Anti-Constitutionalists

When Mrs. Crucis and I took off on our trek last month, we make one decision before we left. We would not enter Colorado. We would not spend any of our money in a state that has purposely violated the US Constitution.

We bypassed Colorado taking a route that passed through Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas to reach New Mexico. A few days later we made another decision. Head Northeast towards Cortez, CO to go toward Moab, UT, and Canyonlands NP, or head west towards Page, AZ and Zion NP and Bryce Canyon NP. Sorry, Moab, we decided to skip you this time. We turned west into Arizona. On our return route home, we chose to head east on I-80 through Nebraska than use I-70 and drop through Colorado to Kansas.

Why did we make this decision? Because Colorado is infested—infested with those who purposely seek to violate the Constitution. The latest case is of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a ‘gay’ wedding because of his religious beliefs. The US Constitution’s first amendment states:

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.

Colorado ignored the underlined portion of the 1st Amendment above. by ordering the baker to comply to the demands to bake, and therefore participate, a cake for the ‘gay’ wedding.

However, SCOTUS has already declared that portion of the 1st Amendment must apply to Colorado as does the rest of the Amendments. The US Supreme Court has declared that the US constitutional amendments (cite: McDonald v. City of Chicago) applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

The ACLU brought the original suit against the bakers and chose their target carefully; a small establishment unable to finance a strong defense. The bakers were unable to do so and the ACLU, abetted by the Colorado courts, has declared the “free exercise” portion of the 1st Amendment does not apply in Colorado. This viewpoint was expressly defeated in McDonald v. Chicago.

The Left likes to pick and choose when and under what circumstances they support the Constitution. They support free speech—when it is THEIR speech. They support free assembly—when it is their assembly and their riots. But when WE want to exercise OUR rights, our free speech, our free exercise of OUR religious beliefs, OUR right to assemble, to protest and petition government, then they do not support those same rights for us.

That is the reason we, as a family, chose to boycott Colorado. I would hope someone, some organization with sufficiently deep pockets helps those bakers appeal through the federal court system. They have a case.

It’s Monday!

…and all the news that happened over the weekend is…or isn’t, being reported.

In case you haven’t heard, there was a First Amendment event in Garland, TX, over the weekend. A couple of RIFs decided to crash the event with gunfire and a carbomb. The event was an art show. Nice liberal ring to that event, wasn’t it? It was a collection of cartoons about mohammad.

The RIFs drove up, fired one shot that lightly wounded a security guard, and fifteen seconds later, according to some commentators, they were DRT. It seems that some heavily armed police was on site. Just waiting for trouble.

I guess it’s open season for RIFs in Texas. Perhaps those heavily armed police were trolling for terrorists? Whichever, it worked.

I’ve noted the MSM has yet to identify the two shooters as Islamic. One, it was announced over the weekend, had been on the FBI’s watch list for some time when he attempted to travel to the middle east for training as a jihadi.

The libs are blaming the organizer of the event, Pamela Geller, for the attack. However, she was a darling of the media when she presented an anti-mormon musical, called, The Book of Mormon. I guess the media is fine attacking religions as long as they aren’t islamic and don’t shoot back.

***

Ferguson, MO, is and has been in deep financial trouble. They can, however, afford to hire a $1330 an hour lawyer to defend the city against the upcoming DOJ lawsuit.

FERGUSON • In the days following a Department of Justice report accusing Ferguson’s police and municipal court of widespread abuses, the city made a series of conciliatory moves. Three employees involved in racist emails were forced out. The city manager stepped down. So did the police chief and municipal judge.

Less than a month later, on March 27, a City Council that’s been grappling with declining revenues voted unanimously in a closed meeting to hire one of the nation’s most distinguished and highest-paid trial lawyers to navigate what could be a prolonged and expensive reform process.

His name is Dan K. Webb.

The city of Ferguson is paying him $1,335 an hour. — St Louis Post-Dispatch.

I suppose funding priorities are fluid in Ferguson. As I said in a recent post, People get the government they vote for.”

***

The eastern GOP establishment is firmly back in power in Jeff City. Liberal ‘pubs filed a bill to increase the state’s gas tax another 10¢ a gallon. The bill passed in the senate along philosophical and geographic lines. The dems and the eastern GOP senators voted for it guided by GOP Senators Ron Richard and Tom Dempsey.

After passing the bill, they allowed an amendment to be added to convert I-70 to a toll road. In essence, the Dempsey, Richard and the dems would sell I-70 to a private group who would then charge taxpayers to use the road their taxes had built.

With the selection of John Hancock to the GOP State Central Committee, there is not a single ‘pub from the western side of Missouri in the party’s leadership. The bad old days of GOP crony politics has returned to the detriment of rest of the state. That the GOP would allow a tax increase is one sign of the return of GOP collusion with democrats that we had hoped would never return to Jeff City.

Culture of hate

We, conservatives, Christians, have been under attack for decades, since the sixties if not earlier. Initially, no one really cared, nor took any interest in the attacks. This is America, after all. We all have 1st Amendment rights. Don’t we? We can’t lost that! It can’t happen here.

Well, it can happen here. Our first amendment rights, as well as all the other constitutionally protected rights are under attack. The left has carefully seeded hate against us and those seeds have now sprouted. If you doubt this, just scan the headlines. You needn’t read the articles, the headlines will tell you enough.

Gay-rights advocates torpedo GoFundMe campaign for Christian-owned bakery

For those of you who have been living under a rock, a bakery in Oregon, Sweet Cakes, was targeted by a lesbian couple. They asked the bakery to make a wedding cake. The bakery refused saying it was against their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued for discrimination—and won. The bakery’s 1st Amendment right was ignored. The liberal court assessed the bakery a fine large enough to bankrupt them. The headline above tells the rest of the story.

In another instance, the John Hopkins University Student Government has banned Chick-fil-A from their campus. Why? Johns Hopkins University has banned Chick-fil-A from its campus saying that the restaurant is a “microaggression” against its students.” It mattered not that Chick-fil-A has no presence on the university campus. The act was nothing more than pure spite.

These were attacks against Christians and a Christian-owned business. But these aren’t the only instances of hate and violence. Rabid environmentalists have used violence for decades. Usually those acts were against property. One of the latest attacks was direct violence against a person, an employee of a company.

Will there be a National Conversation after environmentalist shoots energy worker?

posted at 7:21 pm on April 17, 2015 by Noah Rothman

Get ready for a week of introspection from the press, particularly the left-leaning media, as a wave of tortured self-criticism characterizes coverage of what is sure to dominate the news cycle for the foreseeable future… LOL. Just kidding!

A disturbing story out of West Virginia flagged by The Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay indicates that a man, enraged by the drilling taking place in his state, shot an employee of an energy exploitation company on Monday.

A man dressed in camouflage with his face painted black approached Mark Miller, an employee with HG Energy LLC, on Joe’s Creek near Sod, Napier said.

“At that time he played Mr. Miller a recording that said ‘Stop the drilling’ and then stuck a gun through the window of the passenger side of the truck,” [Lincoln County Chief Sheriff’s Deputy J.J.] Napier said.

A reporter with The Charleston Gazette called a member of the West Virginia Sierra Club for comment and received unequivocal condemnation of this violent incident, but the episode has received little attention in the national press.

For a media culture that is quick to blame conservatives for every episode of violence with a potential political motive, the commentary community’s silence on this incident is deafening.

The column continues listing the instances where the lefties acted with violence. In some cases the liberal media tried, and failed, to blame conservatives for the acts of violent liberals.

The left has purposely sought to divide the country. A country divided is weak and when weakened, that nation is susceptible for a takeover. A coup, in other words.

A coup need not be a violent overthrow, it can be insidious, a chip here, a chip there. The question is not how, but when. When will the people of this nation wake up and resist. That resistance need not be violent, either. The same methods used by the left, can also be used by us to counteract the left.

With Obama, Holder and the new Holder clone as Attorney General, the left is emboldened. The current crop of GOP leadership in Washington are willing enablers of the coup. They fear the left and are abetting them. We have a chance to make corrections. Remember Cruz, Walker, Paul, and Rubio, each a conservative, when the election cycle commences. Remember, too, that Boehner and McConnell must go along with their cronies in Congress.

The day of the Tyrants…

…will soon begin to end…or at least, hit a speed bump. The level of tyranny changes on a daily basis. One of the most egregious acts by a tyrant, an act clearly unconstitutional, has been reversed. Houston Mayor Annise Parker has told her enablers to withdraw the subpoenas to seize the sermons of five Houston pastors. Her reason for the subpoena? It violated her new anti-gay/anti-free speech edict.

She received immediate push-back. The Texas Attorney General wrote her a letter informing her that she was violating the 1st Amendment. The Houston-Five, as they are now known, refused to comply with the Mayor’s order. Christians and conservative began to send Bibles to the mayor. Finally, when she realized she had really stepped into a pile of hot, steaming dung, she reversed her order.

Houston mayor drops bid to subpoena pastors’ sermons

Subpoenas issued to five Houston pastors demanding all sermons and correspondence dealing with homosexuality, gender identity and the city’s Equal Rights ordinance have been withdrawn, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor announced at a Wednesday press conference.

“After much contemplation and discussion, I am directing the city legal department to withdraw the subpoenas issued to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions, the anti-HERO petitions, to the city of Houston and who indicated that they were responsible for the overall petition effort,” said Mayor Annise Parker in remarks covered by television station KPRC.

My column on the issue sparked a bit of national outrage – well – a lot of national outrage. To be honest it was a full-scale hullabaloo. City Hall was deluged with telephone calls, letters, emails – along with hundreds of Bibles and sermons. More than 50,000 supporters signed a petition.

Nevertheless, the mayor still seems hell-bent on defending the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance – a piece of legislation that will in part give grown men who identify as women the right to use the restrooms of their choice.

“It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged,” Parker said. “We are going to continue to vigorously defend our ordinance against repeal efforts.”

Tyranny retreats in the face of opposition. As she was quoted above, Houston’s tyrant has no intention of backing down. This setback is just a small pause in the progress of her tyrannical agenda.

We, here near Kansas City, have another example of tyranny. Over the summer, Kansas City Mayor Sly James rammed through the city council an ordinance banning the open carry of firearms. In itself, such an act has been done in cities across America. What was most tyrannical in this case was the motivation behind the ordinance—suppression of free speech.

He said aggressive open carrying of weapons can be intimidating for customers and bad for business. — Kansas City Star.

Mayor James’ logic for the ordinance was that he didn’t want to see people legally carrying firearms openly in Kansas City. He could not provide any evidence that carrying weapons increased lawlessness but he could create a law to make open carry illegal. The Missouri Legislature passed a law this year that made James’ ordinance invalid—but only for those licensed carry a weapon concealed.

Mayor James knew his ordinance would soon be invalid but he pushed it through anyway. His purpose was not public saftety. He knew he had no evidence that his law would improve that. No, the ordinance was enacted solely to curb acts of free speech from the Open Carry advocates.

There are more instances of liberal tyranny across the country. In Idaho, a city passed an ordinance requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages regardless of the minister’s religious views. The order was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment but liberals ignore the Constitution when they violate it.

That Idaho city has now backed off from their order—which included jail time and heavy fines for non-compliance. But never doubt, tyranny is only waiting for attention to wander and they will return. That is why we must be always vigilant and ready to respond to every tyrannical act.

Liberal Assault on Truth

Liberals, democrats, seem to be inheritantly incapable of being truthful. Whenever they are pressed for truth, they attack the opposition. Case in point. The City of Houston passed an ordinance that restricted the 1st Amendment and free speech. When the residents submitted a petition to abolish the ordinance, the city council claimed the petition was faulty, regardless of the 50,000 signatures. Much more than the number required for action.

In Kansas City, Missouri, the city council, at the instigation of Mayor Sly James, passed an ordinance banning Open Carry of a firearm. Their motivation was not public safety, nor a request from law enforcement. Open Carry had been legal in Kansas City for decades and had never been an issue—until Mayor Sly James made it one.

Mayor James publicly stated that the ordinance, “was intended to send a message,” to Open Carry advocates. That made the issue, not a 2nd Amendment issue, but a 1st Amendment issue, banning the free expression of those Open Carry advocates. A lawyer friend said the ordinance and the public admission of the motivation behind it, was clearly illegal, a constitutional violation. But, he said, it would take a barrel of $100 dollar bills to fight it in court and so far, no one with deep pockets has come forward to finance a lawsuit against the ordinance.

In Houston, because Houston’s churches were in opposition of the ordinance and by extension the Mayor who was a self-avowed homosexual, the Churches have been subpoenaed to submit transcripts of their sermons that opposed the ordinance. The subpoenas are a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. The churches and church leaders are banding together to fight the city of Houston on this issue.

An article appeared in the American Thinker that addresses this lack of truthfulness by liberal and democrats. With the actions of the Houston Mayor and City Council, its timing could not have been more appropriate.

Liberals Wage War on the Truth

By Trevor Thomas, October 15, 2014

When it comes to political “wars,” in spite of the meme perpetrated by most liberals, no one is more hawkish than modern liberals and the political party that they own, the Democrat Party. By and large since the 1960s, their efforts are summed up by one succinct and extremely accurate appellation: a war on the truth.

In the history of our nation, only the pro-slavery Democrats of the 19th century rival the political deception employed by today’s liberals that lead the modern Democrat Party. Support of everything from abortion, to gender perversions, homosexuality, pornography, a redefinition of marriage, wicked climate policies, and an enslaving welfare state have made today’s Democrat Party little more than a modern-day Mephistopheles. Instead of magic to lure their Faustian targets, today’s Democrats employ, among other things, bribery, class warfare, fear, greed, lust, propaganda, scientism, vengeance, and violence.

This is really unsurprising. When your politics regularly conflict with absolute truth, constant deception is required. The evidence is, of course, all around us. This is especially the case given that we are in the midst of another election season. Take note of the political ads run by Democrats. How long before we get to meet the next Julia or Pajama Boy? How many times will we get to hear about, if elected, what Democrats will do in order to give out more goodies from the government? Where will the next fraudulent statistics in the “War on Women” originate?

How much “linguistic limbo” will Democrats perform in order blandly to describe their embracing of the “right” to kill children in the womb? (Or they simply video their abortions and tell us that everything is “super great!”) What deceit will liberals use to explain or embrace the fiscal and medical disaster that is Obamacare? How many times will we get to hear the phrase “marriage equality” (knowing full well that the liberal position on marriage also “discriminates”)?

How far away will Democrats attempt to run from what they really are in order to keep themselves in power? Liberals all over the country are running from Obama and their own party in an attempt to win elections. As most who are following this election season know well, Democrats are going so far as to avoid the label “Democrat” or even admit that they voted for Obama.

In Kansas, Greg Orman is a Democrat running as an Independent. He has shamelessly refused to say with which party he would caucus if elected. “Truth makes the Devil blush,” wrote the English historian Thomas Fuller. As liberalism has created a culture that is nearly bereft of shame, today’s Democrats rarely blush, even as they mock their wheelchair-bound opponents. This usually happens only when someone becomes a political liability (as did the Democrat candidate that Orman replaced) and not because some proper moral standard has been violated.

If Orman does win, as the Wall Street Journal notes, he will most certainly owe his election to Washington Democrats. Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes squirmed like Jim Carrey in Liar Liar as she attempted to avoid revealing to the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board whether she voted for Obama in the last presidential election. Mary Landrieu and Michelle Nunn have played similar games as they try to win U.S. Senate seats in conservative states.

Given how far our culture has fallen morally, getting elected in the United States these days is much more challenging when you are accountable to absolute truths. As I noted earlier this year, because their moral bar is so low and easily adjusted to whatever is politically popular, liberals today generally have an easier time “playing politics” than conservatives — especially Christian conservatives.

When asked recently how to break the stalemate in the culture war that divides American conservatives and liberals, Catholic scholar George Weigel replied, “When you have a gnostic philosophy that ignores the very fabric of reality — and it is wed to a coercive state — it’s hard to know where to go.”

Ignoring “the very fabric of reality” is a frequent practice of modern liberals. Liberalism is so far removed from truth and reality that many liberals today can’t even acknowledge explicit evil when confronted with it. Ben Affleck has plenty of company among his fellow leftists when it comes to denying the rotten fruit of Islam. As the recent exchange with fellow liberal Bill Maher illustrated, many American liberals, in the name of the supreme virtue of liberalism – tolerance — will eagerly and angrily deny lesser virtues of their “faith.”

“Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions,” wrote G.K. Chesterton. A “man without convictions” who frequently “ignores the very fabric of reality” and who is enthusiastically “wed to a coercive state” is an apt description of modern liberals, but not perfect. In spite of what they themselves might think — lost in their fallacy that is today’s tolerance — liberals are not completely tolerant, and thus not devoid of convictions.

The convictions of modern liberalism are numerous and growing: Abortion, homosexuality, hook-ups, same-sex marriage, gender confusion, man-made global warming, universal healthcare, income redistribution, and whatever is the next perversion or deceit that will strike at the heart of biblical truths.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” helped launch the American Revolution. If America is to remain, we need a spiritual revolution bringing us back to those truths that were once so “self-evident.”

Liberals and democrats have perverted our Constitution. We must all fight to take it back.

Infringement

in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/
noun
noun: infringement; plural noun: infringements

1. the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
“copyright infringement”
2. the action of limiting or undermining something.
“the infringement of the right to privacy”

If an act by a governing body, say a county, criminalizes an act that would in other circumstances be recognized as a by-product of a constitutional right, would that body be said to be infringing upon a constitutional right?

The county is Jackson. What they have done is to criminalize self protection if a firearm is used. Earlier this week, I wrote about a message I received from Kevin Jamison, President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. It’s worth repeating.

Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.

Let’s create a scenario. You are in a mall parking lot and you have your arms full of packages. You are parked nose-in against a concrete wall and have cars parked on both sides of you. A man walks up with a weapon and demands your money, car keys and says he’ll kill you if you don’t comply.

You cannot run. There is no where to go. Your exit is blocked by the mugger. From more of his statements, you believe he’ll kill you regardless of your compliance. You also have a CCW permit and have a pistol available. You are in fear of your life. What do you do? Comply and possibly die, or fight back? Many of us, in similar situations, would fight back using what we have available—throw the packages at your attacker, draw your weapon and fire.

You have just violated Jackson County’s new ordinance—firing a pistol, any firearm, withing the boundaries of Jackson County. It makes no difference that you were fully justified in defending yourself under the law. It makes no difference you were legally armed. It makes no difference, you have fired within the county and the Powers-That-Be are determined to get their pound-of-flesh because you exercised your right of self-defense.

It is an atrocity.

For those of you residing within Jackson County, remember the clandestine actions of your county government when you return to the polls. Vote the tyrants out!

***

Harry Reid said he was determined to go around the First Amendment after SCOTUS laid down the law on Obama’s attempt to violate Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment rights. Like other democrats, Reid believe the Constitution is an impediment in the path of their statist agenda. Too bad some of his own didn’t obey Reid’s marching orders.

Victory: Pro-Life Senators Vote Down New Abortion-Pill Mandate

The American people’s voices were heard.  Over 75,000 Americans signed the ACLJ’s petition to defeat the new abortion-pill mandate and defend religious liberty in just a little over 48 hours.

Yet the left is not giving up on its dream of making every American pay for abortion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lamented that this pro-abortion bill only gained 56 of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture (end debate), and promised another vote “before the year is out” (read: before the November elections).  In other words, Sen. Reid is signaling to his pro-abortion allies that he will make the abortion-pill mandate a central issue of the fall elections.

Harry Reid lost this time but he won’t give up on his attempts to destroy the Constitution. The left never gives up. They’ll chip away at the Constitution, one right at a time.

SCOTUS Strikes Again

The Supreme Court released two decisions this morning, both of them decided along liberal/conservative lines, 5 to 4.  The first decision, from Illinois health care workers against SEIU, sided against the union. It wasn’t unanimous but it was a rebuke to unions planning to expand at the expense of the public. On a 5-4 decisions, SCOTUS says that public service unions like SEIU cannot force non-members to pay dues.

Court: Public union can’t make nonmembers pay fees

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover the union’s costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks – and bank accounts – in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.

But the ruling was limited to this particular segment of workers – not private sector unions – and it stopped short of overturning decades of practice that has generally allowed public sector unions to pass through their representation costs to nonmembers.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers are different from other types of government employees because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees.

You can read the entire article here.

A lawyer friend of mine explained that the defense, the Illinois health care litigators, argued for an exception. Therefore, SCOTUS could only grant that exception. If the grounds of the argument had been wider or on other grounds, the decision could have been different—knocking down all union extortion of dues from non-members…or siding with the union. In any case it was a step in the right direction even it it does apply only to public sector unions.

The second decision announced today is one the religious and 1st Amendment advocates have been waiting for. It is the famous Hobby-Lobby, Mardel and Conestoga suit against HHS that would force these companies to provide contraception insurance against the company owner’s religious views.

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court