Friday, July 10, 2015
The Lies of the Pathological Narcissistic Ruling Class
On Saturday, America celebrated its 239th birthday. Throughout these two-plus centuries, the United States has survived the War Between the States, multiple economic depressions, World Wars, natural disasters and terror attacks perpetrated by pure evil. Over the past seven years, however, a frontal assault from lawless and Godless ruling elites has left America staggered and maimed, damaged by a destructive, malignant force we'll call the Pathological Narcissistic Ruling Class (PNRC).
Last week, Oklahoma's Supreme Court, despite its lettered and lawyered justices, made a judgment that mirrors the logic of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. This decision, devoid of legal and constitutional standing, reversed a district court verdict regarding a monument on state grounds that received its funding from private sources (i.e., no tax dollars.) Because the statue included a visual presentation of the Ten Commandments, a complaint was leveled claiming "offense" due to its religious nature.
The Oklahoma Court agreed it must be removed.
By this rationale, the PNRC can't possibly oppose murder (commandment number six), or theft (commandment number eight), or lying (commandment number nine), due to their mention in a Judeo-Christian text.
Without lying and public humiliation - the most powerful tools of the ruling class - the political Left and amoral center-right would have to stand on reason, dialogue and debate. Yet with one feigned offense or charge of "intolerance" or religious zealotry, the PNRC reigns.
The ruling is based, once again, on the false premise of separation of church and state, which was spun out of whole cloth deception.
Where did that term originate?
The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, wrote to President Thomas Jefferson in 1801 to lodge a complaint over their state's financial and legislative support of the Puritan "Congregational Church." In their letter, the Baptists recognized the truths stated in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, addressing God-given inalienable rights and the true meaning of the First Amendment, which protected individual religion against state-sanctioned churches like the British monarchy's Church of England.
Jefferson agreed with the Danbury Baptist Association, writing, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Get that? Jefferson fully agreed with the Baptists that the government should "make no law respecting the establishment of religion" and never be engaged in "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The "wall of separation between Church and State" is in a piece of correspondence, not law, not in the U.S. Constitution. And on top of that, the existence of Jefferson's "wall of separation" is to protect the individual practice and exercise of religion from the State, not the other way around.
Yet in a 1947 Supreme Court case, a member of the PNRC deceptively utilized and misapplied Jefferson's intent. In a suit filed against a New Jersey school district, Justice Hugo Black reinterpreted the First Amendment to include Jefferson's "wall of separation," using it as part of a judgment that cited the reimbursement of parents whose children took public transportation to get to parochial schools constituted governmental support of a religion.
That's where all of this nonsense began: with a lie.
Mark Twain once jested, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."
Words have meaning, but in the hands of the pathologically narcissistic ruling class, the ideas of right and wrong, good and evil are arbitrarily and relatively applied in a manner based solely on their whims.
Americans are being deceived by educators, politicians, the Leftmedia media and all who despise the Judeo-Christian faith.
So, why the moniker, "pathologically narcissistic ruling class?"
Simple. To understand narcissistic "rulers" permits us to anticipate and challenge the current destruction of America.
When one's goal is to redefine all institutions and societal norms, the end result will be a new normal that awards license rather than true Liberty.
License to make a gender assignment based on emotion rather than chromosomal biology. License to create a government-sanctioned gospel to replace the true one. License to disdainfully disregard existing statutes, laws and governance through mob protests and arbitrary enforcement, in order to create new laws that have no constitutional basis.
After decades of pampered praise based on intentions and fairness rather than actions and achievement, there has arisen a pathetically weak and frail populous of self-important victims who would rather muddle in mediocrity and government entitlement than strive, work, risk and excel as an individual. These perpetual dependents march mindlessly behind the PNRC, guaranteeing a voting bloc devoted to maintaining the nanny state.
Leaders of this conforming mass are most often highly narcissistic, with some ranking off-the-charts in their pathology. Narcissists disallow dissent of any type from the governed and completely reject introspection. They equate opposition with a challenge to their superiority, and personal reflection might require assessing their own achievements, which could lead to learning from previous experience and history. The trouble is that learning from previous experience and history would expose any honest individual to the risk of recognizing failure and viewing the past as beneficial.
Hence, the need to purge history and reframe reality based on the whims and primacy of this pathologically narcissistic ruling elite.
So, expect continued lies and the marginalization of those who love America for its true founding and authentic God-given individual freedoms. Anticipate the committed eradication of history that points to anything but oppression, racism and individual baseness, so that the mandates of the PNRC can replace all institutions - faith, marriage, family, etc. - with government-approved and run institutions.
Hey, America, it's time for the Twenty-First Century Revolution of Truth.
Barry Lynn: Christian College Denying Married Housing to Same-Sex Couples ‘Would be on the Edge of Indefensible’
A Christian college that accepts government funding but refuses to allow a same-sex married couple to live in housing for married students would be “on the edge of the indefensible,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State executive director Rev. Barry Lynn said Tuesday.
Lynn was asked by a reporter at a National Press Club press conference whether Christian colleges should be allowed to prevent same-sex couples from living in the same dorm room.
“This is what a national dialogue ought to begin about: should in fact benefits be given to educational institutions that do in fact discriminate?” Lynn responded.
“Even now I would not want to be a person at a fundamentalist academy who is trying to defend a practice – the specific one you mentioned – that is, taking a reasonable amount of government funds and refusing to allow a same-sex married couple to live in the married student housing. I think even now that would be on the edge of the indefensible.”
The press conference marked the launch of the organization’s “Protect Thy Neighbor” initiative. It aims to prevent “attempts to use religion to discriminate,” particularly against “LGBT rights,” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage.
In his dissent in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, Chief Justice John Roberts referenced the question of college housing arrangements for same sex-married couples.
“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,” he wrote.
“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.”
“With ‘Protect Thy Neighbor,’ we are putting the religious right on notice,” Lynn said at Tuesday’s event. “Your politics of division, homophobia and exclusion will not stand. We are watching and we are reacting. We will meet you and I suspect beat you in Congress, in statehouses and in courtrooms.”
Maggie Garrett, legislative director for Americans United, said that lawmakers unhappy about the court’s marriage ruling have been emboldened by the 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling to introduce “bills that would undermine marriage equality, trump non-discrimination laws, and deny women access to reproductive healthcare – all in the name of religion.”
Garrett said the initiative would also fight the Obama administration for funding “religious hiring discrimination,” by allowing religious organizations to act in accordance with their religious beliefs in their hiring practices while receiving government funds.
The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling exempted closely held for-profit corporations from complying with certain laws to which they hold religious objections.
Christian Baker Makes Case for Not ‘Expressing’ Support of Same-Sex Marriage
The owner of a family business that makes custom cakes today asked a Colorado appeals court to strike down state rulings that he discriminated against a same-sex couple by declining to provide a cake to celebrate their wedding.
Lawyers for “cake artist” Jack Phillips argued that compelling the suburban Denver baker to express his artistic talents in connection with the 2012 wedding of two men would violate his First Amendment rights not only to freedom of religion but also free speech or expression.
“The gist is that one side … is defending the First Amendment rights of artists like Jack Phillips to create expressions consistent with his beliefs and to avoid creating expressions that violate his belief,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal after representing Phillips at the hearing.
“The other side of the case thinks there are no First Amendment rights in the commercial context and once you open a business, you cede all First Amendment protections.”
Lawyers for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who were to marry in Massachusetts but wanted to buy a custom cake to celebrate upon their return to Colorado, said Phillips’ business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, discriminated against them by turning down their order.
“Religious beliefs do not put the cake shop above the law,” Ria Mar, a lawyer representing the couple for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued in the hearing.
Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
Phillips is asking the Colorado Court of Appeals to reverse decisions by one administrative judge who ruled in December 2013 that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the state’s public accommodations law and a second administrative judge who, in May 2014, certified the denial of the bakery’s appeal by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The state agency ordered Phillips to change store policy against making cakes for same-sex weddings or be subject to fines. Since the rulings, his 22-year-old shop in Lakewood, Colo., has stopped making wedding cakes.
The state ACLU chapter, which has publicized the case, did not respond to a request for comment by The Daily Signal. The state Attorney General’s Office, which represented the state agencies, referred reporters to the ACLU for comment.
The three-judge appeals court is expected to rule within several months in the case, which ultimately could head not only to Colorado’s highest court but to the U.S. Supreme Court.
After last year’s commission ruling, Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, said in a release:
While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers. No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.
In the interview with The Daily Signal, Tedesco said:
The judges’ questions certainly revealed their concerns with the First Amendment ramifications of the case, and a concern with the scope of the ACLU’s and the state’s argument. People shouldn’t be forced to choose between earning a living and exercising their fundamental rights, but that’s what the state and the ACLU are saying in this case.
When one judge asked whether an oil painter had to create a painting celebrating same-sex marriage, an ACLU lawyer replied yes, Tedesco noted.
“And if they don’t want to have to do that, then they can close down their business and just paint on the side.”
The hearing comes 11 days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the nation.
The case tests the scope of First Amendment protections that federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, have upheld for free expression in the visual arts and entertainment.
Rather than solely argue Phillips’ right to exercise his Christian religion as a businessman, his lawyers hold that the government can’t force him or his staff to exercise their artistic gifts in a way that violates their faith.
Phillips has said he willingly serves all sorts of customers, including gays and lesbians, but could not in good conscience create a cake especially for the wedding of Craig and Mullins.
He said he offered to make any other kind of cake for them, for any other event. The couple went to another shop and successfully ordered a cake with a rainbow theme to symbolize their union.
Tedesco noted that Alliance Defending Freedom recently supported the right of three other Colorado bakers to refuse to make a custom cake for a Christian who asked for it to express his opposition to same-sex marriage. In those cases, the state ruled against the customer.
Craig and Mullins, holding hands, sat at one side of the courtroom during arguments, the Associated Press reported. Phillips, who sat near his attorneys, told reporters afterward that he doesn’t regret his decision not to bake the cake.
10 Holiday Murders in Chicago, Not One by Confederate Flag
Chicago had yet another bloody weekend, as some 64 were shot and 10 killed. Amazingly, this Independence Day weekend was a bit better than last year’s tragic numbers, and not terribly different from any weekend on the shores of Lake Michigan.
Leftists continue to cry for something to be done — “Where are the gun laws?” demands Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. But the Windy City sports some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws. Leftists often blame out-of-state guns, but, clearly, this isn’t a “gun problem.”
It’s also worth noting that none of the gangbangers doing the shooting were flying Confederate flags, which, we gather from leftist drivel, are responsible for the Charleston murders last month.
From the South Carolina state capitol to Amazon and TV Land, the Confederate flag is being purged from society, as if the Left’s politically correct exorcism can heal all racial wounds. Yet there’s nary a peep about the plague of inner city black-on-black violence created by deliberately institutionalized urban poverty plantations, which have become mass breeding grounds for such violence.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.