Roy Moore thinks that getting rid of all amendments to the Constitution after the 10th would "eliminate many problems."

Courtesy of CNN: 

Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore appeared on a conspiracy-driven radio show twice in 2011, where he told the hosts in an interview that getting rid of constitutional amendments after the Tenth Amendment would 'eliminate many problems' in the way the US government is structured.

Moore made his comments about constitutional amendments in a June 2011 appearance on the "Aroostook Watchmen" show, which is hosted by Maine residents Jack McCarthy and Steve Martin. The hosts have argued that the US government is illegitimate and who have said that the September 11, 2001, attacks, the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, and other mass shootings and terrorist attacks are false flag attacks committed by the government. (False flag attacks refer to acts that are designed by perpetrators to be made to look like they were carried out by other individuals or groups.) 

The hosts have also spread conspiracy theories about the raid that led to the death of Osama Bin Laden and have pushed the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the US.

In Moore's June appearance, one of the hosts says he would like to see an amendment that would void all the amendments after the Tenth. 

"That would eliminate many problems," Moore replied. "You know people don't understand how some of these amendments have completely tried to wreck the form of government that our forefathers intended." 

Moore cited the 17th Amendment, which calls for the direct election of senators by voters rather than state legislatures, as one he particularly found troublesome. 

The host agreed with Moore, before turning his attention to the 14th Amendment, which was passed during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War and guaranteed citizenship and equal rights and protection to former slaves and has been used in landmark Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges. 

"People also don't understand, and being from the South I bet you get it, the 14th Amendment was only approved at the point of the gun," the host said. 

"Yeah, it had very serious problems with its approval by the states," Moore replied. "The danger in the 14th Amendment, which was to restrict, it has been a restriction on the states using the first Ten Amendments by and through the 14th Amendment. To restrict the states from doing something that the federal government was restricted from doing and allowing the federal government to do something which the first Ten Amendments prevented them from doing. If you understand the incorporation doctrine used by the courts and what it meant. You'd understand what I'm talking about."

It should be noted that besides the 14th and 17th Amendments, which Moore seems to find so troubling, there is also the the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, the 15th Amendment which prohibited the federal and state governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on that person's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and the 19th Amendment, which extended voting rights to women.

So essentially in Moore's eyes the trouble really started after those damn females and the darkies got the same rights as their white male former owners.  (Yes, at one time women were considered the property of their husbands. Or as Roy Moore calls it, "the good old days.")

I guess that is yet another thing that Roy Moore has in common with Vladimir Putin.

Roy Moore speaks Russian and says "Maybe Putin is right." From an interview with @guardian - the end of this 1 min excerpt is chilling. https://t.co/2HnEOVJdDY pic.twitter.com/O7ymV4XInF

— Crookita (@crookita) December 10, 2017

Moore claims he learned to speak such good Russian when he was at West Point, but that certainly sounds much better than my attempts to speak the French that I learned back in the 8th grade.

Apparently Trump has recorded robo-calls for Moore, so it appears the push is on to make sure this traitorous pedophile wins that Alabama Senate seat.

Justice Department uses poor George Washington to justify allowing Trump to continue taking money from foreign governments while in the White House.

Courtesy of Bloomberg: 

George Washington did it, so Donald Trump can, too. 

That’s the Justice Department’s take on why the 45th president isn’t violating the U.S. Constitution by accepting payments for goods and services from foreign governments without congressional approval. 

The foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution doesn’t apply to fair-market commercial transactions, such as hotel bills, golf club fees, licensing payments and office rent, the Justice department argued Friday in a filing. The government is asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought by a watchdog group that claims Trump’s business dealings violate the Constitution. 

If accepted by the court, the argument would eliminate a major legal obstacle for Trump’s businesses to keep money from foreign officials and companies owned by foreign governments. 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, sued Trump within days of his inauguration in January, claiming foreign officials are doing business with Trump properties as a way to curry favor with the president. The group is seeking an order from U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams in Manhattan that Trump is violating the foreign emoluments clause and the domestic emoluments clause, which specifically bars presidents from taking payments from federal or state officials.

The argument essentially states that since Washington's Mt. Vernon plantation sold flour and cornmeal to various foreign lands while he served as President, that it is the same as allowing the Trump organization to engage in huge real estate deals with foreign countries that could be worth millions of dollars, and may also serve as a way to influence Trump's policies toward those countries.

In their desperation they also cited the fact that some of President Obama's books were sold overseas so the royalties he received from those sales would also violate the emoluments clause, a rationalization so pathetic that it does not simply strain credulity, it takes it out back and stomps on its neck.

Donald Trump clearly does not see the presidency as an opportunity to serve his country, but rather sees it as the greatest advertisement opportunity of his life, with which he can dramatically increase his wealth.

And apparently the now ironically named Justice Department is working to help him do that. 

Donald Trump's sanctuary city order blocked by judge. And another executive order bites the dust. Update!

Courtesy of Bloomberg: 

The ruling Tuesday bars President Donald Trump from withholding funds from jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal agencies to deport undocumented immigrants, marking his second setback in court on immigration. As with its temporary travel ban on six mostly Muslim nations now on appeal, the White House said it expected to ultimately win its case against sanctuary cities in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In response to this Trump expressed disappointment but recognized the importance of the separation of powers, and simply said he would go back to the drawing board.

Just kidding, he threw a Twitter tantrum.

First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2017

Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the "ban" case and now the "sanctuary" case is brought in ...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2017

...the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this "judge shopping!" Messy system.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2017

As Snopes has pointed out only about on tenth of one percent of the Ninth Circuit cases ever even go to the Supreme Court. But yes of those about 80% are overturned, though that could be attributed to the make up of the Supreme Court which for decades has skewed to the Right.

And with Gorsuch now firmly seated in the Court, there may indeed exist the possibility that this will get overturned even though the executive order violates the Constitution’s Fifth and Tenth amendments.

But hey that whole Constitution thing only matters when you are talking about Democratic policies.

Right?

Update: So apparently this ruling did not even come from the ninth circuit:

Tuesday's ruling did not come from the 9th Circuit. It was made in federal district court in San Francisco.

Every day, a new reason to be embarrassed.

New legislation in Alabama might allow a fundamentalist church to form its own police force. Wait, what?

Courtesy of Salon: 

Donald Trump’s election didn’t just empower the alt-right troops with their #MAGA hats and Pepe the Frog avatars. The religious right is also more quietly making moves to consolidate power on a state and local level, aided by Trump’s promises to appoint conservative-friendly judges and to strike down legal limits on church-based politicking. 

But even in the current environment, it’s startling to learn that the Alabama legislature is considering a bill to give a Birmingham-based church its own police force. The bill, Senate Bill 193, would specifically authorize the Briarwood Presbyterian Church, which has more than 4,000 members, to hire its own police force that would be “invested with all of the powers of law enforcement officers in this state.” 

“The sole purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide a safe environment for the church, its members, students and guests,” the church said in a memo sent to Salon after requests for comment. The memo also mentioned the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut, claiming that the church needs “qualified first responders” in case such a thing would happen there.

As the article goes on to point out this church is not sitting in the middle of the wilderness. In fact it is within the jurisdiction of two different sheriff's departments.

Besides allowing this may be unconstitutional.

“This proposed legislation seems like a clear violation of church-state separation, and a clear violation of the Constitution,” Alex Luchenitser, the associate director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a phone call. “Government bodies must not delegate official power to religious entities.” 

Luchenitser cited a 1982 Supreme Court case, Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, in which an 8-1 majority found that states could not give churches the official authority to grant and deny liquor licenses. 

The ACLU of Alabama cited the same decision in a memo sent, upon request, to Salon. 

“Indeed, allocating any quintessential governmental power to a religious institution plainly violates the Establishment Clause,” the memo said, warning the state of Alabama that giving a church its own police force “would not survive a legal challenge.”

You know it is bad enough that some churches and Christian schools still allow corporal punishment, but allowing them to have their own police force?

Oh hell no!

Federal judge temporarily blocks Donald Trump's Muslim ban. Trump throws Twitter fit over it.

Courtesy of Politico: 

President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order suffered its most severe legal blow to date Friday, as a federal judge in Seattle blocked the impact of the directive nationwide. 

U.S. District Court Judge James Robart ruled in favor of the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota on a lawsuit they brought seeking to overturn the order limiting travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries. 

The ruling prompted a typically combative reaction from the Trump White House Friday night, but in a departure from recent patterns, the most confrontational language was quickly dialed back. 

"At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a written statement. "The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people." 

Spicer's statement was reissued about 10 minutes later to remove the word "outrageous." 

Yes well maybe they can go back and edit the White House Press Secretary's statement, but nobody edits Donald Trump.

When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

And which Middle Eastern countries would those be Donnie? Countries hoping to NOT be added to the ban perhaps?

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

For the record this "co-called judge" was appointed by George W. Bush.

And his ruling does NOT take law enforcement away from our country, however it DOES protect our Constitution.

As we know Trump really, really hates being told no.

Which is too bad really since it appears that he is going to be hearing a whole lot of no for the next four years.

Not even president yet and already Donald Trump is threatening to punish Americans for exercising their right to free speech.

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

So not only does Trump want to diminish the rights of the press to do their job, he also wants to punish American citizens for demonstrating their First Amendment rights as well.

How much longer do we think it will be before he threatens to take away our right to assemble peacefully or petition the government for a redress of our grievances?

Are you afraid yet Trump supporters?

Well if you were smarter you would be. 

Sean Hannity wants this picture of President Obama stepping on the Constitution to hang in the Trump White House.

@seanhannity just purchase my painting The Forgotten Man to give to President Trump to hang in the White House. pic.twitter.com/UmP6h1KPjI

— Jon McNaughton (@McNaughtonArt) November 9, 2016

Hannity then responded to that tweet with this:

I am honored to have purchased this amazing Painting. 2016 #MAGA To me it captures what this election was all about. https://t.co/4jT3l1WOKF

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) November 10, 2016

I guess we can all hope that Donald Trump has too much class to actually hang that disrespectful garbage in the White house, but that is a challenge because you know.....Donald Trump.

This blog is a public forum so I cannot say what I would like to do to Sean Hannity if I ever met him, but as you might imagine it would undoubtedly earn me some jail time. 

(H/T to AOL News.)

Okay help me out with this. Has ANYBODY ever been thrown out of a Republican rally for holding up a copy of the Constitution before?

Protestors stand silently and hold up pocket copies of the Constitution. pic.twitter.com/yVzbRMnZX1

— Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) August 4, 2016

WATCH: Protesters holding Constitutions kicked out of #Trump rally. pic.twitter.com/VpJoZJq2Rd

— Correct The Record (@CorrectRecord) August 4, 2016

Courtesy of HuffPo:

Several protesters were thrown out of a Donald Trump rally in Portland, Maine, on Thursday after they interrupted the GOP nominee’s stump speech by standing and holding up pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution in the air.

You know I have made comments about being down the rabbit hole before, but folks we are REALLY down the rabbit hole here.

Typically Republicans speak of the Constitution as if it is written by God right along with the Bible, but apparently after Khizr Khan held one up during the Democratic convention it lost all value to the conservatives.

That is just amazing.

P.S. Is this the right place to mention that according to a recent McClatchy-Marist poll Hillary Clinton is now leading Trump by 15 points nationally?

Alaska Supreme Court rules parental notification for abortion to be unconstitutional. Yay, Alaska!

Courtesy of CBS News:

The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday struck down a state law requiring parental notification for girls under age 18 seeking abortions, agreeing with pro-abortion rights advocates that the mandate approved by voters in 2010 violates the constitutional rights of underage abortion seekers. 

Justice Daniel Winfree, writing for the majority, said the court was not deciding whether abortions should be available for minors but that the abortion notification law violated Alaska's constitutional equal protection provisions giving the same rights to all Alaskans. 

In a concurring opinion, Justice Dana Fabe disagreed that the law violated the girls' equal protection rights but said she believes it violates their right to privacy. 

"I believe that the Alaska Constitution permits a parental notification law, but not one that contains provisions that are among the most restrictive of any state's notification laws," she wrote. 

Yes we are a backwater barely civilized group or neanderthals up here most of the time, but once in a while we get one right. 

Considering how few and far between progressive victories are up here I am going to celebrate the crap out of this one.

Hillary Clinton to introduce constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United within the first 30 days after she elected President.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

Hillary Clinton announced on Saturday that she would introduce a constitutional amendment within the first 30 days of her presidency to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for unlimited corporate, union and individual spending on elections. 

Clinton unveiled her plan in a video at Netroots, an annual progressive gathering taking place this year in St. Louis. 

I know which group of folks is going to want to take credit for this, but it should be remembered that the whole Citizens United case was about that group trying to distribute an anti-Hillary propaganda film before the 2008 elections, and suing because the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act would not allow them to do so.

Of COURSE Hillary is going to want to do something about this once she is elected.

Instead of simply keeping terrorists from getting their hands on assault weapons, the Republicans would rather trample everybody's civil rights.

Courtesy of Vice News: 

Congressional Republicans have a plan to prevent deadly attacks like the Orlando nightclub massacre from happening again: Give the FBI easy access to citizens' browsing history and email data without the hassle of having to obtain a warrant first. 

Arizona Senator John McCain filed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act on Monday night that would do exactly that, on the same day that many lawmakers voted against measures which would keep AR-15s out of the hands of potentially dangerous Americans. 

"In the wake of the tragic massacre in Orlando, it is important our law enforcement have the tools they need to conduct counterterrorism investigations and track 'lone wolves'" McCain wrote in a statement.

To be clear in order to protect the modern misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Republicans are willing to simply throw out the 4th Amendment.

If John McCain is such a bad ass war hero then why does he let the NRA treat him like their little prison bitch?

Federal appeals court rules that conceal carry is not a constitutional right.

Courtesy of Business Insider: 

Dealing a blow to gun supporters, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public. 

In a dispute that could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said local law enforcement officials can place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry concealed guns. 

By a vote of 7-4, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must cite a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Typically, people who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are granted permits. 

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public," Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

Of course right now if this goes to the Supreme Court there will be a split decision and this ruling will stand.

And once either President Obama, or President Hillary Clinton, appoint a judge to replace Scalia there is very little doubt they will side with this decision.

In other words it looks as if men with tiny penises walking around with guns tucked into their sweaty ass crack to prove how macho they are, may soon be a thing of the past. 

Gee, won't that be a shame.

Organization trains Christian teachers to sneak their religion into public schools.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

Finn Laursen believes millions of American children are no longer learning right from wrong, in part because public schools have been stripped of religion. To repair that frayed moral fabric, Laursen and his colleagues want to bring the light of Jesus Christ into public school classrooms across the country — and they are training teachers to do just that. 

The Christian Educators Association International, an organization that sees the nation’s public schools as “the largest single mission field in America,” aims to show Christian teachers how to live their faith — and evangelize in public schools — without running afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition on the government establishing or promoting any particular religion. 

“We’re not talking about proselytizing. That would be illegal,” said Laursen, the group’s executive director. “But we’re saying you can do a lot of things. . . . It’s a mission field that you fish in differently.” 

“They appear to be encouraging teachers to cross the line,” said Daniel Mach of the American Civil Liberties Union, which fought the Christian Educators Association in a 2009 court case over Florida teachers’ religious expression at school. “Decisions about the religious upbringing of children should be left in the hands of parents and families, not public school officials.” 

Others say that there would be outrage if teachers of any other faith were being encouraged to express their beliefs in the classroom, legally or otherwise — particularly at a time when anti- Muslim sentiment is on the rise and some parents have complained that academic lessons about Islam can amount to religious indoctrination.

And that's really the crux of the issue.

These Christian educators believe that THEY are being discriminated against for their religious beliefs, when if there were another religious group using the same devious tactics they would be justifiably horrified.

THAT is why we have the separation of church and state, to protect children from proselytizing from ANY religious group or denomination.

You would think that educators might actually know that.

Ted Cruz's former law professor says that according to Cruz's own interpretation of constitutional law he is disqualified from running for the presidency.

Courtesy of CNN: 

Calling him a "fair weather originalist" and accusing him of "constitutional hypocrisy," Ted Cruz's former law school professor is arguing that the Texas senator's own legal philosophy disqualifies him from serving as president. 

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard whose students include President Barack Obama and Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan, hammered Cruz over questions about his presidential eligibility because of his birth in Canada, which have been raised by Donald Trump and caused headaches for the Calgary-born Texas senator in the Republican primary. 

Appearing on "Anderson Cooper 360" Monday night, Tribe slammed Cruz for his "constitutional hypocrisy." 

He argued that the strict, originalist legal philosophy that Cruz advocates on issues like the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage, and which his potential Supreme Court nominees would likely espouse, should disqualify him from being president. 

"Ironically, the kind of justices he says he wants are the ones that say he's not eligible to run for president," Tribe argued. "This is important because the way this guy plays fast and loose with the Constitution, he's a fair weather originalist."

That's the problem with using the Constitution as a bludgeon, sometimes you're the one that gets kneecapped. 

Ammon Bundy and seven members of his band of merry militia wannabes arrested during Oregon traffic stop. Well except for the one that was shot dead of course. Update!

From top left, booking photographs of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier and Shawna Cox. From bottom left, Ryan Waylen Payne, Joseph Donald O’Shaughnessy and Peter Santilli.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

Ammon Bundy, the leader of an armed seizing of a federal wildlife refuge in rural eastern Oregon, was arrested and one person was killed Tuesday afternoon in a traffic stop in rural Oregon, the F.B.I. and the Oregon State Police said. 

Seven other people, including Mr. Bundy’s brother Ryan Bundy, were arrested, the authorities said. Another person was hospitalized with injuries that were not life-threatening. 

The authorities did not identify the man who was killed, but a member of the Nevada State Assembly, Michele Fiore, who has been a supporter of the Bundy family, said on Twitter that it was LaVoy Finicum. Mr. Finicum had become a de facto spokesman for the occupiers.

The seventh man arrested was that loudmouth Jon Ritzheimer, who claimed in a YouTube video that he could not be with his children because he was too busy standing up for the Constitution.

In fact he got scared and ran home to Arizona: 

“FYI. I came home to AZ to visit my family,” Ritzheimer posted late Tuesday. “The feds know I am here and are charging me with Conspiracy to impede a federal officer. I need an attorney. My family needs help and I am hoping they grant me bail.” 

The FBI issued a statement early Wednesday saying the 32-year-old Ritzheimer had turned himself in and was arrested without incident. 

“Ritzheimer faces one federal felony charge of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation, or threats, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372,” the FBI said in a statement.

You know as a rule I really don't want ANYBODY shot and killed. But I have to admit that if this Ritsheimer guy had gone out in a blaze of "glory" I would not have shed a tear at his demise.

But as it turned out he was just a sniveling coward with a big mouth.

Which should not be news to anyone.

So exactly what was accomplished here?

No seriously I'm asking, WHAT was accomplished here?

Update: Here is Ritzheimer using his children in order to evoke sympathy and convince people to send him money. 

If you are like me it will likely make your blood boil.

So Texas Governor Greg Abbott would like to essentially rewrite the US Constitution. No seriously!

BREAKING: Texas Gov. @GregAbbott_TX is about to announce he’s calling for a Convention of States to pass 9 amendments to the US Constitution

— Brian M. Rosenthal (@brianmrosenthal) January 8, 2016

Here are the nine amendments to the U.S. Constitution that Texas Gov. @GregAbbott_TX is calling for #txlege pic.twitter.com/xbziSVL6Zs

— Brian M. Rosenthal (@brianmrosenthal) January 8, 2016

Courtesy of Slate:

  The first four, the seventh, and the eighth are fairly unremarkable and in line with a lot of conservative rhetoric about federal overreach. The sixth is a little odd, but vague. The fifth and ninth, though, are very specific and completely bonkers. (The ninth calls to mind nullification, one of the Southern concepts that helped bring about the Civil War.) Keep in mind that, given the way population is distributed, a "two-thirds majority" of states wouldn't actually have to include anywhere close to a majority of the country's population. (The combined population of the 34 smallest U.S. states, for instance, is slightly more than 100 million out of a total population of 318 million.) At this very moment, in fact, there are 32 Republican governors and 31 Republican-controlled state legislatures despite the fact that a Republican presidential candidate has only gotten more than 50 percent of the vote once since 1988. (George W. Bush got 50.7 percent in 2004.) 

Abbott's proposal, in other words, could quite easily give a party that was in the minority nationally the ability to veto duly passed congressional legislation and to overturn Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education, destroying the balance of powers and, really, defeating the purpose of having a Congress or a Supreme Court in the first place.

Good job Texas.

Perhaps when it comes time to elect your next governor you might shoot for somebody sane.

Just saying.

President Obama announces gun initiatives in press conference.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

In the first working week of his last calendar year in office, President Barack Obama defied Congress and pursued long-stalled gun control methods through executive action. 

Obama gave a speech on his proposals at the White House on Tuesday, where he was joined by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was shot in the head along with 18 others at a supermarket in Tucson five years ago this week. The president was introduced by Mark Barden, the father of one of the 20 children killed in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. 

Tearing up during his remarks, Obama emphasized a point he's made after the many mass shootings that have occurred during his presidency, saying that America is "the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency." 

"Somehow, we become numb to it and we start thinking, 'This is normal,'" Obama said. 

"Instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates," he added.

You cannot help but hear the pain in the President's voice, or recognize the sadness in his eyes.

You can even see him tear up when he mentions Sandy Hook at the 30 minute mark 

And who can blame him?

After all it seems as if every week he is addressing yet another mass shooting. That is the kind of thing that would destroy a lesser man.

So I hope that he not only gets these guidelines in place, but that the next President is willing to not only support them but to strengthen them as well.

By the way some of those on the other side are already using this to fund raise.

Like Ted Cruz for instance:

Gee nothing histrionic about that!

Just another reminder of why it is so important for Democrats to get out and vote this November.

Justice Antonin Scalia believes that the government should favor the religious over the non-religious.

Courtesy of NOLA: 

Government support for religion is not only justified by the Constitution, it was the norm for hundreds of years and it helped the United States become a free and prosperous nation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday in Metairie. 

Speaking before a small crowd at Archbishop Rummel High School, Scalia delivered a short but provocative speech on religious freedom that saw the conservative Catholic take aim at those who confuse freedom of religion for freedom from it. 

The Constitution's First Amendment protects the free practice of religion and forbids the government from playing favorites among the various sects, Scalia said, but that doesn't mean the government can't favor religion over nonreligion.

 Scalia goes on to suggest that when Thomas Jefferson first invoked the idea of the "wall of separation between church and state," that he did not intend for it to be taken literally since he also mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence, and penned Virginia's religious freedom law.

However it is within that Virginia religious freedom law that Jefferson wrote the following:

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.

You know to me that sounds very much like a man who absolutely does not want special privilege provided to those who profess a faith in any god or adherence to any particular religion.

And that is even before taking into account the Jefferson Bible, where he methodically removed all mentions of miracles and left only the words ascribed to Jesus that he felt reflected his moral teachings.

No Scalia is wrong, dead wrong.

But even if he is right about the "common practice" of Christianity during the time when the country was formed, that time is long past and if we as a nation to not progress past the superstitions and ignorance of our forefathers we will find ourselves left in the dust by the rest of the world.

In fact in many ways, we already have.

North Carolina mayor takes oath of office on copy of Constitution instead of Bible. Baby steps man, baby steps.

Bob Scott, a humanist and AHA member, was sworn in yesterday as Mayor of Franklin, North Carolina. He said, "Last night...

Posted by American Humanist Association on Thursday, December 10, 2015

Courtesy of Progressive Secular Humanist:  

Speaking about taking his oath of office, Scott said: 

"Last night I decided to take my oath holding a copy of the Constitution because there is so much controversy surrounding separation of church and state. I am a firm believer in keeping religion and government separate."

In my opinion EVERY American politician should take their oath of office holding the Constitution.

After all THAT is the document they are swearing to uphold. 

Thank Zeus.

Virginia Republican flyer touts "Christian heritage." Yeah who needs that whole "separation of church and state" rule anyhow?

County GOP ad touts Christian heritage https://t.co/CDX9bHjMqa via @newsleadernow

— wmramsey (@wmramsey) October 29, 2015

Courtesy of the News Leader: 

An ad by the Augusta County Republican Committee touting the need to "Preserve our Christian Heritage" was created to be a reflection of the party's creed, officials say. 

Larry Roller, 87, created the political flier that says, "Preserve our Christian Heritage! VOTE REPUBLICAN" on Nov. 3. The ad ran as an insert in The News Leader Thursday. 

"God is a foundation of our nation," said Roller, of Mount Sidney, who is on the GOP committee. "If you read the histories of our founding fathers, (they say) you should not run for office if you are not a Christian."

The News Leader goes on to point out that in Article VI of the Constitution it states that there will be no religious test for those seeking to hold office in the United States.

This Larry Roller guy, who believe it or not is a former teacher, does not let that change his point of view however:

"They have taken the Ten Commandments out of public places, along with the Pledge of Allegiance and daily prayer out of the schools," he said. "They seem to forget the very first thing they did before writing the Constitution was pray for 3 1/2 hours."

Doesn't this sound suspiciously like the same ideals embraced by white supremacist groups?

Has an answer for that as well:  

Roller said he was aware of supremacy groups using the idea of preserving a Christian heritage when designing the GOP flier, but "just because some people have misused the words does not mean there is anything wrong with using 'Christian heritage.'"

Actually yes, there is.

It essentially excludes every other religious group in the country and suggests that by virtue of their faith, or lack of faith, that they are unfit to serve this nation.

That is antithetical to the values embraced by the Founding Fathers, or espoused in the documents that they created.

However it certainly reflects the thinking, and prejudices, of the Republican party as we know it today.  Doesn't it?

(H/T to Raw Story.)