What You Are Probably Not Being Told About the Boy Scouts Bankruptcy

This morning comes the sad news that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has filed for bankruptcy.  The “news” media will let you know they did so because of mounting lawsuits concerning sexual abuse.  But there are important factors most of the news media and the Left (But I repeat myself.) are either downplaying or hiding.

First, I will say I am no apologist for the Boy Scouts.  Although I know of men who had excellent experiences in the Scouts, I have never been in Scouting, and I disapprove of how BSA is currently run as you shall see.

Having said that, the vast majority of the suits against BSA are based on alleged abuse decades ago. From AP:

Most of the newly surfacing cases date to the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s; the organization says there were only five known abuse victims in 2018. The Boy Scouts credit the change to an array of prevention policies adopted since the mid-1980s, including mandatory criminal background checks and abuse-prevention training for all staff and volunteers, and a rule that two or more adult leaders be present during all activities.

Back then, there was a lot of ignorance in society about child abuse, its harm, and how to prevent it. BSA has since taken a number of measures to prevent it.  The same could be said about many organizations that work with children. How many of them do we wish to drive into bankruptcy?

A big reason these past abuse cases now necessitate bankruptcy is that states such as New York, Arizona, New Jersey and California have after the fact changed their statue of limitation laws to allow law suits for abuse so long ago.  I take the unpopular stand that statue of limitation laws have a good purpose.  Memories weaken after so many years.  And, yes, there are false memories.  It is harder to defend oneself against allegations of acts long ago.  And, especially in the area of sexual abuse, false allegations are frequent; greatly lengthening or eliminating statues of limitation enable false allegations. 

In addition, it is unprincipled, to say the very least, to change the law, then allow criminal prosecution or lawsuits based on allegations of acts before the law was changed.   Such are ex post facto laws rightly forbidden by the Constitution.  But who cares about the Constitution or the Rule of Law any more?  (Yes, yes, I know lawyers will argue that changing statues of limitations, then suing on the basis of that is not ex post facto law. Guess what I think of such lawyers and the hacks in black and unprincipled legislators that enable them.)

Having said that, it is gross negligence that BSA allowed some abusers to return to Boy Scouts. Again, there was a lot of ignorance about child abuse and abusers back then, but that is inexcusable.

But past child abuse is not the only reason behind the BSA bankruptcy.  AP is typical in hiding as much as it reports:

The Boy Scouts’ finances have been strained in recent years by declining membership and sex-abuse settlements.

The number of youths taking part in scouting has dropped below 2 million, down from more than 4 million in peak years of the 1970s. The organization has tried to counter the decline by admitting girls, but its membership rolls took a big hit Jan. 1 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — for decades a major sponsor of Boy Scout units — cut ties and withdrew more than 400,000 scouts in favor of programs of its own.

What AP does not tell you is that admitting girls has harmed membership.  Boys and young men desire male spaces as they aspire to and grow into manhood. Taking that away drives many of them away.  AP also does not tell you that the 2015 decision to allow gay scout leaders alienated many families involved in scouting, families that tend to be more traditional than average. These changes and subsequent membership declines in the past decade have made it that much more difficult for BSA to deal financially with the lawsuits.

Once again we see the phenomenon of “Go Woke; Go Broke.”

All this is not to downplay the difficulties men have gone through due to past abuse.  This is to say the bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America is not as simple as you are being told.  Unprincipled changes in the law and politically correct changes the Left pressured BSA to make have significantly contributed.

---

P. S.  Obama once said that “nobody should be barred” from Scouting.  But now Leftists cheer as the Boy Scouts are sued into bankruptcy precisely because people were not barred from Scouting.  Make up your minds, Leftists.  Or was destroying Boy Scouts your plan all along?

Is the AND Campaign a Democrat Front Group?

Up to now, I have given the benefit of the doubt to the motives behind the AND Campaign.  They certainly present themselves winsomely and sound earnest.  But after digging a little deeper, I cannot see how I can give the benefit of the doubt any longer.

What I’ve just found out is a bit embarrassing because I should have known before now.  Finding out just who is leading a political campaign is a rather obvious thing to do, but my focus was on what AND was saying, particularly in their 2020 Presidential Election Statement. Nonetheless, I have now looked into their leadership.

The President and Co-Founder of the AND Campaign is Justin Giboney.  I will allow his intro at the AND site to speak for itself (Emphasis mine):

Justin Giboney is an attorney and political strategist in Atlanta, GA. Mr. Giboney has managed successful campaigns for elected officialsin the state and referendums relating to the city’s transportation and water infrastructure.

In 2012 and 2016, Georgia’s 5th congressional district elected him as a delegate for the Democratic National Convention and he served as the co-chair of Obama for America’s Gen44-Atlanta initiative.A former Vanderbilt University football player and law student, Justin served on the Urban League of Greater Atlanta Board of Directors. Additionally, Justin has participated in LEAD Atlanta, Outstanding Atlanta and the Georgia Bar Association’s Leadership Academy. He’s written op-eds for publications such as Christianity Today.

So the President and Co-Founder of AND is a Democrat “political strategist” who was a delegate to the Democrat National Convention in 2012 and 2016. He was surely an Obama delegate in 2012.  He was a delegate for Hillary Clinton in 2016.  So we are supposed to trust the judgement and leadership of someone who still supported Obama after four years of his regime and then supported Hillary in 2016? Really? And he also worked for Obama for America.

Not much Christian judgement and not much non-partisanship there.

Okay, but maybe the Number Two in AND leadership will provide a little bi-partisan balance.  Let’s see…

Michael Wear serves as Chief Strategist and member of the executive leadership team for The AND Campaign. 

As one of President Obama's "ambassadors to America's believers" (Buzzfeed), Michael directed faith outreach for President Obama’s historic 2012 re-election campaign. Michael was also one of the youngest White House staffers in modern American history: he served in the White House faith-based initiative during President Obama’s first term, where he led evangelical outreach and helped manage The White House’s engagement on religious and values issues, including adoption and anti-human trafficking efforts.

He founded Public Square Strategies LLC, a consulting firm that helps religious organizations, political organizations, businesses and others effectively navigate the rapidly changing American religious and political landscape.

Michael is the author of Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America. He also writes for The Atlantic, Christianity Today, USA Today, Relevant Magazine and other publications on faith, politics and culture. He holds an honorary position at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Center for the Public Understanding of Religion. He is also a Senior Fellow at The Trinity Forum. Michael and his wife, Melissa, are both proud natives of Buffalo, New York. They now reside in Washington, D.C.

But of course they do.

So the two top leaders of the AND Campaign are both experienced Democrat political operatives.  Both were all in for Obama, even in 2012.  And Wear directed conning Christians, er I mean, “faith outreach” for the Obama re-election campaign in 2012, again after the nature of the Obama regime was quite clear after four years.

So now he is again directing conning Christians for Democrats.

That may seem harsh.  But that is what Wear has done and is doing. And really, with those two leading the AND Campaign, isn’t that is what AND is doing?  If not, then why the heck are two Democrat political operatives leading the AND Campaign?  Why would you have two Democrat political operatives lead unless you intend to do some Democrat political operating? 

With their leadership and with their 2020 election statement, it is hard to come to any conclusion but that AND’s intended purpose is persuading evangelicals into thinking supporting Democrats is the Christian thing to do. Their supposed non-partisanship is a mask, a front.

As much as they may try not to appear so, AND is beyond a reasonable doubt a Democrat front group with the current chief purpose of getting evangelicals to vote Democrat in 2020.  Do not be deceived.  Do not be conned.

Post-Mueller Report Weekend Thoughts

(Apologies to those who come here for something more closely related to Anglicanism.  I have been pretty good about doing that as I intended since I shifted the emphasis of this blog.  But I’ve said so much here about the attempted coup against Trump in the past that I felt I should follow up on the events of this past weekend.  If this does not interest you, it will not offend me at all if you skip this post.)

I hesitate to post anything about this past weekend’s release of the Mueller Report.  So much has been said by others already.  But I’ve commented not a little on the attempted coup against Trump in the past, so I feel like I should say something.

First and most important, yes, there has been – and, as William Jacobson points out, will continue to be – an attempted coup against Trump and against constitutional democracy.  I called it such very early, well before Trump was inaugurated, and events since have borne out that evaluation well. Further the coup came from the depths of the FBI and the CIA in the Obama Administration.  As tinfoil hattish as that may all sound, there is hardly any denying it now.

For the sake of our future as a country, there has to be a price to pay for this.  I agree with Kimberly Strassel and others that the role of the FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA among others must be investigated and am glad to see Sen. Lindsey Graham seems rather eager to do just that.

Could not agree more.

See you soon. https://t.co/KNGzyDizdq

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 25, 2019

 

But I am not holding my breath that justice will be done in Congress or the courts.  There is too much a two-tier justice system in place.  That there has not been one indictment for the corruption of the Obama Administration speaks volumes about that.

So justice will have to carried out at the ballot boxes in 2020 in both the primaries and general elections. Democrats and their RINO faux conservative enablers must be punished.  I fear for our future as a country if they are not.  The political punishment has to be so severe that in the future, the likes of Obama, Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff etc. will think twice about attempting a coup against the people, their votes, and their constitutional democracy.  I suspect the current attempted coup will end only then.

BREAKING: Obama Admin Gave Funds to Terror-listed Group . . . After Pressure from World Vision

Overnight, some attention is being given to the breaking story that the Obama Administration granted aid funds to the terror-listed Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA).  ISRA has quite a history.

By 2000, ISRA had raised $5 million for bin Laden’s group. The Treasury Department notes that ISRA officials even sought to help “relocate [bin Laden] to secure safe harbor for him.” It further reports that ISRA raised funds in 2003 in Western Europe specifically earmarked for Hamas suicide bombings.

Lovely.  But what I find most troubling about this story has not yet been given much attention – World Vision’s role in pressuring the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to make the grant to ISRA:

Despite this well-documented history, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in July 2014 awarded $723,405 to World Vision Inc., an international evangelical charity, to “improve water, sanitation and hygiene and to increase food security in Sudan’s Blue Nile state.” Of these funds, $200,000 was to be directed to a sub-grantee: ISRA.

Responding to a Middle East Forum (MEF) inquiry, a USAID official explains that World Vision had alerted it in November 2014 to the likelihood of ISRA being on the terror list. USAID instructed World Vision to “suspend all activities with ISRA” and informed the State Department, OFAC, and USAID’s Office of the Inspector General. USAID and World Vision then waited for OFAC to confirm whether ISRA was designated or not.

USAID emails obtained by the Middle East Forum reveal that in January 2015, World Vision was growing unhappy while waiting for OFAC’s assessment. Mark Smith, World Vision’s senior director of humanitarian and emergency affairs, wrote to USAID, stating that the Islamic Relief Agency “had performed excellent work” for World Vision in the past, and that “putting contractual relationships in limbo for such a long period is putting a significant strain” on World Vision’s relationship with the Sudanese regime. Smith also revealed that World Vision had submitted a notice to OFAC indicating its “intention to restart work with [ISRA] and to transact with [ISRA]” if OFAC did not respond within a week.

World Vision’s statement stunned USAID officials, who complained that World Vision’s behavior “doesn’t make sense.”

But the grant was eventually made anyway.

Then, incredibly, on May 7, 2015 — after “close collaboration and consultations with the Department of State” — OFAC issued a license to a World Vision affiliate, World Vision International, authorizing “a one-time transfer of approximately $125,000 to ISRA,” of which “$115,000 was for services performed under the sub-award with USAID” and $10,000 was “for an unrelated funding arrangement between Irish Aid and World Vision.”

An unnamed World Vision official described the decision as a “great relief as ISRA had become restive and had threatened legal action, which would have damaged our reputation and standing in Sudan.” 

I don’t want to jump to conclusions. Perhaps ISRA somehow reformed, and World Vision knew that better than bureaucrats up the line?  But World Vision has been at the very least careless about partnerships before, even (apparently without their knowledge) funding Hamas.  This ISRA story, too, is troubling and bears watching.  

If I see a response from World Vision, I will post it.

Reality Check: The FBI Spied on the Trump Campaign

For any who may think my concerns about the revival of totalitarianism may be overwrought or paranoid, I present a reality check: the FBI under Obama and Comey spied on the Trump campaign.  There’s really no denying that anymore.

Let me put it a different way.  The FBI under Obama and Comey spied on political opponents in the midst of a presidential election campaign.

I thought this was the U. S. A., not the U. S. S. R.

This Coup Against Democracy Must Be Stopped

I will have to keep this short, and this may be unpolished.  This topic is big, but my time is limited.

But it must be noted that the attempted coup against our democracy that began with protests against the results of a free and fair election, then continued with attacks on the Electoral College, continues still.  While Senate Democrats make it as difficult as never before in modern history for Trump to put his people in place, while fed judges are trying to take over immigration and national security, Obama/Establishment holdovers are criminally leaking and undermining the President we elected.  It is borderline treason against democracy.

And this is an attack on our democracy more than it is against Trump.  DemocRATS and Establishment Republicans would not have us rule ourselves under the Constitution.  They shall rule us whether by democratic means or not . . . or else. . . .

Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) February 14, 2017

We did not choose correctly in the past election.  So they are undermining that choice by means legal and illegal, political and criminal.

And before you write off my concerns as fever swamp rants, John Podhoretz of all people is alarmed by the brazen attacks on Trump and what they may lead to.

The result might well be violence. Not rhetorical violence. Actual violence. Actual political violence. Actual conflicts between anti-Trumpers and Trumpers. At demonstrations. In the streets. Of our cities. Political violence of a sort we haven’t seen in 50 years, and maybe haven't really seen in this country in the modern era. Those who believe Trump is a unique menace whose threat to our democratic way of life will be met with those who believe the elites are using illicit means to oust the legitimately elected president of the United States.

And Lefty Democrat (though one I respect) Dennis Kucinich is also warning about attacks from the Deep State.

For the sake of our democracy, Trump must “drain the swamp” of backstabbers, traitors and criminals.  And it is becoming clear he must do that fast.  There needs to be mass firings.  If there is anyone in the bureaucracy Trump does not have reason to trust who can be fired, they should be out, now.  Those who cannot be fired due to our absurd civil service laws should be reassigned to windowless rooms without computers.

Further, there should be perp walks.  I want to see at least two or three perp walks a week to put fear into would-be traitors.  Obama’s criminals especially have never had a price to pay and think they never will.  That must stop.  There must finally be a measure of justice.  Lock Them Up!

Whether you agree with my prescription or not, do not put your head in the sand.  It is not just Trump who is under attack.  Our constitutional democracy, our right to rule ourselves, is under attack from within.

Obama, Berkeley and Violent Attacks on Free Speech

Events in Berkeley two nights ago and NYU last night beg the question: when will Obama and other Leftist Democrats denounce violent attacks on free speech?

A few days ago, Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump “protests” on immigration.  Let that sink in.  A corrupt Leftist former President, less than two weeks after a freely elected President is sworn in, encourages protests against the new President.

Is this America or a banana republic?

And Obama issued his statement after anti-Trump “protests” had already turned towards violence and attacking the rights of others, including blocking traffic.

Now that Leftist violence is escalating and is cheerleaded by numerous other Leftists, including Florida DemocRAT Congresswomen Val Demings, will Obama use his position for good for a change and step up and denounce violent riots and attacks on free speech?

. . . .

I’m waiting.  But I think I better not hold my breath.

NOTE: Speaking of breath, I am having an especially nasty allergy attack.  I hope it has not affected this post.

Lame Duck Presidents Should Be Made More Lame

A follow-up to last night’s post: Mark Levin, prompted by how Obama and his stooges have conducted themselves since the election, last night proposed a Constitutional Amendment sharply limiting the power of an outgoing President between an election and the Inauguration of the next POTUS.

I concur although I’m not sure of the best form of such an amendment.  Levin’s proposal of a shorter lame duck period has problems.  For one thing, what if there is a lengthy election dispute as in 2000?  But the UK seems to do just fine with an immediate transition. 

I do think a provision that no new executive orders or regulations can be issued without 2/3s approval of both houses of Congress would be good.  I also reluctantly see the need to limit pardon power in the lame duck period.  Ideally, an ethical POTUS would make just but unpopular pardons as he departs.  But a corrupt and unaccountable POTUS can do too much damage . . . which is what I expect from Obama this coming week.

We can thank Bill Clinton especially for the need for a Constitutional Amendment.  The manner in which he and Hillary left the White House in 2001, particularly his pardons, was beyond despicable.  Yet, thanks to the Democrat “News” Media and predominantly Democrat faux historians as well as Establishment Republican cowards helping the rest of us to forget (Well, curmudgeons like me never forget.), the two suffered no lasting political consequence.  She was elected Senator and came too close to being elected President.

Thus, the Clintons showed that a DemocRAT POTUS can do pretty much whatever he wants as he leaves with little if any lasting harm to his reputation and standing.  (We would never be allowed to forget if a Republican POTUS so departed scandalously, of course.)

Which is one reason never to elect a DemocRAT as President ever again.  But we are not that rational of a country.  So a Constitutional Amendment is needful to protect us from outgoing DemocRATS and from ourselves.

The Last Vomit of Obama

I never was one of those who expected Obama to leave with class.  His conduct towards political opponents has rarely exhibited class.  Why would he change that now?

With just over a week to go, he left a nasty rotten egg for Cubans, who tend to be Republican, and Trump by ending long standing U. S. policy towards refugees from Cuba.  And that without any concessions from Cuba and without any assurances that those returned to Cuba would not be thrown into the gulag with other numerous political prisoners.

I guess Obama likes the idea of Republicans and future Republicans in political prison.  Contrast this with his almost as cynical immigration policies on the Mexican border flooding this country with future Democrats.

This was a truly cynical spiteful evil act.  It demonstrated an ugliness beyond what even I expected.

And there is yet still a week to go until Inauguration Day.

Therefore, I give my first prediction of 2017 – one I hope does not come true:  Obama will uncork some over the top spiteful ugliness in this last week beyond anything a past outgoing president has dared to do.

It could come in the form of pardons.  Presidents usually offer a number of pardons as they leave office.  Bill Clinton offered some awful ones, including the infamous pardon of Marc Rich.  I expect Obama to outdo the cynical evil of Clinton in his pardons.  But I expect more than pardons.

I think there is even a change that Obama’s last week, the last vomit of Obama, will be so outrageous that Trump will publicly disinvite him to the Inauguration.

-----

On a lighter note, the title of this post is inspired by the phrase “the last vomit of Satan” said some years back.  Trivia question:  What Texas preacher said that, and what was he describing?

Obama Imports More Terrorists

Obama seems determined to endanger us as much as possible before January 20^th.

In the first 84 days of the 2017 fiscal year (October 1, 2016 - December 23, 2016), the Obama administration has accepted 25,584 refugees into the United States, according to data provided by the State Department.  Per Breitbart, compared to the same period in FY2016, that represents an 86% increase year-over-year.

And, yes…

…per data from the U.S. State Department, the overwhelming majority of refugees admitted into the U.S. over the past couple of months are coming from Syria, Iraq and Somalia...

Whom we know are all such lovely people.

At best, this is inexcusable recklessness that endangers American lives and will tax communities that much more with dangerous invaders.   Yes, that is what too many of them are.

But then the safety and freedom of American citizens has always been rather low on Obama’s list of priorities.

Barack Obama, Champion of Clean Elections

He wasn’t concerned about illegals, felons, and dead people voting.  He didn’t mind the massive election fraud on his behalf in 2012.  His Justice Department opposed Voter ID at every turn.  But now that DemocRAT fraud wasn’t enough to steal the election for Hillary, he’s oh-so concerned those Rooskies hacked our election.

Vote in Self-Defense

I noted yesterday that Hillary clearly is not running to be President of Deplorable Americans but only of those roughly 40% who can stomach her and especially of those who have bought her.

Her open attacks on the Deplorables who dare to support Trump are something I cannot remember from a Presidential candidate in my lifetime.

And these attacks will surely not remain merely rhetorical under a Clinton presidency.  The Obama Regime attacked opponents, IRS targeting being only the most infamous of the attacks.  Those attacks will continue and likely get worse under Clinton.

And, Christian, you are in the crosshairs as well.  Hillary has used the weasel phrase “freedom of worship” instead of freedom of religion. “Freedom of worship” translated means you can worship in private as you please (maybe), but forget about the freedom to live out your antiquated bigoted religious convictions publicly.  So pay for abortions and bake me a gay wedding cake while you’re at it, peon.

I know some Christians have having trouble voting for Trump.  As one who supported Rand Paul, then Walker, then Fiorina, then Cruz, trust me, I understand!

But there are times when we have to do what we would rather not do to defend ourselves, our families, and our friends.  That is why we have militaries and why many of us own guns.  I don’t want to shoot anyone, but if a home invader crashes through my door when I’m home, he will be lucky to leave my home alive.  That doesn’t make me a bad Christian who devalues life; that makes me a Christian who values the life God gave me.  Leaving (mistaken) arguments for pacifism aside, there are times to defend ourselves by measures we would rather not have to take.

Now is such a time.

I didn’t want to vote for Trump at all a few months ago either.  Yes, I did consider going third party.  But this week I voted for Trump in early voting.  Hillary and the Clinton Crime Family – and don’t be naïve, they are criminals – consider decent Americans, especially traditional Christian Americans, their enemies.  And they will use the raw power of the Federal Government to attack us “deplorables” and our freedoms, just as Obama did and more.

This is not time for ethical fastidiousness or of pious passivity.  (And, yes, I am seeing too much of that from Christian friends.)  This is a time to stand up for your freedom and for the freedom of your friends and family and, yes, of your church.  That vicious vindictive criminal tyrant Hillary Clinton must be stopped for the sake of church and country. 

You don’t like Trump?  Fine.  But vote for Trump anyway . . . in self-defense.

The Fix or Panic? . . . Or Both?

Well, after all these months of dragging their feet about investigating Hillary Clinton, NOW Obama’s Department of “Justice” wants to expedite a new investigation of Hillary’s e-mails discovered on the laps of the lovely Huma-Weiner couple.  Gosh, I wonder why the change of heart?

And look who’s is in charge of that – one Peter Kadzik who has a long record of being involved in cleaning up the Clinton’s messes.  So don’t be surprised if an announcement comes from the DOJ before Election Day: “Nothing to see here.  Move along and vote for Hillary.”

It will be interesting to see how much the FBI goes along with such a charade.  FBI Director Comey already has defied AG Loretta Lynch on this matter once.  At the same time, it would not surprise me if he would take the opportunity to wash his hands of this.

No so by the way, I suspect one reason Obama’s DOJ is rushing to fix this matter is panic.  And I fully understand if the DemocRATS are panicking; I really do.  If the perpetually rigged ABC-Washington Post poll now has Trump ahead, you know Hillary is in trouble.

“No Facts” Behind Voter Fraud?

I would rather be focusing on academics as I began a course on Anglicanism yesterday.  But Obama having the gall to poo-poo the reality and danger of election fraud is something I cannot leave unanswered.  If you can stomach it, here is shameless Obama:

I say “shameless Obama” because he is the beneficiary of and likely connected to massive election fraud.  “No facts” behind accusations of election fraud?  Here’s some facts for starters.

In Philadelphia in 2012, Republican election watchers were illegally evicted from polling places.  (By the way, it is an indictment of the search engines, particularly Bing, that this story is hard to find now.  The link mentions reports of the evictions.  Trust me, they happened.  And a judge and the sheriff saw fit to intervene.)

And, lo and behold, the results from Philadelphia reeked of fraud.  In 59 voting divisions, the combined reported vote was 19,605 for Obama to 0 for Romney.  That’s zero, zilch, nada.

And Obama has the gall to tell us there are “no facts” behind accusations of a rigged election?

Not only that, Obama and/or his people have had up to 340 White House meetings with one Robert Creamer.  Robert Creamer has just been exposed by Project Veritas as behind election fraud and spent five months in federal prison for bank fraud back in 2006.

And there are numerous other ways Obama is connected to rigging elections.  Remember how his IRS targeted and muzzled Tea Party groups for the 2012 elections?  I do.

A proverb comes to mind about both Obama and Hillary:

This is the way of an adulteress:

she eats and wipes her mouth 

and says, “I have done no wrong.”

Proverbs 30:20

Obama’s Bathroom Decree and the Absurdity of Tyranny

I will leave aside the moral and practical implications – and they are many – of the Obama Regime’s decree that public schools must let students go to the bathroom of their choice or else.

Much like the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling, what strikes me most about this is the utter anti-democratic, anti-Constitution, and anti-rule-of-law nature of this decree. It is simply an exercise of raw arbitrary and unsanctioned power to impose social engineering. It uses the cudgels of lawsuits and federal funds to force public schools to enact a novel bathroom policy that has nothing to do with present law.  As if the framers or even the amenders of the Constitution ever intended the Federal Government to have anything like this kind of power.  As if those who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 intended Joe Bob to be able to use the girls’ room.

Which leads me to the second aspect of this decree – its absurdity.  Yes, let’s get real.  That public schools be required by the Federal Government to let boys use the girls’ room is absurd at the very least.

But that is the nature of tyranny.  Tyrants impose absurdities upon the unfortunate people under them just because they can (or think they can).  Haircut rules in North Korea, laws on saluting in Nazi Germany, any number of silly campaigns under Mao are among the examples.  

That the President of the United States is also plunging us into the absurdity of tyranny is disturbing.

Review: Fantastic Lies

I got around to watching ESPN’s Fantastic Lies last night.  It is part of their 30 for 30 series of documentaries.  This episode follows the Duke Lacrosse case of 2006.

I highly recommend this documentary (which will probably be on Netflix soon).  I did not expect to watch the whole thing last night as I do not have much of an attention span.  But I could not stop watching it, it was so engaging.

I am more familiar with the Duke Lacrosse case than most and posted on it here several times beginning in October 2006.  And I think the documentary was overall fair and accurate along with being very watchable.  It particularly well captured the attitudes surrounding the case and the details of the case, and that in an appropriately dramatic manner.

I do think it is weak in one significant area.  Although Fantastic Lies does mention Duke faculty presuming and attacking the supposed guilt of the Duke Lacrosse players, it did not mention the Group of 88 by name (unless I missed something, and I am pretty sure I did not).  Their conduct was particularly egregious, and very few ever apologized for it.  Further, the careers of the 88 did not suffer at all for this.  (If there is an exception, it has not come to my attention.)  Even a (the?) ringleader, Cathy Davidson, has gone on to bigger and better things, including an appointment by President Obama to the National Council of the Humanities.

Fantastic Lies does focus well on characters who had remorse and/or faced consequences, particularly District Attorney Nifong, since disbarred.  There should have been more focus on those who showed no remorse nor faced consequences for their rush to judgement.

But there is no perfect documentary, and Fantastic Lies remains a very good one.  Watch it when you have the chance.

Once you do watch it, if you wish to dig deeper, there is no better source than the now closed Durham-in-Wonderland blog.

About That Mosque Our Non-Muslim President is Visiting

President Obama is visiting a mosque today, namely the Islamic Society of Baltimore.  His purpose?  In the White House’s own words, to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”

I guess those “contributions” must include support for terrorist groups, because the Islamic Society of Baltimore has a record of that:

An imam who served at ISB for a total of 15 years has also been a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood network and has worked for an Islamic relief group that was designated as a terrorist organization by the Treasury Department in 2004. Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh, who served two stints as ISB’s imam, from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 2003, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan in the 1970s. He also co-founded the Muslim American Society, a Falls Church, Va.-based group that is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

While in Baltimore, el-Sheikh served as a regional director for the Islamic American Relief Agency. That group’s parent organization is the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the Treasury Department says provided funds to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

I will try to be charitable – it’s the Pre-Lent season after all – and say this shows egregious incompetence and sloppiness on the part of the Obama Administration.  After all, there are mosques in the United States that do not support terrorism.  Could the President and his people not find one?

But is it not strange that again and again the decisions of this non-Muslim President enable Islamic terror?  The Obama Administration cheerleaded the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt.  It supported taking Qaddafi out in Libya, creating a power vacuum terrorists walked right into.  It withdrew us completely from Iraq, creating a vacuum ISIS walked right into.  It let right on in the San Bernardino terrorists.  It turned full on the money spigot to Iran.

His visiting a mosque notorious for supporting terrorist groups is just the cherry on top.

Like I said, charity calls for saying this is all just incompetence – horrible, destructive incompetence, but incompetence nonetheless.

But if he had a soft spot for Islamic terrorism, would he be acting any differently?

Will the Supreme Court Spank Obama For Violating the Rule of Law?

Yes, my headline may seem an exercise in wishful thinking.  And perhaps it is. 

But when the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge of Obama’s Immigration Action from 26 states, it asked something that was both overlooked and rare.  As noted by George Will (Emphasis mine.):

The court has asked to be briefed on a matter the administration must be reluctant to address; the Justice Department requested that the court not insert a “constitutional question” into the case. The question the court will consider is: Did Obama’s action violate the “take care clause”?

Obama has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” which says the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington says that only three times has the court relied on the take care clause to limit executive actions, and the justices have never asked for a briefing on this clause.

It seems at least some on the Supreme Court are ready to give Obama a dressing down on his willfully violating the Rule of Law in the area of immigration, and one the Courts have rarely given a President before. 

I hope I am not engaging in wishful thinking, but, at the least, this is certainly a case to watch.