissent would probably cheer the Federal District Court ruling that a Gay Bakery could refuse to bake cakes with scriptural messages condemning homosexuality.  Yet when Memories Pizza in Elkhorn, Indiana considering the hypothetical of not catering a same-sex wedding due to religious objections, the family restaurant was civilly crucified.

So much for the new civil (in)tolerance (sic).

Charles Barkley on Discrimination

Barkley wonders why the media has not featured many homosexual activists on camera opining about the Indiana RFRA law.  Such a comment makes one wonder what media he has been watching.  But accepting Barkley's contention pro argumento, it may be that the outrage was not aimed at advancing the same sex marriage campaign as much as a progressive power grab to limit opposition to the liberal agenda. Anyone adhering to traditional religious views who holds contrary views suffers a contemporary civil crucifixion as a homophobe, which today inspires as much recrimination as being charged as a racist.

 Plus there is the added bonus of "Sir" Charles weighing in about "religious nut jobs" and southern rednecks who always hide behind the bible to shield their bigotry.

Perhaps awkward is le mot juste for just about every public policy pronouncement which emanates from the emeritus Round Mound of Rebound.

Contemporary Civil Crucifixions?

As the Christian faithful commemorate the Triduum, when their blameless Lord was persecuted and crucified for their sins, we can contemplate contemporary crucifixions.

Sadly, we live in a world in which ISIS Islamists actually crucify and martyr "Nazarenes" for their faith.  Yet we do not have to look abroad to see contemporary civil crucifixions.

Consider how masses have been riled up and incited to violence over lies emanating from the chief priest of liberal secular humanism in social justice circles and the media. Ferguson, Missouri brought forth the meme "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", which inspired rioting both in the Show Me State as well as civil intimidation in Brooklyn.  Yet the Ferguson Grand Jury Decision showed that the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" manta was  all based on lies.

Then there was the Rolling Stone gang rape story which was meant to peddle the war on women wedge issue especially college fraternities.  Once again a fabrications yet the fraternity at the University of Virginia was forced to close until police reports showed that the accusation was based on a tissue of lies.

Lately, the focus has been on Indiana, as the Hoosier State passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Progressives painted a rainbow smear claiming that RFRA would allow businesses to discriminate against homosexual customers.  In reality, Indiana's  RFRA was modeled after a 1993 Federal Law (which President Bill Clinton signed)  and 19 other states (including Illinois which State Senator Barack Obama voted for), with updates to reflect the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling.

Rather than being a weapon for business owners to pursue discrimination, RFRA is a shield which allows those with a strongly held religious belief to simply have their day in court.  The masses where whipped up into a frenzy under the rainbow banner to stop bigotry.

One enterprising jo-whore-nalist from ABC 57 in South Bend, sought out a pizzaria in Elkhorn, Indiana supposedly to get a small town perspective on the Hoosier RFRA law. Reporter Alyssa Marino  "randomly" chose Memories Pizza, which just so happened to be a Christian establishment. They  entertained a hypothetical of catering a same-sex wedding and concluded that participating in that ceremony would be against their religious beliefs.

This naive admission set off a firestorm of protest against the small town pizza parlor.  Rush Limbaugh suspects this was a set up for a Christian business and was being magnified by a small group of progressive activists who spin a cyber chimera of being an internet army. How else could a UHF TV station in South Bend generate thousands of social media protests in less than ten minutes?  

The hype over Memories Pizza got so severe that a high school teacher tweeted seeking comrades to help burn the place down. Memories Pizza was forced to close with all of the crank calls and calls to violence

   

After her suspension is lifted, she should stick to instructing girls' golf rather than teaching hatred and inciting violence on the internet.

Fortunately, like the miracle of the resurrection after the public crucifixion, there is a happy ending for Memories Pizza.  BlazeTV personal Dana Loesch organized a crowdfunding effort to help the O'Connor family with their Memories Pizza business.  In a couple of days, 30,000 people contributed over $850,000. This will allow Memories Pizza to weather the RFRA firestorm and to expand.  

Yet progressives still sought to punish Memories Pizza.  Some conspiracy minded liberals implied that the O'Connors intentionally created the media frenzy for online donations.  These are the same type of people who obsess over Loose Change  Another internet activist, who co-incidentally is a social media employee of WTVR-TV CBS6 in Richmond, Virginia, implied that the crowdfunding was fraudulent to discourage contributions.  

While during Holy Week it is facile to focus on crowds being whipped into a frenzy to be the cat's paw for leaders.  But it is also worth considering why the Romans resorted to crucifixions in their empire.  These brutal crucifixions served as examples not to challenge the orthodoxy of the powers that be. 

Crucifixion (even the civil kind)?  No, I would rather choose religious freedom. 

But like Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), it is best to "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life".

H/T: A.F. Branco

   

Tolerance Comeuppance?

h/t:  A.F. Branco

       The College Fix 

      

Franklin Graham on Religious Freedom

Naghmeh Abedini on Religious Freedom

 Naghmeh Abedini spoke at CPAC to testify about the importance of Religious Liberty.  Abedini is the wife of Saheed Abedini, the Christian pastor who has been imprisoned since the summer of 2012 by the Islamic Republic of Iran for his religious beliefs and apostasy from Shia Islam.

 

 Mrs. Abedini's speech comes as the Obama Administration has been contorting itself to achieve any nuclear deal with the government in Tehran, thus forsaking any leverage to achieve a good will gesture of freeing this pastor who is an American citizen. Mrs. Abedini's testimony of why she is proud to be an American stands against many of the moves of the Obama Administration to minimize our First Amendment Freedom of Religion (e.g. Obamacare's Contraception Mandate, imposing Same-Sex marriage, considering traditional believers as prospective terror groups etc.).

Her testimony is an inspiration to Be Heard.