Constitutional Relevancy?

This past Sunday, September 17, was the 230th anniversary of the conclusion of the Philadelphia convention of 1787.  Upon the conclusion of the convention, as he was leaving “Independence Hall”, the aged Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well Doctor Franklin, what have you got for us?”, to which he replied, “A republic madam, if you can keep it.”  Actually, what he and the other delegates to the convention had given to their fellow Americans and us, their descendants, was a constitutional republic.

Yet, this week, we must ask, “After 230 years, are we still a constitutional republic?  Is the Constitution still relevant in our day and time?”  To these two questions I would answer with a resounding “No”!  Consider the following (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy):

If the party in power can use secret courts to get an order to wiretap and spy on their opponents with no repercussions, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If government agencies can plant applications on the computers of reporters who are reporting on governmental malfeasance and tap their phone conversations (e.g., James Rosen and Sharyl Attkinsson), thus violating both the first and fourth amendments, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If the government records the conversations and all electronic communications of every citizen in massive meta-data fusion centers, again violating the fourth amendment, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If elected officials constantly create unconstitutional agencies and empower them to act as legislator, executor and judge over your property, business and personal affairs, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If elected officials listen more to those who fill their campaign coffers instead of their constituents, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If certain officials in high positions of power use their position to influence policies and negotiations with foreign powers to grossly enhance their financial well-being at the expense of the liberties and security of the rest of the country (e.g., Hilary Clinton), with no fear of prosecution, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If elected officials and even members of the Supreme Court have no inkling as to the tenets of the Constitution, even mocking it (e.g., Nancy Pelosi’s response regarding the unconstitutionality of “Obamacare”), you might not live in a constitutional Republic.

If the government routinely eschews the limitations imposed upon its authority by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

I could go on and on with these, but I think it’s a sufficient number that you get the picture.  Our elected (and unelected) government officials pay lip service to the Constitution they take an oath to uphold and defend, but they seldom live up to that oath.  So, is our Constitution relevant today as to the operation of our national government?  I think, sadly, the answer is rather obvious.

-September 22, 2017


Read More

The First Amendment and Social Media

Lately there has been much criticism levied at social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., and companies who have censored certain postings or statements made by individuals (or employees in the case of employers).  I have heard many conservatives claim that these sites and employers are violating the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and think that the government should step in and do something about it because those being censored are political conservatives.  Such criticisms and allegations regarding violations of the first amendment are completely off base.

Do I like that conservatives are censored in this manner?  Absolutely not.  Do I think such censorship is a violation of the first amendment?  Again, absolutely not.  The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”   This guarantee is unambiguous – it is a prohibition against Congress from censoring speech and the press, not private companies such as social media sites and employers.

Conservatives who make this charge need to pause and reflect upon what they are asserting.  They are in effect appealing to the government to force a private company and/or employer to allow individuals who use the companies’ services or who are employed by them to permit their preferred form of expression.  Constitutionalists should understand that the government has no authority under the Constitution to do any such thing.

It is hypocritical for conservatives to make this complaint and appeal to the government while at the same time arguing that the government has no authority to tell bakeries they must provide a cake for a gay wedding or that the government has the authority to tell a company or individual what they can or cannot do with their private property, and so forth.  You cannot argue on the one hand for the government to interfere with a private entity’s business operations when it goes against your preferences while at the same time telling it that it has no authority when it interferes in matters that go against your principles.  That old adage of “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” comes to mind, does it not?

Again, please do not think I applaud the censorship of these firms; I do not.  I find them to be hypocritical as well and cowardly as they cannot handle honest dialogue and debate.  However, as one who believes in trying to consistently adhere to our constitutional principles of limited government and individual right to self-determination, appealing to the government in this case is a slippery slope we as conservatives and constitutionalists do not want to go down.  The solution is to turn to other venues of service, if possible, and if not, to not use them.  Difficult to do and most likely not a successful alternative, but if you cherish the thought of limited government as well as non-governmental interference in your private affairs, this is the position you must regrettably take.

-September 15, 2017


Read More

US Representative’s Job Description

Being a manager in Human Resources over the years, I’ve had many occasions to create job descriptions. I was prompted to think about this the other day when I heard Representative Maxine Waters proclaim that her only reason in running for re-election in 2018 was to continue to pursue the impeachment of President Trump.  So, with my professional background, allow me, Representative Waters, to tell you what you and your colleagues’ job description is per the Constitution.

Most would probably say that the job of our representatives in Congress is to pass laws.  After all, the Constitution plainly states that they comprise half of the national legislature, and legislating involves writing laws.   True, that is the meaning of the term “legislate”, and that is the part of the government to which the Constitution assigns them; but I’d rather they spend time unwriting laws, abolishing regulations and de-authorizing the myriad of departments and agencies they’ve created over the years that have no foundation within the Constitution!  The preacher in the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes concluded by stating a truth “amened” by every student, namely that “Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.”  If he were to write that today in view of our Congress he could well have said “Of making laws there is no end, and much regulation wearies the citizenry.”

Though some laws are necessary to the preservation of a civil society and the liberties of its citizens, I would submit that such is not the primary duty in a congressional representative’s job description.  Instead I would point to the last phrase in the first amendment to the Constitution:  “…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Why would the founders have felt the need to add this to the Constitution?  We need look no further than to our Declaration of Independence, for that is exactly the purpose for which it was written and submitted to the British Crown, but to no avail.  The founders had languished under the tyranny of a ruler who brushed aside their petitions for redress, so they wanted to make certain that in the new government they were crafting there would be a mechanism to preserve that ability and right of the people.  So just what is that conduit that is available to us whenever we feel the government has overstepped its authority and is threatening our liberties to seek redress if it is not through our representatives?  Is that not the very meaning of the term “represent”?  Just who are they representing?  Us, their constituents.  To whom are they representing us?  Is it not the national government?

No, no Maxine, your purpose in running for the office of Representative is not to “Impeach 45” (unless he has committed offenses that threaten our liberties, which he has not), but to be the mouthpiece for your fellow citizens when they feel they have been harmed by the government.  Lord knows you have a mouth – you just need to use it for the purpose for which your office intends.

-August 11, 2017

Read More

The President and the Press

In one of his speeches, the president had this to say about the press:

“During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation.”

The animosity between President Trump and the main stream media is nothing new; it is as old as our Republic itself.  In 1798 the Federalists, who held the majority in Congress, the White House (John Adams was president), and appointees to the SCOTUS, passed, signed and upheld the Alien and Seditions Act of 1798.  Regarding free speech the Act contained this section:

“SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.”

Fast forward to the administration of the “revered” Abraham Lincoln.  You may be shocked to learn that the great champion of liberty repeatedly trampled on the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  In regards to freedom of the press, he did tolerate criticism of himself and his policies, but only to an extent.  For example, in May 1864, two newspapers in New York, the Journal of Commerce and The World, ran a fake news story that Lincoln was going to issue a presidential order to draft 400,000 men into the army.  Lincoln ordered the two papers shut down and the publishers arrested and imprisoned.  In addition, he had the agency that had transmitted the story, the Independent Telegraph System, shut down and its property seized by the military.

Yet today, because President Trump calls out the media for its failure to live up to its obligation to honestly report the news, or does not call on certain media outlets for questions in a press conference, he is excoriated by both the press and the progressives in Congress who are calling for his impeachment because they claim his actions make him an enemy of the first amendment.  Those individuals are simply showing their hypocrisy and ignorance of history and an understanding of constitutional principles.

There are many other examples I could give in addition to the two I have provided above, but clearly President Trump’s criticisms hardly reach even the hem of the garment of the examples I cited.  And that presidential quote I began with?  It was part of President Thomas Jefferson’s second inaugural address.  You see, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

-March 3, 2017

Read More

Reincarnation of the Sturmabteilung

Reincarnation of the Sturmabteilung

Lately we are witnessing a growing number of anarchistic protestations around our country.  Many are aimed at President Trump and his administration while others are aimed at individual conservatives or groups.  In some cases these anarchists try to disrupt the meetings of groups whose political beliefs they oppose or town hall meetings of conservative members of Congress.  In several instances they have turned violent, causing destruction of both private and public property, and at times even assaulted individuals attending the events.

The irony of all of these instances is they proclaim they are doing this in the defense of freedom and the rights guaranteed to us in our Bill of Rights, especially the right to free speech and peaceful assembly; yet their actions deny to those not in agreement with them the ability to exercise these rights.  Instead, those who hold opposing views (as well as President Trump and his advisors) are called “Fascists” and “Nazis” by these protestors.  Consequently, I think a short review of history of those who were truly “Fascists” and “Nazis” is in order to see just who the real “Nazis” are.

In 1921, Adolf Hitler created the Sturmabteilung, aka the SA or “Assault Division” of the Nazi Party.  These “Brown Shirts” (or “Storm Troopers”) were responsible for intimidating political opposition to the Nazi Party by violence, including personal physical attacks, property destruction and silencing of free speech both of the press and the disruption of meetings of opposing political parties.  They made a special target of the Jews, falsely depicting them as a target for arousing anger among the populace of Germany.  In short, they had total disregard for the law and the liberties of individuals.  In all respects they lived up to their credo, “All opposition must be stamped into the ground.” Their violence was based upon SA Sturmfuehrer Ernst Bayer’s attitude that  “Possession of the streets is the key to power.”

The SA was not as much concerned with loyalty to the German people as they were to the ideology of the Nazi party and German nationalism.  Their aim was to show the weakness of the Weimar Republic and the foolishness of democracy so as to gain power and impose their ideology upon the masses.

Consider these anarchists now causing a disruption in our society.  They are rioting in the streets, smashing windows and setting properties on fire, just as their SA forebears did.  Even police vehicles and equipment have been destroyed without fear of reprisal or arrest and imprisonment.  In the 1920s’ the police in Germany became intimidated in standing up to the actions of the SA.  Our police are not so much intimidated as they are handcuffed by the pc policies of the liberal politicians they must answer to, but the result is pretty much the same.  Some of these ruffians have even taken to wearing a “ninja-like” uniform, although nothing to the extreme like the SA.  However, these groups are in their infancy and being financed by big money leftists and business moguls, just like the SA was in the days of Hitler.

You do not hear of Tea Party, 912 organizations, and other conservative groups behaving in this manner, and yet they are the “Fascists”?  These protesters need to take a good, hard look in the mirror of history.  When they do, they will see themselves staring back, clad in brown uniforms with a red swastika armband around their left arms.

-February 24, 2017

Read More

Trump Protesters, BLM and the First Amendment

“Congress shall make no law…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.”

 So reads the first amendment to our Constitution, guaranteeing us the right to speak without reprisal or restriction by the federal government.  It is this right to which appeal is made by those protesting across our land to the election of Donald Trump to be our next President and of those in the so-called “Black Lives Matter” movement against alleged police brutality against black Americans.

But, is their appropriation of this part of the amendment correct?  Yes, they have the guaranteed right to speak, but that right must be put into the context of the remainder of the amendment as well as the broader principle of “rights.”

All of our rights must be put into their proper perspective and hierarchy.  For example, in regards to speech, you have the right to speak freely about someone else, but you do not have the right to libel and/or slander them so as to cause them harm.  In the case of many of these protests, not only are they voicing their displeasure verbally, but they are also rioting and causing damage and destruction to the personal property of others.  This is where their freedom of speech comes to a screeching halt as it violates the broader picture of the freedom and rights of others.

Furthermore, when put in context with the remainder of the amendment, they are even further off-base.  In the exercising of their right to free speech, they are assembling into groups to voice their grievances.  Yet, the amendment states that we are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble, which by exclusion would mean we do not have the right to assemble and commit acts of anarchy as many of these “Trump” and BLM protesters are doing.

Second, the amendment guarantees the right to a “redress of grievances” from the government.  Yet with the “Trump protesters” there is no grievance to be redressed.  The government has done nothing for which a redress is warranted.  The election was held per the guidelines contained within the Constitution, so there is no wrong, legally or constitutionally, to be absolved.  As for both groups I have mentioned, if redress is to be sought, I would point them to the example of the approach described within our Declaration of Independence. In it Jefferson point-by-point, in a respectful manner, set forth the grievances the colonies had with King George III and in the end declared their wish to be independent of his rule.  Such obviously resulted in the violence of war, but the intention behind the declaration was that a peaceful resolution to the separation of the colonies from England could be found.

With the right to the freedom of speech, as with all rights, comes responsibilities and limitations.  Determination should first be made as to whether or not what you are protesting is indeed a grievance.  Second, are the protests being made in a peaceable manner, and third, is the approach to resolving the grievance the legitimate way in which to express the it?  These are the sober and constitutionally-minded questions that those protesting today need to ask themselves.

-November 25, 2016

Read More

The Press is Biased and Corrupt – So What?

That might well be our response to the revelations now being manifested in the publication of the emails of Hillary Clinton and her campaign.  Everyone knew in their hearts this to be the case so when it is now revealed to be fact, the feeling might well be “so what?”  Yet this is not a proper response for it implies an attitude of indifference, and what we have learned about our press should disturb us greatly.

The role of the press in a free society was of paramount importance to our founders, so much so that it was repeatedly stressed in their debates and insisted upon having it protected within a bill of rights.  So it was that the first amendment to our Constitution guarantees to us that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

What is the meaning, then, of maintaining freedom of the press?  When the Virginia convention ratified the Constitution, those in opposition insisted that their ratification report include recommended amendments to be considered as changes to the Constitution once it was put into effect.  The 16th proposal stated the importance they felt was the role of a free press:  “…that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.”  The Anti-Federalist “Centinel”, on October 5, 1787, described the freedom of the press as “that grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants.”  The aim was to ensure that the government would not interfere with the free discourse of ideas and information, even when it was critical of the policies of the government.  In short, the press was to be a watchdog against government abuses and threats to the liberties and freedom of the people.

Yet Madison wrote of an even greater threat to the destruction of this role of the press.  In the closing remarks of his “Observations on the ‘Draught of a Constitution for Virginia'”, published on October 11, 1788, he stated “the Exemption of the press from liability in every case for true facts, is also an innovation and as such ought to be well considered.  This essential branch of liberty is perhaps more in danger of being interrupted by local tumults, or the silent awe of a predominant party, than by any direct attacks of Power.”   So for the press to be totally free, the concept should incorporate not only the principle of freedom from outside censorship, but also freedom from bias and collusion.

Sadly, today, Madison’s fear has come to pass.  We have a press (encompassing all mediums) that could be said to be in “awe of a predominant party”, i.e. the Progressives in the Democrat party, insomuch as not only are they in “awe” but have thrown in with them.  No longer are they the “bulwark of liberty”, the “grand palladium of freedom”.  Our press today is well described in the words of Thomas Jefferson who, though an ardent defender of the principle of freedom of the press, had this to say about the press of his time in a letter to Walter Jones in 1814:

“I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.”

Yes, deplorable indeed is the term that more aptly applies to our modern-day media rather than to the citizens whose freedom is put in peril by the failure of the press to fulfill its duty as a censor to those in power.

-October 28, 2016

Read More

When Rule of Law Vanishes

Law, in a free society, is nothing more than the rules by which the citizens of a society have agreed (either democratically or through representation in a republican form of government) to live by so as to respect and preserve the inalienable rights of all citizens.  In order for law to achieve this goal it must be applied equally and fairly to all citizens regardless of status or position within the society.  If the rule of law ever fails in a society, then it will no longer be civil as it will ultimately descend into anarchy and then tyranny.

What we are witnessing in our country as revealed in the leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC and other government agencies such as the FBI, is the utter contempt for the rule of law.  From these emails we are learning that those individuals in these groups believe and act as though laws regarding their conduct in elections and government functions do not apply to them.  As a result many in our society now have even less confidence in and therefore less feeling of affection and loyalty to the government.  When this happens then more and more citizens will develop a lack of respect and adherence to the rule of law, and societal structures will begin to crumble.

Our founders emphasized the importance of the people having confidence in their government and their representatives in order to maintain a representative government based upon free principles.  William Findley, an Anti-Federalist from Pennsylvania who was later the first Representative to be given the title “Father of the House” due to his long service in Congress, wrote “…for as a republican government rests on the people’s confidence, whatever weakens that confidence saps the foundations of the government.”

A final point that we are learning in these emails is just as alarming, namely that our media is, as many have suspected, not fulfilling its role as a check against government abuses and violation of law.  The founders emphasized how critical it was in a free society that the press be the people’s watchdog in order for freedom and liberties to flourish.

The guarantee of the freedom of the press in our first amendment means free from government control and censorship.  Whenever a free press coludges with the government or certain ones in power, then it ceases to be a free press and instead becomes a propagandist arm of the government which is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes and not that of a free country.

Justice is not served when those in government and powerful positions are not held accountable to the rule of law as other citizens would be.  When the people’s designated watchdog turns on them, then all confidence in it and the government withers away.  When that process runs its course then the question becomes, will people rise up and revolt to reassert their rights or will they meekly submit the the darkness of despair and tyranny.  As King Solomon succinctly stated in the book of Proverbs, “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.”  Far too many of our leaders and leader-want-to-bes should take that nugget of wisdom to heart.

-October 21, 2016

Read More


Aretha Franklin had a hit in the 60s’ in which she called for her significant other to give her a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.  A community and a country that is bound together in peace and harmony is what we term a “civil society.”  However, in order to be civil a society must be driven by R-E-S-P-E-C-T,  for when this trait is absent from its citizens, civility breaks down and anarchy reigns.  Such is precisely what we are witnessing in our society today, especially within just the last two weeks with the war being waged against police departments across our land.

A civil society is one that is based upon the rule of law.  In our society this is not just any law, but laws that comport to the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator and are in made in pursuance to the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2).  However, when there is no respect for laws that meet these two criteria, we reap the lawlessness running rampart in our streets.  Such is why we have “loaned” the government the power to police those who, by their lack of respect for law, threaten the inalienable rights of the rest of society.  A lack of respect for law reveals itself in a lack of respect for the inalienable rights of others to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.  This is precisely what unfolded in Dallas, Texas last week.

The question, then, is what causes this loss of respect for law and the rights of others?  Those who are acting so wantonly will point to alleged injustices they feel they have experienced, and in some cases there may be grounds for such allegations.  However, in the first amendment to our Constitution it guarantees us the proper avenue to address such injustices.  Citizens have the guaranteed right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  It is our representatives in Congress whom we elect that are to serve as the conduit for these grievances, and if they fail to respond, to replace them with others who will.  Such was the approach of Martin Luther King, Jr in his peaceful approach to securing civil rights for all Americans in the 1960s’.

Going one step further, though, if an individual does not respect himself, then he is incapable of respecting any laws, be they man’s or God’s, nor other fellow members of the society.  Over the past fifty years, thanks to LBJ’s so-called “Great Society” initiatives, government put in motion programs that have robbed citizens of their self-respect and today we are reaping their bitter fruit.

Perhaps those who are part of the BLM movement should, instead of filling their minds with the vile garbage of so many of the modern-day rap singers, go back to another hit of the 60s’ by the Staple Singers – “Respect Yourself”:

You disrespect anybody

That you run in to

How in the world do you think

Anybody’s s’posed to respect you


If you don’t give a heck ’bout the man

With the Bible in his hand

Just get out the way

And let the gentle man do his thing


You the kind of gentleman

That want everything your way

Take the sheet off your face, boy

It’s a brand new day


Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you don’t respect yourself

Ain’t nobody gonna give a good cahoot, na na na na

Respect yourself, respect yourself


If you’re walking ’round

Think’n that the world

Owes you something

‘Cause you’re here


You goin’ out

The world backwards

Like you did

When you first come here


Keep talkin’ ’bout the president

Won’t stop evolution

Put your hand on your mouth

When you cough, that’ll help the solution


Oh, you cuss around women

And you don’t even know their names

And you dumb enough to think

That’ll make you a big ol man


Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you don’t respect yourself

Ain’t nobody gonna give a good cahoot, na na na na

Yep, these lyrics from almost 50 years ago pretty much sums up what’s wrong in society today.

-July 15, 2016

Read More

The Flip Side to Church/State

Today, at every turn we hear the wail that any expression of Christian/Jewish religious belief in connection with any public event or on public property is a violation of the constitutional principle of “the separation of church and state.”  However, this is not a constitutional principle; it is based upon a misapplication of the phrase lifted from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists who had written him of their concerns about the state establishing one particular Christian denomination over all others.

Second, the first amendment is applicable only to the federal government, not to the state governments, and it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  For over 150 years, every time a challenge was made on any religious issue based upon Jefferson’s phrase, the courts struck it down as not being what the founders intended.  As far back as 1853, a group petitioned Congress to forbid the presence of chaplains in the military and elsewhere, using this argument.  After a year of deliberation by both the House and Senate judiciary committees, the House issued the following statement:

“Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]…. 

It wasn’t until the case of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority on the Supreme Court applied this phrase as it is currently misused.

There is a lawsuit being brought in Iowa by a church against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission which, in a brochure it published, states that any church which opens its doors to the public for any reason – worship or otherwise – must comply with sexual orientation and gender laws.  This includes the recent issue regarding transgenders and restrooms.  Hiram Sasser, the director of litigation of the firm representing the church in this suit stated  “It [the commission’s regulations] further compels our client to use specific pronouns when referring to certain ‘gender identities’ and prohibits our client from even teaching its religious beliefs.”

So here’s the flip side of the “separation of church and state” coin for you liberals.  If the church cannot inject itself into the public arena because there is a so-called “wall” between them, then that wall works both ways – the government has no right to inject itself into the beliefs of the church.  Liberals are quick to seize on idea of an establishment of religion (erroneously, I might add), but they are blind to the second part of the phrase, namely that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  If the government regulates matters relating to the practicing of the beliefs of a church or of individuals, then it is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”  and is in violation of this principle.  Of course, this is applicable only at the federal level, not the state, but what is happening in Iowa will most likely soon become the rule at the federal level as well, and then we will have a constitutional issue at stake.

-July 8, 2016

Read More