A few years before he died on April 17, 2015, reflecting on the increasing secularization and anti-Christianity of our perilous times,Cardinal Francis George predicted:
“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”
We can already see the outlines of one of George’s predictions.
Already, Christian-owned businesses, like bakeries, which refuse to cater to homosexual marriage have been prosecuted. Now, a city councilman is threatened with criminal prosecution for voicing his disapproval of homosexuals’ use of the rainbow flag as their emblem.
Last Tuesday, August 11, 2015, the city council of Newport Beach, California, voted 4-3 to disassociate themselves from an email sent to his constituents by one of their own, Councilman Scott Peotter, on the recent Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on same-sex, i.e., homosexual marriage.
Peotter noted the irony of the LGBT movement’s use of the rainbow as their emblem, when the rainbow was originally given by God as a sign to Noah after the Great Flood, which the Creator had sent because of humanity’s sinfulness. (See Trail Dust’s “Who really owns the rainbow?“)
City Councilman Keith Currywent further than disassociating himself from Peotter’s email. Curry pushed the city council to formally censure Peotter, and to refer Peotter to the District Attorney for prosecution ostensibly because Peotter had used a picture of the Newport Beach City Seal in the background of his email.
Local LGBT activists expressed dissatisfaction with the city council’s Tuesday night vote, claiming Peotter’s comments were hate speech and created a hostile work environment.
Stepping into the fray is the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI). Their attorneys sent a letter to the City Council, cautioning them against punishing Peotter for his exercise of free speech.
PJI president Brad Dacus warns:
“It is alarming that some politicians and activists now believe that expressing support for traditional marriage should be prosecuted. This situation should be a wake-up call to all Americans. We face an ominous future of further repression, coercion and censorship unless we speak and act now in defense of our constitutional freedoms.”
The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the Capitol.
Calling the Commandments “religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths,” the court said the monument must go.
Gov. Mary Fallin has refused. And Oklahoma lawmakers instead have filed legislation to let voters cut out of their constitution the specific article the justices invoked. Some legislators want the justices impeached.
Fallin’s action seems a harbinger of what is to come in America — an era of civil disobediencelike the 1960s, where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law.
Only this time, the rebellion is likely to arise from the right.
Certainly, Americans are no strangers to lawbreaking. What else was our revolution but a rebellion to overthrow the centuries-old rule and law of king and Parliament, and establish our own?
U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been defied, and those who defied them lionized by modernity. Thomas Jefferson freed all imprisoned under the sedition act, including those convicted in court trials presided over by Supreme Court justices. Jefferson then declared the law dead.
Some Americans want to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, who, defying the Dred Scott decision and fugitive slave acts, led slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad.
New England abolitionists backed the anti-slavery fanatic John Brown, who conducted the raid on Harpers Ferry that got him hanged but helped to precipitate a Civil War. That war was fought over whether 11 Southern states had the same right to break free of Mr. Lincoln’s Union as the 13 colonies did to break free of George III’s England.
Millions of Americans, with untroubled consciences, defied the Volstead Act, imbibed alcohol and brought an end to Prohibition.
In the civil rights era, defying laws mandating segregation and ignoring court orders banning demonstrations became badges of honor.
Rosa Parks is a heroine because she refused to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus, despite the laws segregating public transit that relegated blacks to the “back of the bus.”
In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King, defending civil disobedience, cited Augustine — “an unjust law is no law at all” — and Aquinas who defined an unjust law as “a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”
Said King, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
But who decides what is an “unjust law”?
If, for example, one believes that abortion is the killing of an unborn child and same-sex marriage is an abomination that violates “eternal law and natural law,” do those who believe this not have a moral right if not a “moral responsibility to disobey such laws”?
Rosa Parks is celebrated.
But the pizza lady who said her Christian beliefs would not permit her to cater a same-sex wedding was declared a bigot. And the LGBT crowd, crowing over its Supreme Court triumph, is writing legislation to make it a violation of federal civil rights law for that lady to refuse to cater that wedding.
But are people who celebrate the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village as the Mount Sinai moment of their movement really standing on solid ground to demand that we all respect the Obergefell decision as holy writ?
And if cities, states or Congress enact laws that make it a crime not to rent to homosexuals, or to refuse services at celebrations of their unions, would not dissenting Christians stand on the same moral ground as Dr. King if they disobeyed those laws?
Already, some businesses have refused to comply with the Obamacare mandate to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees.Priests and pastors are going to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Churches and chapels will refuse to host them. Christian colleges and universities will deny married-couple facilities to homosexuals.
Laws will be passed to outlaw such practices as discrimination, and those laws, which the Christians believe violate eternal law and natural law, will, as Dr. King instructed, be disobeyed.
And the removal of tax exemptions [from churches] will then be on the table.
If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce, and the children would go their separate ways.
Something like that is happening in the country.
A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural, and political views and values, is taking place.
America is disuniting, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote 25 years ago.
And for those who, when young, rejected the views, values and laws of Eisenhower’s America, what makes them think that dissenting Americans in this post-Christian and anti-Christian era will accept their laws, beliefs, values?
The idea that the U.S. actually is ruled by a shadow unelected government is not new, but Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon is the latest person to say so.
Glennon calls the shadow government a “double government.” By that, Glennon isn’t referring to a conspiracy or the Illuminati or The Powers That Be, but what others have called by a less-loaded term, “the administrative state” — the vast federal government bureaucracies staffed by unelected, faceless officials who, in “administering” the U.S., make countless policy decisions every day that affect every facet of our lives.
Jordan Michael Smith, a liberal, writes for the Boston Globe, Oct. 18, 2014:
The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer….
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
… Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department.“National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA….
How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.
IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?
GLENNON: …. I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.
IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?
GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision….Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.
The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”
IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?
GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences….
There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.
IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.
GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded…that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change….policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
GLENNON:The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions.That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here.The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.
Where I disagree with Glennon, who is a liberal, are:
Glennon confines the “double government” to only the national security sector. But if we use his own argument, since it’s the unelected government bureaucrats who actually make policies, the “double government” would pervade every sector of government, not just the Pentagon.
Glennon‘s emphasis on the role played by the “double government” minimizes — and therefore excuses — actual decisions made by Obama (amnesty for illegals via executive orders), Congress (Obamacare), and the Supreme Court (gay marriage) which greatly impact every American’s life. Of course, once those policies are made, bureaucracies are created to implement and enforce the policies, and those bureaucracies will never go away. As an example, see the diagram below on the Byzantine labyrinth of government bureaucracies spawned by Obamacare.
Lately I’ve shared my lament that in America today we are witnessing a surreal transformation of the greatest nation in history. Last week, a spate of headlines made this point better than I could make it on my own.
I was minding my business, mind you, surfing the Internet to check out the news and political sites and forums I customarily visit, and these news and column headlines, most from last week, some from a bit earlier and a few from this week, bombarded me. I wasn’t looking for trouble. Nor was the satirical website The Onion one of the sites I visited. The world is upside down, inside out, sideways, crazy, nutso. Bad is good; up is down. Left is right; right is wrong. Evil is good; insanity is sanity. Abnormal is normal. Circles are squares. Hot is cold. Luke warm is red hot — among Republicans, anyway. Common sense is uncommon. The world is otherworldly. Dissent is “hate.” Diversity means conformity. The good guys are the bad guys; virtue is vice; sophistry is intellectualism; jerks are celebrated; debauchery is glorified; the holy is debauched. Let me share some of these headlines, which speak for themselves — loudly and depressingly.
With the hindsight knowledge of the past 6½ years, I truly believe America reached a tipping point or “jumped the shark” when millions elected Barack Obama to the White House in 2008, then re-elected him in 2012.
Do you think America has crossed the Rubicon, past the point of no return? Sound off!
We warned about the slippery slope of legalizing homosexual same-sex marriage — that once that barn door is opened, there would be agitation to legalize and normalize polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and pederasty.
After all, the same rationale of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 majority ruling legalizing homosexual marriage across the USA — that homosexuals are entitled to the “equal right” of marrying each other in order to seek from marriage such “fulfillments” as “expression, intimacy, and spirituality” — applies also to polygamists, bestialists, pedophiles and pederasts as well. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, opined, “This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation” — and aren’t polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and pederasty also “sexual orientations”?
Andrew Buncombe reports for The (UK) Independent, July 3, 2015, that 46-year-old Nathan Collier and his two “wives,” Victoria and Christine, are seeking an application from a courthouse in Billings, Montana, to legalize the trio’s polygamous union.
Collier said he was inspired by the recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, and was particularly struck by the words of dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts who claimed giving homosexual couples the right to marry, might inspire polygamy. He told The Independent:
“Right now we’re waiting for an answer. I have two wives because I love two women and I want my second wife to have the same legal rights and protection as my first. Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else – I am trying to define what marriage means for us.”
The practice of bigamy – holding multiple marriage licences – is outlawed in all 50 of the US states, Montana among them. But Collier said he planned to sue if his application is denied.
Collier, who owns a refrigeration business in Billings and had appeared in the reality TV show Sister Wives, said he’s a former Mormon who had been excommunicated for polygamy. He married his first wife, Victoria, 40, in 2000. In 2007, he held a religious ceremony to marry second wife, Christine, but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges.
His first wife, Victoria, said that she and her husband’s second wife got along “like sisters. We’re like any family. There are good days and there are bad days. But there are more good days.”
Yellowstone County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county legal officer before giving him a final answer.
Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen, told the Associated Press that he was reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week because “I think he deserves an answer.”
Daily Mail: Companies have thrown their support behind the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize homosexual marriage nationwide by announcing a host of commemorative products and gimmicks. Several businesses marked the landmark decision to allow homosexual marriage in all 50 states across America with tweets of support, snazzy marketing gimmicks and new products.
Among the most creative ideas was Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, which announced it would temporarily rename its chocolate chip cookie dough to ‘I Dough, I Dough.’ The ice cream flavor will be available in a commemorative pint sleeve at participate ice cream shops for a limited time.
Another high profile firm – Google – changed the logo on its building in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan to one that featured a rainbow flag. The company’s office is the second-largest after the company’s headquarters in Mountain View.
Meanwhile, Facebook commemorated the big day by allowing its social media users to put a rainbow overlay on their profile picture by clicking on a link, according to ABC News. CEO Mark Zukerberg led the way by changing his profile page to one that featured the bright colors.
Passengers who used car-service Uber took screen shots of the moving icons of vehicles in the app as they had rainbow flags trailing behind them.
The Maytag Man’s official Twitter account displayed two Maytag men as matching washer and dryer appliances. The slogan ‘perfect together’ was splashed across the image. And the tweet read: ‘Here’s to finding the one who completes you. #SCOTUSMarriage.’
American Airlines tweeted an image of a plane’s television screens decked out in the colors of the rainbow. It tweeted the message: ‘We’re on board. Diversity strengthens us all & today we celebrate #Marriage equality & the landmark #SCOTUSMarriage decision.
Twitter users like Airbnb used the hashtag ‘#LoveWins’ and tweeted ‘Dear Supreme Court, We hope it’s not too soon to ask, but will you marry us? Love Airbnb
Hoards of official Twitter accounts including American Airlines, The White House and Hillary Clinton changed their profile images to include rainbow colors. Snapchat users were offered two filters with rainbow themes to celebrate the historic ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the U.S. Constitution provides homosexual couples the right to marry, handing a historic triumph to the American homosexual rights movement.
The court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law mean that states cannot ban homosexual marriages. With the landmark ruling, homosexual marriage becomes legal in all 50 states.
As for me? I celebrated homosexual marriage by going to Chick-fil-A for dinner Saturday night!