6 Important Reasons I Will Never Support Donald Trump for President

A friend of mine on Facebook recently stated that he’s really starting to like Trump. Specifically he said, 

“Learning more about this man as his campaign develops.

Let me say it like this. I resonate with so much of what he says. Believe it's American and I believe it is on point. We must hunker down on big issues like immigration, nuclear weapons, sanctions on China, jobs, terrorist groups and many other issues.

Side note. Trump is sloppy. He is not a career politician. He is in some ways what we should expect from someone who is on the outside looking in. He wants what so many Americans feel for this country. He loves America!

Trump isn't going to tout the constitution because that is an unspoken for him. It is not the constitution in and of itself that concerns the American people. It's about big issues and how can we make them align with the American values. He's not a constitution martyr.

Side note. I'm not in love with the guy yet but I'm forming arguments that help me understand who is the best for our country. I am in love with his momentum.

Now, take for example, his temperament and the crazy things he says in front of millions of people... If it wasn't for these things would he otherwise be fit for president? Maybe. Maybe not.

What is to be said about defending oneself when your opponent takes a cheap shot at your hands/manhood? Was that presidential? What is presidential?

In my opinion Trump's ideals, how he thinks, aligns with the constitution with what hopefully the American people want deep down.

He went on to more or less to invite people to explain why they disagree. So, friend, here we go. Here is why I strongly disagree with Trump to the point of actively campaigning against him.

1. Actual Trump quote, “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying Merry Christmas again, that I can tell you.” 

I can see and understand why this sounds like a good thing to some people. And I’m someone who likes to always say Merry Christmas. It’s a religious holiday and I treat it as such. But I respect that for the majority of Americans, it’s not a deeply religious holiday. I respect that in order to be more generic and not say the wrong thing to other faiths some people don’t say it. I could shrug off what Trump said as one of his big crowd-pleasing statements that he would never actually make happen, but that’s just the thing. Some of his other statements worry me that he might actually try to pass a law or decree that forces people to say Merry Christmas. And again, I like Merry Christmas. But it’s the forcing anyone to say anything religious that scares me. And the complete and total disregard for freedom of speech.

2. His comments to and regarding Megyn Kelly and other media members.

First, his comments about Megyn Kelly have been downright rude, misogynistic, sexist, and inappropriate. If any other public figure made those comments they would be hung in the public square. But because Trump is his own media circus, and statements like that make a bigger circus, so somehow he gets away with it.

I will say one thing almost in Trump’s defense. I will agree with this one thing he said in his Washington Post Editorial Board panel. “You’ll do a hundred deals, and you’ll do one bad one or two bad ones — that’s all they read about are the bad ones. They don’t read about the one hundred and fifty great ones that you had. And even some of the ones they write that are good, they make them sound bad.”

He’s right. There is an exploitation problem in the 24/7 news cycle. The media does blow things up unnecessarily. (In fact, I’m writing a book about this subject.) But at the same time, I don’t get the impression Trump only had 1 or 2 bad deals. There are too many stories and rumors about lots of bad deals. I don’t trust him to be honest. Ever.

But let’s go back to how he says that when he’s in the Oval Office he wants to limit the media from saying bad things about them. He calls it making them be fair. (And again, I do think the media could be more fair by not exploiting so many stories just to sell papers and fill the airwaves.) But we should never, ever limit or attempt to control the media.

For this reason alone I could never vote for Trump. And why I truly believe he would lead our country to hell in a hand basket faster than you can say gesundheit.

3) He stated that he thinks the number of illegalimmigrants in the United States is “30 million, it could be 34 million.” 
This number is flat out wrong. Horribly wrong. It’s about 11 million.

It’s not that he got the number wrong. It’s that this is a perfect example of how he makes up random facts. He has plenty of money. He could have a well-experienced campaign staff with experience writing speeches and doing research for him. But he doesn’t. He prefers to speak off the cuff, and not use a speechwriter. Some people respect that. My problem with it is that he doesn’t research anything he talks about. He has no problem spouting off about things he has no knowledge of.

(Another perfect example -he doesn’t know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah.

Actual quote –

“[The difference] will [matter] when it’s appropriate,” Trump said. “I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take long.”

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist organization based in the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah is a Shiite Islamist militant group and political party based in Lebanon. Both are avowedly committed to Israel’s destruction.

His ego… “I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take long.” Wow. I’m not impressed with that sort of comment. In fact, it’s a massive turnoff.

He wants to be the most powerful man in the world (or actually probably believes that he is already) and he doesn’t bother to research the issues?? I can’t support that. At. All.

4. To quote the NY Times, “Even more disqualifying is Mr. Trump’s temperament. He is erratic, inconsistent, and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty that manifested itself in how he physically mocked a Times journalist with a disability, ridiculed Senator John McCain for being a POW, made a reference to “blood” intended to degrade a female journalist, and compared one of his opponents to a child molester.”

5. His tendency to say, “I will be the best {insert anything here}.” I don’t understand how or why people believe him when he makes this claim. I can walk around all day telling you that “I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take long” and you would hate me for it. And yet, somehow, there are people who actually believe him and like him for it.

6. I truly believe that despite the fact that he says things like how he’ll uphold the Constitution, his actions speak otherwise, and his knowledge of the Constitution is seriously lacking.

For instance, in January, he said the following on Meet the Press. –

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you. Senator Rubio sponsored a bill back in Florida to give in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. There’s a lot of states that allow in-state tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants. I’ve not heard your position on that.

DONALD TRUMP:

I’m opposed to it.

CHUCK TODD:

Totally opposed?

DONALD TRUMP:

They’re here. They’re not here legally. I’m opposed to it–

CHUCK TODD:

Even kids born to illegal immigrants–

DONALD TRUMP:

Well, I happen to disagree with the whole concept of anchor babies. I mean, you look at anchor babies–

CHUCK TODD:

But that’s in the Constitution.

DONALD TRUMP:

No, it’s not in the Constitution. If you read and if you look, and if you go to the real scholars, like different people that I can give you, they will tell you. Somebody comes over and they have a baby on our border and it happens to be on this side of the border, we’re not mandated to take care of that baby. You do not have to change the Constitution.

You may need a vote in Congress, but you don’t have to change. Now, there’s a, you know, debate about that. I don’t think it’s even close. And I’ve been on this issue for a long time. No, no, people have to come into our country legally, Chuck. They have to be here legally.

Trump was completely wrong.

According to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The vast majority of legal scholars hold the opinion that children of immigrants who are born in the United States are citizens.

Again, it’s when he says things like, “if you go to the real scholars, like different people that I can give you” that I get really worried. If he’s so rich and great, why doesn’t he have actual credible scholars and researchers on his staff?

His position on illegal immigration isn’t even what I’m taking offense with here. (But let it be known, I greatly disagree with him there.) It’s the fact that he wants to be the POTUS and doesn’t understand the 14^th Amendment!!

These are not all of my reasons. But this is already over 1,600 words. So I’ll stop here.

Donald Trump is not a man with the knowledge, temperament, or experience to be the President.

The Right to Choose (and the Consequences That Follow)

Abortion.
You can't have a federal election without bringing it up.
It's been 43 years since Roe v. Wade, and we're still talking about it. Abortion is legal, and has been for a very long time, and yet we are STILL talking about it.
And now I'm going to talk about it too.

The argument that a woman has the right to choose what does or does not happen to her body is a very compelling one. I don't believe there is anyone out there who believes that another individual should dictate what happens to a woman's body.

But it's not just a woman's body, is it? It's the woman and the life she is carrying inside of it.

But let's go back to the right to choose. I don't disagree with it. In fact, that very strong libertarian side of me that hates over-legislating things, wants to say it's none of my business, and let everyone choose.

Until I remember the innocent life on the inside.

But that right to choose. How can you argue with that? How can you argue that a woman must remain pregnant when she doesn't want the baby? It does seem unfair and almost cruel.

Until you remember the atrocity you are going to commit on the tiny body growing inside the woman.

But again, it's her right to choose, isn't it?

It is. She got to choose to sex. She chose to engage in an act that had consequences. She chose to engage in a life-creating act. And she has to live with those consequences.

Life is not fair. Life is often cruel. We make choices all the time, but we rarely get to determine the consequences that follow. Especially when the consequences involve other parties.

Like that little life growing inside of her.

I absolutely believe in a woman's right to choose. But she also has the right to live with the consequences of that decision. And that consequence is that she created a new life. 

(And don't ever tell an adoption advocate, who comes from a family with many adopted members, that it's not fair to make the woman have a baby she didn't want. There will always be someone out there who does what the baby. Always.)

(Isn't it amazing how much money people will spend on a surrogate mother when there are other women out there aborting an unwanted pregnancy?)

As for the tangential arguments around abortion, such as Planned Parenthood. I have no problem admitting that Planned Parenthood does offer several valuable services to low income communities. But in no way, shape, or form, can I ever agree with federal tax dollars being spent to fund abortions. How can anyone justify that the government should be providing that service?

Insurance and birth control - if there is one thing I have learned in my past year of Obamacare nightmares, it is that you can always shop around for a different insurance provider. If the one your employer offers doesn't cover birth control, go get a different plan. And pay for the plan yourself. Because why on earth should anyone else have to pay for you to get birth control? And if you are going to argue that it should be a law that all insurance providers should cover birth control, they should also cover fertility treatments. And while I hate creating lots of laws to legislate every tiny thing, there is one law I would support- pregnancy and maternity leave should absolutely NOT be covered by disability. Since when was a pregnancy a disability? Maternity leave should be covered by all employers and insurance. In fact, I think the US needs to take a page from Denmark, Norway, and a few other countries, and actually pay mothers to take maternity leave. Why can't Social Security also go to mothers out on maternity leave? (And if you believe that the federal government should cover abortions at Planned Parenthood, why can't the federal government pay for the birth, instead of the death, of the baby?)

And one last thing- restrictions on abortions. If you are going to make such a major, drastic choice as to terminate a pregnancy, you should be educated on all of your options, by a qualified individual first. And if the woman is a minor, then, yes, she should have to have parental consent. If she still has to have a permission slip signed by her parents to ride the school bus, she should also have to have their permission to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see teenage girls forced into pregnancies they don't want. So let's provide real sex education that isn't just about diseases and abstinence. (Although, let's face it, abstinence is a highly effective form of birth control.)

I am all for a woman's right to chose, and to live with the consequences. Which does mean that if her choice was taken from her, and she was forced into sex (rape, incest, abusers), then I have no problem with allowing that abortion. And if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, the mother has the right to chose between her own life and the life of the child. 

California Passes Law to Allow Non-Citizens to Serve on Juries

In italics: the Associated Press report. 

In normal font: my [incredulous] thoughts

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

What the heck?? WHY??? 

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

Does not change other criteria? It change the most important and significant criteria!!! YOU HAVE TO BE AN AMERICAN!!

 

From the California Courts official website: (written prior to the new law being passed)

California law says you are qualified to be a juror if you:

• Are a U.S. citizen
• Are at least 18 years old
• Can understand English enough to understand and discuss the case
• Are a resident of the county that sent you the jury summons
• Have not served on a jury in the last 12 months
• Are not currently on a grand jury or on another trial jury
• Are not under a conservatorship
• Have had your civil rights restored if you were convicted of a felony or malfeasance while holding public office

No one is exempt because of his or her job, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or economic status. If you are qualified, please follow the directions on your summons and call in or report as instructed. You will receive additional information when you report for service. Even if you are qualified to be a juror, you might still have what is called an "undue hardship." An undue hardship is a difficult situation that prevents you from being able to serve. If you face an undue hardship, you may be able to be excused from jury service or postpone service.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat - Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced - voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.

No correlation between being a citizen or a juror? Jury duty has always been considered a patriotic duty!!!

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."

Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.

Note to the AP: those two paragraphs would have made more sense in reverse order. 

But I digress. 

"high rates of non-participation"

So launch a freaking marketing campaign encouraging patriotism, civic duty, and the importance of a fair and just trial!!

It will be a lot cheaper than the lawsuits you are going to get down the road when people start appealing that their jury was not American or their peers!

A 2007 survey by the Center for Jury Studies said 20 percent of courts across the country reported a failure to respond or failure to appear rate of 15 percent or higher. The center is run by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based nonprofit dedicated to improving court systems.

It's not clear, however, if that rate translates to a shortage of jurors in California.

Sigh. 

 

Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.

"This isn't about affording someone who would come in as a juror something," Perez said. "But rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom."

Keeping women (or any minority race for that matter) off of juries was about discrimination and unequal rights.  Not including non-Americans on juries is not discrimination! We're talking about a court system designed to uphold the Constitution! 

I will be reasonable here and try to see the other side of this argument. If it is an area that is heavy on immigrants, and the basis for our jury system is a trial of our peers, I can almost see the argument for it. And although the AP says nothing of it, I will assume the law made a point to allow LEGAL immigrants. (I'm sure a few people will read it and jump to illegal immigrants, just like I did, out of habit.) 

Legal, long-term immigrants, are (if they choose to be) very much a part of the community, and in most cases "peers." Especially in states like California. 

 

An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.

In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.

 
Some details on immigrant numbers in the U.S. and California.
"The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000." (Source: Center for Immigration Studies)
"We estimate that 28 percent of all immigrants are in the country illegally. Roughly half of Mexican and Central American and one-third of South American immigrants are here illegally." (SOURCE: CIS)

Source: http://cis.org/sites/default/files/2012-profile-t1.jpg)

 California had 227,876 immigrants become LEGAL permanent residents in 2009.  (Source: California Watch)

I can almost talk myself into this idea that legal immigrants, especially if they are long-term permanent residents, should be on a jury. (Note use of terminology here. I said SHOULD, not could. I am sure many could, in the sense that they have the requisite familiarity of the laws.)

But then I think of Amanda Knox and her trial in Italy.
What if Italy's laws allowed for non-Italians to serve on juries? Her whole family, plus you and me, could all move there, become permanent residents, make sure we live in the right jurisdiction, and hope to be put on her jury! All just to make sure she gets off!
The thought is preposterous, right? Americans serving on Italian juries? Even if a long-term, legal resident there, we don't expect it to happen. 

Okay, so maybe that's not the most applicable example.

Here is a more realistic one-
Illegal immigrants in certain neighborhoods commit a lot of certain types of crimes. (Don't try and argue that I'm being racist or biased here. We all know that crime is much higher among illegals.) In fact, in a small neighborhood in Southern California, it is not completely out of the realm of realistic possibility that the criminal court docket will have a large number of cases involving young, illegal immigrants.
What if a very large group of sympathetic legal immigrants made it a point to live in that same area?
Oh wait, they probably already do.
But here's the thing, now they have motivation for doing so. And not just local Californians, but anywhere across the U.S. If you want to really make a difference in culture and laws, the court system is the way to do it. So why not start suddenly congregating large groups in an area where they can make a difference on juries?
And I'm not trying to imply that all immigrants will be naturally sympathetic to illegal immigrants. (In fact, I think they may have more reason to be biased against each other than other demographics.)
Not all immigrants are from the same country. Legal immigrants come from all over the world all the time. And I welcome that! I am fine with that! (All thoughts of the Boston Bomb Brothers aside.)
But! Can immigrants on a jury uphold the U.S. Constitution and not hold a defendant to the standards of "the old country?" This is my sticking point, right here. Can immigrants, who may or may not be interested in becoming citizens (it is a long process and many legal residents may be interested in becoming citizens and just are not there yet), be expected to not allow for prejudices from previous cultures to influence their decisions?
I realize it is biased to say that they cannot. But! I really have to believe that. How can they look at someone from their own country, on trial in a different country, and not give some allowances for previous culture, while enforcing the current one?
I am a die-hard, red-blooded, patriotic American and defender of the Constitution. I just cannot stomach or accept the idea that a non-American has the right to judge me in a court of law. The court system is based on an American document. It should be defended by actual Americans!
Is this just a case where we need to open our minds to the idea of change? Would it be so bad if immigrant (legal or illegal) defendants had someone on the jury from a different country (their own or otherwise)? Does it make it a more legitimate jury of peers?
But I can't help but come back to the reverse thought- would I expect foreigners to serve on juries in other countries?
I feel that there are 2 sides to my response. The one that sounds a little prejudiced and biased against immigrants, although I truly do not mean to be so. I have no problem with foreign born residents! I welcome it! I love diversity! But am I biased in thinking that their previous culture will color their ability to serve on a jury? Am I wrong to think so?
I really have to keep thinking on that. Because I do feel that maybe there is some unjust discrimination in that way of thinking.
(It hearkens to the old idea that women were not capable of serving on juries because of their natures.)
But I absolutely cannot let go of the idea of anyone but an American serving on an American jury! It just doesn't work! I can't accept it. If I am to be held accountable to the laws of this country, I expect to be judged by the citizens of this country.
The end.

Firearms, Gun Control, and the Second Amendment

My first real job out of college was for a homeless shelter for teens in Houston, Texas. At that point in time my professional ambition was to plan fancy fundraising events for the most deserving of charities. I worked there just short of one year before I moved back to my home state of Virginia. It was then and there that I got a job interview through a recruiter with "one of the oldest and biggest non-profits" in the U.S. I was shocked to find out that non-profit was the National Rifle Association. The job description sounded good, the company's location was ideal, and I had nothing against the NRA, so I went to the interview.

I wasn't a fit for the position in their charitable wing, but was referred upstairs to a different "event planning" position. I got the job- a trade show and special events planning position in the membership division. It was a fateful turn in my career path- one that would almost always include guns. 

At the time I was hired I had never held a real gun before. I had held a few BB guns, and shot them at tin cans on a fence in a field in Mississippi. But I had never seen a gun range, let alone fired a real weapon. I was a Republican with a Southern upbringing, and that was enough to convince me (and the people that hired me) that I was in favor of the Second Amendment. But to be honest, I had never really thought much about it.

I didn't work at the NRA for long before someone took me down to the range, enrolled me in the range and firearms safety class, put a .22 pistol in my hand, and taught me how to shoot. "Punching holes in paper." It didn't take long for me to discover two things- I was a natural shot, and I really liked when things go bang.

I've never had an inclination to go hunting, nor do I expect I ever will. (Although I wouldn't mind removing one or two raccoons from the population behind my house.) But the range has always held a certain appeal for me. It takes skill, discipline, and focus to get a bull's eye. Just like an NBA player isn't guaranteed every free throw, or Tiger Woods a hole in one, shooting at a target doesn't always mean a perfect shot.

I left the NRA after a while and moved on to other (event planning) jobs, just to end up working at Beretta USA a few years later. Beretta is one of the largest firearms manufacturers in the world. I worked in the law enforcement and defense division, where we sold large numbers of firearms and parts to police and military.

While I worked at both organizations I dreaded telling new acquaintances, or even strangers, where I worked. Rarely was my employer's name met with neutrality; it was always met with a heavily biased response, whether positive or negative. I was called a "babykiller" more times than I can count. If the new person was pro-firearms, I was almost always asked what kind of guns I owned. Or I was subjected to the person's testimony of the Second Amendment, and a list of their favorite weapons.

First Amendment Rights

Unless you have been living under a rock this past week (and sometimes I wish I was), you know that the hot political topic has been a chicken restaurant and same-sex marriage.  Or, depending on how you skew, the topic was religious liberty and the freedom of speech versus gay marriage. 

I wrote an article on the subject for Meridian Magazine. I posted a link to it on Facebook. I requested a polite dialogue. I was not surprised when insults of bigotry and hate popped up. If there is one thing we are incapable of in this country it is polite discourse on any political issue. And if there is anything we love to ironically debate, it is who has the right to exercise free speech. 

One issue that was repeatedly brought up in response to the religious liberty debate was a protested mosque in New York City. (Sidenote: this was an issue thrown in the face of anyone who defended Chick-fil-A in terms of right to free speech and religious liberty. I'm not saying there weren't plenty of other issues. I just want to address this one momentarily.) I cannot speak for all who defended religious liberty this week, nor do I pretend to. But I do want to take a moment to share my own thoughts on the subject. 

I support all religions. I might even support orthodox religions a little bit more, just for being willing to not bend to popular sentiments. I have no problem with a mosque being built anywhere. I want to see them in more prominent locations- out front, more obvious, less hidden. To use a very Christian phrase, "Don't hide your light under a bushel." Mosques should not have to be built away from busy areas because people are uncomfortable with them. Build them where they can be seen and better frequented by their members. I support all religions. 

But the mosque in NYC was a different story. They wanted to build it too close to the grounds of 9/11. I have no problems with a mosque. But it is (was) too soon and too close to 9/11. It essentially was just in bad taste. 

I appreciate that not all Muslims supported the al-Qaeda attacks, and should not be punished as such. But I do not believe there has been enough healing yet for complete understanding and acceptance. The mosque is welcome, but it would be nice if the individuals wishing to build it would be more sensitive to location.

Religious liberty may be one of the most misunderstood freedoms Americans enjoy. Individuals who are not religious often see other people's religious beliefs as a threat. As someone who grew up in a very misunderstood religion, it has taken me many years to understand how we are viewed. I know [far too] many religious people who carry a chip on their shoulder that they are always so misunderstood. This often comes with a "we're right, they're wrong, they know it, so they dislike us even more" mentality.  The biggest problem with this way of thinking is not a lack of Christian love or compassion, but a healthy dose of self-awareness and the ability to see things from another's point of view. 

Amendment I of the United States Constitution:

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.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It is no accident that the freedom of speech and the freedom to exercise religion are intertwined in the Constitution. They are, in fact, inseparable, as is the right to peacefully assemble. No one can tell us what we can or cannot talk about when we gather as groups. In this light, there is little difference between the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 

I personally am not opposed to same-sex marriage. I have no problem with "gay rights," as we call them. I do not believe we should discriminate against anyone for any reason. 

But I supported the Chick-fil-A appreciation day because I fear the loss of religious liberty. 

Allow me to explain.

That same right to speak freely and have an opinion is so intertwined with religious freedom, that to begin to suffocate, or discriminate against, the right to exercise religion, will quickly impede on the right to free speech. To legislate, rule, or otherwise declare, what can or can't be done by a church, is no different than any other group or individuals in this country.

It may be hard for some to see at first, but the more you value freedom of speech (which does tend to be the more liberal base), the more you must protect the freedom of religion (the more conservative base). One is needed to preserve the other, and vice versa.

The right and/or ability to say what you want without threat of prosecution is the same as the right and/or ability to worship or gather as you please without threat of prosecution. In my humble opinion, those who do not see the difference believe and/or are threatened by the idea that religious people force their beliefs on others. 

And that is what brings us back to the persecution of the "religious right" by the backers of free speech in this country.

It is not popular to voice a conservative opinion. The CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy's defense of traditional marriage and Christian faith have earned a backlash of hate and criticism from different communities. Cities including Chicago, Boston, Washington, DC, and Philadephia, and the elected leadership at the helm of those cities, have made it clear they will prevent Mr. Cathy's restaurants from opening new outlets in their boundaries.

Stop and turn that around. If a conservative elected leader announced that he would do everything possible to block a Ben and Jerry's from building an establishment in his city because they support gay marriage, what would happen?

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel said, “Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”

I have to ask the question, I believe the situation begs for it. How long until cities start protesting churches from purchasing land and putting up new buildings because the church has conservative values or does not permit same-sex marriages? How long until Mayor Emmanuel decides that religious values are not Chicago values and proceeds to block churches from building? How much longer until it is required of churches to grant same-sex marriages, or be penalized or blocked from operating?

Teachers, parents, and professors have reminded generations of neophytes that you may have the right to say something, but that does not mean anyone has to like it. Defenders of gay marriage need to be reminded that we all have the right to express ourselves. If the good people of Chicago (and Boston, Philadelphia, and others) agree with their mayor(s) that they do not want Chick-fil-A in their neighborhoods because the fast-food chain does not share its values (may I remind everyone how often “blue” establishments are run out of towns for the same exact reasons, and it is a protected right under “redress of grievances”), that is their right. But the government (mayor) itself does not have the right to stop anyone, be it a church, or a chicken sandwich retailer, based on political or religious differences. The people have the right to an opinion and to speak it. The government does not have the right to decide what opinions the people may have.

Defenders of traditional marriage, and those who liberally defend same-sex rights under the First Amendment must find a way to respect each other's beliefs. To tear each other down by exercising the same right they are protesting, they will find themselves all without the rights that they need. 

Same-sex Marriage vs Religious Freedom

Today in Meridian Magazine I ask the question, how long will it be before advocates force a discussion on which "right" is more important- the right to same-sex marriage or the freedom to exercise religion?

At first glance the question may seem outlandish and extremist to those who have not closely followed the issues. But the truth is, we may be asking that question within the next year.

Normally I do not like to make statements such as, "If we get four more years of Obama we'll never..." But this is an exception to that rule. If President Obama is re-elected, it is very possible that there will be a religion versus sexual orientation debate in the near future.

The Democratic National Committee drafting committee voted unanimously on Sunday to include same-sex marriage on the party platform. Despite the excitement from same-sex marriage supporters, the vote still has to be approved by the full DNC platform committee in two weeks, and then be voted in by convention delegates in Charlotte before the plank officially becomes part of the platform.

“There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform, which I supported, but everybody was for it,” committee member Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the Washington Blade.

In addition to support for same-sex marriage rights, the proposal included provisions that rebuke the Defense of Marriage Act and affirm the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The specific language remains under wraps.

Needless to say, if Governor Romney wins, these issues will get discussed, but not at the same level as if President Obama wins. Same-sex marriage is not a plank in the Republican platform.

Help Put Good Conservative Values into Mainstream Fiction

DONATE TO THIS CAMPAIGN TO PUT CONSERVATIVE VALUES INTO MAINSTREAM FICTION!

When was the last time you read a mainstream book where good people didn't have to compromise their values in order to succeed? Where strong family values played a key role? Where a woman didn't have to change who she is in order to get the man?
If you are ready for a strong female main character who comes from a good family, honors her parents, stands up for what is right, and doesn't compromise what she believes in order to succeed, then this is the book for you! We need funding for a trilogy of books that embraces (not disgraces) conservative principles, family values, good religious morals, and makes you believe in family, friendship, love, and the American Dream.
Tee-totaling, conservative Republican, (and virgin), Haley McAdams has been called a lot of things in her life--naïve, innocent, sheltered, old maid--but none of them are true. After surviving a Congressional investigation into her employer, serving as a rescue worker in Haiti, volunteering at the fire department, and enduring two years of unemployment, she has seen more of the real world than most people. She is anything but naïve, innocent, or sheltered. But at 35 and single, she may very well die an old maid.
One day she literally falls into the path of America's Favorite News Reporter, Camden Morrison, and her life hasn't been the same since. She gets caught up in a political scandal that threatens to ruin a presidency while taking both her career and that of her new boyfriend to new level. Will she succumb to the temptations fame, fortune, and the power of success? Or stay true to the beliefs she was raised with?
Her life may appear to be enviable to outsiders, but she quickly learns dating a famous face isn't easy in the age of social media. Not to mention, it takes hard work to keep her career trajectory going upward. And she doesn't want anyone to think she got there because of her famous boyfriend.
Life isn't easy at the top. The exhaustive demands on her time from her family, best friend, job, her second job, and her boyfriend take their toll on Haley. Suddenly she has to ask herself some very big questions. Can she keep her rich and famous boyfriend happy without sex? How much money is enough money to justify operating in the gray areas if it helps other people? And what if those lessons her parents taught her are old-fashioned? Is it time to move on and leave the past behind?
Haley learns a lot about tough decisions and standing up for what she believes in throughout this journey of love, friendship, and hard work.
The writing of this book has been completed. Funding is needed to assist with the final stages of publishing, including hiring an editor, book cover design, procuring an ISBN, etc. With your assistance it will be available for sale within 2-3 more weeks of the end of this campaign.

Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!

And the backlash begins...

Does the President have the authority and ability to completely bypass Congress to do whatever he wants to do?

Not according to the Constitution- that he has sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend."

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his Constitutional duties.

That's a little gem from former Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo, a liberal, by the way, in today's National Review.

"It's the right thing to do" is not a valid reason to completely ignore the Constitution and bypass Congress.  No matter how 'feel good' it is, and no matter how many votes it gets you from a much needed voting bloc.

Of course, President Obama has had no problem not upholding his Oath of Office on more than one occasion, hasn't he? Jennifer Rubin does a great job of outlining his misdeeds in the Washington Post today.

Here's a few statements from some of the elected legislators that President Obama chose to ignore with his new directive-

U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA-07)
“America is a beacon of freedom in the world and it is no wonder that hundreds of thousands of people each year apply to complete the legal and proper steps to become citizens or permanent residents of this amazing land.  After all, who wouldn’t want to raise their family in the land of opportunity and under the rule of law?  Unfortunately, President Obama’s decision to cease the deportation of potentially millions of illegal immigrants and instead grant them legal work permits—while millions of legal U.S. residents remain unemployed and unable to find work—undermines both the rule of law and the economic opportunity that is America.”
“As of 2011, more than 13.7 million U.S. citizens were unemployed, and today our national unemployment levels remain disappointingly high at 8.2 percent.  How can the President and his Administration offer the few American jobs that are available to those who have come to America illegally rather than those U.S. citizens who have always paid their taxes and played by the rules?”
“With today’s decree, President Obama demonstrates the same contempt for America’s laws that those who enter illegally do.  He is undermining the balance of power laid out by the U.S. Constitution, going far beyond his power within the Executive Branch and advancing his election-year politics at the expense of the American economy and the American people’s trust.”
“I am tremendously proud of America’s history as a nation of immigrants, and I am committed to continuing and improving the legal avenues that allow another generation of legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens.  But, as every new American citizen knows, we are a nation of laws, and the U.S. Constitution extends lawmaking power to Congress and Congress alone.  This executive power grab—whether proposed by President Obama, President Romney, or President Reagan—is an unconstitutional act, and I will fight it with every tool at my disposal.”

U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa., and Chairman of the Immigration Caucus

Since he delivered the State of the Union address in January, President Obama has often spoken about “fairness” and how “everyone should play by the same rules.”

Those buzzwords have become a mantra of his policies and his re-election campaign.

But on Friday, President Obama unilaterally changed the rules regarding amnesty for at least 800,000 illegal aliens – though some estimates put the number of those affected in the millions –and he discarded any pretense of acting fairly.


President Obama says his administration will not deport illegal aliens under the age of 30 if they meet certain criteria. Those illegal aliens will be allowed to apply for two-year work permits that can be renewed indefinitely.


Thanks to President Obama, some illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking American immigration laws with federal permission to stay in the United States permanently.


That is de facto amnesty.


The president not only ignored the will of Congress, which has wisely and repeatedly refused to grant such amnesty, and the separation of powers enumerated in the United States Constitution, he changed the rules and unfairly punished American citizens and those who are legally in this country.


President Obama’s amnesty announcement directly hurts:


* American citizens and legal immigrants who are looking for work. The national unemployment rate has been over 8 percent for the last 40 months, yet President Obama’s decision lets at least 800,000 illegal aliens compete for very scarce jobs. About 15 percent of American workers are unemployed or underemployed; now, they face a tougher challenge to find work because of President Obama’s amnesty announcement;* Young Americans and young legal immigrants applying for college, scholarships, and financial aid. At least 800,000 illegal aliens can now compete for college admission spots, college scholarships, student loans, and federal and state grants;
* Would-be legal immigrants, who have been patiently waiting – playing by the rules, President Obama might say – to enter the United States to live, study, and work. Now, they see that lawbreakers are rewarded for their brazenness, while they wait to enter the United States through the front door;
* Law enforcement officials, who will face an uptick in fraudulent documentation, as illegal aliens who do not meet President Obama’s new criteria will create or purchase fake paperwork that will get them work permits and de facto amnesty;
* Those who actually believe in fairness and the rule of law, who should be offended by President Obama’s blatantly political amnesty announcement. It would seem the president agrees, or did agree. During a town hall meeting in March 2011, he said, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that.” But that was 2011, and this is an election year, so the president chose to ignore his obligation.
* The U.S. Constitution, which is damaged by President Obama’s deliberate contravention of the role of Congress in making laws. During that same town hall meeting, the president said, “Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”


So it’s clear that President Obama understands – or understood, in March 2011 – his role and the role of Congress and the courts in setting and enforcing American immigration policy. Yet on Friday, he decided to ignore those roles.


Constitutional experts across the political spectrum say President Obama has dangerously expanded the use executive power since he took office by bypassing Congress and unilaterally altering federal drug enforcement, No Child Left Behind standards, Internet gambling policies, and more. Now, he adds immigration policy to that list – despite his public statements 15 months ago.


It is clear to me that President Obama not only overstepped his constitutional authority, but he acted with the knowledge he does not have that authority in the first place.


While I hope President Obama carefully reconsiders and reverses his position, I understand he will not in an election year.


I sincerely hope the next President of the United States strictly enforces all of our existing immigration laws.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ):
“Immigration reform is an important and complex issue that deserves a debate among the American people and in Congress. The announcement by President Obama is a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system. Further, I find it interesting that after promising to enact comprehensive reform in the first year of his Presidency, the President chose to make this announcement in the middle of his heated re-election campaign. Rather than unilaterally deciding for the American people what they want and how they believe this problem should be addressed, I encourage the President and his Administration to finally reach out to Congress and propose legislation on this important issue.”

U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
“Today’s politically motivated announcement from the Obama Administration that it is going to immediately stop deporting illegal immigrants who came to this country and instead grant them work permits is an outrageous abuse of power by the Executive Branch.  With this announcement President Obama has completely bypassed the Congress, which is charged with writing our immigration laws, in order to grant possible amnesty to many illegal immigrants. This policy shift is in direct conflict with the law of our land.
Not only do I believe President Obama lacks the authority to make such a change to our immigration laws but I find it particularly egregious that he would want to hand out work permits to nearly 1 million illegal immigrants when many Americans are struggling to find work themselves.
America is a land of great opportunity and promise.  Our nation was founded by those who sought a better life and our strength and diversity come from our immigrant heritage.  However, our nation was also founded upon a set of principles, among them the rule of law and fairness and today’s announcement by the Obama Administration is contrary to these very principles.”   

Rick Santorum on Separation of Church and State

Former senator Rick Santorum has done it again. He's taken his inability to separate his politics from his religious beliefs to a whole new level. Last October he addressed an audience at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., where he brought up J.F.K.’s famous 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. (link will take you to full transcript of JFK speech) At the time Santorum said, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”
When Kennedy gave that speech there was a great deal of concern during the campaign season that he would be taking orders from the Vatican, or forcing Catholicism on all Americans. The speech was a major turning point in his campaign, thanks in large part to the following quote. 

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

It is a little shocking that Santorum is choosing to insult the speech, rather than echo it.

On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement last year. Santorum's response-

“The first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, ‘I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’ I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

Even when referencing a famous historical speech, Santorum has a frightening habit of taking things out of context, inserting new meaning, and acting upon it. Santorum went on to say that the First Amendment

“says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960... To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

Woah, wait, where did Kennedy say he would not consult with people of faith? 
To say that Kennedy was saying that people of faith have no role in the public square is an extreme stretch. What Kennedy did say was, "where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials;"

Whether conservative or liberal, Kennedy's speech is enlightened and inspiring, unless your intent and belief is that church's should have more power over the government. There is nothing in the speech that indicates that religious beliefs should be withheld from voters or activists. In fact, Kennedy bravely remarks,

"But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." 

It does not blatantly say that he would choose to follow his religious beliefs over politics, but it does allow one to interpret that he may do so, and vice versa.
It is bothersome that Santorum would find this speech so offensive and disgusting. It leaves one to question his own motives and approach, especially in light of Mitt Romney's 2008 speech that addressed religion. (full text of Romney Religion Speech). Romney's speech was compared many times to the Kennedy speech. Santorum's comments and lack of further clarification leave just enough room open for interpretation as to leave one wondering if he would put his religious ideals above the interests of the country. Or does he not see a situation where his religious beliefs may not be in the best interest of the country?
In his speech, Romney said,

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

Perhaps it is time for Santorum to either come out and say that yes, he is completely governed by his religious beliefs, or not. He alone has brought his religion into the campaign, and it is time for him to make it clear where he stands on the separation of church and state. Is his ultimate goal to bring in so many of his own religious and moral beliefs that the church would lead the state?

Arguments about religious freedom

Vatican Museum (open source photo)

Exactly what does separation of church and state involve? Keeping religious preferences out of politics? Keeping religious preferences out of government? Keeping religious doctrines out of public moral issues? All of the above? None of the above? And when does it include keeping the government out of religion? 
Right now all religious freedom is being threatened by both state and federal governments forcing churches to offer services that are not in alignment with their teachings. For instance, Catholic social agencies are being forced to either shut their doors or allow same-sex couples to foster or adopt. All feelings about same-sex couples and marriages aside, this is a complete violation of the separation of church and state.
The same thing is happening to Catholic Church owned hospitals- offer abortions and birth control or risk getting shut down! And another instance is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Office of Migration and Refugee Services was denied federal funding for its highly regarded services that aid trafficking victims, after the Department of Health and Human Services stressed a preference for grantees that provide family-planning services. Did you catch that- a US federal agency prefers to give money to organizations that provide birth control and abortions. 
The current state of federal legislation is to support organizations that represent a more liberal agenda and to penalize organizations and churches that do not. Those who are happy with a more liberal agenda will praise this and call it a good separation of church and state. But really it is the equivalent of reverse affirmative action [where preference for minorities hurts the majority]. We work so hard to keep religious beliefs out of government that the legislation now favors anti-religious behavior and activities. 
I don't agree with this at all. It will be interesting to see if someday the world becomes so jaded against religion, that we completely kill it, before finally coming full circle with it and begin to protect religious liberties again. 


To read the pending legislation regarding religious liberties - 
House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution
Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), (recently approved by the House and Senate in a bipartisan vote) (Also read, GOP Abortion bill passes House)
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361) 
and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).

Sources:
Bishop Lori to Congress: Respect Religious Freedom

Archbishop Chaput: Religious Freedom Should be an Election Year Issue