Opus 2026-141: Picking Your Shade of Grey

Evil exists.  Evil has consequences.  Evil triumphs if we ignore it.  It is like the fungus in the Petri dish.  It can grow overnight.

There is a quotation that I believe is attributed to Lord Action, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.”  I am afraid we are in one of those times where action is required.

If you watched the State of the Union Address you saw the grandstanding and verbal traps that kept bringing up expected situations and the Democrats kept falling into the obvious trap.  It was a no win situation.  Remaining seated in the face of manipulation was theater.  That was not the evil of the moment.  The evil was in the hearts of those who did not want to stand because they seriously disagreed with the statements.  That inner direction is laying the tracks that are forcing the country toward a socialist paradise like Venezuela.

At one time we had some agreement on what evil looked like.  No more.  There is a famous quote from John Adams in a 1789 letter,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

When he said this he meant basic morality as described in the Bible.  He meant the religion of Christianity, not Satanism.  Everyone understood that.  They may not have lived by those standards but there was no mystery about what they meant.

We have moved beyond that.  We have choices to make about how we will deal with the future.  One choice would involve millions of people making the choice to repent of their sins and follow Jesus.  Along with that others would acknowledge that such a life is a plus factor and change their way of doing things.  The other choice is to realize that we don’t want to live according to the Constitution as written and redo it.

What actions might we consider because of the potential products of ignored evil?

We might consider expelling Muslims as a group.  This would seem to be expelling a religion but that would not be the motive.  Islam is a religion, yes, but it is also a political system based on Sharia law.  This is a civic legal code that is totally antithetical to our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  Such a step would be similar to the laws that we once enforced against Communism because it was committed to the violent overthrow of our government.  Sharia law has the same result, thus it must go.  Muslims must go because they are required to introduce it.

A similar action should be implemented for socialists and Communists.  The law would need to be written in such a way that it involved the philosophies no matter what cute titles they adopted.  These are political systems that bring nothing but poverty and death

On a milder lever but just as hard to implement would be establishing qualifications to vote.  The problem here would be establishing honest requirements, not the kind of targeted nonsense that was in place under Jim Crow.  When I was running the gauntlet in California to become a teacher they required something called the CBEST.  It was something any high school sophomore should have been able to pass.  Should someone be allowed to vote if they can’t read a simple sentence?  Should they be required to name their congressman before given a ballot?  Should they be allowed to vote on economic issues if they don’t pay taxes or can’t balance a check book?

These are serious questions that no one wants to deal with.

We need to talk.  Of course that means we have to be able to communicate in English.

homo unius libri

Opus 2024-047: A New Movement Needed

What are we going to do about the coup going on right in front of our eyes.  There must be some solution other than violence.  Violence would remove the elite trying to destroy the republic but would only replace it with another junta if history teaches us anything.  Look at the French Revolution rather than the American.  France was much more typical and had a lot in common in what we are seeing in our country today.

What are we to do?

We need to start with prayer.  If you are not a believer go ahead with your “good thoughts”.  I don’t suppose it will hurt anything.  I also don’t suppose it will help much.  

Then what?

It occurred to me that we might need a little cultural appropriation.  It might be time to resurrect the Civil Rights Movement.  The original was targeting a specific group of Americans who were being denied their basic rights as citizens.  Now the goal of the elites is to destroy the rights of everybody.  It may be time to resurrect the approach.

The original Civil Rights Movement had at least three types of people.  The first was made up of true believers.  That can be taken as a pun if you want.  The original Civil Rights advocates were the abolitionists.  Many of them were devout Christians.  I think that most of the stops on the underground railroad were in the homes of believers.  This of course would cause them to be true believers in man being created in God’s image and thus they would be true believers in the cause of what became known as civil rights.

The second were the Anti-American liberty haters that infiltrated because they saw a way to undermine the Republic.  Their goal was not really to make black Americans equal.  There goal was to drag down the culture and destroy it because it was too open to actual liberty.  These are the same type of people behind the 1619 Project that pushes the lie about the country being founded on slavery.  They were very good at looking pious but these are the people who took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and turned it into reverse discrimination with affirmative action, quotas and the modern incarnation of Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness.  Their whole purpose is to divide the country.  At the back of their minds is the old “divide and conquer” mantra.

A Third was made up of party animals.  I remember someone interviewing some young men at an event and asking them why they were there.  They didn’t seem to be the kind that would be supporting the rally.  Their answer?  “Chicks, man, chicks.”  They came for the girls.  There were a good number of people involved in the Civil Rights Movement who were there for the excitement, and yes, I would imagine the chicks.

The resurrection of the movement would need to adopt the non-violent principle.  Anyone who was involved would need to understand that there would be persecution and suffering.  There would also need to be a strong element of faith and prayer led by devout believers.  Would it work?  I don’t know if it would “work” but I am not sure we have any choice.  The alternative is to sink into a morass of totalitarian barbarism.  

Does that mean there would never be an element of force?  No.  Remember how slavery was brought down starting in England and going around the world?  William Wilberforce and his devout Christian friends campaigned for 30 years to get results.  They did it peacefully.  That worked in England but in order to attack slavery around the world the British navy came into play.  It was a form of gunboat diplomacy.  In order to keep from being attacked the countries of the world had to agree to outlaw slavery.  Some places in the world just won’t respond to reason or moral arguments.

I don’t know how it can be organized but until it is we need to keep praying, standing up, speaking out and making a difference in our corner of the world.

homo unius libri

Opus 2023-054: The Principle Problem

One of the ideas that has helped us to flourish as a culture is that the Constitution gives us foundational principles on which we base everything else.

We are finding that there is a problem with foundational principles.  Even the best principles can be victims of the unprincipled.

The American Founders would have emphasized the “foundational” part of the phrase.  A foundation, properly built, gives us an unchanging starting point for everything else.

The current Progressives* focus on the “principles” part.  Principles are somewhat flexible because they need to apply to circumstances that we are not aware of yet.  Take one founding principle that is getting a lot of attention today:  Freedom of Speech.  Even with that title the courts have found some limitations.  The original intent had to do with political speech and statements that were not apporved by the authorities.  Libel and slander have always been exceptions.  The Progressives* have taken the inch of wiggle room and vibrated it into a joke.  Now the specific reason the right was proclaimed is the reason it is being handcuffed. You have heard about how now Free Speech is against Free Speech?

The really big question that keeps hitting me could be paraphrased here as, How do you deal with clever people manipulating the principles to take advantage of people who are really principled?  When my son cheated at Monopoly it was simply a matter of walking away and not playing any more.  With these tyrant wannabes it won’t be that simple.

My hope is that they will wake up to the potential of violence they are playing with.  Most of the ones on the front lines think there will be no retaliation.  The ones behind them, controlling the narrative are the true believers who accept the fact they may die but are quite willing to do so if they can drag down of liberty loving clowns in the process.  They are even more willing to sacrifice the naive sign holders.

*(Liberals, educators, the media, socialists, communists, crony capitalists, elites, Rinos, Democrats, leftists, Never Trumpers, Antifa, BLM, MSM, Deep State, etc.  Synonym for swamp dwellers)

homo unius libri

Opus 2022-008: Eroding Rights, part 2 of 2

Paul Craig Roberts, a well know Libertarian sees this as a total betrayal of what he calls the “Rights of Englishmen”.  By that he means all the guarantees found in our Bill of Rights.

“But all agree that Englishmen have inherited a system of law that is predicated on respect for the individual and in which human dignity and freedom have flourished.”, Roberts, page 9

The Civil Rights Act was just one step in the ongoing attempt by the elites to destroy the common people and as usual we have gone along with it.  The camel gets its nose under the tent with what many consider a legitimate need.  

We accepted the Federal Government coming in to overpower local corruption.  I remember as a kid watching a program called “The Untouchables”.  It had the Feds, who were above local power struggles and incorruptible, coming into town to fight the mob.  It was all very noble as the virtuous warriors from D.C. attacked the organized crime that the locals could not resist.  That set a precedent that began to indoctrinate my generation into loving Big Brother.  As the power was passed to Washington the corruption followed, if it wasn’t already there.

Now we have federal corruption coming in to destroy law and due process.  We see American citizens in a party mood invited into the capitol building as the capitol police unlock the doors and wave them in.  The only violence was a policeman shooting an unarmed woman through a window.  Now they sit in jail with no due process, political poisoners to a government full of itself.  We see FBI SWAT teams with guns drawn breaking into a home to arrest a man who had done nothing but defend his children.  We see repeated abuses.  It is the result of the philosophical idea change that says group identity trumps the rule of law.

Ideas have consequences because actions are based on ideas.  

Is it better to have local issues that can be dealt with because we are a free people or lose our freedom for federal mandates?

Do you recall the statment by Benjamin Franklin about liberty and security,

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Maybe we should take that a little more seriously.

Roberts, Paul Craig and Stratton, Lawrence M.  The Tyranny of Good Intentions.  Roseville, California: Forum, 2000.

homo unius libri

Opus 2022-326: Headlines: The Other Shoe Is Dropped

It is time to see how the shoe fits when it is on the other foot.  A recent post on Gateway Pundit shared the story of a restaurant in Virginia that turned away a Christian group.  They cancelled reservations for a event when they learned that the group was Christian and, horror of horrors, actually took Biblical stands on moral issues.  They were unwelcomed.

I have two conflicting responses to this.  First, as a rule-of-law, Constitutional patriotic American I salute their rights guaranteed, or at least promised, in the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of association.  If they don’t want to serve certain people then more power to them.  As much as I agree with the group that was rejected I accept the rights of others and would not want to spend my money at an establishment that rejected basic moral principles.

On the other hand, I am tired of the cherry picking that goes on under the disguise of justice.  If a baker can go through years of trials and intimidation because he does not want to bake a gay cake then I would suggest if we are under the rule of law that this restaurant needs to go through the same gamut.  I know, it doesn’t work that way.  Justice is a joke and the law is a one way door.

But I can dream.

My guess is that this will never make the front pages of the MSM and will certainly not be addressed by the DOJ.

I hope that I am proved wrong.

homo unius libri

Opus 2022-091: All’s Fair in Love and War

War is dangerous.  That is obvious in the obvious way but what we don’t think about is how people in power tend to abuse the good will of the population they are supposed to be serving.  

A lot of things change on the home front during war.  If you have talked to people who remember World War II or read about the conditions you are aware of rationing, scarcities, victory gardens, victory stamps and a lot of other things that seem strange today.  People could not get new tires.  New cars were a dream for the future.  All kinds of foods were unavailable.  And people rolled up their sleeves and did their best to make it work.  There was a war on, don’t you know?

One of the forgotten dangers is the willingness of people to allow their government extraordinary power during a time of crisis.  I refer specifically to such freedoms as the writ of habeas corpus.  In case you were not paying attention in school or had a typical socialist teacher who did not want to bring it up, the writ of habeas corpus is one of the liberties that comes to us from England.  It basically means you cannot lock someone up without a clear statement of why.  It meant people in power could not arrest you and keep you in jail because they don’t like your face or were mad at your grandfather.

The Constitution allows that liberty to be suspended under certain circumstances.  

Article 1, Section 9

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety require it.”  

I have often heard how Lincoln violated the Constitution by suspending the writ.  Recently I heard George Bush was accused of the same thing.  The sentence above would seem to make that no problem but people claim congress has the power of suspension, not the president.  While I concede that this is found in the section on the legislature, it does not say that the president cannot do so.  Seems a bit murky to me.

The point I am making is that one reason the elites who want to run our lives are looking for any excuse they can find to limit our freedoms and give them carte blanche.  To be honest they are ignoring it and the rule of law in general.  An example of that is the arrest and incarceration of the people who were guilty of trespassing on January 6.  Held in solitary confinement for a year for a minor offense is not the way the law was meant to be applied.  

Now imagine if the Progressives* running our government decide to declare war.  Now they have all the justification they want for suspending the writ of habeas corpus and locking up anyone who has been suspended from Facebook or Twitter.  

Was is dangerous when you have wannabe totalitarians at the reins of power.  

Be alert.  Speak up while you still have the right.

*(Liberals, educators, the media, socialists, communists, crony capitalists, elites, Rinos, Democrats, leftists, Never Trumpers, Antifa, BLM, MSM, Deep State, etc.  Synonym for swamp dwellers)

homo unius libri

Opus 2021-276: Gift of God?

I was listening to a discussion of the liberty we enjoy as Americans, or at least used to enjoy.  One of the speakers made a point I have heard repeatedly.  He pointed out that our rights are not given by the government but by God.  The implication was that these are something that God has granted since time immemorial.  I accept that God has blessed us with them but question the implication.  Somehow I think the apostle Paul would have also been surprised at that.

Americans have lived in a bubble.  Never in the history of the world have so many people had so much prosperity and so many options.  American Christians tend to fall into the trap of thinking that we are God’s chosen people.  We are not.  We are blessed but we are not the chosen.

The concept that all men are created equal, from the Declaration of Independence, can be validated from scripture as long as you understand “created” does not mean locked in for an entire life span.

(Gal 3:28 KJV)  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The key term is “in Christ”.  It does not mean class or talent.

The ideas embodied in the Bill of Rights are another story.  I like to think they come from God.  They do come more from God than the government.  There is little Biblical basis for freedom of religion or jury trial.

Be glad we have them.  We are losing them.  The oneness in Christ will survive.  Eternity will still be waiting.

homo unius libri

Opus 2021-019: Headlines: That Scary Little Phrase

We are living in a developing nightmare.  Everyone who can tell the difference between a light bulb that is burned out and one that is just turned off has heard about how Amazon has been involved in attacking the competition for Twitter, Parler.  It is an amazing attack that would make the fascist regimes of the 1930's say, “That’s my boy.”  They removed their app so no one can access a new account.  Then they cut them off of the internet and removed them from the Amazon marketplace.  That is all scary enough but did you read the entire list of people dropping them.

The part that should send ice water into your veins is the part where it says that the list of people dropping them included their lawyers.  They did this to President Trump also.  I don’t know if it is just social pressure, subtle innuendo or blatant threats of physical violence but our new Progressive* overlords are making it impossible to even wind our way through the legal maze.  They are making it impossible to get a lawyer.

As so many other oppressive moves of the Progressives* this goes against the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution.  Notice this from the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution,

“have the assistance of counsel for his defence (sic).”

I don’t think it ever entered the minds of the Founders that a political party would take the step of threatening the lawyers so that the enemies of the Tyrant could make no defense.  Your Miranda rights don’t matter anymore because no lawyer will take your case.

The swamp is spreading instead of draining.

*(Liberals, educators, socialists, communists, crony capitalists, elites, Rinos, Democrats, leftists, Never Trumpers, Antifa, etc.  Another word for swamp dwellers)

homo unius libri

Opus 2020-225: The Return of the Boston Massacre

He was on guard duty.  He was attacked by a mob.  He fired into the mob.  He was accused of murder but John Adams stepped up to defend him.  Wait.  You thought I was talking about Kyle Rittenhouse.  No.  I have been relating what happened at the Boston Massacre.  It was a little more straightforward than our current situation but the basics were the same.

In case you didn’t pay attention or you had a Progressive* teacher, the Boston Massacre is the name attached to an event that took place before the American Revolution.  A British soldier was on guard duty and a rowdy bunch of drunks decided it would be fun to throw snow balls at him.  What was he going to do, shoot them for snowballs?  Then they decided it would be more fun to put rocks in the middle of the snowballs.  Eventually the soldier called for back up and when it arrived a shot was fired, more shots followed and deaths resulted.  The soldiers were put on trial for shooting unarmed civilians.  One of our Founding Fathers and later president of the United States, John Adams, saw that the soldiers had done nothing wrong and took on their defense.  He won.

Fast forward a couple hundred years.  You have a young man on guard duty who is attacked by a bunch of violent thugs.  They chase him down the street.  They club him with a skate board.  One of them pulls a gun.  He fires four times and brings down three street criminals.  He should be getting a merit badge for marksmanship.  Instead he is on trial for murder.

Will we have a John Adams step forward?  Will we see justice done?  Are we at the place where armed thugs are free to roam the streets, burn other people’s property, kill policemen, beat up old ladies using walkers and generally try to destroy society without any fighting back?

The justice system in Wisconsin and the rest of the country needs to understand that the real defendants here are the judges and district attorneys who are tasked with seeing that justice is done.  If this turns into another Progressive* lovefest and we see a young man who was exercising his rights to defend himself go to jail, the results will be on their heads.  Antifa and BLM are doing everything they can to generate an uncontrolled violent response.  It is possible that where they have failed, liberal judges will step up to the plate and swing for the fences.

Pray for justice.

*(Liberals, educators, socialists, communists, elites, Rinos, Democrats, leftists, Never Trumpers, Antifa, etc)

homo unius libri

Opus 2020-151: Election 2024: Platform, Sci Fi Legislation

The Constitution has two restraints that are important to the rule of law.  They are found in Article 1, section 9 where we are told,

“No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”

If you are like most Americans you didn’t know they were in the Constitution and, if you knew, don’t know what they mean. 

A bill of attainder is a way of targeting a specific enemy under the disguise of the law.  It would say something like, “George Soros is to be arrested and put in jail for ten years.”  There is no trial, no appeal and no due process.  You can see how this would be a problem.  This restraint needs to be kept in mind.

Ex post facto means to pass a law after the fact and have it apply before it was passed.  The government has found many ways to do this.  They change tax laws for previous years.  They make things illegal that have been legal throughout our history.  One example would deal with attempts at gun control.  You are not supposed to be able to make something illegal that has a long history of common usage.

Where am I going with this.  I think that the Republicans need to sit down and start working on some science fiction legislation.  Good science fiction involves guessing or predicting what is coming and telling a good story based on what they think.  We need to start writing laws to deal with situations that seem to be developing.  We need clearer definitions of what treason is.  We need to have laws stating clearly that government employees who use their position to mistreat others need to do some hard time.  We have been watching the alphabet agencies get away with just about everything short of murder.  We have the courts saying that it is okay for police to lie to you.  We need to look forward and develop some way to deal with people who deliberately teach things that undermine the Constitution when they are being paid by tax money.  The intent of the laws needs to be spelled out so clearly that the Supreme Court has no wiggle room.

There are some slippery slopes here.  I know that.  We need to have discussions and arguments about what this would look like. 

Meanwhile we need to enforce the laws we have.  We need to remove the Teflon coating that allows James Comey to lie to the nation on live TV and walk away.  That is just one example.  We need to find the leakers of confidential information.  We need to find out who felt the need to send armed swat teams to arrest Roger Stone instead of simply having the chaplain deliver an arrest warrant.

There is a lot that can be done with planning and a bit of courage.  Do our elected officials know about either one?

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-289: Allowing the Adolescent to Grow Up

One mark of maturity is the responsible exercise of liberty.  You have seen this if you raised children.  Some young people are worthy of access to the family car and the freedom to do things with their friends.  Others require early curfews and constant monitoring.  I remember that I never had a deadline to be home and had a car if one was available.  I had those things because I was responsible.  I was so responsible that I was boring.  Parents would call my parents to see if I was home.  If I was still out running around they assumed there children were not in trouble.

The First Amendment is a mark of liberty that was given to the press among others.  They were given the right to say anything they wanted about the government without fear of censorship or reprisal.  They did so.  If you think today is extreme you can find even more in the historic press.  At one point we had the idea of “yellow journalism” which was an early code word for Fake News.  The difference in those days was that you had two ideologies pushing fake news and if you read both sides you had some chance at arriving at a bit of truth.

That has changed.  Since the right has retreated from the public square the MSM has become a single voice declaring Fake News from just about every outlet.  If you are paying attention even Fox has succumbed to the Siren call and for the most part can no longer be trusted.  They have taken the freedom enshrined in the Constitution and turned it into a license to destroy.  When a teen ager misuses freedom there are penalties.  I am not sure what kind of penalties we can levy on the press because we still believe in non-censorship.  We need to find something but it needs to be a something that keeps freedom of the press enshrined.

One easy method is to carefully pick who has access to the president.  Another is to go to court immediately in cases of libel and slander.  Another is to put on trial reporters and editors who obviously have betrayed national security.  And, as I have said before, we can stop subscribing and buying.

A more difficult method would be to start some newspapers.  I know about how no one reads newspapers.  I hear the same thing about books but the publishing industry is doing quite well, thank you.  The reason people don’t read the newspapers is they are not worth reading.  Twenty years ago I heard people saying they would not take the L.A. Times if it was not for Jim Murray in the sports section.  Notice how the Weekly Standard has gone from success to failure in a few short years of turning on Trump.  Did they expect a subsidy from the Clinton Foundation?

I hope the media grow up.  I have felt the same way for a lot of teen agers.  I am still waiting on both.

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-266: Headlines: Today’s Crisis

Don’t you love the talking point of the left about the current “Constitutional Crisis”?  This one is over Trump asking for Sessions’ resignation.  It is always interesting that the socialists who ignore the Constitution all of the time get so into it when they think it can help them.  They might want to read it.  They count on the masses never having done so.  I am still waiting to hear the source in the Constitution which says that the president cannot fire anyone who is not elected. 

The Senate has a say in who is approved.  Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution lays out the basis of that.

“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.  But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

You notice that the cabinet is not specifically mentioned but most agree it would be included. 

The mysterious crisis that the left if finding has to do with the president firing a cabinet member, not appointing one.  Historically this was dealt with in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.  One of his cabinet members was basically a seditious spy for Radical Republicans.  He was making it impossible for Johnson to do his job, so he fired the man.  Congress said, “You can’t do that” and started impeachment procedures.  It failed by one vote in the Senate and thus you would assume that precedent says the president can fire. 

This is the kind of nonsense that you can expect from a political party that finds the right to an abortion in the Constitution but can’t find the right to bear arms.

It is a moot point anyway.  Sessions was not “fired” he was asked to resign, and he did.

The Democrats have not even finished contesting elections and already the push to make us a banana republic is moving forward.

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-256: Liberty Is Not Tolerance, part 1 of 2

I was looking over my book shelf trying to decide which books I would never get around to reading.  One that caught my eye was American State Papers.  Since so much is available on line I wondered why I still had this old volume.  When I looked a little closer and saw the subtitle I got a better idea.  It continued with and Related Documents on Freedom of Religion.  It was a collection that focused on the American concept found in the First Amendment that we called “Freedom of Religion.” 

A statement in the Foreword caught my eye.

“This is a country of religious liberty, not of religious toleration merely.” page 9

The Foreword was written in 1893 by a man named Thomas M. Cooley.  I think it would help us today to think about the difference between liberty and toleration.

Liberty is an important term to understand.  It is not the same as freedom.  Freedom has the idea that you can do anything you want at any time you want.  The American concept of liberty understands that your right to do anything you want has boundaries set by the rights of others.  Thus I am free to turn my music as loud as I want until it reaches into someone else’s space where they desire quiet.  At that point I can either turn my music down, change locations, use my headphones or invest in some insulation.  They don’t have to tolerate your liberty.

American religious liberty has been a development.  Almost every one of the original thirteen colonies had an official church.  The exceptions that come up in my memory are Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.  There were struggles to allow the kind of denominational differences that we take for granted today.  The key is that the struggle continued until the First Amendment demanded that we be free from an official state church.  Even after the Bill of Rights was ratified states still had official churches but the tide was moving toward liberty.

Early in our history we had tolerance.  There was an accepted state church but they tolerated others.  In the toleration only the state church received tax support.  In the toleration the non-conformists faced a lot of discrimination.  The key is that in time we moved from tolerating what we did not like to allowing freedom of conscience without penalty.

To be continued...

Background

Thomas M. Cooley was on the Michigan State Supreme Court after the Civil War.

Dennis Prager covers the distinction between liberty and freedom well in many forums.  You can do a search for “Dennis Prager on liberty” and find many listings.

Blakely, William Addison, Ed.  American State Papers and Related 
   Documents on Freedom in Religion, Fourth Revised Edition. 
   Washington, D.C.:  The Religious Liberty Association, 1949.

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-152: Headlines: Free Enterprise in Action

By now I am sure you have heard about Sarah Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant because the owner did not like Donald Trump.  It is just another example of the hatred that the left has for anyone they cannot control.  Even in this situation it was not the conservatives who were nasty.  Sanders is not even the one that first broadcast the event. 

I think this is a good opportunity for those of us who believe in free enterprise and freedom of speech to show a little class.  It was perfectly within the rights of a restaurant owner to ask someone to leave that she did not want to serve, or it should be.  I salute her for taking a stand on her beliefs as twisted as they are.  It is part of what being America is.  We are talking about a place to eat.  There are options.  If it had been a hospital or the only grocery store in town there might be some issues but not for a restaurant. 

The problem my position presents is where do you draw the line.  If you can discriminate against someone because of their political beliefs then why not because of their religion.  Why could I not refuse service to people who are cheating on their wives?  And of course we eventually get down to issues like sexual identification and race.  It is a dangerous road to travel down.

I also think it is a good opportunity for those who believe in freedom to exercise that freedom by eating somewhere else and encouraging friends to do the same.  My daughter and I went to breakfast for Fathers’ Day.  I could not count the times that we were welcomed and made to feel like we had made the right choice.  I think every employee must have spoken to us at least once and then we were thanked when we leave.  My money will be back.  If I am ever in Lexington I will make it a point to not go to the Little Red Hen which is a shame since my wife likes places like that.

The bigotry of Stephanie Wilkenson makes my life a little easier by making my choices easier.

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-075: New Terms: Serial Indictor

Why do we want to limit the power of government?  Why do we need to make sure that the Bill of Rights is kept in force? 

In two words:  Robert Mueller.

He is being paid with our tax dollars to try to lynch a duly elected president.  Since he can’t get anything of Trump he is looking for any little piece of dirt to bring charges against those who can’t afford to defend themselves.  Like the attacks on George Bush and Scooter Libby the charges have nothing to do with criminal activity, they have to do with making the FBI or investigator unhappy.  The plan is to intimidate the lower fruit and hope they will tell you what you want to hear in order to keep from losing everything they have by trying to defend themselves from the Big Barracuda of Government.  Mike Flynn does not have the money to defend himself.  Donald Trump does.  So you go after Flynn.  Not only does it provide a chance for someone to have a weak moment and “confess” but it intimidates other people who might be willing to serve in the government.  I was only an E-5.  If they can drag down a general, what chance would I have?

One part of the Constitution we have not been mentioning is the Eighth Amendment, which reads,

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”

The idea behind this was to stop the use torture to get a confession yet that is exactly what Mueller is doing with people like Flynn.

That could be me they come after.  It could be you.  It could be all of us one at a time.  It isn’t that you are guilty, it is because you are available.

Stay off the radar if you can.  If you can’t then stand tall and hope that they move on before you become the target of the Serial Indictor. 

homo unius libri

Opus 2017-415: The Original Big Ten

Actually the first Original Big Ten was the Ten Commandments.  I was looking over The Patriot Post and saw a reference to the birthday of the Bill of Rights.  I think it would be good for us to celebrate that birthday before the Democrats and RINOs put us in a position to celebrate its funeral.  There is still time.

You might want to take a bit of time to read them in the original English.  Ignore what people tell you they mean.  They are simple enough for you to understand them yourself.

You might be surprised at what you find.  Did you know that you have a right to face your accusers?  That might come as a shock as you keep reading about anonymous sources.  Did you know that the government does not have a right to read your private papers or invade your home without jumping through some hoops?  Did you know that unmentioned powers belong to the states and people, not Washington D.C.?   If you have never read them, don’t admit it in public or to anyone you don’t really trust. 

And then, next time we have an election, take that into consideration when you vote.  I think you will find that in many cases it is time to vote the suckers out.

homo unius libri

Opus 2017-377: Headlines: Just a Finger of Speech

Perhaps you have seen reference to the woman who gave the finger to the presidents motorcade.  I ignored it until I saw it at Fox News.  I didn’t know whether to laugh or scream in rage.

I would laugh because it is such a trivial thing.  A frustrated lefty gives the finger.  It is an everyday event.  We see pictures of illegals going it all the time.  How does this make the news?

I want to scream because to me this is a first amendment issue.  It really doesn’t matter that I don’t agree with her.  It isn’t important that I would consider her a brainwashed lefty fool.  What matters is that in the decayed culture of today giving the finger is so common that it is something to be ignored.  Also it is specifically the kind of thing that the right to free speech is supposed to cover:  An out of power person saying something that the in-power don’t like. 

It would seem to me that if you can burn a flag, stand over a picture of a corpse with a “Trump” tag on the toe, put on a play with a presidential look-alike murdered and so many other offensive actions, you should be able to give a stream of cars the finger.

Maybe this is time for another presidential pardon.

Maybe she just doesn’t like Cadillacs.

homo unius libri

Opus 2017-344: Monday Pulpit: Dogma and the First Amendment

I have strong opinions about a lot of things.  I know, surprise.  At the same time I am sometimes quite comfortable with other people having strong opinions that differ from mine.  Some areas don’t make a whole lot of difference.  You can serve menudo at your restaurant and as long as you keep it far away from me I might come back.  You can wear garish combinations of colors and I will be glad to treat you like a human being with some worth.  You can refuse to have a gun in your home and drive a hybrid.  We can get along.  That is what the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech is all about, the things we disagree on.

Other things are open to debate but demand a strong response.  You are wrong if you abort your baby.  You a stealing if you take handouts when you don’t need them.  You are going to hell by any path but Jesus.

I am also in favor of expressing opinions.  I will express mine.  I would be a better person if you would express yours.  How do you expect me to be enlightened if you don’t care enough about me to lead me to the truth?  Of course that goes both ways.  What got me going down this dangerous path was a statement by the pastor in a church I attended a few weeks ago.  This is a paraphrase but close enough for reference.

“When it comes to doctrine we are not only allowed to make a strong statement, we are required to do so.  It is not judgmental.”

It was a Presbyterian Church and the pastor was wearing a robe so I did not shout, “Amen”.  There were even people there who had on coats and ties so I did not run the aisles waving my hanky. 

The church was also loaded with Calvinists so I had to be careful.  There were times in history when being an Arminian around a bunch of Calvinists could get you burned at the stake.  I was worshiping with a bunch of people that I had deep disagreements with.  I can do that.  There are a few issues that bring my blood to a boil but I can live with that because they have the basics down.  We agree to disagree, or at least I do. 

So preach it, brother.  It may have to do with the TULIP system.  If you don’t know what that is then you are not a graduate of a Calvinist seminary.  It may have to do with tax rates.  It could be that you hate Trump.  Say it loud and clear.

I may need to straighten you out, unless you are a Calvinist.  Calvinists are hopeless.  Brothers in Christ, but hopeless.

homo unius libri

Opus 2017-310: Headlines: That Disgusting Freedom

The Battle for America continues.  The focus at this point is in the First Amendment regarding what is popularly called “freedom of speech”.  The Progressives, represented by all the forces of the left from the Democrats, through the RINOs, to the Antifa thugs, are trying to shut down freedom of expression.  They have been passing laws against thoughts.  That is basically what “hate crime” legislation is all about.  Somehow if you murder someone because you hate them that deserves stronger punishment than if you just murder them.  Are they more dead?  The goal is to be able to put people in jail if you disagree with them by judging what is in their head.  Obviously that is impossible or, at least, it is obvious to me.

According to the Washington Times a “white nationalist” has been given the right to exercise the First Amendment at the University of Florida.  This should be one of those, “Why is this news?” moments in our lives.  Instead it is a headline event. 

What got me though was in the last paragraph. 

“Other colleges, meanwhile, aren’t on the same page. A spokesman for Ohio State said Wednesday that the school has denied a request to host Mr. Spencer next month due citing the possibility of ‘substantial risk to public safety,’ putting it in the same category as other colleges that have rejected him recently including Michigan State, Penn State and Texas A&M.”

Notice the words in quotation marks.  What is being ignored is that the people causing the risk are in the audience, not on the platform.  It is not the person expressing unpopular views that is being violent but the people who understand the First Amendment and don’t want it applied to anyone but themselves.

The risk to public safety comes from the left.  If the University wanted to guarantee the safe exchange of ideas they would have a security team on hand to arrest anyone in the audience that tried to start violence.  I guarantee no one on the platform will be going to jail.  If we keep shutting down the process of public debate because one side threatens violence we might as well let them keep the football and go home to our snowflake rooms.

We can’t do that because after they secure the public square they will come for us in our homes.

homo unius libri

Opus 2017-305: Should-a-Beens: The Rule of Law

How come the left thinks that burning an American flag is an honorable expression of free speech but a bumper sticker with a Confederate flag is an expression of hate?  We are seeing the results of the Progressives attempting to push “hate” crimes.  That means they get to pick and chose whom to prosecute and the ones they pick are the ones who disagree with them.

The Constitution does not recognize speech or thoughts as being something to have laws against.  In fact we are guaranteed the freedom of speech and the press just so we can express thoughts and beliefs that people hate.  No one passes laws against ice cream.  Well, maybe they would in California, but what do you expect there.  I have never heard anyone advocate a law against ice cream.  I would be in favor of a law against liver and onions being served in public, but I know I would be laughed out of the office.  Some things are not allowed.

Liberty means that we are not only free to have our opinions, but so is the other guy.  It is called the rule of law.

Hate that can be legislated against is the hate that brings physical abuse against another.  I can say I hate rap music.  I can advocate against rap music.  I can ban rap music from my home.  It is not a crime until I go out and beat up a rapper.  That is why the KKK can get a permit to march in protest.  That is why CNN can create fake news.  That is why politicians don’t go to jail for not keeping their campaign promises.  That is why these anarchists of the left that beat up conservatives should be going to jail.  It isn’t because they disagree.  It is because they assault.

The authorities need to enforce the law not ignore it when the violation is from the left. 

homo unius libri