Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Example of Leftist Anti-Freedom Tactics

by Leave a Comment

The First Amendment does not say “except” or “unless”. In fact it exists specifically to protect peaceful assembly and controversial and offensive speech from governmental intrusion.

After school, on a public (key word there, public) sidewalk next to the Downington STEM Academy in PA, Christian teen siblings Lauren and Connor Haines held signs protesting abortion, including one with a picture of a dead aborted baby, while peacefully discussing the issue with passersby. Their assistant principal Dr. Zach Ruff came out harassing, threatening and cussing them, while using his large girth to stand in front and impede viewing of their message.

The school authority’s message: “You can go to hell where they are, too. They’re not children. They’re cells. … I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*** what Jesus tells me about what I should and should not be doing. … You do not have my permission to speak and engage. You are harassing public school students, and I will call the police if you don’t shut up.”

Full 18-minute video:

During his assault on the First Amendment, the self-described “twice as sunny” principal (under PA law) assaulted Connor too, by getting within inches of his face and trying to rip a sign from him. That’s not all. Following the assistant principal’s pathetic example of bullying and threats, other students and parents (!) engaged in mob-scale harassment by sending Connor, Lauren and their families hundreds of messages, some profane.

These are the tactics of oppressors and anti-freedom mobs, folks: herd-mentality threats, intimidation, and authoritarian bullying.

Fortunately, this time, by eliciting legal aid from legal-defense nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (one I am proud to support tangibly), the good guys courageously prevailed over hateful authoritarian bullies. Ultimately the school had to apologize and acknowledge the violated First Amendment freedoms of Lauren and Connor, the vice principal was suspended, then resigned, and Lauren and Connor are free as they should be to exercise their free-expressive rights on public property.

Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. This is but a microcosm of public-school and college incidents of First Amendment violation all across the nation, hundreds of them and adding up yearly. With his PhD and “educational” background, Ruff very well could get a job elsewhere around students, where the same bigoted anti-Christian bullying can begin anew. And he’s far, far, far from the only one with that mentality. Protectors of freedom must be vigilant and call out the destroyers of freedom at every turn in this era of hate and intolerance of peaceful dissent.

You see, freedom is our greatest earthly gift and is God-ordained. Support and protect it, even when people freely express things that bother or offend you. No question, I wholly endorse and approve of Connor and Lauren’s message, and defend their right to say it. Even as an open and unapologetic social and fiscal conservative, I also am a governmental libertarian to the core, and defend the right of those peacefully expressing messages I don’t approve, to do so in the public arena…yes, even left-wing messages! Freedom is for all, not just liberals, conservatives or “moderates” (whatever that is…seems everybody from far left to far right thinks he/she is a moderate). This includes artistic freedom from the vicious viceroys of political correctness.

I fully am using my freedom of expression to post this…and folks, it has been happening for decades and is not going to stop. I have my ideals, opinions, and biases as well. I absolutely do preferentially post instances of left-wing violations of freedom, in large part to counter the intense bias of most mass media against the right, and against Christians. So be it. As long as I breathe, and as long as the left violates others’ rights (anymore, a given) there’s plenty more where this came from. Deal with it.

Don’t like my expressions of free speech, or others’? Ignore it, or argue non-violently. Don’t weaponize authority to squash others’ God-given and Constitutionally codified right to free expression! If you do, expect a well-earned backlash in support of freedom, and expect to lose — ideologically for starters, and in court if necessary.

Want to fight ideas you disapprove? Use facts, reason, logic, and levelheaded, rational counter-argument. Never threats, intimidation, bullying, or violence! And yes, that applies from the President (hardly a role model here) right on down to some spiteful vice principal, and ultimately, you and me.

Roy Moore and More and More

by Leave a Comment

Pedophilia, rape, statutory rape, sexual abuse, and sexual coercion of any sort (whether on the job or otherwise) are wrong, and evil…period. No ambiguities or “what ifs” exist there. I should not have to state the obvious, but there it is — and most definitely not in response to any demands for such a statement. It is simply a fundamental truth of my Christian, sociopolitically conservative worldview.

The standard should be no different for any actors, celebrities, public officials, or politicians — whether with a label of D or R. It doesn’t matter of the sexual miscreant is Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein, or Bill Clinton. If he is guilty, he shouldn’t be kept in a position of authority in the private sector, nor elected to public office. If they are guilty, they should go to jail too; alas, for Moore’s case, the legal statute of limitations long since has expired for his accused acts in Alabama.

Ted Cruz had the best response I’ve seen from any of the politicians, so far:

    “One of two things should happen: If these allegations are true, Judge Moore should drop out now. Today. The people of Alabama deserve to have the option of voting for a strong conservative who has not committed criminal conduct. Or two, if these allegations are not true, then Judge Moore needs to come forward with a strong, persuasive rebuttal demonstrating that they are untrue.”

    Both last week and this week, there are serious charges of criminal conduct that if true, not only make him unfit to serve in the Senate but merit criminal prosecution. Judge Moore, like any American, is entitled to present a defense. He’s entitled to put forth the facts demonstrating that the charges are not true, but as it stands, I can’t urge the people of Alabama to support a campaign in the face of these charges without serious, persuasive demonstration that the charges are not true.”

Yes, the timing is suspicious — right after the Alabama Republican primary and not before…why? A valid question! Still, given the detailed allegations at hand, and their apparent credibility, from the large variety of people making them who do not know each other, Moore should step down and make room for a conservative candidate without such a shadow overhead, as Cruz also has stated.

What I do mind here is the hypocrisy on the left, as Matt Walsh so forcefully elucidates in a recent essay:

    “Bill Clinton, who held a position far more powerful than Senator from Alabama, was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick. Right around the time that Roy Moore was allegedly seducing teenage girls, Bill Clinton was allegedly pinning Broaddrick down on his hotel bed, biting her lip to keep her from screaming for help, and brutally raping her. And Clinton’s alleged predatory behavior didn’t stop once he reached the White House. While there, allegedly, he sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey, kissing her without consent and forcing her hand onto his erect p___s. [Partly edited to avert bot censors.] He also exposed himself to Paula Jones shortly before becoming president, allegedly. Yet he was made president, and then made president again, and then liberals tried to put him back in the White House last year by electing his wife, who allegedly led the campaign to silence and discredit her husband’s victims.”

The left’s (and much of the right’s ) outrage at the Moore allegations is justified. Now where was the left’s outrage at this behavior from one of their own? I believe Juanita Broaddrick. When was the last time you saw anyone on the left say that? Very telling…

As for the right, any preachers or conservatives who are defending Moore at this time are terribly misguided and not living up to moral righteousness demanded of us. They should stop doing so, repent, and seek forgiveness immediately. Moreover, as with many who preceded them, they are unwittingly feeding the Beast — Satan, that is, who plays the long game. Satan has planted pedophiles and other sexual miscreants within the Church for hundreds of years (whether lay or priest) in an attempt to divide and conquer. I can see right through Satan’s anti-Christian tactics in this regard, and they continue today. Case in point:

The red label is mine. [Yes, a Christian can use the word “bullshit”. I just did. Sue me.] The claim that Christians “own this” is absurd, of course, in light of the facts that
1) Pedophilia violates the Christian worldview at least as much as it does the so-called “11 rules” claimed there, [as if “rules” alone stop sin anyway, hah!]
2) It long predates Christianity, which doesn’t “own” any sin. In fact, Jesus, when truly followed in deed as well as word, frees from all sin. This is where the laughable ignorance of Satan and his “church” comes into play.
3) Such conduct is worldwide, and exists among self-proclaimed followers of every faith or no faith at all; as noted below, “this stuff is everywhere”.

Yes, pedophilia and rape have been going on for thousands of years. So have other ghastly behaviors that fall outside God’s firm, unambiguous, monogamous, husband-wife-only sexual prescription, such as: adultery, promiscuity, bestiality, homosexuality, self-mutilation (e.g., sex “change”), pornography and related exploitations, Islamic genital mutilation of girls, ancient Chinese gelding of boys, and many more. While forced acts are evil, even “consent” is not particularly relevant. Consent to commit sin doesn’t eliminate the fact of sin. Consensual deviancy still is evil — and a more insidious form, in that it is evil disguised as “love” — another part of Satan’s plan. So spare me the “consensual” argument; it is irrelevant in the big picture. Wrong is wrong is wrong, even when the act of wrong is mutually agreed.

Yet a lot of sexual misdeeds are coming out of the woodwork in this era of instant publicity and social media. As Matt Walsh also elaborates bluntly in a different essay, when we throw aside societal mores against sexual deviancy, what else should we expect?

    This stuff is everywhere. It really can’t be broken down on political, or religious, or even gender grounds. Men seem more likely to be the abuser, but the problem is not exclusive to them. Though we tend to brush these kinds of cases to the side, the fact remains that an enormous number of female teachers have been found guilty of sexually harassing or assaulting their pubescent male students. Any attempt to place the blame on one particular group falls apart. The crisis it too widespread. It encompasses too many different types of people. It has leaked into too many corners of our society.

    It appears that there’s a serious problem with our culture as a whole. Of course, the first problem with our culture is the same with every culture: we are a fallen and sinful species. But our fallen and sinful nature seems to be manifesting itself more and more in the form of degeneracy and sexual predation. Why?

I know why. Christian worldviews, when truly and authentically lived, do not endorse nor commit these sins! The Christian worldview is being abandoned more and more, every year, all the time. All who do such deeds, and who claim to be Christian regardless, are deeply broken people who so desperately need the Lord’s grace, forgiveness and redemption, and need to return to Jesus far more than to have any public political office or Hollywood job.

Election 2016 Part 6: State Initiatives, Final Thoughts

by Leave a Comment

In the previous and penultimate post of this six-part series on the 2016 election, I covered the more necessarily (and needed) aspect of the fallout: left-wing self-examination, with trails of hope leading to what I hope is a hill of humility for the left wing. Alas, more recent events (one tip of iceberg, and another) leave me highly skeptical such humility is prevailing over bitterness and resentment. It’s as if two wrongs (Trump’s online dishonesty and insults, followed by the left’s) do make right?

Regardless, the passage of time will reveal a lot more about both Trump and the left, and we’ve got four years to address such. In the meantime, I want to take a relatively brief, final look at the election through the lens of subnational initiatives, specifically those in Oklahoma. A few of them are most interesting and have both Okla-centric and possible regional ramifications.

State Question 792

As a social conservative and spawn of the inner city, where the problems derived from alcohol abuse were numerous, obvious and devastating in surrounding streets and households, and who has dealt directly with the destruction caused by drunk drivers, I’ve long stated that I would eliminate all alcoholic beverages with the snap of a finger, for ever and ever, if I could. Not blessed with that power, we have to decide what to do with them.

In time, government has proved to be a terrible legislator of alcoholic beverages, with Byzantine, illogical, inconsistent (in space and time) and sometimes unconstitutional rules for them. Even nationally, the vacillation has been ridiculous; witness the 18th Amendment designating Prohibition, only to be followed by the 21st Amendment’s repeal of the Prohibition. That’s embarrassing on the world stage, not to mention a massive waste of time and tax dollars, to amend then un-amend one’s own Constitution on the same subject, in short order. Get it right the first time or don’t bother!

Ultimately I realize that the responsibility for responsible consumption is up to the individual. Laws against drunken behaviors exist for a good reason and should be enforced with fierce rigor. In Texas, full-powered beverages long have been sold in grocery stores, unlike Oklahoma, and liquor stores (much to my dismay) still exist and thrive after all these decades.

When I first got to Oklahoma and learned of the horrendously complicated Blue Laws and varying regulations revolving around 3-point vs. full-strength beer, and in what sorts of stores each may be sold, and on what days at what hours, my first thoughts were: “What kind of hopeless and stupid labyrinth of rules is this? Who does it benefit? Liquor stores and their lobbyists of course — certainly not consumer choice! What does it prevent? Certainly not drunk driving, which is a notorious problem here! ” My vote:

Over three decades too late, but better late than never, voters resoundingly approved this state question, which the liquor-store industry fought against even putting before The People. The fact that The People weren’t trusted to exercise the sovereignty of The People over themselves and their government told me all I needed to know about how to vote, aside from my objections to the stupid rules themselves.

While the change did not go far enough toward simplifying liquor laws and leveling the playing field between types of businesses, it’s great progress. The worst part is the timing — not until 2018! That’s crap. It should take effect immediately. Damn the liquor stores and their hollow victimhood-whining and booze-sale-funded lobbying. They should have seen this coming and been prepared years in advance, using successful Texas counterparts as templates. Foresight, foresight, foresight…

State Question 780 and 781 (dependent on 780)

These collectively changed a variety of low-grade drug crimes to misdemeanors from felonies and redirected incarceration savings to rehab and mental-health treatments. For similar reasons as above, I hate the fact that mind-altering drugs, including pot, even exist. Their very use outside medical purposes is selfish, often destructive and expensive to society at large, and immoral; and I would make them disappear in an instant if I could. But that’s not happening, and we need to concentrate law-enforcement efforts on the supply side with education and rehab opportunity in mind to reduce demand. My vote:

Prison overcrowding is a major problem here as well, which was a motivator behind this and another part of the proposal that increases the monetary level of some property crimes needed to trigger a felony. I’m glad this passed also. The most appealing part is a surprising bit of ingenuity (for here anyway) that prison-cost savings could be claimed by privately run rehab organizations. Good move.

State Question 779

This measure would have increased some of the already highest state and local combined sales taxes in the nation another penny to THE HIGHEST IN THE NATION (see previously linked graph and compare at the 9.77% level). Why? Supposedly to fund public education. First of all, the current education-funding problems were brought about by a lack of rainy-day foresight over many years on the part of the legislators and both Democrat and Republican governors. And we’re supposed to pay the price for the shortsightedness of these dolts? Then came all the pleas to emotion and whiny sob stories designed to psychologically manipulate voters into supporting “the teachers” (when actual benefit to teachers would be minimal). My easy vote on this:

Go back and do it better, and smarter, than this knee-jerk, regressive crapola. One place to start: low-population Oklahoma has over 500 school districts for 77 counties! Ridiculous! They’re not still running the Pony Express north of here, nor do we get around on horse-drawn carriages and convey fastest messages by telegraph. There’s no good reason, in this era of instant communication and online education, to have more than 10 counties or school districts. Consolidate school districts and eliminate all that repetitive overhead and bureaucracy. Then go from there toward taxing mineral revenues at levels comparable to similarly oil-endowed, socially and fiscally conservative states like Texas and North Dakota.

Furthermore, why does anybody trust the state government to get this right, be honest and allocate such funds as stated–much less those who are most often hotly critical of state government for being untrustworthy? Remember how the state lottery was supposed to save education and ended up way oversold and offset by cuts elsewhere? Why is anyone so naive as to think this would be any different? Give a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians an inch, and they’ll take a mile.

There’s a good reason a lot of rank-and-file teachers (as opposed to their dues-collecting unions or out-of-state meddling busybodies) opposed this measure. Their own taxes, and those of their friends and loved ones, would have increased as well–and regressively in the form of a sales tax, no less.

Last Words on 2016 Election
Finally, as promised, I chose the most conservative down-ballot legislative candidates; nationally those choices won, statewide there were no senators up for election in my district, and my most-conservative state-representative candidate did not win (likely since this is a slightly left-leaning university town). So that goes.

Whatever else happens with Trump and the G.O.P. Congress, good or bad, I can take some consolidation the confidence in the most important legacy action (aside from the dealing with the national debt, which likely will be avoided): Supreme Court nominations. The more strictly Constitutionally constructionist and originalist, the better on this, since the Constitution is the first, last, and only binding legal word from the great Founders themselves on the role of Federal government.

While even Scalia and Thomas sometimes wandered too far off the literal words of the Constitution for my taste, they have represented the closest possible in the modern era to the true purpose of our highest jurists — not to interpret the Constitution, but to apply it. The two terms are not synonymous, and the Constitution’s black-and-white words are quite straightforward. Those words don’t need interpretation; they need application to problems of governance and federalism. With conservative and relatively originalist justices, we can shift the Court back off its dangerous, falsely fluid-Constitutional, trend- and fad-based, subjective, social-whim-based, interpretive leftist slant, hopefully for the remainder of my lifetime with a couple of justices roughly my age currently under consideration.