BLM Is Only Their Name

There is a lot of confusion about Black Lives Matter. The reason is obvious, with a name like BLM, one would naturally assume the organization purpose is to stop the taking of black lives; and you would be wrong. BLM is not a civil rights organization, they do nothing to help anyine, they are a political organization, BLM is just their name;in other words a marketing ploy. BLM is an anti-police, anti-America, pro-Marxists, and more in line with pro-Marxist terrorists groups like Antifa that use violence to achieve their end of a mythical Marxist utopia, that historically has led to mass graves. This is why BLM does not respond to questions about the thousands of blacks killed in Democrat controlled cities, as it does not forward their Marxist agenda; IOW black on black murder is not their issue, as the only black lives that matter to them are those associated with police contacts they can use to protest, riot, and show their disdain for America.

What BLM does do is capitalize on their continual claims of systemic racism aka white privilege. To prove such an non-issue they use the tried and true Democrat fallacy that correlation proves causation; IOW if a higher percentage of blacks are involved in the criminal justice system, it proves the criminal Justice system is racist. Never mind a high percentage of blacks live in Democrat ghettos with poor education, pandemic gang violence, drug use and of course poverty. Another issue that has been pointed out is most blacks children do not live in a stable home environment, where fathers are often not present. This is an issue for BLM but it's not what you think. Rather than encourage families to stay together, they disdain the concept of family. This is of course consistent with Marxist doctrine that says your children belong to the state and need to be taken from you at an early age to be indoctrinated as not to allow their minds being polluted with concepts of individual rights and freedom, over collective oppression (remember their is no such thing as collective rights, only government tyranny). 

As I discussed before, Americans have not been very receptive to Marxism, so instead BLM is using racism as the excuse to tear down America and replace it with a government controlled socialist state. Interestingly enough the likes of  Rep. Ilhan Omar,  Minnesota Democrat has claimed America is a “system of oppression (eg Capitalism)” in all sectors and must be torn down; her answer on the other hand, is the horribly oppressive system of Marxism with it's dehumanizing collective forced equality. One of the most obvious tactics is the attempt to stifle the free speech; they actually believe in the Marxist concept that speech they don't agree with should be treated as a physical assault, and to push their agenda accusing anyone that doesn't agree with their Marxist worldview as racist and has convinced corporate America to kowtow to their demands as they seek to destroy anyone taht dares exercise any free speech against them.  It's doubtful this will work, but the damage that will be done to the country will take decades to repair, and by using racism to try and forward their agenda, and will set race relations back 50 years.

The RFRA; Indiana, Colorado and the Left's War on Religion

Indiana was the 20th state in 20 years that has enacted their version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Arkansas will be the 21st. The RFRA was signed into Federal law by President Bill Clinton and for the last 20 years 20 states have been enacting their own version. The primary purpose of the RFRA was to address government from infringing on religious rights with a presumption of innocence on religious 1st amendment grounds; the question now does that include conflicts between government declarations of protected classes and religious beliefs. So far the business that have refused a service to LGBT, has only been their participating in wedding ceremonies that directly conflict with their Christian or Muslim religious beliefs; yes Muslim business have also been sued, but the press has completely ignored them; the idea that these business otherwise refuse to service LGBT has been a media lie. It is also interesting that the Bible is replete with examples of Christians and Jews that were martyred because they would not bend to laws that were contrary to their religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is like freedom of speech, once the impeding of the free exercise begins, it is no longer an inalienable right, but a right regulated by government; and the two are mutually exclusive.

Another point I see regarding the Indiana case is the left is using a poorly worded new law to say; 1) every conservative in Indiana is a homophobic 2) This is the reason you need to vote for Democrats. The truth is you would probably have to search far and wide in Indiana for a business that is so devoted to their religious beliefs that they would deny service of any kind; the reporter in Walkerton, Ind checked pretty much every restaurant within a 20 mile radius before she found Memories Pizza. And even then the owner never said they would deny any service. The owner, answering a question from the reporter about catering to a gay wedding said, while they have never been ask to cater a wedding of any kind, she could not involve her business in a wedding ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs. The owner further said she has nothing against homosexuals and would never dream of denying them service, it's the nature of a wedding ceremony that's the issue.

The same can be said for Azucar Bakery in Denver when it refused to make cakes with anti-gay messages on them. What was not widely reported is In 2012, a homosexual couple sued another Colorado Bakery after the owner refused to make a cake to celebrate their marriage."In point of fact, however, Phillips (owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop) had made it clear that he was happy to serve homosexuals, and he agreed to make the couple other baked goods, but he said his Christian beliefs prohibited him from making a cake for the gay wedding. “I told David and Charlie when they came in that I would sell them cookies and brownies and birthday cakes and shower cakes. I just don’t do the same-sex wedding cake,” he said. The incident at the Azucar bakery was in response to this prior case, as homosexual activist Bill Jack tracked down another Christian bakery and requested two Wedding cakes that were derogatory to the owner of Azucar Bakery's religious beliefs;

“I requested two cakes, each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin — Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin — Leviticus 18:22,’” Jack said.On the second cake I requested on one page, “God loves sinners,” and on the facing page, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.” I also requested a decoration of two groomsmen holding hands with a cross in the background with a ghostbusters symbol over it to illustrate that such a union is unacceptable biblically."

Christian activist Bill Jack has denounced a decision by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, which found Azucar Bakery in Denver not guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake adorned with Bible quotes condemning sodomy. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act “is being used to censor Christian business owners’ free speech and is being used to coerce them to participate in events that violate their consciences,” Jack complained. An administrative law judge ruled against him, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission agreed.

So we are not talking about some wide spread homophobia; these incidents were carefully orchestrated to attack the religious beliefs of a very few devoutly religious restaurateurs for political purposes.

The Wall Between Church and State Spoke Only of Federalism

Some liberal talking points extol how founding fathers would stand against conservative contemporary issues, which remains pointless conjecture. Unlike the liberals of today our founding fathers were pragmatists and did not adhere to any one political agenda; as a matter of fact they just about defined cognitive dissonance. For one Jefferson has a abolitionists yet owned (and bedded) slaves. Jefferson also spoke of glowing of native American culture, but savagely drove Indians west and said of those that resisted  "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". Jefferson was also so devoted to Christianity he wrote his own deist version of the New Testament.

The letters written by Jefferson were generally a discussion of Federalism, not a demonisation of religion; the protections from government in the original Bill of Rights only pertained to the Federal government not the states;  it was believed that the states could create whatever government or religion it wanted as long as it recognized and respected federal authority. What the first Amendment protections addressed was "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", IOW a prohibition from  Federal government creating a national religion. If a state wanted to establish a religion as part of their government process they would have been free to do so; the idea being no one would be trapped or force to endure what you believed to be a tyrannical state, as you could simply move to another, but that was not the fact if the Federal government established a religion. Today, because of the 14th Amendment all states must adhere to these Federal prohibitions, but that was not the case when the Constitution was written. The Federal Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in was convened in 1787, but the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1886, 60 years after Jefferson died.

"Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions ofthe national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns,
 such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury BaptistAssociation".

John T. McGreevy, "Thinking on One's Own: Catholicism in the American Intellectual Imagination, 1928-1960," Journal of American History, Vol. 84 (June 1997), pp. 97-131, and Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002).

The Hobby Lobby Case and The Hierarchy of Rights

Many from the left claim the Hobby Lobby case and the striking down of buffer zones at abortion clinics were a loss for America and Woman; in reality it is a win for both. Both cases shows that there is a hierarchy of rights (aka a hierarchy of derivation). The right to an abortion is an entitlement granted by the State based on Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty. However the right to free speech (freedom of expression) trumps the right to have an unimpeded abortion. The arguments from the left on this matter is the result oft the left having their own hierarchy of rights were abortion trumps all. Generally this hierarchy is based on limiting government intrusion over impeding the actions of the people; this is the difference between laws based on individual rights vs laws based on collective rights. Most agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution sits on top the hierarchy of rights.  The idea that abortion trumps free speech or the practicing of religion would give the State a mandate to limit individual rights in the name of securing the general welfare of the collective (also termed the "greater good"). As I have written before, Resistance is Futile, You Will be Assimilated, the needs of a free state and a collective state run counter to each other. This is because the Collective State has it's own hierarchy of rights, as it determines the needs of the collective over the individual.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means government can't make a person or group violate their religious beliefs for the good of the collective and this was further affirmed by the codified Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). This law says "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" ("general applicability," meaning the regulation of free speech and/or religion) creates a hierarchy of individual religious rights over the States presumption of a collective need..  Today we have a State intent on imposing it's perceived needs of the collective, but our founding fathers had a different idea.


In order to maintain individual rights, the citizen must exercise those rights and not leave it up to the government to protect the citizenry form itself. The Democratic Republic built by our forefathers is not for the timid or uneducated; one is expected to know and exercise their liberty and freedoms. This means one has the right to stand on a public sidewalk, but if someone is blocking your path, you need to tell them to get out of your way, because this is a free country.