How to Proceed Now?

I should warn that this post may ramble a bit as I am still trying personally to get my arms around what my response should be to Friday’s gay marriage judicial coup.  And not just what my response should be, but the response of states, churches, religious institutions, and all citizens because the ruling undercut the constitutional rights of all of these.

And yet the responses of all these should not all be the same.  For one thing, states are not churches.  Yes, I love Texas, but it is not a church.

Also, there is a difference between what an entity has the right to do and what would be wise to do.  My initial response was that states should defy this ruling.  And states most definitely have the right to refuse to give away their rights under the Constitution.   But now I am not so sure defiance is the wise way to proceed.

If states do attempt to defy or even nullify this ruling, they should beware that it will be misinterpreted as being homophobic (Yes, I hate that word but anyway.…).  The Democrat News Media will be only too eager to portray it as a repeat of the Southern defiance of the 50’s and 60’s.  At the least, state defiance would not unify.  It would further polarize and divide the country and defiant states would likely be on the politically losing side of the divide.

I say this with some reluctance as the lack of defiance of judicial coups such as this one and Roe v Wade enable judicial tyranny.  But I suspect there is a better way at this time.

As much as I hate to agree with establishment Republicans*, I think a better and wiser way for states and concerned public officials to proceed is to buttress protections of freedom of religion.

*(I do think the words of establishment Republicans such as Lindsey Graham and John Kasich advocating protections of freedom of religion are just words.  When the time comes for real action, they will fold like a cheap tent.  See Indiana.)

Although rolling back judicial tyranny is vital, that is a long-term project that cannot be done tomorrow.  But measures to protect freedom of religion can be taken up and passed relatively quickly . . . and should be passed quickly given that attacks on religious freedom have already begun.

Yes, there will be resistance to these measures and vetoes even, but that may be good in the long run.  For the fight for freedom of religion is one that can be won politically.

Although it is questionable whether a majority of Americans really support freedom of religion anymore, it is certain that, say, at least 35 to 40% do so and strongly.  And if the issue is presented to them effectively, they would willing to turn against those opposing freedom of religion.  Yes, I think this could pry many votes from the Democrats and even a few from those who support gay marriage and motivate the conservative base to turn out.

Perhaps that seems optimistic now.  But I expect events will strengthen and motivate support for religious freedom.  There will be more and more attacks on freedom of religion as Pink Shirts and other assorted Leftists attempt to punish those who do not submit to the new gay marriage regime.  Lawsuits against businesses and churches will multiply.  Some governments and regulatory bodies will also demand submission or else, regardless of deeply held religious convictions.  As the heretofore scattered attacks on religious freedom become numerous, more people will be appalled and angered and will see the need to protect freedom of religion.

Think about where this issue would then put someone like Hillary Clinton.  She would have a choice between enraging the Leftist base of the Democrat Party by supporting measures to defend freedom of religion or between enraging Middle American by opposing freedom of religion and not taking up for those under attack.  (By her past record, I think she will choose the latter.)

IF Republicans are not cowards on freedom of religion, they could put Democrats in a bad place.  Yes, that is a big “if”.  A lot will depend on whom they nominate for President.  A Scott Walker would be willing to fight for freedom of religion and lead the GOP in doing so.  A Jeb Bush?  Not so much.

But in short, defending freedom of religion is an issue on which we can succeed – and the need for success here is urgent.

Yes, I have rambled as I warned.  But I think defending freedom of religion is both more urgent and politically wiser than direct defiance of the Supreme Court ruling.  And it could turn out to be a more effective way of eventually rolling back judicial tyranny as defeating Democrats (and establishment Republicans) is necessary to bring that about.

It at least is worth a try, is it not? 

Of course, I am also thinking about how churches and Christians should respond in the non-political sphere.  But this post is too long already.

What the Supreme Court Did Not Say

As if what the Supreme Court said last week in its same-sex marriage ruling is not alarming enough for those concerned about freedom of religion, what it did not say is downright chilling.  Note well this passage from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Well, how gracious is Our Overlord Kennedy that he allows us backwards bigots Christians to “advocate” and “teach” against gay marriage.

But - and I pray this does not bring upon this humble subject the wrath of Our Overlord - there is something he did not say.  Kennedy said nothing about protecting the practice of freedom of religion, particularly about refusing to participate in a gay marriage.  And that when the above passage was an obvious opportunity so to do.

Oh, but you can “advocate” and complain all you want about your subjugation, bigots . . . for now.

It at least used to be in the United States that you (with narrow exceptions) had the constitutionally protected freedom to practice one’s religion.  Will it be so in the very near future?

Justice Roberts noticed Kennedy’s omission as well.

The majority graciously [Snicker – Ed.] suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

That is a lawyerly understatement. 

More can be said and will be said as attacks on freedom of religion inevitably increase.  But mark what the Supreme Court majority did not say and prepare.

“Judicial Putsch”

As quickly as possible, I want to join in condemning the tyrannical ruling of the Supreme Court this morning on same-sex marriage.  It is a judicial coup against constitutional democracy the likes of which we have not seen since Roe v Wade.

It cries out for resistance and nullification not because of the issue of same-sex marriage (If people of various states decide to recognize gay marriage through a democratic process, that is their political and constitutional right.), but because of the importance of constitutional democratic self-rule.  I have therefore already called on Governor Abbott to resist and defy this ruling.

Justice Scalia’s dissent says it better than I can and is one for the ages.  Justice Scalia on this morning’s “judicial putsch”:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance….

So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar- riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves….

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of mar- riage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ” One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….

And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

II

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic… The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.” With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

----

Indeed, the Supreme Court with this ruling is asking for a Constitutional crisis, and one it is not guaranteed to win.

But, more likely, we have lost that much more of our constitutional republic – and that to cheers.

An Encouraging Poll on Same-Sex Marriage

I was tempted to add “for a change” in the headline.  Polls in recent years have not been encouraging to those of us who support traditional marriage.

But YouGov has a poll out that indicates that Americans do not favor making gay marriage a Constitutional right.  Yes, almost 50% think same-sex marriage should be legal.  But the numbers shrink markedly when people are asked whether the Supreme Court should make it a Constitutional right.  A plurality of 43% say SCOTUS “should not rule same sex marriage is a constitutional right.”

I am heartened that there are thinking people out there who see there is a difference between legalizing gay marriage by democratic means and a Supreme Court ruling overturning democratic processes and legalizing gay marriage in all fifty states by judicial fiat, and that claiming the Constitution requires such a judicial coup. 

The likely SCOTUS ruling doing just that may not be as well received as anticipated. 

Immigration Non-enforcement: Obama Has Blood on His Hands

When I first read of this, I thought it was gross negligence.  Now that I’ve read more, I think it is much worse - criminal negligence, impeachable negligence:

One hundred twenty-one convicted criminals who faced deportation orders between 2010 and 2014 were never removed from the country and now face murder charges, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Just to be clear, these were convicted criminals, in ICE custody, who had been ordered deported but were instead released back into U.S. communities, and then went on to murder Americans. Most were released simply because the administration didn’t want to detain them. Only for two dozen does the administration have any excuse at all, saying that they had to be released because their home countries wouldn’t take them back. And even that’s no excuse . . .

Do read more, but be warned it is distressing reading, including crimes against children by Obama’s releases.

So these weren’t just illegals that the Obama Regime let fall through the cracks by their incompetence, although that would be bad enough.  They were already convicted, in custody, and ordered deported . . . and yet the Regime dumped them on Americans with deadly consequences.

Obama has innocent blood on his hands.

Not a Good Week for the Church of England

This has not been a good week for the Church of England.  But there is at least one bright spot – some evangelicals are speaking up and clearly.

-----

JOINT PRESS RELEASE from Reform and Oxford Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship

Evangelicals call for the Church of England to uphold the gospel of Jesus Christ

This week began with Katherine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC) of the USA preaching in Westminster Abbey, it will end, we are told with Canon Michael Smith of York Minster blessing the York Gay Pride March. In between we have seen the Bishop of Buckingham describe doctrine that he swore to teach and pass on as ‘lousy’.

Nowhere in any of this has there been the clear message of the Gospel that despite our rejection of his ways we are all loved by God and can find forgiveness through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not surprising then, that the majority of the world’s Anglicans now look to the Primates of Global Anglican Future Conference GAFCON for leadership – the only question is whether after weeks like this one, those in the Church of England who wish to proclaim this Gospel will be forced to follow the same path.

“Christianity is based on revealed doctrine, enabling individuals to live rightly before a Holy God as followers of Jesus Christ. He tells us how to live in all areas of life, including in areas of sexual behaviour. No denomination is at liberty to invent its own doctrine or to sacrifice revealed doctrine on the altars of contemporary fashion. We cannot be authentically Christian whilst simultaneously rejecting the teaching of the one we claim to follow.” Rev Simon Austen – Rector of St Leonard’s Church, Exeter Diocese

“York Minster’s leading the way in the Gay Pride march is symbolic of what the Church of England’s leadership is doing generally on this issue – leading people away from the clear teaching of the Bible and the Gospel. It exposes the sham of the consultation process for what it is – a means by which the church can validate homosexual activity. One would hope that the Archbishop of York would do his duty and speak clearly, upholding the Bible’s position.” Rev Melvin Tinker, St John’s Church, Newland, York Diocese

“I am deeply disappointed that Alan Wilson persists in undermining the teaching of the Church by his overt support of those who have gone against the clear rules governing clergy discipline. Describing the Church’s teaching and doctrine as “lousy” is quite breathtakingly arrogant and not language that one would expect from a senior leader in the Church. Were I in secular employment and so at odds with the leadership and core values of the company that employed me, I would resign forthwith as a matter of conscience.” Rev Will Pearson-­‐Gee -­‐ Rector of Buckingham, Oxford Diocese

“The Bishop of Buckingham courts publicity for his revisionist agenda and gets it. He has sadly become a figure of disunity in the Oxford Diocese and a cause of grief to many faithful Anglican Christians. The version of marriage he espouses is incompatible with Biblical Christianity.” Rev Will Stileman – Vicar of St Mary’s Church, Maidenhead and Chair of the Oxford Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship

“Sooner or later everyone in the Church of England will have to decide whether they have confidence in what God says about marriage and human sexuality in the Scriptures. If we are not willing to trust what God says is good for us and for our society then we lose the claim to be authentically Christian. And in the course of time God will make it plain that our claims to be Christian are hollow. Jeremiah 7:28 speaks of truth perishing and being cut off from the lips of God’s people, and the prophet is clear about the disastrous consequences of that”. Rev Mark Burkill –Vicar of Christ Church, Leyton, Chelmsford Diocese

“The Bishop of Buckingham is a runaway train, and has lost the confidence of many of the clergy in the Diocese of Oxford who would have him nowhere near their churches. There is now a crisis of leadership in Oxford Diocese, shown in the fact that the Diocese was unable to appoint a Diocesan Bishop who can work with Buckingham. The Bishop of Buckingham thinks he can make up doctrine on the hoof to suit his own revisionist agenda. That is not how the Church of England does things”. Rev James Paice, Vicar of St Luke’s Wimbledon Park, Southwark Diocese

-----

That the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have chimed “Me, too!” on Climate Change does not make the week any better.

The Mundanity of Madness

I have long resisted the allures of Netflix.  But I finally have given in, particularly now that my knee has given me an excuse to watch more TV.  I am not quite a binge watcher and hope I never become one.  Besides, I hardly have the attention span for that.  But I do enjoy (if that is the appropriate word) the WW2 and Nazi documentaries.

Something that has struck me as I watch these is how societal madness and profound evil can and often does seem normal, mundane even, when one is in the midst of it.  Indeed, for the average German, life did not seem that much out of line until bombs finally began dropping on Germany.  Oh, the flag was different; Nazi propaganda was everywhere.  But, if anything, life superficially improved for many – the economy improved after the 1929 crash and the following depression that strengthened the Nazis politically; there was certainly more national pride.  As long as one was not Jewish or on the wrong side of the Nazi Party, life seemed relatively good and orderly, especially when compared to the chaos of the Weimar Republic.  At the very least, life went on.

Beyond the Nazis, there is a tendency to think episodes of societal madness and evil happen at other times or in other places.  It is hard to grasp that one is in the midst of such an episode.  Most do not want to comprehend it if their own country is mad and evil; it would not be a pleasant realization.  And it is not too hard to fool oneself to keep from such a realization.  If one is surrounded by dysfunction, it seems normal if that is what surrounds you all the time and one gets used it.  And people can be remarkably adaptable - even (especially?) when they should not adapt.

At times lately I wonder if we are going through such a time now in the U. S.  Yes, I know that surely seems alarmist.  No one I’m aware of wants to send Christians or freedom-minded people to camps, at least not openly.  But look at the sudden change of political discourse in very recent years.  There is a large contingent in this country that acts more like Brown Shirts than Americans, smearing and attacking as bigots, racists, homophobes those who disagree with their once radical agenda and seeking to silence them, to put them out of business, and worse.  Now it has even gotten to the point that seeking to quietly practice one’s religion is attacked as “discrimination.”

Have we not gone mad when cake makers are required to bake a wedding cake for a gay “wedding” or face ruinous fines?  And when a substantial part of the population and leading corporations and politicians (including, yes, Hillary) approve and even cheerlead such persecution?

But, lets admit it.  Even while this is going on, everyday life does not seem that much different, not even for most Christians.

Of course, I recognize that every country has its excesses and bouts of madness even.  And often people respond and/or muddle through, and the society pulls back, at least for a time, before it falls into profound and systematic evil.

But more than we may like to admit, societies, even “civilized” ones, do give into insanity and evil.  And usually it happens with enough subtlety and mundanity that it seems not a big deal . . . except to those who are the victims and to those who later wonder how a society could have gone so wrong.

We are fools if we think the United States is immune to such societal sickness, especially now.

Standing vs. Kneeling to Receive

Last week, an Anglo-Catholic friend advised me that kneeling was not a good idea while trying to recover from a torn meniscus in my knee.  And when an Anglo-Catholic advises against kneeling . . .   Looking back, I suspect I did aggravate my knee with this pious practice. (Actually, I was kneeling to piously place something in a kitchen cabinet, but that is beside the point.)

So yesterday was the first time for me to receive the Blessed Sacrament at my parish whilst standing.  I have received standing during morning Low Masses at Pusey House, but cannot recall receiving standing elsewhere.  (By the way, the common practice is to kneel to receive during Solemn High Mass at Pusey House.  But that is in a more padded and railed chapel.)

I think I prefer to kneel; it is easier for me to have a right attitude that way.  Posture does affect mindset I have found.  But I have heard it argued that standing to receive actually has more tradition behind it.  And I’ve experienced, particularly at Pusey House, that standing has a degree of solemnity and simplicity to commend it.

In any case, my right knee is being something of a dictator even in liturgical matters.  So standing it will be for me for a while at least.

(The knee has improved over the weekend by the way, but continued prayers are appreciated and probably needed.)

The Democrat News Media Summarized

I could get a good rant on about the New York Times and the rest of the Democrat News Media, I really could.  But I have had trouble getting motivated to blog lately.  And my favorite political cartoonist Michael Ramirez summarizes the matter far better than I could.  So . . .

Knee Update:  The knee is worse than I had thought.  I definitely have a tear in my inside right meniscus, and it’s not a small one.  I did think I was getter better.  But it flared up badly and suddenly yesterday morning.  So it is hardly better than it was weeks ago.

Please pray for my spirits and for wisdom on how to proceed . . . and, yes, for the knee, too.

MORE:  And a friend just informed me that I likely aggravated it by kneeling.

Giving up kneeling??? What will this Anglo-Catholic do?

The Clintons Try to Rig Elections . . . Again

After I posted on DemocRATS trying to rig the 2016 election for Hillary, she doubled down in a speech to mostly-Black Texas Southern University by calling for automatic Universal Voter Registration, in which just about anyone on a government list, such as for welfare or drivers licenses, would automatically be registered to vote.

But I’m sure her support of this has nothing to do with race-baiting, enabling vote fraud and stealing elections:

The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many states' lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home, there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates; and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability, all of these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons, and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers.

And that is putting it nicely.

This a good time to recall that the Clintons have a history of election rigging.  When Bill was President, they pushed the Motor Voter Law.  Yes, the one that required that those applying for welfare are given voter registration cards; the law that makes it more difficult to remove deceased or moved voters from the rolls, among other provisions.

Also recall that Bill was very busy in 1996 importing Democrats by speeding up citizen applications, which resulted in an increase in Democrat voters . . . and in serious errors in the naturalization process.  But, hey, priorities!

The Clintons cannot be trusted. . . . Yes, I can end the sentence there.  But to be specific, the Clintons cannot be trusted with elections, period.

And Queen Hillary is already at it again in trying to rig elections to “elect” her dynasty . . . again.

----

Knee Update: Apologies if my post is low on details.  Not-so-fun adventures with my knee yesterday have worn me out.  I got it reexamined and should hear more today or Monday.

Democrats Prepare to Steal Election for Hillary (But Should They Want To?)

This is really not a new story.  Long-time readers know by now that enabling and committing election fraud is old hat for Democrats.  How do you think they got Obamacare passed?  By getting the felon vote to turn out for Al Franken and by “recounting” the ballots.  And trust me that is only one example.

The reason I bring this up again is I think Democrats would be wise to think twice about their usual election fraud.  Yes, I am helping out Democrats with advice.  I’m nice that way on a good day.

What would be the worst possible scenario for Democrats in 2016?  I contend it would be the “election” of someone as disreputable as Hillary Clinton with the assistance of obvious election fraud.  She would be seen as an illegitimate President and be that much more despised and disrespected at the very beginning of her administration.  Further, there would be the perception that the wishes of the Clintons and of the Democrat establishment are more important than the legitimate votes of Americans.

Making matters worse is the correct and widespread perception that the Democrat Party already doesn’t give a damn about democracy or the Constitution.  (See just about the entire Obama Administration and its supporters.)  Americans have been remarkably patient in dealing with this.  But would they remain patient if, after these long and trying years, Hillary is “elected” fraudulently?

I will refrain from going into details with Big Brother watching, but it would be awful and ugly, not only for the country, but likely for Democrats as well.

I am not predicting that happens.  (If you want a prediction, I think Scott Walker is the next President.)  But it is a distinct possibility.  The only way I can see Hillary being elected in a relatively clean election is if Republicans are so foolish as to nominate Jeb Bush, driving much of the GOP base to stay home or vote 3^rd Party.  Otherwise, I think Hillary will have to get a massive turnout of the non-citizen vote, the felon vote, and the deceased vote to win.

And she is power hungry enough and her supporters morally bankrupt enough to attempt just that.

God help us all if they manage to succeed.

 ----

Knee Update: My x-rays were clear to my surprise.  But the doctor said I likely have slightly torn ligaments.  I am wearing a brace, but the knee is taking a long time to heal.  Prayers for my knee and my patience would be appreciated.