The Bigot’s Last Stand

“We will not obey,” is the pitiful warning from the American army of right wing evangelical religious bigots to the Supreme Court of the United States if they recognize gay marriage as a constitutional right.

It’s the same sort of warning the rabid racial bigots declared in the 1950’s when the Court was poised to desegregate American public schools.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” declares the  Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.” 

First things first – I’ll be mighty surprised (but delighted) if SCOTUS decides that gay marriage is a fundamental federal constitutional right upon either due process or equal protection grounds. It will be another 5-4 decision and this time I just don’t believe that Justice Kennedy has the intellectual courage – the balls if you will -- to cast his lot on the side of reason. He will most likely cop out and side with the religious extremists on the Court who believe that the issue should be left to the democratic process of the several states.

I hope I’m wrong.

No matter what the Court does, however, the handwriting is on the wall. A growing majority of Americans today are fed up with mindless religious discrimination against 10% of the population who had no choice but to be born homosexual. It is only a matter of time before their rights as human beings are fully recognized in the United States.

But the religious bigots, just like the racial bigots before them, are having none of it. “While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” they cry.

“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” warns Joe Scarborough. “For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians... “We have no choice. We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.”

Never-mind that no one is really attempting to ‘redefine’ marriage; Gay marriage if recognized would still be marriage. The Constitution is supposed to be gender neutral. Equality is gender neutral. The sexes are equal. A man and a woman are equal under the law. A man and a man are equal under the law. A woman and a woman are equal under the law.   Equals under the law should enjoy equal rights. It’s not a matter of changing the definition. It’s a matter of equality of rights.

The bigots don’t see it that way. They actually believe that giving gay’s their rights will herald the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.” The logic is truly bizarre. It comes down to: giving gays the right to marry will result in everyone turning into a homosexual. Only homosexuals will get married. They won’t reproduce sexually, so there will no longer be any offspring to perpetuate our civilization.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” they reason. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it -- or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

But just exactly how is the institution of marriage weakened or undermined simply by allowing gays their equal rights? Do equal rights weaken their own marriages? Will heterosexual couples love each other less if homosexual couples marry? Do equal rights make it less likely that heterosexuals will continue to marry and have children? Will heterosexuals turn into homosexuals? Will it really result in the end of civilization as we know it? Will the sky fall?

I don’t think so.

But this is the bigot’s last stand. 

Reefer Madness in Kansas

Crazed Authorities in the State of Kansas enjoy ripping little kids away from the tender embrace of their Mommy’s if they find out that Mommy is committing the “crime” of smoking pot to alleviate her debilitating medical illness.  

You see, if Mommy were accused of murder or just about any other heinous crime in the State of Kansas she’d be still allowed custody of her children while out on bail, at least until convicted and imprisoned, but ingesting marijuana for medical reasons... well, that will result in the kids being hauled away kicking and screaming by Child Protective Services.

That’s what happened to Shona Banda’s little boy recently when he spoke out during an anti-drug indoctrination propaganda session at his school about his Mommy’s medical marijuana use at home. The cops raided his house, found some dope, arrested Mommy and took custody of the 11-year-old.

A Kansas judge has refused to return the kid to his mom after a hearing. He’s still being held in protective custody by the state, a ruling which might become permanent, and a gag order has been entered on the entire proceedings. The child has lost his Mommy, maybe forever, and he can’t even talk about it.

Next door, just across the border in the State of Colorado, smoking pot is legal – not just for medical reasons – but for recreational purposes too. So if the kid lived in Colorado he’d still have his Mommy; but not in Kansas.

The Authority is plagued with reefer madness in Kansas.  

The Flag Delusion

Only in a deluded mind can a symbol assume greater importance than the reality. This is especially true when it comes to deluded minds and the American Flag. A symbol of freedom is more important to these folks than freedom. Their symbol of freedom requires protection but freedom does not.

Consider the pitiful case of Michelle Manhart, a U.S. military veteran who thinks she has the right to confiscate an American flag belonging to someone else if they are desecrating it. She thought it necessary to intervene in a University protest when she saw demonstrators walking on their own American flag.

First she demanded that University officials stop the protest. They declined. So she snatched the flag from the protesters and refused to give it back. "This belongs to actually the entire United States," Manhart yelled; "It's not yours."

Eventually, the police arrived but she still stubbornly refused to turn over the flag. She resisted the officers until she was finally overpowered and tackled to the ground. She was taken into custody but released after both the protesters and the police declined to press charges.

Later, on the TV talk shows, the deluded woman declared: "When it comes to the flag, it's our iconic symbol. It stands for everything that we are. It stands for the freedoms to allow those individuals to do what they want, protest or have an organization. So how are you even going to justify ruining or walking upon something that's giving you the right to do what you're doing?"

Huh?

Obviously, this poor lady just doesn’t understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom in her deluded consciousness is totally eclipsed by the symbol of freedom. That symbol, she thinks, requires protection but the freedom of the protesters does not.

She believes that the symbol is what gives the protesters the right to protest – they don’t enjoy the right without the symbol – so they can’t justify desecrating the symbol. They don’t have the freedom to do that.  

Manhart deserved 30 days in jail in my humble opinion, but I can understand why the cops and the protesters decided to give her a break. She could have got off anyway with an insanity plea. 

She could have successfully pled the flag delusion defense. 

Ben Carson’s Gay Epiphany

Republican potential presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, experienced an epiphany recently after taking some heavy flack for expressing his opinion that homosexuality is a “choice” and backing up the argument by declaring that people “go to prison straight – and when they come out they’re gay.”

Upon serious reflection, and to his credit, the good Dr. apologized for his ignorant insensitive comments. He now says that he no longer wants to talk about LGBT issues. That topic – a person’s sexual orientation -- “I think it’s a personal issue and we ought to leave it as a personal issue... Leave the personal issues to the personal people.”

Ditto with the topic of so-called gay conversion therapy intended by some misguided individuals to “cure” gays of their homosexuality. "That kind of thing should be left to therapists and to individuals. I don't think it's anybody else's business," says Carson. 

"The important thing is for us as a nation to recognize that all citizens of the United Sates are protected by our constitution. We need to stop deciding that one group versus another group is the flavor of the day and we need to do things that provide for justice and liberty for everybody."

Now, if only Dr. Carson could persuade his fellow candidates to do the same, i.e. keep their controversial opinions regarding religion and private personal social issues to themselves, perhaps the GOP will have a better chance of beating the Democrat in 2016. Ranting about religion and social issues as they have done in the past is a losing political proposition and Carson found that out the hard way.

The rest of the Republican field should experience for themselves Ben Carson’s gay epiphany.

A Calculatingly Crafted Contrived Cardboard Candidate

Hillary Clinton has been running for President of the United States since 2005; ten years now. During all that time she’s calculatingly crafted an image of herself as a wholly contrived cardboard candidate.

It’s been all appearance and no substance with Hillary from her entire stint in the U.S. Senate, her failed presidential campaign in 2008, her four years as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, right up to the recent rollout of her declared candidacy for President in 2016.

She was running for President when she took the job as Secretary of State. That’s why she cunningly and calculatingly concocted a scheme to install a private computer server in her home with which to conduct official government correspondence, while at the same time retaining the means to erase the “paper trail” if necessary in order to cover up any embarrassing evidence of malfeasance on the job.

A House committee led by chairman Congressman, Darrell Issa sent a letter to Sec. Clinton in 2012 asking her specifically about that. She refused to answer his questions. The congressional investigations into the Benghazi affair have been conducted entirely without the benefit of any official correspondence from then Sec. Hillary Clinton because that evidence was all on her private computer.

It was never turned over to investigators. Now we learn that Clinton deleted all of it and refuses to turn the server over for forensic analysis. Thus the “paper trail smoking gun” evidence of her malfeasance in office is gone. She planned it that way.

Now she’s running for President and still refuses to make herself available to the press or answer any questions about past deeds. Since the official announcement of her candidacy everything has been carefully staged and contrived so as to eliminate any chance of revealing the true Hillary Clinton.

This lady has been treated like a queen ever since her time as first lady in the early 1990’s. She’s always traveled first class and in style. Today both she and her husband, Bill Clinton are multimillionaires. She knows that a large segment of the public perceives her as being out of touch with the American commoners. She is out of touch.

But she and her handlers are hard at work trying to contrive and create at least the appearance of Hillary Clinton as a candidate of the people. Instead of flying first class, for example, to Iowa for her first slate of campaign appearances, she rented a van and named it “Scooby Doo” for the 1,000+ mile trip. Obviously, they think gullible people will see that as humble and cute.

The van is black with dark black tinted windows preventing anyone from seeing inside. It is constantly followed by a motorcade of secret service agents whose job is to make sure that no one can come near it. She made a stop at a Chipotle Mexican restaurant along the way, entering wearing dark sunglasses in an attempt to disguise herself from the commoners there. She spoke to no one, ate her meal and left without leaving a tip.  

When she reached Iowa her first campaign stop consisted of a meeting with a half dozen or so “every day Americans” at a coffee shop in LeClaire. No reporters were allowed. It was by no means a chance encounter with the commoners, but instead was cunningly contrived and staged from the beginning so as to eliminate all chances of anything going awry.

In fact, one of the so-called “commoners” shown sitting at the table with Hillary told reporters later that a Clinton campaign staffer had earlier called and asked him, along with two other young people, to meet him Tuesday morning at a restaurant in Davenport Iowa, a nearby city. The staffer then drove them to the coffee house to meet Clinton after vetting them for about a half-hour.” 

Hillary Clinton is apparently afraid to face the American public as her true self in the absence of artifice. If the Republicans can’t find a way to defeat this utterly incompetent phony calculatingly crafted contrived cardboard candidate in 2016, I’m certain there will be absolutely no hope for the GOP in the future.

President of the United Middle Class Families of America

Can you imagine George Washington or Abraham Lincoln announcing their candidacy for President of the United States with insipid campaign promises to make middle-class families a number one priority?

I can’t imagine it because the thought of such utter frivolous stupid nonsense is unimaginable. But sadly that is what the high office of President of the United States of America has come to today. The job is more akin to a being the nation’s parent than president.

In George Washington’s time the Constitution plainly set forth the powers, duties and responsibilities of the President and he took his job seriously. He was the Chief Executive of the United States government; Commander and Chief of the armed forces; top diplomat in all matters pertaining to U.S. relations with foreign governments; appointer of federal judges, ambassadors, consuls, ministers, cabinet officials and other federal officers with the advice and consent of the Senate; and above all he was invested with the solemn responsibility to take care that the laws of the of the United States be faithfully executed.

Of course, the Constitution hasn’t changed in that regard since then but seekers of the presidency in recent times no longer seem to care much about the Constitution. Instead of promising to do their constitutional duty to preserve, protect and uphold our constitutional liberties, they now promise that if elected they’ll do their best to play favorites and take care of us as though we were their children.

Elizabeth Warren, for example, who considers herself  a champion for the middle class, says she’s not running for president but has made it plain that she wants whoever is running in 2016 to make middle-class families a priority. She wants candidates running in 2016 to talk about how they'll "make Washington work for families again." She thinks it’s the duty of the President of the United States to give us a higher minimum wage, make education more affordable, and protect benefits like Social Security and Medicare.

Sure enough, Hillary Clinton, who this week announced: "I'm running for president," has heard Warren’s asinine message and, as if on cue, is now casting herself as a champion of the middle class and "everyday Americans."

"Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion," declared Hillary in a two-minute campaign propaganda presentation featuring a number upbeat middle-class families from a variety of backgrounds sharing their aspirations. "I'm hitting the trail to earn your vote," she trumpeted, stressing that her campaign will be all "about how to make the economy work so everyday Americans and their families can actually get ahead and stay ahead."

What the Hell is an ‘everyday American’ anyway, I ask you? Isn’t every American an American every day? What American ever had the distinction of being born without the participation of a mother and a father, i.e. a ‘family?’ Even orphans have ‘families,’ or are orphans not considered by Hillary as ‘everyday Americans’ wanting to ‘get ahead and stay ahead.’ If every ‘everyday American’ and ‘their family’ could ‘get ahead and stay ahead,’ who among us would be behind? We’d all be ahead. No one would be behind. How is that possible?

And since when is the ‘middle class in America, (whatever that is), entitled to greater attention and protection from the President of the United States than the rest of us American suckers?

It’s just another train load of political bullshit prepared for the consumption and digestion of stupid American people. Hillary Clinton thinks that the majority of Americans, at least the ones whose votes she’s seeking, are stupid. And she’s right.

If stupid people weren’t allowed to vote we surely wouldn’t have to worry about electing a... president of the united middle class families of America. 

Our Global Whorehouse

Did you know that the small minority of climate change deniers among us, me included, are Hell bent on turning our planet into a global whorehouse?

That’s right. Unless we climate change deniers are silenced once and for all, and mankind is forced to drastically reduce his carbon footprint, the detrimental effects of human caused global warming will soon overwhelm the entire earth and drive our women into prostitution.

Thankfully, a California congresswoman is introducing legislation to save our women from a life of ill repute. Democrat, Barbara Lee, seeks to force our government to address all “policies and programs in the United States that are globally related to climate change” through the lens of gender.

This courageous congresswoman understands that “Recognizing the disparate impact of climate change on women and the efforts of women globally to address climate change,” is necessary to stop the long term and catastrophic weather changes that will result in drought and destructive weather events such as flooding, which will lead to food shortages, joblessness and disease, along with economic and political crisis on a regional scale.

Global warming if allowed to continue unchecked will cause women to become whores because “women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change, particularly in poor and developing nations where women regularly assume increased responsibility for growing the family's food and collecting water, fuel, and other resources,” she explains. Consequently, they will be the most desperate and vulnerable, forced into situations, “such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage.”

The impending climate change environmental crises will force women to migrate, often into refugee camps or other vulnerable circumstances, where they will have to scrounge for food and resources for their families. Therefore government should begin to focus on poor women, as well as empower women to develop strategies to prepare for these eventualities.

If we don’t act quickly and decisively to muzzle the climate change deniers, save our women, and prevent the terrible disaster, global warming will surely turn our beautiful planet into... our global whorehouse.  

The Law is Not What it Says

One of the first practical lessons a new law school student learns is that the law is not what it says. That’s why we need lawyers. If the law were what it says then lawyers would be superfluous. If the law were what it says then we could trust judges to make correct decisions. It’s not like the rules of baseball or golf which are indeed what they say. Lawyers are unnecessary with baseball and golf; just umpires and referees.

But the law of the land is not what it says. The law is what the court says, and the lower the court in the jurisprudential hierarchy, the less likely the law is what it says. Judges actually vote on the question of what the law is. Can you imagine that? The law is subject to a vote. That’s why many people have no respect for the law, and rightfully so.

In the final analysis then the law is what the Supreme Court of the United States says, except for the fact that it can change its interpretation of the law anytime it likes; the vote tally can, and often does, change from case to case.  So the law still is not necessarily what it says.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The law is a crapshoot. Lawyers can argue and courts can decide that white is black and black is white.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, for example, provides that government my not abridge freedom of speech. That’s what it says but that’s not necessarily what the law is. First Amendment law is what a court says it is. So what amounts to fully protected speech on Monday might just as well not be protected speech on Tuesday if a court so decides by vote.

That’s right. It’s really a crapshoot here in the United States of America. One never knows for sure what a court will decide about what the law is. You can’t count on a court to uphold what the law says. Not even the Bill or Rights is what it says. It’s maddening.

High school students at Live Oak, part of the Morgan Hill Unified School District in Northern California, for example, in accordance with their First Amendment constitutional rights of freedom of expression, are permitted to wear clothing bearing depictions of the American Flag every day of the school year – every day except for one. A court decided that the same fundamental constitutional rights they enjoyed on Monday could be denied them on Tuesday.

And last week the United States Supreme Court let that decision stand. What is permissible expression on Monday, and fully protected by the First Amendment, is not necessarily permissible on Tuesday if the school district authorities so decide and the courts affirm. The First Amendment is not what it says.

The law is not what it says.

Watching the Dancing Bigots

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies in relevant part that government shall make no laws prohibiting free exercise of religion or abridging freedom of speech. Thus, there is absolutely no doubt that in this country people are guaranteed the right to be a bigot.

But being constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty and freedom of speech is not good enough for some bigots. First of all they know they’re bigots but don’t like to be labeled bigots. That makes them feel uncomfortable. They want the law to facilitate their bigotry. That makes them feel better about themselves. Secondly, they believe that religious liberty and freedom of speech and association gives them the right to deny other people’s rights. They want their beliefs codified in the law.

I’ve enjoyed watching the bigots in Indiana and Arkansas this week dancing around trying to avoid controversy over the passage of so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.” They want us to think that religious freedom is imperiled in America and needs to be restored as if the First Amendment doesn’t already guarantee to them that very freedom. They want us to think that these Acts have everything to do with religious freedom and nothing to do with giving them the right to deny other people’s rights.

But if it’s not all about giving bigots a license to deny other people’s rights, then there would be no good reason at all for these laws. After all, they already have religious liberty and freedom of speech so these laws don’t restore anything to them that they don’t already enjoy right now. That’s why they have to do this ridiculous dance.

The folks who are doing this dance believe they’ve found a way to circumvent the civil rights and ant-discrimination laws in America. More specifically, they want to continue enjoying their right to run businesses which are open to the public, i.e. public accommodations, while at the same time retaining legal loopholes that allow them to discriminate against certain segments of the public on the grounds that doing business with them offends their religious sensibilities.

In short, these bigots what laws which allow them to discriminate against homosexuals – to deny them their civil rights -- on religious grounds. But at the same time they unanimously insist that the laws have nothing to do with discrimination, only religious freedom.

You see, some religious bigots believe that civil rights and public accommodations laws somehow infringe upon their religious liberty. Some of my good libertarian friends who I’m sure aren’t bigots believe that such laws violate the First Amendment right of free association; that they in effect make slaves out of business owners. I disagree.

Doing business with the public is not a religious activity. Doing business with the public is not exercising religion. One does not associate with another or with another’s philosophy or lifestyle merely by exchanging a service for value. Baking a cake, arranging flowers, or taking photographs, for example are not religious or activities by which one associates with others. Thus, civil rights and public accommodations laws do not violate the First Amendment.

So there are simply no good reasons, no necessity for religious bigots in Indiana and Arkansas to pass these so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. They’re unnecessary; redundant; shameful and disingenuous. Most Americans aren’t buying it.

The comedy of them trying to justify it with reasonable people is like watching the dancing bigots.