On December 25, The Supreme Court of the United States will hear testimony in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case is about a Christian man who refused to create a custom cake for a gay couple’s wedding. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, refused on the grounds that his art, cake decorating, is his way of honoring God. The couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, filed a complaint of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which then found that Masterpiece did discriminate against the couple. What happened to a business owner’s right to not take a job that conflicts with his beliefs? Are the beliefs of the LBGT community more important than those of other groups? A quick Google search of cake shops in Denver found 8 pages with 22 shops listed on the first page. Even if the last page only has one shop on it, that is over 150 shops that the couple could have chosen from. There are many “anti-discrimination” laws on the books today that are being abused to further a political agenda. The couple in question here claim that they brought this case not about the cake, but “it’s about us being able to be free to be treated equally in the public realm.” The problem with that statement is that Masterpiece was doing just that. Mr. Phillips states,” I don’t create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience.” That means no Halloween cakes, no bachelor or bachelorette cakes, and no anti-American cakes. He says he even refused an anti-LGBT message. I agree that we need protections against discrimination, but maybe we need to go back and look at what we call discrimination and make sure that definition is sound.

In my classmate’s blog, “The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly,”  she states that it is obvious that gun control isn’t working, because there were so many deaths from shootings. According to statistics from MADD, there are over 10,000 deaths and 290,000 injuries from drunk driving. The statistics from MassShootingTracker.org show approximately 600 deaths from mass shootings in the same time period. The CDC shows over 633,000 deaths a year from heart disease, and 595,000 from cancer. Where is the outrage of those lives that were cut short? According to some statistics, more than a million people a year die from regular car crashes. Of the statistics that gun control proponents love to spout, they always leave out that over half of gun deaths are self inflicted wounds. Rather than trying to pass more rules, maybe we should concentrate on enforcing the rules that are already in place.

It is time to talk about a very controversial topic, the dreaded topic of gun control.  This is very much a hot button topic right now.  Gun control is being shouted about, both for and against, by everyone in the media and politics.  So what is my stance are you wondering?  I propose that any form of gun control is not only illegal, but unconstitutional.  How did I come to this decision?  Let’s examine each aspect of it.

             First thing that we need to examine is the basis of gun ownership, The Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment of the constitution reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  So let’s break this down and examine the parts.  A militia is defined by the dictionary as “1. A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.”  At first glance, lots of you are saying, that is our National Guard.  And you would be right, if you ignore the other definitions of militia.  The second definition states that citizen soldiers are distinguished from professional soldiers.  That’s fancy speak for they are not paid for what they do.  Examining things from that light moves the National Guard to a different variation of a standing army, not a militia.

                Even now, there are numerous people saying, but that doesn’t mean that assault rifle bans are unconstitutional.  The primary argument I hear for this point is that the founding fathers did not account for the assault weapons that we have now.  I have a different perspective.  The founding fathers intended for the Second Amendment to protect the types of weapons that the standing army would use.  I think that they understood that weapons would evolve, as they were aware of the evolution of the bow and arrow to the muzzle loader that was the primary weapon during the revolution.   Keeping that in mind, then any rifles currently fielded by any army in existence (mainly referencing AR-15, M-4, AK-47, etc.) are what the framers of the constitution envisioned being protected by the Second Amendment. 

                Now it should be noted that this is not referring to heavier weaponry such as cannons, rockets, or missiles.  The founding fathers did not equate heavy weaponry with everyday weaponry.  Again we have to reference the dictionary.  Arms in the dictionary, in relation to the definition having to do with weapons, defines arm as usually firearms, which is defined as small arms weapons, life rifles and pistols, from which a projectile is fired using gunpowder. So when we look at this logically, we see that any regulation on the ownership of any rifle or handgun that is in use by the military is by definition unconstitutional.

In a blog post in the National Review titled “No, Niger isn’t ‘Trump’s Benghazi’,” David French answers the calls that the mission in Niger was “Trump’s Benghazi.” He states that while there are many reasons to thoroughly investigate this tragedy, there is not any evidence at this time that would point to any kind of cover-up by the Trump Administration.

                Mr. French dives deep into the particulars of both this mission in Niger, which was one where the special forces soldiers were training allied forces, and also the terrorist attack in Benghazi, which lead to the death of U.S. soldiers, and an ambassador. He also looks into the cover-up by the Obama administration. Mr. French’s conclusion is that, though the ambush in Niger is an extremely sad tragedy, it is nothing more than what happens all the time in the war on terror. In contrasting Niger with Benghazi, Mr. French says that the cover-up/lie of the spontaneous demonstration of a you tube video is why Benghazi deserved much more scrutiny than Niger does.

                While I enjoy David French’s writing style, the telling thing to me here is his background. On reading his bio on the National Review website, it struck me that not only is he a veteran, in this case U.S. Army Reserves, but he is also a lawyer, “concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict.” To me this lends quite a bit of credibility to his writing on this subject. You would expect him to know what he is talking about.

• In an editorial in the New York Times on October 4, 2017, entitled "The Debate That Goes Nowhere," Andrew Rosenthal states that it is time to begin the debate about gun control. Mr. Rosenthal, a gun control advocate, has written this editorial to his base liberal readers. He advocates, "It’s time to talk about taking away guns — not everyone’s guns and not all of them, but a whole lot.". One thing that Mr. Rosenthal fails to propose is how he intends to decide which guns would be removed. While a credible writer, and honestly one who I would not mind reading more of, I could find nothing in his bio that would lead to me consulting with him on issue of gun control or responsible gun ownership. Mr. Rosenthal also fails to present any evidence to support his claim that gun control is the only way to solve this problem. He makes lots of general statements, such as “There is no good reason for a civilian to own rifles like the ones used by the Las Vegas killer and even less to own many of them.” But how does he know that? What criteria is he using to arrive at that number. Is he stating that all the guns the shooter had are unnecessary? Where do you stop banning and regulating guns? While I personally support the 2nd amendment, I believe there is room for both sides to give in compromise. That can only happen when there is clear communication between both sides, and both sides are willing to budge in their stances.

Hello readers. I hope you are ready for a very good read, which should lead to some lively debate. Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton both sent letters to President Trump urging him to change the FEMA rules excluding religious institutions from receiving FEMA assistance. Current rules don’t allow assistance to organizations that are primarily religious in nature. Would changing this rule violate the “absolute law” of separation of church and state? Let’s talk about whether these rules should be changed or not. I look forward to reading all of your comments.

Here is the link to the article:  http://www.statesman.com/news/abbott-asks-trump-extend-hurricane-harvey-assistance-churches/No56tdzlCBLwWHPPfE1hRP/.

Hello and Welcome

Hello and welcome to my blog. I look forward to an exciting and fun journey through the world of U.S. Government. Stay tuned for more riveting posts.