A Conversation with Mustang

This is the podcast of the broadcast I did with Mustang.

We talked about the first American Civil War that many refer to as the Revolutionary War.

Lexington, Concord, Paul Revere, Sam Adams, et al. with an interesting take on it.

You can listen to it or not. It's a free country.

For now.

So exercise your right to listen! (While you can)

SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

 Late Friday, the SCOTUS ruled that California must allow it's churches to open, but amazingly, allowed the state to restrict activity and attendance.

We discussed the First Amendment on Moment of Clarity Saturday and this topic came up.

Most of my information comes from ScotusBlog, where I often go to get informed on recent rulings.

I'll boil it down for you.

SCOTUS refused to hear cases like this eight months ago.
They heard this one.

Michigan was under similar lockdowns as California last year and my friends William Wagner and David Kallman pursued a suit against Governess Gretchen Whitmer in Federal Court, wherein she caved immediately before a hearing took place. Yet California remained on lockdown.

Of the justices, Thomas and Gorsuch wanted immediate full relief. No limits.
Oddly, Alito wanted 30 days for California to present evidence on limits to attendance and singing(!) but voted for immediate opening.

Barret felt that since the plaintiffs only challenged attendance, limits and restrictions on singing were not argued for, so she didn't opine that they should be lifted. They didn't say "Simon Says".
Kavanaugh was in agreement with her.

Concerning singing and limits, Roberts said “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”, but he felt the churches should open.

So that's six for opening but only 2.5 for no limits on attendance and singing.

Robert's "deference" is reflected in the opinion of the three leftist/progressive/authoritarian justices.

They felt that as Justices, they are not scientists and should defer to the "science" regarding denying the God-given rights of citizens respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I'm just a citizen, but it seems readily apparent to myself and a number of others that "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", such as not allowing chanting or signing, would be, let's see, what's the word..."unconstitutional" comes to mind.

So, thankfully, Donald J Trump appointed three SCOTUS justices who actually knew what the Constitution says.

The "justices" that defer to the "science", and it must be asked "Which science?", are basically admitting that they support an administrative state of technocrats with no restraint by our Constitution.

This should be grounds for their removal from office, but I suggest we wait until after Xi Biden is removed from office, shortly after 2022.

There is another first amendment issue here. The establishment clause should forbid the state from establishing this religion of "science", a faith in a set of outcomes that looks for a source of support.

There are many denominations (sets of belief) of science. Why is the state endorsing one over the other, or any?

The Electoral College

 Yesterday I interviewed Tim Crider, author of  The Electoral College for Patriots and host of theelectoralcollegeforpatriots.com for a discussion of the Electoral College (surprised?) and it's potential ramifications on the upcoming election and the impact election law may have on delayed counting of mail-in ballots. You might be surprised. I was.

https://anchor.fm/your-american-heritage/episodes/Your-American-Heritage-10-30-2020-elrntc

How Would Jesus Vote?

 I just got off the phone with the author of this book:

Jesus Is Involved In Politics!

I'll be interviewing Neil Mammen Saturday.
I thought we'd just be discussing the book, but we'll be talking about the Church in persecution in the United States.
Charlie Kirk will be speaking at his California church Saturday.

Neil's church is facing heavy fines (millions) for remaining open.
I opened a real can of worms talking to him and am looking forward to talking to him more on air and with some of the others that are joined in the defense of our religious liberties he is putting me in touch with.

And if you don't go to church but you are a moral person?
If they take your religious liberties, they'll dictate your moral sensibilities, too.

I left the church I served in for 25 yrs because the pastor was too timid to stand up to the governess.
Even after her anti-church policy had been de-fanged.

I found a church that was/is willing to stand for Liberty.

God wants a people that are Bold and Courageous.

What Has Barr Been Doing?

AG William Barr was interviewed by Catherine Herridge.

Major takeaways:

We've been wondering what Barr has been doing if anything.

Herridge: So this decision to dismiss by the Justice Department, this all came together really within the last week, based on new evidence?

BARR: Right. Well U.S. Attorney Jensen since January has been investigating this. And he reported to me last week.

Herridge: What should Americans take away from your actions in the Flynn case today?

BARR: Well, as I said in my confirmation hearing, one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country. And that the political and that the justice, or the law enforcement process was being used to play political games. And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There's only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn.

...

No, not at all. And, you know, I made clear during my confirmation hearing that I was gonna look into what happened in 2016 and '17. I made that crystal clear. I was very concerned about what happened. I was gonna get to the bottom of it. And that included the treatment of General Flynn.

And that is part of John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham's portfolio. The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case. And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it. But John Durham is still looking at all of this. 

This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct.

This is so heartening. Jensen was looking into this for months.
And it has come to light.

Next up. Durham. I have hope. and reason for it.

Stare Decisis

It's settled law!
It's established precedence!
It's the wisdom of the ages!

Liberals shriek at the thought of overturning Roe versus Wade.

They salivate at the thought of overturning Heller.

The first is based on a made up "right" discovered only relatively recently.

The other based on a right that was written in pain sight.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Necessity of Childhood Vaccinations

There has been much discussion, particularly in social media, over the  necessity of childhood vaccinations. It gets very heated.

One conflict is the concept of personal liberty vs government demands for parents to do something they see as dangerous to their children.

Yet the responsibility of parents to protect their children from vaccination is also counterbalanced by the  responsibility of parents to protect their children from maladies introduced by others.

Maladies that can spread like wildfire through such a closely compacted environment.

The children are forced there to be in close proximity, taking in all that is floating about in the environment we insist they inhabit.

These children have had no prior exposure to these maladies and are therefore very susceptible to them.

Maladies like socialism, communism, collectivism, an unwarranted fear of the climate and the planet conspiring to kill them unless they submit all their personal freedoms to the government.

If you can't home-school or avoid sending your children to a school of your own choice, you must vaccinate your children to protect them.

May I suggest a heavy dose of:
Proverbs 22:6 New King James Version
     Train up a child in the way he should go,
     And when he is old he will not depart from it.
and similar.

On top of that, regular exposure to
     When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
     to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another 
     and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal 
     station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ... 

You must protect them from toxic elements.
If you don't, they might end up like this:

That would be tragic.

Or they might end up like these kids, fearing for their lives from a killer climate.

Come on parents!
Wise up!     Like Spike Lee said: "Do the right thing!". Not the left thing.

Discussing the Disgusting Swalwell

Saturday's Radio Show.
I offer this to the connoisseur's of Talk Radio.
It's a new vintage.
Bold. Bubbly. With a certain edge.

The Bill of Rights. Has the bill come due?

My friend Janice Daniels wrote a piece for  IPatriot about the Bill of Rights.

Were We Right To Write a Bill of Rights?

She poses an interesting question.

Did we open a can of worms when we included the first ten amendments?

In a document that is written to supply limited powers to a federal government, should we have included verbiage that invites lawyers to interpret that verbiage?

I think it's an interesting thought, I don't neccessarily agree with it, but I'm still thinking about it.

Along those lines though, how is it that the First Amendment clearly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And yet we are not allowed to sue an overaggressive prosecutor for a wrongful prosecution?

Wouldn't that suit be a redress of a grievance?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't it have been nice to have the First Amendment phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting..." involved in that protection?

Here's one we haven't worried about, that really is worrisome:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

So basically, if the government write a law that says troops can be quartered in your house during wartime, they can be.

We are still at war with North Korea. 

Got an extra room?

Should we have needed to amend the Constitution at all?
Did we really need a 14th amendment to state the obvious that now gives us anchor babies?

Or the Volstead Amendment? We needed an amendment to make booze illegal?

Maybe Janice was right.