Thank God for the First Amendment

Silverfiddle Rant!

Much of society is now a hooting nuthouse full of unhinged inmates trampling logic and common sense, and indifferent or even hostile to traditional religious beliefs. This is where the Christian admonition kicks in: Be in the world but not of the world.

The culture war is over - Conservative Christians lost

Traditional western jurisprudence has much of its roots in Biblical morality, but voters, elected representatives, and judges are rejecting those moral foundations, and the change has been rapid.

In 1986, the Supreme Court cited Blackstone to uphold Georgia's anti-sodomy law that outlawed homosexual sex. (Bowers v. Hardwick).  In 1991, the Supreme Court declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.  (Lawrence v. Texas).  Gay marriage followed in 2015. (Obergefell v Hodges) 

Blackstone's compendium of western law explicates a nuanced approach to abortion, as does Jewish teachings.  People who want an absolute abolition of the practice must first acknowledge that they hold an extreme and minority position. I don't mean that as a pejorative.  True Christianity is uncompromising and not for the faint of heart. 

Coercion or Persuasion?

Religious right Republicans could win the House, Senate and White House and launch a farrago of revanchist federal laws including prohibitions on abortions and gay marriage, etc, but they would trigger their own version of one person, one vote, one time.  Voters would throw them out and banish them for a generation while the newly-elected would re-enshrine those rights.  Cramming laws down the throats of people who don't want them is a form of dictatorship.

Politics aside, imagine the torrent of ramifications flowing from such laws, and the impact on society. 

We are living in a neo-pagan age, and Christians are now in the realm of moral persuasion. The Lord's work will not be done in our legislatures and court houses, so roll up your sleeves, hoist high the First Amendment banner, and get to work.

Government Giveth, Government Taketh Away

Silverfiddle Rant!

"A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away"

- President Gerald Ford

I have problems with language like this...

"Yet, even as the court continued to forge new ground in creating a private sphere where Americans could do as they pleased in their family life without undue government interference..."

I don't blame the writer. She is simply echoing the mindset of government and judges that has prevailed for over a century: That government must carve out spaces and create new rights for us. That mindset contradicts the US Constitution and the philosophy behind it, which hold that these rights and spaces flow from natural law, preexist any written document, and may not be infringed by government.   

This unconstitutional mindset can be summed up as...

Rights come from government, so a person must seek permission from government to do something.  If challenged, that permission must be found in the constitution.

That's ass backwards. The Constitution constitutes the government, telling it what it can and cannot do. Our individual rights are unenumerated and many and do not flow from that document. 

A Constitutional Mindset...

The question is not whether a black man may marry a white woman, or whether someone has a right to contraception.  This starts a game of "where can we find that right in the constitution?"  

Rather, the question should be, where in the constitution does it allow a government to infringe upon such a fundamental right?

What say you? 

Related:

Supreme Court Decision & Dissent

The Reason Why Roe v. Wade's Defenders Focus on Its Results Rather Than Its Logic

Who are getting abortions, and why

Not First Time the Supreme Court Gutted Precedents that Protect Individual Rights

Volokh Conspiracy- Dobbs, Abortion, and Stare Decisis

Volokh Conspiracy - On Justice Thomas, Dobbs, Precedent, and Substantive Due Process

Why Other Fundamental Rights Are Safe (At Least for Now)

Ending Roe Is a Pure Exercise of Republican Power

The Supreme Court's majority and dissent opinions on Dobbs reveal a massive schism

What progressives get wrong about overturning Roe: Now, it's citizens who will decide.

Roe's Demise - What's Next?

Court's Gun Decision a Huge Win for the Constitution

Is This Time Different?

My neighbor from 1978-2013 was born in Canada but in the 1980s became a naturalized American citizen.  He is now in his late seventies.  His wife is politically conservative. Their two children are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. 

All these political conflicts made for interesting discussions at the dinner table for thirty years. Truly, though, there no animosity on any side. Discussions were both lively and friendly.

Then came the 2008 General Election, after which point my leftwing neighbor was, overnight, intolerable of other points of view. It was an ugly transformation! That year, he stormed away from the dinner table in a fury when I asked for evidence for one of his discussion points. Gone was his pacifism of so many years.

And so it has remained between us. The dinner invitations ceased, too, of course.  

Now to the present day....

In the wake of the May 24, 2022 massacre in Uvalde, Texas, my former neighbor posted the following at his Facebook page:

I just unfriended a follower. He/she insists that guns are not a problem. What a pile of b/s. If you own a gun and believe that even minimal gun control is not necessary, then you are borderline scum. Every other western country has people with mental problems, but no other country is awash in guns like the US. No other country has had over 200 mass killings since the beginning of the year. Why in blazes does the US lead the world in this god-awful statistic? And we have a group of politicians, read Ted Cruz and his ilk, who won’t do a thing about it. Disgraceful!!

and

Some other things to ponder....America: where last year 52 percent of adults supported stricter gun control, according to Gallup, leaving nearly half who want either less strict laws or the status quo. America: where residents own more guns per 100 residents than any other country in the world: 120.5, which is more than twice as many as the next highest country, which is Yemen.

America: where there are more guns than humans.

and

[W]hy in blazes does anyone need 10 guns?

Of course, along came many of my former neighbor's Facebook friends to affirm what he had spewed.

I recall a time, in the 1980s, that my former neighbor summoned Mr. AOW and me — and our guns — to investigate something in their carport, be that something two-legged or four-legged.  Our former neighbor, for whatever reason, had gotten no response from the police and had become more and more fearful for the safety of his family and the security of the valuable antiques he was refinishing in that carport.

Today, my former neighbor and his wife live way west of Northern, out on a long, often impassable, dirt road in the boonies and surrounded by trees and acres of land, in a beautiful, custom-made mansion laden with valuables galore.  Yet, apparently, they see no reason to have any firearms as personal protection.

Right now, a lot of people are opining almost identically as my former neighbor.  Will the noise be loud enough that our Congress critters impose more gun-control measures?  And what good would such measures do if the problem is, as I believe, our society's moral rot?

Some uncomfortable facts along with the only question that really matters:

RBG's Own Words

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words — in 2016...

Here's What RBG Said About Filling a SCOTUS Vacancy in an Election Year: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.” https://t.co/Awim0Ww6fF

— Always On Watch (@Always_On_Watch) September 20, 2020

Another flashback — again, from 2016 (hat tip to Mike's America)...

Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. #DoYourJob pic.twitter.com/Mdm0P5SRC4

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) February 23, 2016

As Mike's America opined on September 19, 2020:

Like Obama, Trump has the duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. The Senate has the power to confirm.

Related: 

(1) ‘That’s a promise’: Actor Russ Tamblyn says ‘there will be a war’ if ‘you dare try and replace’ RBG

2) The left threatens death, destruction, and fire if President Trump dares nominate a replacement for RBG on SCOTUS.

So...

 

Trump Omitted From The 2020 Ballot?

[source]

From Trump could be left off some states’ ballots in 2020 if these bills become law (Washington Post, March 20, 2019, emphases mine):

In refusing to release his tax returns, President Trump bucked decades of tradition and set off a Democrat hunt to obtain them. Now several statehouses are looking at making their release a condition of the 2020 presidential election: Show us your tax returns, or you can’t be on the ballot.

Eighteen states have considered legislation this year that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to post their tax returns to appear on the ballot during a primary or general election, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Proponents of the bills, such as the one passed by the Washington state Senate this week, say they are aimed at increasing transparency and returning to the “norm” of candidates releasing their financial records. But Democratic lawmakers behind the some of the legislation have admitted they are also very much about Trump, which raises legal and political questions about how far states can — or should — go in regulating who appears on their ballot, especially in a hyperpartisan climate.

In addition to Washington, several other states, including California, Hawaii and New Jersey are considering similar bills....

[...]

...[N]ot all politicians think this kind of legislation is a good idea. In 2017, then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed one bill that made it to his desk, calling it “politics at its worst.” Former California governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did the same when California’s legislature passed similar measure.

“First, it may not be constitutional,” Brown wrote in his decision. “Second, it sets a ‘slippery slope’ precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”...

Read the rest HERE.

The phrase by hook or by crook comes to mind. So does the word unhinged.

Related? Elizabeth Warren wants to kill the electoral college.

Happy Thanksgiving!

(For politics, please scroll down)



This Thanksgiving 2018, what are you most thankful for?

Note: the graphic in this blog post was created by Stogie of Saberpoint so as to reflect which blessing I personally count every day — that is, the First Amendment, which protects my right to freedom of expression.

Recommended Reading

See #MeToo's Contempt for Due Process: "Presumption of innocence" and "misogyny" have become interchangeable concepts by Arnold Ahlert at the Patriot Post (dated October, 2018).

Conclusion of the essay (emphases mine):

Nonetheless, if the #MeToo movement insists on embracing score-keeping, let’s look at the entire scorecard. Does anyone still remember which side of the ideological divide celebrated the sexual revolution of the ‘60s and the unrestrained hedonism immortalized by the adage “if it feels good do it”? How about the “liberated” woman, part of whose liberation consisted of her being as sexually promiscuous as her male counterparts — and part insisting she was every bit as strong and capable as any man?

How times have “evolved.” “Democrats believe that we women are weak, mewling, helpless creatures who are defined by our interactions with men,” writes Bonnie Ramthun. “If we are touched, insulted, groped, or otherwise not treated as delicate flowers, we’re supposed to react by making our entire lives revolve about that horrible moment that ruined us forever.”

Democrats and the #MeToo movement are far more interested in ruining forever anyone who opposes their agenda....

Read the entire essay HERE.

In my view, regardless of the Kavanaugh vote, in 21st Century America we are seeing a dangerous shift along the lines of the above essay.

And the Left is leading this charge just as the Left led the charge into the Sexual Revolution.

An Outbreak Of Common Sense?

Could it be that Common Sense was prematurely buried?

From Anti-Sanctuary Push Spreads to Other California Cities: Orange County, Aliso Viejo, and Buena Park officials plan to push for similar action (dated March 21, 2018, emphases mine):

Orange County and several other cities in California could follow the lead of Los Alamitos and opt out of the state’s controversial law that restricts local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Los Alamitos, the second smallest city in Orange County with a population of 11,500, late Monday rejected the state's so-called sanctuary law in a vote of 4-1 of the city council.

Officials with Orange County and the cities of Aliso Viejo and Buena Park reached out to Los Alamitos officials and began publicly expressing support and intentions to take up similar anti-sanctuary language.

"We are a little city in Orange County, but we're tired of things coming out of Sacramento that just don't make sense, and now others are telling us they feel the same way," said Warren Kusumoto, the Los Alamitos councilman who wrote the anti-sanctuary ordinance.

In an interview, Kusumoto said he introduced the language opting out of the new state law because he said state officials are "bullying" city leaders into picking sides between following federal or state law.

Choosing state law over federal law forces local officials to violate their oath of office to defend the U.S. Constitution, he said.

"We want to declare that we are not a sanctuary city and we will defend and support the United States because we have taken an oath, and this is the same oath that folks in Sacramento have taken as well as the governor and the Senate," he said....

Read the rest HERE.

Illegal Aliens And Constitutional Rights

Please watch this video of less than one minute in length, and consider the concepts presented:


The now-ubiquitous phrase undocumented citizens as used so often by various media and other Leftists, is nonsensical! The very word citizens implies that these individuals have entered into the United States Compact (Constitution) when they have not.

Related reading: The Civic Cost Of Illegal Immigration by Victor Davis Hansen. Excerpt:

...[L]ost in this conundrum are the pernicious effects of illegal immigration on the idea of citizenship in a consensual society. In the Western constitutional tradition, citizenship was based upon shared assumptions that were often codified in foundational constitutional documents.

[...]

When borders are fluid and unenforced, it inevitably follows that assimilation and integration also become lax, as society loses a sense of who, or even where, their residents are. And the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to those beyond U.S. borders may be a noble sentiment, but the practical effect of such utopianism is to open a Pandora's box of impossible enforcement, affronts to foreign governments, endless litigation, and a diversion of resources away from protecting the rights of citizens at home.

Residency is also confused with citizenship, but they are no more the same than are guests at a dinner party and the party's hosts, who own the home.

A country reverts to tribalism unless immigrants enter it legally-often based on the host's determination of how easily and rapidly they can become citizens, and the degree to which they can benefit their adopted country-and embrace its customs, language, and habits.

Read the rest HERE. Worth your time.

Unanimous Agreement On This Definition?

One of my Facebook finds:

In my view, our Founders made what could well be a fatal mistake: no Constitutionally-mandated term limits for elected public servants.

The term-limits rules for the POTUS were added many years later — via the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951.

Do you see any possibility that the Congress will impose any term limits upon themselves? I don't. They're too busy getting the rake off!

Congress critters get elected once, and they're set for life. At public expense (i.e., taxpayers' dollars).

Career politicians are a plague upon the land!

Special Snowflakes Get Slapped

(Note: this blog post is rich with links and will remain here for several days because I'm still dealing with this miserable nephrostomy. Before commenting, please read at least a portion of each link.  Thank you)

A protected group a group of whiners just lost their protected status at the University of Chicago.

The University of Chicago, of all places!

Yep, snowflakes, it's time to grow up.

Deal with it.

Freedom of expression has triumphed over the insane "doctrine" of micro-aggressions and trigger warnings.

Here is the University of Chicago's Welcome Letter for this year's incoming freshman (Click to enlarge, or go to THIS LINK):

How did we get to the sorry state of worrying about micro-aggressions and trigger warnings in the first place?

In my view, via the self-esteem movement, which, in my own experience as a teacher in a small private school, dates back to at least the 1980s. Overnight, or so it seemed at the time, teacher-parent conferences included parents whining about how their children's disobedience and refusal to do assignments resulted from "poor self-esteem." The parents were, of course, releasing their children from self-discipline and accountability.

By the late 1990s, the push was on for all children to receive awards, whether or not the children had earned said rewards.  In 1996, the private school where I had worked for eighteen years closed — in part, a reaction to the self-esteem movement: the school's director refused to compromise the standards which she had upheld for over twenty-five years.

Believe it or not, there has been a National Association for Self-Esteem since 1986. The idea of such an association was introduced by California State Assemblyman John Vasconcellos.

The National Association for Self-Esteem's web site is HERE. Take a look. It has lesson plans.

Today I teach classes for groups of homeschoolers. The past few years, the self-esteem movement has been rearing its ugly head in that venue, too, and I see fewer and fewer homeschool families interested in the courses I offer. I'm glad that I have relatively few more years before retirement.

Additional reading...Virginia Tech’s Welcome Mat: Diversity Edu. DiversityEdu is a for-profit company and lists these contributing scholars. The organization's home page is HERE.

Hillary Rodham Clinton Is A Big Fat Liar

Click directly on the graphic to enlarge it:

Related article: Hillary Clinton Did NOT Follow Colin Powell's Advice on Her Email Server.

And then there's this....Apparently Hillary Rodham Clinton — or at least her cohorts — intend to shred the Constitution and muzzle those who expose her for the liar that she is (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance:

The Fading Away Of Our American Heritage

How do we even begin to remedy the kind of ignorance displayed in the videos below?


Brief essay from MRCTV's Americans Can't Name First Amendment Rights (July 29, 2015):

FEATURED QUESTION: BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

(This blog post is lengthy and, therefore, will remain here for a few days so that readers will have time to consider the topic before leaping to taking a position. Also, please see the blog post published on Saturday, August 22, 2015; I am seeking advice about a personal matter)

Donald Trump's immigration plan has ignited a firestorm of discussions about the matter of illegal immigration, a problem that can and should be laid at the feet of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Stories such as this one add more fuel to the fire: DHS Kept Secret the Release Of Violent Criminal Illegal Immigrants: Local law enforcement ‘perplexed’ over controversial policy.

Trump's published statement about immigration reform contains the following:

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Is Not A Treaty

(with thanks to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for the information in this blog post)

Basically, according to John Kerry, "We're saying the Iran Treaty isn't a treaty because it's impossible to pass a treaty anymore."  

Watch the short video below the fold.

Interesting Take On Obergefell v. Hodges

Please take a few moments to read and to consider the following excerpt from The trouble with the ‘dignity’ of same-sex marriage, which recently appeared in the Washington Post (emphases mine):

Sloppy Legislation = Tyranny

[BUMPED TO THE TOP FOR NOW]

Please watch this short video before reading the commentary below the fold:

Recommended Reading: The Roberts Doctrine And ObamaCare

See On Obamacare, John Roberts helps overthrow the Constitution by George F. Will.

Brief excerpt:

Smoke And Mirrors

Two proverbs: "A rose by any other name smells as sweet" and "A rotten mackerel by moonlight still stinks."

From Obama issues 'executive orders by another name' (USA Today, December 16, 2014):

Unprecedented Territory

Our nation will be entering unprecedented territory if the President grants immigration amnesty via executive order.

Constitutional scholar Jonthan Turley on that topic:



In December 2013, about the President's changes to the ACA, Mr. Turley stated the following in his Congressional testimony about the separation of powers and the dangers of unilateral action: