Equality Act explained: Left-Wing Totalitarianism Wrecking ball vs Religious Freedom

Equality Act explained:

Left-Wing Totalitarianism Wrecking ball vs Religious Freedom

This week we honor the many men and women who have given life and limb to preserve our liberty and way of life. Meanwhile, here at home, we have those who seek to destroy our liberty from within.


Why Young Adults need to know about Judeo-Christian Heritage and Religious Freedom

equality act destroys religious freedomThe Democrats have passed a law in the House, wrongly called the “Equality” Act. In truth it is a wrecking ball for religious liberty.  Their definition of equality is to tolerate everything except biblical values.

                “If we continue to teach about tolerance and intolerance instead of good and evil, we will end up with tolerance of evil.”~Dennis Prager

In a nutshell, this is what the law will mean.

The Equality Act would expand the definition of the word sex in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” as legally protected classes. The result will unleash radical liberals to attack those whose faith teaches that marriage is only between one man and one woman and that sexual identity of male and female is a fixed, biological fact.

By government edict, business owners, employees, and customers alike will be subject to a radical LGBT agenda:

  • Female business owners, customers, and employees would then be forced to share their privacy in restrooms and dressing rooms with men who claim to be women.
  • Health care providers and professionals would be forced to perform gender transition procedures (sex changes) and provide medical services (hormone therapy) that would violate their moral and religious convictions.
  • Amusement parks, recreation centers, skating rinks, and daycare centers, etc. will be forced to employ people whose values on sexuality deviates from those of the employer.
  • Adoption and foster care agencies will be forced to place children into same sex households and into homes of individuals suffering from gender confusion.
  • College and professional sports stadiums would be required to open its restrooms to either sex.

The Democratic Party has clearly laid out their intent to force Christians into subjugation to radical sexual deviancy. The Party’s platform states, “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.”

The “progressive vision” of religious liberty for Democrats was recently made visible by Chai Feldblum, the former commissioner of Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum clearly staked out the “progressive vision” of the Democratic Party when she said:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.” (Emphasis added.)

It’s Not the Equality Act, It’s The Pedophile Protection Act

Don’t be fooled by the name of the proposed legislation.


Why Young Adults need to know about Judeo-Christian Heritage and Freedom of Religion



Culture Wars: 10 Ways to Protect Religious Freedom

Culture Wars:

10 Ways to Protect Religious Freedom

Lift Where You Stand: 10 Ways to Protect Religious Freedom

“I sometimes fear that we have relied too much on the Constitution to do the hard work of citizenship for us. The Constitution—including the First Amendment—was never intended to make us lazy citizens, to absolve us from the duty and imperative to be vigilant in defense of our religious rights and interests.” ~ Lance B. Wickman

D. Todd Christofferson

Knowing how to protect religious freedom can seem daunting. It might seem like you need a legal or political background to make a difference. But there are simple things you can do in your neighborhood or community that can have big effects over time. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of building trust with others so that you have relationships already established when you need to come together on complex issues. Here are some simple ways to protect religious freedom in everyday life:

1. Study up on the issues. Study the words of the living Apostles on religious freedom and moral issues. Read responsible websites, newspapers, magazines, and blogs that explore current events from a variety of perspectives, asking God to let the Spirit help you discern truth. Let your beliefs and the facts inform your views. Be ready to act. Know your rights established by the First Amendment: “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” (italics added).

2. Speak up with courage and civility. Don’t be intimidated into silence by intolerant voices. Speak up! State your views with true civility and kindness (for ideas, see “7 Keys to Successful Conversations”). Speak or write calmly. Seek true understanding. Acknowledge legitimate points. And explain why the freedoms you defend are so important to you, your loved ones, and the Church—make it personal. Keep in mind that one-on-one conversations are usually more meaningful and respectful than group discussions, especially if they’re online. Stand firmly for principle while understanding that in some areas we will have to seek compromise to protect our most vital freedoms.

voter placing ballot3. Get involved in the political process. Vote in your local, state, and national elections. Support candidates who understand the proper role of religion in society and the need to protect it for everyone. Learn about how laws are made. You could also attend city council meetings, join a political party, write your representatives, and combine your efforts with others who support religious freedom.

4.Get to know people of other faiths. Talk with them about matters of shared concern. Participate in an interfaith service project. Support their religious freedom.

5.Volunteer for a charity. Help solve problems in your community by giving of your time to a local charitable or service organization. When people of faith do good, they increase their ability to convince others that religious freedom should be respected and protected.

6. Get involved in education. Participate in your local PTA. Run for the school board. Lend your voice and resources to solving problems in your school. Help preserve reasonable space for religious values in educational settings. Support the right of parents to guide their children’s education. Support values-based extracurricular activities like religious clubs or Bible-study classes.

Parenting Resources for Teaching Families to Defend Religious Freedom

7. Be part of a club, business group, or professional association. Build relationships and gain perspectives by joining with community members in a book club, a debate team, a college alumni group, a conservation effort, a Scout troop, a speech forum, or a sports team. Be where the conversations are happening. That will give you opportunities to educate others about the importance of religious freedom and challenges to it. Likewise, business groups and professional associations exert great influence on policy makers and on other business people and professionals. They need your voice in support of faith, family, and religious freedom.

8. Extend the reach of your faith. Connect ward service activities with the needs of the community where possible. Cooperation between church groups and community organizations helps build mutual trust and focuses resources on helping those in need.  Again, when people of faith do good works, others will be more likely to respect their need for religious freedom.

9. Make it a family matter and a matter of prayer. Take your children to a speech or conference on religious freedom. Watch a movie or documentary on the role and history of religious freedom in society. Conduct a lesson or activity about the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other foundational documents. Invite a family of another faith into your home.

Cyrus, non-Jewish ruler who helped the Jews get their country back

Pray that our freedoms will be preserved. Pray and exercise faith that governments at home and abroad will be opened—or remain open—to the Church. As the Lord long ago “stirred” Cyrus, the King of Persia, to issue a decree allowing the Jews to rebuild a temple in Jerusalem (see Ezra 1:1), so can He stir other leaders with influence to help preserve religious freedom. Pray as you study about religious freedom that you can understand what you need to know and do. Pray for the Spirit to help direct you in conversations.

Teach your children why Religious Freedom Matters

10. Enlarge your voice through social media. Be persuasive by being civil in online conversations; the person who gets angry loses. Share appropriate links, stories, photos, articles, and personal experiences on social media. Start a blog, write an op-ed, or submit a letter to the editor. Learn from those who might disagree with you as you defend gospel standards and religious freedom. Sometimes even just sharing goodness you see in the world can help people recognize that your beliefs are about bringing peace, not contention, to the world.

Follow Western Culture Dinner Topics, Defender of Religious Freedom


History Facts: Fact Check, Founders, and First Amendment

History Facts:

Fact Check, Founders, and First Amendment

The Founders and de Tocqueville Knew the First Amendment Bests ‘Fact Checkers’

Mark Landsbaum

constitutional-convention-foundersYou don’t need “fact-checkers” to know what’s what. Indeed, be aware: the more self-laudatory the fact-checker, the more likely you’re getting sophisticated spin. And often not even sophisticated.

Today’s “fact-checkers” more often than not are simply advancing their own worldviews, pretending it’s gospel truth. That’s deception, a sin as old as sin comes.

As Jarrett Stepman at the Daily Signal reminds us, when Alexis de Tocqueville visited America nearly 200 years ago, the first newspaper he read had an over-the-top report accusing President Andrew Jackson of being a “heartless despot, solely occupied with the preservation of his own authority” and a “gamester” who ruled by corruption. The hyperbole wasn’t unusual.

Could fact checkers have fixed that problem? Nope. How about an official government clearinghouse for “real news?” Nope.

bill-of-rights-first-amendmentInstead, the Founders and de Tocqueville knew a robust First Amendment and its protections against censorship and government control is the solution. They agreed the free-market of ideas is the best chance for people to learn the truth, rather than being spoon-fed artificial “truth” by elite know-it-alls.

Those who want to put “truth” in the hands of “unbiased” all-knowing seers want something unachievable in a fallen world where even the most upright seek to advance their own preferences, and many of lesser integrity eagerly desire to impose their lies by fiat.

Propaganda and distortion of the news were common in de Tocqueville’s day, as in ours. Americans today are at least as capable of sifting fact from fallacy, truth from falsehood as were our ancestors. You’re not stupid. And if you are that stupid, the last thing you should want is some propagandist elevated to the Ministry of Truth.

Some good advice was written a couple thousand years ago, and it’s even applicable to politics and current affairs: there are false prophets in the world, deceivers and liars. Test what they say. You’re up to the challenge. (“By their fruits ye shall know them.” ~C.D.)



Culture Wars: YouTube Censorship of First Amendment Freedoms, Educational Truth Videos

Culture Wars:

YouTube Censorship of First Amendment Freedoms, Educational Truth Videos

YouTube censors my videos

Dennis Prager: 16 posts now ‘restricted’ despite millions of views, no explicit content

keyAny responsible person, left-wing or right-wing, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable list of non-bomb-throwing presenters. It’s hardly conducive to censorship.

Dennis Prager

dennis-prager-logoLast week, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about YouTube restricting access to 16 videos – down from 21 – that were created and posted online by my nonprofit educational organization, Prager University. The subheading read, “YouTube thinks Dennis Prager’s videos may be dangerous.” The Journal said:

“Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don’t do much to avoid looking censorious. … Dennis Prager’s ‘PragerU’ puts out free short videos on subjects ‘important to understanding American values’ – ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State.

“The channel has more than 130 million views. … As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content. But more than 15 videos are ‘restricted’ on YouTube. … This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering – say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and ‘based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.’

“PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed. YouTube is free to set its own standards, but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for ‘free expression.’”

It is a good sign that YouTube’s censorship of respectful and utterly nonviolent and nonsexual videos made it to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is a very bad sign that it had to. And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal but not that of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.

To understand what YouTube, which is owned by Google, has done, it is necessary to briefly describe what it has restricted access to.

Every week, PragerU (the generally used name for Prager University) posts at least one five-minute video presentation online. These presentations are on just about every subject and are given by important thinkers – some very well-known, some not.

PC-TruthThe list includes dozens of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame, Princeton, Dayton, Boston College, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, and West Point, among other universities;

  • a black member of South African Parliament;
  • comedians Adam Carolla and Yakov Smirnoff;
  • two former prime ministers (one of Spain, and one of Denmark);
  • Pulitzer Prize winners George Will, Bret Stephens and Judith Miller;
  • Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs”;
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Arthur Brooks; Jonah Goldberg;
  • Alan Dershowitz; Nicholas Eberstadt; Larry Elder;
  • Steve Forbes;
  • Walter Williams; Christina Hoff Sommers; George Gilder;
  • Victor Davis Hanson; Bjorn Lomborg;
  • Heather Mac Donald;
  • Eric Metaxas;
  • Amity Shlaes; Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan;
  • and many others.

I also present some videos.

magnifying-glass-lightoftruthAny responsible person, left-wing or right-wing, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable list of non-bomb-throwing presenters. It’s hardly conducive to censorship.

YouTube placed restrictions on the following videos.

  • Two videos on race: “Are The Police Racist?” and “Don’t Judge Blacks Differently.”
  • Six videos on Islam: “What ISIS Wants,” “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?” “Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do,” “Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?” “Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology” and “Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?”
  • Two videos on abortion (the only two offered): “Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?” and “The Most Important Question About Abortion.”
  • Two videos on Israel: “Israel: The World’s Most Moral Army” and “Israel’s Legal Founding” (the latter video, presented by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, was reinstated after much publicity).
  • Three videos on America: “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?” “Did Bush Lie About Iraq?” and “What is the University Diversity Scam?”
  • One on politics: “Who NOT to Vote For.”
  • And one on men and women: “He Wants You” (a video I present about men and women).

Think of these topics, and consider the list of presenters. Do you see any violent content or sexual content? Do you see anything you wouldn’t want your minor child to view? The only possible “yes” might be to the video titled “He Wants You.” Though void of any explicit content, it deals with the subject of men looking at other women yet most still wanting their own wives. It has almost 4 million views and has helped a lot of couples.

Obviously, then, the explanation is not that “algorithms” catch violence and sex. Rather, YouTube doesn’t want effective conservative videos to be posted (each video has at least 1 million views). Does that mean that it has left-wing censors looking for every widely viewed conservative video? If so, it doesn’t have to. Left-wing viewers simply flag our videos and others’ as inappropriate, and YouTube does the rest.

I have never devoted a column to PragerU. But I have done so today because if YouTube gets away with censoring as big a website as PragerU – after a major editorial is published in the Wall Street Journal, after coverage in the New York Post, the Boston Globe, Fortune, National Review and many other places, and after a petition signed by over 70,000 people (which is on the PragerU website) – what will happen to other conservative institutions?

For the probable answer, see your local university.

The question, then, is this: Will YouTube do to the Internet what the left has done to Prager University?





National Security: Supreme Court Justices are Key to American Survival

National Security:

Supreme Court Justices are Key to American Survival

The Next Supreme Court Justice

Reprinted by permission of Hillsdale College

keyThe next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that touch on the rights of every American and that may come to define the nature of our government and our society for many years to come.

Scott Pruitt
Attorney General, State of Oklahoma

cartoon-scalia-D-WoundedThanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

When Justice Antonin Scalia passed away this February, talk turned almost immediately to who would replace him—although in a large sense he is irreplaceable. Even those who disagreed with Justice Scalia acknowledge his profound impact. His scholarship and judicial opinions, through brilliance and wit, transformed how we think about the law and the Constitution. He inspired a generation of law students and lawyers. He provided a foundation for the work of judges and legislators, as well as attorneys general like myself. And all who knew him personally will attest that his brilliance was matched only by his warmth, cheer, and grace. He will be deeply missed.

Scalia’s Principles of Jurisprudence

1) Textualism

Antonin Scalia, supreme Court Justice

Antonin Scalia, supreme Court Justice

In thinking about the kind of person who should take his seat on the Court, it is worth reflecting on Justice Scalia’s principles of jurisprudence. One of the chief principles he championed, as a scholar and as a judge, is that the law, whether statutes or the Constitution itself, must be applied according to its text. In other words, judges should not apply the law based on what is good policy or what they suppose Congress may have intended (but did not express) in passing legislation.

2) Originalism

In addition, Justice Scalia believed that the words of the law should be understood as they were understood by the people when the law was enacted. For example, if you strike a bargain with someone, and later there is a dispute about that bargain, how do you interpret the words of your contract? Do you look to what the words of the contract meant at the time you agreed to them? Or do you look to what those words mean ten or 50 years after the fact? There are some who believe that the meanings of words change over time, untethered from any objective measure. Thus what is legal one day may be illegal the next without any textual changes to the law. Justice Scalia rejected this notion. He held fast to the idea that the meaning of laws is fixed by the meaning ascribed to their words at the time they were enacted.

3) Opposition to Creative Interpretation of the Constitution

These two principles, textualism and originalism, are rooted in a third characteristic of Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence: an unwavering respect for the idea of popular government. Laws, including the Constitution, receive their legitimacy from the people. The Constitution is not an autonomously evolving document that spins out new “rights” and obligations to which the people have not given their consent. Rather than discovering new rights in the Constitution, judges should respect the constitutional prerogative of the people to pass laws through their representative legislatures, limited by the restraints imposed by the Constitution—which was itself ratified by popular means.

4) Natural Rights should be tenaciously defended

signers3Along with this opposition to creative interpretation of the Constitution, a fourth characteristic of Justice Scalia’s life work was a conviction that the rights actually guaranteed in the Constitution should be tenaciously defended, from the right of free speech to the rights of criminal defendants. Beyond these enumerated rights, Justice Scalia recognized that the Constitution’s primary protection of liberty is its structure of checks and balances between branches and its division of powers between the federal government and the states.

Justice Scalia rejected Judicial Activism

In short, Justice Scalia rejected the judicial activism of inventing law while embracing judicial engagement by ensuring that the limits on government are strictly enforced.

Danger of Appointing a Liberal Justice

judicialtyrannyEnsuring that the next justice appointed to the Supreme Court is someone in the mold of Justice Scalia is surpassingly important. Not since the New Deal has the country had a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. For 60 years, the Court has been either decidedly liberal or split between liberals and conservatives. For 25 years, the Court’s most controversial and closely-divided cases sometimes had a liberal outcome, sometimes a conservative one. At the time of Justice Scalia’s death, the Court consisted of four unwavering liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), three solid conservatives (Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), a fourth who votes with the conservatives much of the time (Chief Justice Roberts), and one swing vote (Justice Kennedy). Replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal would fundamentally alter that balance, creating a solid majority of five liberal justices that would ensure liberal outcomes to all controversial decisions.

Make no mistake: the liberal justices on the Court nearly always vote as a bloc. Whereas the conservative justices occasionally depart for reasons of judicial philosophy from what some might consider the conservative outcome—as Justice Scalia often did—one is hard-pressed to find decisions where a liberal justice’s vote is in question. To illustrate the point, in the Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term, the four liberal justices agreed with each other over 90 percent of the time—more agreement than between any two conservative justices. For example, Chief Justice Roberts agreed with Justice Thomas in only 70 percent of cases. If the liberal wing of the Court is given a five-justice majority, we should expect that no controversial decision of the Court will ever be in doubt.

Important Issues Coming Up

Let me provide a survey of the important issues the Court might decide in coming years, once a ninth justice is appointed.

Freedom of Speech

freedomofspeechOne of the issues coming before the Court will concern a basic liberty essential to democracy: freedom of speech. Under assault these days is the freedom to spend (or not spend) money on political speech. For example, before Justice Scalia’s death, the Court voted to grant review of a case called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which public sector employees wanted the right not to pay compulsory union dues. This case raises an important question about free speech: can the government force you to contribute money to a political cause you oppose? Without Justice Scalia’s vote, the Court split evenly, leaving the issue to be resolved by a future Supreme Court—the deciding vote to be cast by the future ninth justice.

On the other side of the free speech coin is the continued vitality of the Court’s Citizens United decision. Let me clarify a common misconception: Citizens United did not hold that corporations are allowed to give unlimited amounts to political candidates. In fact, the laws limiting the amount of campaign contributions to a few thousand dollars are still valid and in place. Rather, in Citizens United, the Court held that the government may not limit the amount of money spent—whether by individuals, unions, or corporations—on their own independent political advocacy. This case was decided 5 to 4, with Justice Scalia in the majority. If he is replaced with a liberal, Citizens United will likely be overturned, and the right to free speech will be greatly diminished.

freedom-religionThe First Amendment also protects religious liberty, another of our endangered core rights. Before Justice Scalia passed away, the Supreme Court granted review in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, a case which will decide whether certain state laws called “Blaine Amendments” are constitutional. Blaine Amendments are provisions added to state constitutions during a time of anti-Catholic fervor—they date back to the 1870s—that prevent any state funds from being used to benefit a church or a religion for any reason. This means that states running programs that provide resources to private institutions must discriminate against religious institutions, even if the program being funded is not religious. In the Trinity Lutheran case, a Missouri program was providing scrap tires for flooring in playgrounds to make them safer for children. Because of a Blaine Amendment, the State refused to provide tires to church schools. With other attorneys general, I filed a brief supporting the effort to get these Blaine Amendments struck down. The new justice is likely to cast the deciding vote on whether to remove this legacy of legal hostility to religion.

Freedom of Religious Conscience

freedom-of-religionFreedom of religious conscience also hangs in the balance. We have seen this in the Hobby Lobby case, where the Court protected the right of religious employers not to fund abortions. So too in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where the Court has, for now, narrowly avoided the question of whether Catholic nuns can be required to cover contraception in their health insurance plan. Other cases regarding freedom of conscience are on the horizon. The Court recently declined to review a case that upheld a Washington law that requires pharmacists to sell abortion drugs despite religious objections. Similarly, a case may soon reach the Court to decide whether civil rights laws can be used to force, for example, a Christian photographer to use her artistic skills to celebrate a same-sex wedding.

2nd Amendment

minutemanMoving to the Second Amendment, the next justice will likely cast the deciding vote on whether to continue to recognize an individual right to “keep and bear Arms,” or whether to interpret that right so narrowly as to effectively do away with it. For example, just this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California held that the Second Amendment does not forbid laws that prohibit most people from carrying (i.e., bearing) a firearm in public. Without a justice willing to stand up for an effective right to bear arms, the Second Amendment might very well become a dead letter.

Other issues that hang in the balance include the death penalty, affirmative action, regulation of the abortion industry, and voting laws. But I want to focus on one final set of constitutional questions that have reached their tipping point in recent years—questions having to do with the structure of our Constitution.

Key to Liberty: Separation of Powers

obama-checks-balancesContrary to what many believe, the primary guarantee of our liberty in the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights. Rather it is found in the structure of government under the Constitution, which is designed to prevent accumulation of power and oppression of the people. The Constitution separates powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, and divides powers between the federal government and the states. Those who wrote the Constitution expected that members of the different branches would be zealous in defending their powers from other parts of government that attempted to encroach on them. They expected state legislatures to do likewise. These constitutional structures provide the greatest and broadest guarantee of liberty by limiting governmental power. And today they are under threat.

Obama engaged in Lawmaking

Since at least the New Deal, the executive branch has been accumulating more and more power, and the current administration has taken unilateral executive authority to new levels. President Obama has on numerous occasions effectively engaged in lawmaking—an activity strictly delegated to Congress by the Constitution—when Congress refused to pass laws that he desired. Last year, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency instituted a new “Clean Power Plan”—an attempt to put the coal industry out of business, in the name of combatting climate change—absent any authority granted by Congress. Oklahoma, along with 28 other states, sued to have this rule blocked. In his last act on the bench, Justice Scalia voted to put this Clean Power Plan on hold while it is being litigated, providing a good indication that five of the justices thought it to be unlawful. With Justice Scalia gone, his replacement will likely determine the outcome of this case.

Bureaucratic Tyranny

tyrannyepaAlong the same lines, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers recently rewrote the definition of the term “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act to include almost every puddle and pond in the country, enabling a vast extension of federal regulatory authority at the expense of the states and the people. Again, this occurred without any grant of authority by Congress, which passed the Clean Water Act back in 1972. Again, Oklahoma and 26 other states have challenged this power grab.

Most recently, the President and his agencies have attempted unilaterally to mandate accommodations nationwide for transgender people by rewriting laws like Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. They are attempting to do so by redefining the word “sex” in the law—understood when Title IX was passed by Congress to refer to biological sex—to mean “gender identity,” which the administration defines as a person’s “internal sense of gender.” A new justice will likely cast the deciding vote on whether courts should check this type of executive overreach as well.

“Chief Executive” Refusing to Enforce the Laws

impeach4constAnother way President Obama has expanded his power is by refusing to enforce laws he does not like, effectively repealing them. He has done this with immigration laws by designating entire classes of people as having “legal status,” even though the law clearly states that they are unlawfully present. Similarly, his administration has effectively legalized marijuana in certain states by refusing to enforce federal laws prohibiting it. The extent to which presidents must follow their constitutional mandate to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” is a hotly contested issue on which the next Supreme Court justice might provide the pivotal vote.

Liberal Fascism

tyranny3The next Supreme Court justice will not only decide the outcome in pending cases, he or she will also influence the type of cases that make it to the Court in the first place. Businesses are less likely to challenge exorbitant or unfair rulings against them knowing there is a majority of justices hostile to their interests. Conservatives will be less likely to put their time and resources into defending the Constitution if they know the Court won’t enforce it. Meanwhile, liberal groups will be emboldened to bring cases that attempt to roll back First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms, among others. They will also bring cases attempting to establish new “rights”—to government welfare payments, to free attorneys in civil cases, to increased funding for public schools, etc.—as well as things like a prohibition on racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes, an exception to the First Amendment for so-called “hate speech,” and a prohibition on sex-segregated restrooms.

The Most Significant Legal Event in a Generation

constitutionThe appointment of the next Supreme Court justice could be the most legally significant event for our country in a generation. If the next justice is in the mold of Justices Ginsburg or Sotomayor, the rulings of the Court will shift dramatically to the left. If the next justice shares the principles and philosophy of Justice Scalia, the ideologically balanced Court that we have grown accustomed to in the last quarter century will likely remain. As someone whose job it is to defend the rights of the people of Oklahoma, this turning point is very important to me. But as I hope I have explained, the next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that touch on the rights of every American and that may come to define the nature of our government and our society for many years to come.


Scott Pruitt was elected Attorney General of Oklahoma in 2010. Prior to that, he served for eight years in the Oklahoma State Senate. A past president of the Republican Attorneys General Association, he established Oklahoma’s Federalism Unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government. Mr. Pruitt received his B.A. from Georgetown College and his J.D. from the University of Tulsa College of Law



Moral Solutions: America Exit United Nations; Swiss immigration policy

Moral Solutions:

Conservatives Press Bill that Would Pull the United States OUT of the United Nations!

Onan Coca

In the wake of the wonderful decision by the people of the United Kingdom to #Brexit, some conservatives in Congress have america-exit-un2-quotedecided to seize the moment and push for an #Amexit (American Exit) from the United Nations! It’s an idea that conservatives have long supported and may now grab the national imagination, as Americans seek new ways to disconnect themselves from the corrupt establishment that runs our political world.

Bill sponsors Thomas Massie (R-KY), Mike Rogers (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), and Ted Yoho (R-FL) recently released the text of their bill hoping to convince Americans to embrace Independence and leave the U.N.

In response to overwhelming interest in the bill to ‪#‎amexit from the UN, here is the full text of HR 1205, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. Among other things, this bill would (1) stop US payments to the UN, (2) prevent US Armed Forces from serving under UN command, (3) terminate diplomatic immunity for foreign UN members in the US, (4) get the UN out of the US, i.e. close the headquarters in NY, (5) terminate US membership in the UN, WHO, UNESCO, (6) repeal the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act.

#‎brexit #amexit ‪#‎UNexit ‪#‎americout

1st Session
H. R. 1205



To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015.

2.Repeal of United Nations Participation Act of 1945
The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79–264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.

(b)Termination of membership in United Nations
The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.

(c)Closure of United States Mission to United Nations
The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.

3.Repeal of United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act
The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80–357) is repealed.

The United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act).

4.United States assessed and voluntary contributions to the United Nations
No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate termination of United States membership and withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment, in accordance with sections 2 and 3, respectively. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.

5.United Nations peacekeeping operations
No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force.

(b)Terminations of United States participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations
No funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of the United Nations.

6.Withdrawal of United Nations presence in facilities of the government of the United States and repeal of diplomatic immunity
(a)Withdrawal from United States Government property
The United Nations (including any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations) may not occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.


Conservatives Press Bill that Would Pull the United States OUT of the United Nations!

Culture War victory:

Federal court orders schools to end anti-Christian bias

Awards $150,000 in case called ‘major victory’

Christian-college-studentsIt’s being hailed as good news in the unfolding battle for religious freedom: A Christian ministry has won its three-year legal struggle against an Ohio school district accused of discriminating against the faith-based group.

The Child Evangelism Fellowship of Ohio won the legal battle against the Cleveland Metropolitan School District as a federal district court approved a Consent Order finding that the school district violated CEF’s constitutional rights to equal access.

The court is requiring Cleveland Metro Schools to change its facility-use policies, and ordering it to pay $150,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.

The Child Evangelism Fellowship, or CEF, filed suit in 2013 with the backing of Liberty Counsel, seeking equal access to CMSD’s public school facilities for CEF’s after-school, Christian character education Good News Clubs.

Liberty Counsel announced the court ruling as a “major victory for equal access” on its website.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/federal-court-orders-schools-to-end-anti-christian-bias/#CXaf1qzUCwUE5TjF.99


Conservatives Press Bill that Would Pull the United States OUT of the United Nations!

Swiss immigration policy

Swiss do the unthinkable with Muslim population

‘A move which no doubt has American immigration officials baffled’

Swiss-flag-vs-muslim-immigrationAs one of the more independent-minded European countries, Switzerland is now doing the unthinkable with their Muslim population: denying citizenship for failing to integrate into Swiss society.
One recent example involves two Muslim sisters, ages 12 and 14, who refused to take school swimming lessons because of the presence of boys. They said their religion prevents them from participating in compulsory swimming lessons with males in the pool at the same time.

The girls live in the northern city of Basel. They had applied for Swiss citizenship several months ago, but their request was denied because the sisters did not comply with the school’s curriculum.

“Whoever doesn’t fulfill these conditions violates the law and therefore cannot be naturalized,” Stefan Wehrle, president of the naturalization committee, told TV station SRF.

Wehrle said the case in which citizenship is denied for failure to comply with a school program will set precedence for future cases.
In 2012, a Muslim family was fined $1,500 for refusing to allow their daughters to participate in swim classes. The matter worked its way up to the Supreme Court, which ruled that no dispensations from swimming lessons should be made on religious grounds.

In another case, the Swiss naturalization board denied citizenship to members of another immigrant family because they wore sweatpants around town and did not greet passersby, which indicated they were not sufficiently assimilated.

The German-speaking Muslim family, originally from Kosovo, had their citizenship application denied in part because of complaints that they preferred fleece and cotton blends (sweatpants) to denim (jeans), according to local media.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/swiss-do-the-unthinkable-with-muslim-population/#k7LQWbKjiIVJl6rT.99


Air Force Base Silences Veteran for Using the Word ‘God’ in a Retirement Speech

Air Force Base Silences Veteran for Using the Word ‘God’ in a Retirement Speech

Leah Jessen

veteran-first-amendment-constitutionUniformed airmen forcibly removed an Air Force veteran from a military base because he invoked God in a speech for a retirement ceremony, according to the legal group that represents him.

They escorted Oscar Rodriguez Jr. from the “flag-folding” ceremony as the 33-year veteran began his remarks at Travis Air Force Base in California.

“It was one of the most humiliating experiences of my life,” Rodriguez, who retired from the Air Force as a senior master sergeant, said in a June 20 press release prepared by his lawyers. He added:

I have given more than three decades of service to the military and made many sacrifices for my country. To have the Air Force assault me and drag me out of a retirement ceremony simply because my speech included the word ‘God’ is something I never expected from our military.

Rodriguez was set to deliver the flag-folding speech at Master Sgt. Charles “Chuck” Roberson’s retirement ceremony April 3 at Travis Air Force Base.

Roberson had heard Rodriguez give the speech at a friend’s retirement ceremony and invited Rodriguez to give the same speech for him according to First Liberty Institute, a legal organization that defends the religious freedom of Americans.

Rodriguez enlisted in the Air Force Army Reserve in 1980. He started out training as an avionic technician and later was promoted to section chief. He retired in 2013 as senior master sergeant.

His speech mentions God about six times, Mike Berry, senior counsel and director of military affairs at First Liberty Institute, told The Daily Signal.

“It is this one nation under God that we call, with honor, the United States of America,” a transcript of the speech says. “God bless our flag. God bless our troops. God bless America.”

Roberson’s unit commander at Travis Air Force Base tried to prevent Rodriguez from attending the ceremony, his lawyers say. They say the commander lacked the authority to prevent Rodriguez from attending, but then told Roberson that Rodriguez could not give the speech.

Roberson and Rodriguez tried to clear the speech through higher authorities at Travis, but did not receive a response, according to First Liberty Institute.

“Contrary to what the commanding officer here has told Chuck and Oscar, you can have religious speech in a retirement ceremony,” Berry told The Daily Signal, referring to Roberson and Rodriguez.

The ceremony initially went on as planned. When Rodriguez began his speech, though, uniformed personnel forcibly grabbed and removed him, Berry said.

First Liberty Institute issued a demand letter to military leaders, asking them to apologize to Rodriguez and hold responsible parties accountable for their actions.

“The United States military has no right to do this to a private citizen,” Berry said.

Saying the actions against Rodriguez are unlawful and violate the Constitution, Berry told The Daily Signal:

We’ve seen enough instances of religious hostility in our military now over the last several years, and it continues to get worse and worse every year … I really think Congress needs to step in now and begin mandating constitutional training for our military leaders so that they understand that just because they wear a uniform and just because they have a large amount of authority as a commanding officer in the military, it doesn’t give them carte blanche to break the law or to trample over the Constitution.

“Rodriguez ignored numerous requests to respect the Air Force prescribed ceremony and unfortunately was forcibly removed,” a Travis Air Force Base official said in a statement to FoxNews.com in April.

Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told The Daily Signal that the Air Force took the correct action by removing Rodriguez. Weinstein said it’s important to follow Defense Department directives, instructions, and regulations.

“The Air Force Instruction 1-1 Section 2.12 makes it very, very clear” that the commander is responsible for everything that happens on the base, Weinstein said.

Rodriguez’s rights are different on a military installation at an official ceremony than at a private, unofficial ceremony, he said.

“We feel the Air Force probably should have court-martialed [Roberson] here,” Weinstein said.

A Travis Air Force Base spokesman told The Daily Signal that there is a local investigation into the situation.

“The Secretary of the Air Force has directed the Air Force inspector general to conduct an independent investigation into events that took place April 3, 2016, at a retirement ceremony at Travis Air Force Base, California,” Capt. Brooke Brzozowske told The Daily Signal in an email.

Brzozowske added:

Regarding the Air Force policy on retirement ceremonies, Air Force personnel may use a flag-folding ceremony script that is religious for retirement ceremonies. Since retirement ceremonies are personal in nature, the script preference for a flag-folding ceremony is at the discretion of the individual being honored and represents the member’s views, not those of the Air Force. The Air Force places the highest value of the rights on its personnel in matters of religion and facilitates the free exercise of religion by its members.

President Obama, Clown, and First Amendment

Liberal Reaction to the Missouri Rodeo Clown is Akin to the Radical Muslim Response to a Mohammed Cartoon

This is from the Blaze. It was the only place I could find the funniest part. I looked on Google for the pictures, and couldn’t find any images. Finally I found this on the Blaze. Here is what was so funny. ~C.A. Davidson

obama-rodeo-clownJust prior to the start of the bull riding event, one of the clowns came out dressed in [an Obama mask]. The announcer wanted to know if anyone would like to see Obama run down by a bull. The crowd went wild. He asked it again and again, louder each time, whipping the audience into a lather. One of the clowns ran up and started bobbling the lips on the mask and the people went crazy. Finally, a bull came close enough to him that he had to move, so he jumped up and ran away to the delight of the onlookers hooting and hollering from the stands.

Liberals can advocate the assassination of George W. Bush, but they can’t take a joke about President Obama. They just want heads to roll.

From the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

The State Fair Commission is now forcing all clowns to undergo sensitivity training. It’s like the Chinese Communists and re-education camps. This is a violation of the First Amendment!

RUSH: This Missouri clown situation is so out of hand and out of proportion, and I’m gonna tell you what this is like, and I’m not gonna pull any punches.  This is no different than those countries reacting freakishly when there were cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.  That is exactly what this is.  It is as though President Obama is a messiah or is a god and this little thing that happened at the Missouri State Fair is a defamation, a denunciation, almost a religious sacrilege that took place.

He’s the president of the United States!  They get made fun of!  They get laughed at all the time!  Fun is poked at ’em.  I know this happens to be the first African-American one, but that should not insulate this president from standard, ordinary, everyday treatment, analysis, whatever.  You know, you people on the left, who the hell do you think you are?  You can’t laugh. You can’t take a joke. You can’t take a punch. You can’t take anything.  One little thing that you don’t like and this clown can never work, everybody involved is resigning, the state of Missouri might secede from the union.  I mean, where’s this gonna end?  Well, I’m joking about the state of Missouri seceding, bit I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the next thing.

If I were the president of the United States and this was happening in the country that I was president, I would put a stop to this.  This is infantile.  This is childish.  This is worse than political correctness.  It’s almost as though the president of the United States is a religious leader. What took place at the Missouri State Fair was with a clown.  I mean, it wasn’t as though some serious journalist or political analyst went out there in an Obama mask.  It wasn’t like a Democrat doing a minstrel show, like good old Mel Carnahan did back in 1960 in Missouri.

I mean, this is over the top.  And the way people are caving on this in Missouri, instead of standing up and pointing out this for what it is.  This wasn’t a sacrilege; it’s a joke, for crying out loud.  And presidents are laughed at, and they’re poked fun of.  Ask George W. Bush.  Ask Ronald Reagan.  Ask George H. W. Bush.  Ask Clinton, for crying out loud.
This burns me.  This is outrageous.  This is no different than what happened in all those countries that had the cartoons of the prophet and militant Muslims had a cow over it, went nuts.  It’s exactly what’s happening here.  What do we have, a president of the United States who is above all this?  We have a president who’s above criticism, above being mocked, above being laughed at?  We have not just a president, we have an entire Democrat political party and the American left which thinks that they are so damn special that they cannot be mocked, they cannot be made fun of.

There’s a great quote by C. S. Lewis. You know who C. S. Lewis was.  See, if I even quote C. S. Lewis I’ll get myself in a little bit of trouble here.  I’d have to paraphrase.  I don’t have it right in front of me.  C. S. Lewis said the devil can’t stand being made fun of.  The devil can’t stand being mocked.  He actually used the word “mocked.”  You people on the left, I know you don’t have the capacity for shame, but this is just absolutely — a clown now fearing for his life?  Everybody involved in the fair quitting.  The state of Missouri acting like it’s profoundly embarrassed to be alive.  A bunch of people with nothing better on their hands to do, running around trying to make a federal, big, gigantic issue out of this.

Who cares if it was offensive.  To who?  Haven’t heard Obama complain about it.  It’s like I’m saying, if I were the president of the United States, and I saw what this was doing, I’d put a stop to it.  The next time I was on TV, I’d reference it. I’d have a smile on my face, I’d laugh about it, and I’d have everybody calm down.  A little leadership.  But, no, this guy, I am convinced he’s right in there with all this punishment.  He’s right in there with all these people being taken out because of this, because he’s above being made fun of, he’s above being mocked, he’s above being criticized.  I have no doubt about that.

Now, folks, this dovetails into something else.  There’s something happening out there, I don’t want to make too big a deal of this, but for four and a half years — well, let’s give it four years.  Six months people signed on and willing to see what happened.  Yeah, the C. S. Lewis quote is “The devil, that proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.”  That’s C. S. Lewis.  So don’t get mad at me, stupid idiots in the media and on the left.  Take it up with C. S. Lewis.  Now, for four years, let’s be generous, three and a half years.  Practically every one of you in this audience have been asking, “When are people gonna wake up in this country and realize what is being made to happen?  When are people gonna realize that what is happening is not simply a normal evolution of events, but rather the result of policy?  When are people gonna wake up?”

And I said not long ago, don’t look for some major tsunami type, tumultuous political event.  It isn’t gonna be that.  And then I told a little joke, no doubt irritated the left.  I said, it’s gonna be something along the lines of Obama dissing the latest CD from Justin Timberlake and ticking off the low-information crowd.  Folks, there are series of things out there — I’ll go into them in some detail.  Yesterday, we had the audio of Kris Jenner, the Kardashian mother ripping into Obama for making fun of her daughter.  Obama was holding up her daughter and her husband as examples of how not to be.

So the president can dish it out, but he can’t take it, and his defenders can’t take it, and his party can’t take it.  You imagine being wound so damn tight that what happens at the State Fair in Missouri — this is all race.  Everybody knows this is all race.  You put Bill Clinton in the White House and put that clown with the Clinton mask on there, and it doesn’t even make the news.

Censorship, High School, and Freedom of Speech

Dinner Topics for Thursday

From WND

freedomofspeechA Texas high school principal reportedly threatened to torpedo a student’s future in the United States Naval Academy over the student’s expression of faith during a high school graduation ceremony, but he’s remaining silent on the issue for now.

Principal Mick Cochran declined to respond to a WND request for comment today on the issue that erupted after student Remington Reimer “deviated” from a school-edited speech by expressing his faith and asking listeners to protect their religious and constitutional rights. School officials had responded instantly by turning by turning off his microphone.

A letter from Liberty Institute to the school district about the dispute contains allegations of Cochran’s apparent attempt to retaliate against the student.

Read about “the mother of all Obama scandals” in this special, in-depth WND report, “OBAMA’S WAR ON CHRISTIANS.”

“On Friday, June 7, 2013, JHS Principal Mick Cochran met with Remington’s father, Todd Reimer, and informed him that he intended to punish Remington for his perceived misdeed during the graduation ceremony,” said the letter, from Liberty Institute Director of Litigation Hiram Sasser to the Joshua Independent School District.

“Specifically, he threatened to send a letter to the United States Naval Academy where Remington will matriculate in June 2013, advising them that Remington has poor character, or words to that effect,” the letter said.

The letter noted, “After consulting with a JISD attorney, Principal Cochran temporarily retracted his threat. As of his letter, Principal Cochran has not stated his intended action.”

Fox News reporter Todd Starnes noted the sentences that Reimer included in his speech, which the school district tried to prevent listeners from hearing:

“We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished. Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or constitutional rights from you.”

“It was intimidating having my high school principal threaten my future because I wanted to stand up for the Constitution and acknowledge my faith and not simply read a government approved message,” Reimer told Liberty Institute.

Sasser now is representing the teen and is seeking a statement from the school district clearing the student of wrongdoing. He explains that Texas state law, federal law and the district’s own policy require the school to distance itself from the valedictorian’s speech, “including not editing or drafting Mr. Reimer’s speech and printing a disclaimer in the graduation program.”

Liberty Institute noted that statement must read, “the content of each student speaker’s message is the private expression of the individual student and does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of the district.”

“Contrary to the law and its own policies, Joshua ISD school officials did in fact edit and attempt to control Mr. Reimer’s speech and failed to include the required disclaimer,” Liberty Institute said.

The organization explained how four different school officials censored Sasser’s speech before they eventually approved it.

Reimer’s actions made headlines when on June 6 school officials cut off his microphone in mid-speech when he added to preapproved statements an explanation of his relationship with Jesus Christ.

According to the local Joshua Star, Reimer thanked God for “sending His only son to die for me and the rest of the world.”

Earlier, Cochran said all procedures were followed correctly.

“The district has reviewed the rules and policies regarding graduation speeches and has determined that the policy was followed,” he told the Star.

Liberty Institute’s letter to the district, dated June 13, said it also served as formal notice under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Chapter 110 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.

The letter said the school, through that, created a limited public forum for valedictorians, who are not supposed to be censored.

“The school officials in charge of the graduation ceremony violated state law and the policy established by the Joshua ISD Board of Trustees,” the letter said. “If school officials had followed the board’s policy, graduation would have taken place without controversy.”

“We would like to meet with the superintendent before June 24, 2013, to resolve the issues surrounding the Joshua High School graduation that took place on June 6, 2013. Specifically, we are seeking a public statement from Joshua ISD exonerating Remington Reimer of any wrongdoing. All he did was simply follow state law and Joshua ISD policy…

School Valedictorian censored

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/principal-threatens-valedictorians-navy-career/#szgduCbjeyfhm4Oc.99

Censorship, Politics, and Freedom of Speech

Dinner Topics for Monday

Month-Defining Moment

procrustesPolitical Correctness is like Procrustes. Procrustes was a legendary robber of ancient Greece noted for stretching the bodies or cutting off the legs of his victims to adapt them to the length of his bed.

Defining Moment:

Definitions: Political Correctness, Censorship, and Freedom of Speech

This blogger has been censored by Google for posting content on Biblical values.

From Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

freedomofspeechPeople have always been uncomfortable hearing things that they don’t agree with or hearing things that they don’t want to hear per se. Political correctness is all about that. Political correctness is nothing more than the censorship of free speech — and, as you know, it’s rising.

It’s not the government. Political correctness is happening within the bowels of our culture. It’s happening everywhere. It’s happening in schools and universities. It’s slowly permeating everything, and nobody can put their finger on it. You know, everybody speaks out against political correctness. It doesn’t have one advocate by name, there’s not one person who stands up and says they’re in favor of PC, but everybody’s scared to death of it. It has no advocates.

We’re led to believe everybody opposes it and disagrees with it, but yet everybody’s scared to death of it. So who is it? Well, it’s the power structure wherever you happen to be. If you’re in college, it’s the classroom, the professor, the administration. If you’re at work, it’s the boss. In some places it can be the government, but mostly this happening within the bowels of our culture. Now, I know you ask about me specifically. Let me tell you how it’s gonna happen if ever it does.

It isn’t gonna be the president, at least in my case. I know that if Obama could get rid of me, he would, and if he could shut me up he would. But we’re not to the point where he can, we’re not to the point where he can even try and get full-fledged support. Now, we may be trending that way. I think we’re a long, long way from that, but the trend can’t be denied. Yet it could happen in many other ways. I don’t want to detail them ’cause I don’t want to give people any ideas.

Let me remind you that I’ve said something over the past couple of years. I’ve mentioned it here and there, now and then, very informally, but I’ll mention it again. I fully expected expect, down the road at some point — and not just me, but I fully expect — to be denounced and held up as the primary problem for either people that agree with me or believe what I believe or same party or what have you. I fully expect that. It’s just the nature of things.

Everybody wants to blame somebody else for their problems and so forth. There’s always pressure on free speech. There’s always pressure on freedom of thought. There’s always, always societal or professional pressure. I’ve always been amazed at how people open themselves up to be offended. I’ve always been amazed how people give that much power away to other people. I’ve always been amazed at how words are so damaging. They’re just words! Whatever they are, whoever says them, they’re just words.

But be the right person saying the wrong thing and you can create an absolute avalanche, and it stuns me. Whereas people who commit deeds, actually do things that really hurt people, are excused or have excuses made for them or it’s said, “Well, we must understand that.” But words are an entirely different thing. Speech is an entirely different thing. So it’s a constant concern. I can’t tell you the number of times the staff holds their hands up, “Don’t say it! Don’t say it!”

The only thing that I was trying to say when I was tiptoeing around with the guy earlier who called about this is that there are people who can’t win, and they’re not gonna blame themselves. They’re gonna look for scapegoats and excuses, and they’re gonna point fingers at me and people like Ted Cruz and others — other people on talk radio and so forth — as the scapegoat, as the cop-out reason. It’s gonna happen. It already does, now and then. But it’s just the way of the world.