I was not paying much attention to social media this past weekend, as I was working on a home improvement project, so I only had a vague idea of the events that transpired in Charlottesville, Virginia. I made a few comments to twitter, mostly re-tweets and one asking anyone that agrees with the protestors to unfollow me, and emphasizing it with vulgarities.

It wasn’t until late Sunday and early into the week that I really started to dip my toes into the waters so to speak and get acquainted with the disgusting display that took place.

I really won’t discuss the actual events that transpired, only to say that as a lover of liberty that has long rallied against the watering-down and redefining of what it means to be a “right leaning” conservative I am disgusted that those hateful, racist “alt-Right” protestors and the movement itself gets associated with “conservative” or “libertarianism.”

I will say that I am even more glad that I gave up my former blogging domain name years ago of Right Wing Rebel. Though I mainly gave that up because I have come to realize that the left vs right political spectrum is complete hogwash.

My biggest concern over the Trump candidacy was the nationalistic sentiment that his campaign swept up. “Blood & soil” is the polar opposite of the very idea that our country is founded on, the idea that all men are created equal, and our endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But I don’t care to talk about Trump, Nationalism, or even racism really right now. What I really want to focus on, is something that has been brewing for a while now, but has really come to prominence these past few days and that is the “no free speech for fascists” or the “punch a Nazi” movement.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, recently asked the very valid question, “Do you really want Donald Trump deciding who gets free speech”?

She writes:

… if fascists are to lose their free speech rights, someone must take them. And if you believe, as many of the counter-protesters do, that the white nationalists and their brethren were emboldened by the presence of a man in the White House who sees them as part of his coalition, then why on God’s good green earth would you want to turn around and hand that very man the right to censor anyone whom he labels fascists? Because I can tell you right now, the list of folks that Trump and the restive-but-still-Republican Congress would like to silence sure won’t look like the list those sign-wavers have in mind.

Living in a truly free and open society, truly respecting the concept of individual rights and liberty, means having to accept things that you dislike. That also includes having to accept some things that you find morally reprehensible.

Forcing the ignorant, disgusting and vile into the shadows does not eliminate ignorance and hatred. It just sweeps it under the rug where it is allowed to fester and grow like mold and spread into something even more hateful and disgusting.

The American progressive movement always claim to be the ones of peace, love, understanding and free ideas… but the caveat is, you are accepted only as long as that peace, love and understanding comes with the same pre-packaged manufactured group-think “free” ideas that they share.

The image that struck me the most this weekend was of the black police office standing guard and protecting the ignorant racists behind him.

Think about that juxtaposition for a moment.

Barely a full year ago, a crazed black power ideologue gunned down law enforcement in Dallas, Texas, where the media incidentally didn’t go bash ALL BLM supporters and ALL progressives, they pointed it out for what it was an isolated incident.

Now that police office, who is both a black life and a blue life but more importantly a HUMAN life and who is hated by many hardcore progressives who think all cops are corrupt is protecting ignorant fools who also hate him, albeit because of the color of his skin.

Things are not clear-cut. There is not one side, or the other side. There is not only right or left. There is not just black or white.

The issues facing us are far more complicated then anything I can explain.

Hatred begets hatred, violence begets violence. Ignorance breeds ignorance and anti-fascism, at least these days, is more often then not — fascism itself.

Free speech, as long as its non-violent free speech, must be protected and defended to full extent, even free speech that you find repulsive.

I’ll close out with the words of pastor Martin Niemöller, who knows a little bit of this, having spent a few years in a real Nazi concentration camp.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Early this morning, President-elect Donald Trump took to social media to announce his desire to take a piss all over the Bill of Rights. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” Is what he posted to twitter.

That belief is a slap in the face to those who truly value our liberty.

In the 1989 US Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson, a split court (5-4) held that burning an American flag as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

At a demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the evolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, was involved in a political demonstration that turned violent. The demonstrators marched through the streets, shouted chants, destroyed property, broke windows and threw trash, soiled diapers, beer cans and various other items, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.

Johnson was charged with violating a Texas law that prohibited the desecration of a venerated object. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but he lost this appeal. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.

The case eventually made it’s way to the Supreme Court and in their decision the court found that the right to free speech does not end at the spoken or written word, but also includes “symbolic speech.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, in his concurrence expressed the sentiment that sometimes standing up for liberty, means standing up for things that you don’t agree with.

The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.

Our colleagues in dissent advance powerful arguments why respondent may be convicted for his expression, reminding us that among those who will be dismayed by our holding will be some who have had the singular honor of carrying the flag in battle. And I agree that the flag holds a lonely place of honor in an age when absolutes are distrusted and simple truths are burdened by unneeded apologetics.

With all respect to those views, I do not believe the Constitution gives us the right to rule as the dissenting Members of the Court urge, however painful this judgment is to announce. Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.

This morning after seeing, Chairman of the Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwark post his own brief thoughts on flag-burning to Facebook, I went ahead and shared my own updated version of that

I want to make this clear, I believe that the act of burning the American flag is a sick and disgusting thing to do. Furthermore, I believe that individuals who purposely desecrate the flag are asshole’s of the highest order.

I just believe that, you either believe in liberty or you don’t. Those flag burning assholes have the same right to burn Old Glory as I have to think they are assholes for doing it.

I will defend their right to be assholes until my dying breath.

In a conversation about the topic with a co-worker, I was accused of being “lukewarm” on the issue and told that burning a flag is disrespectful to the brave soldiers who died for that flag.

To that I said, only tyrants lock people in jail for the victimless crime of burning a piece of cloth. No man died for a piece of cloth, they died for the idea that that piece of cloth represented. Amongst those ideas, as our founding fathers so eloquently put it is that we “… are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

To lock someone up for burning a flag, makes us no better then the type of despots we claim to have opposed, if we start doing that… then those soldiers who many claim “die for the flag,” will truly have died for nothing.

Franklin Center Political Cartoon by Mike Shelton

The big-government loving “progressives” are coming after bloggers such as myself and of course the much-more effective and known ones.

Via Breitbart:

As the media prepared to vacate newsrooms for the weekend, Democrats snuck in a last minute proposal that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) be allowed to heavily regulate political content on internet sites such as Youtube, blogs, and the Drudge Report.

Obama FEC Vice Chairperson Ann M. Ravel announced late on Friday that the FEC was preparing new regulations to give itself control over videos, Internet-based political campaigns, and other content on the web. She insisted that, “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue.”

This snap decision came after the FEC deadlocked 3-3 over whether or not an anti-Obama Internet campaign in Ohio had violated FEC campaign disclosure rules. The videos were placed for free on Youtube and were not paid advertising, but they also did not disclose who made them.

Until now, videos and other political content that is not posted for a fee are unregulated by the FEC. Only paid advertising is regulated under election rules. It is this that the Democrats want to change.

“FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site, or even a chat room could be regulated,” the Washington Examiner reported on October 24. Read More…

Wake up America, before it’s too late…

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained Christian ministers and owners of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

As I wrote last year in my post about the Supreme Court decision striking down a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, I tend to lean (socially) to the left on certain issues. The right of free-people to make life long commitments to each other, no matter what the genders of the parties involved is one of them. The government should have no say in the matter what-so-ever.

As a small-government loving Conservative, I want Uncle Sam out of my life. If you need the strong arm of the government signing off on your union for it to be valid in your heart & mind, are you truly living in a free country?

Last year, the city of Coeur d’Alene, Idahao, passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ordinance applies to employment, housing, public accommodation and was supposed to protect religious entities. However because the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, which sits across the street from the County Clerk’s office is a “for profit” entity, city officials claim they are not exempt from the ordinance.

This past Friday, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the city from forcing the Chapel’s owners, both ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

From The Spokesman-Review:

Owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp say in the lawsuit that they believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

“Performing same-sex wedding ceremonies would thus force the Knapps to condone, promote and even consecrate something forbidden by their religious beliefs and ordination vows,” the suit reads.

…

According to the lawsuit, a man called the business Friday to ask about a same-sex wedding ceremony and was turned down. The Knapps are now asking for a temporary restraining order against the city to stop it from enforcing the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.

“The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines for declining to speak a message and perform a wedding service that contradicts their religious beliefs and ministerial vows,” the suit reads. Read More…

First, I would like to ask “Why would a couple that wants to express their life-time commitment to each other, want their special day tainted by having the person officiating the ceremony forced to do so under orders from the government?”

The First Amendment clearly prohibits the government from interfering in the free expression of religious beliefs, or to use the term that progressives always misuse the first amendment establishes a “Separation of Church & State.”

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has the right to use government force to make anyone be it an ordained minister or a lay person go against their religious beliefs and take part in a same-sex ceremony. It is downright totalitarian to force someone to have to choose between their strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.

I do believe that same-sex couples who choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other should have the right to do so, I just don’t believe that the rights of religious people should be trampled on to make that happen.

Emanuel Smith, 60, charged with inducing panic and criminal trespass after making Ebola joke at Horseshoe Casino on Wednesday October 15, 2014.

A felony, a freaking felony? That’s ridiculous.

From my local bird-cage liner, The Plain Dealer:

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Bond is set at $10,000 for a Cleveland man charged with inducing panic after being accused of telling a Horseshoe Casino worker that he was gambling to avoid his Ebola-stricken ex-wife.

Hours after news broke Wednesday that a Dallas nurse diagnosed with Ebola had visited Cleveland, Emanuel Smith, 60, told a table games dealer that he was dodging a sick ex-wife who traveled to Cleveland from West Africa, according to the Ohio Casino Control Commission.

Smith, a former Cuyahoga County employee, visited the casino by himself. He and his ex-wife do not have Ebola and have not traveled to Africa, according to local officials.

Defense attorney Kathleen DeMetz said the exchange has been blown out of proportion.

“People were having a general discussion about the current situation,” she said. “He made a comment regarding his former wife who had traveled to Africa sometime in the past and that he tries to stay away from her.” Read More…

James Evans, jailed 8 days for posting heavy metal lyrics on Facebook.

Common sense and the ability to reason is all but a lost cause in our nation’s schools and law-enforcement agencies. More then likely, the ability not to have a ridiculous over-reaction to every little thing that you don’t understand is gone in the country as a whole as well. The latest example is of a Kentucky man who has spent 8 days locked in jail for a post he made on Facebook.

James Evans, 31, of Muhlenberg Co., KY, is a heavy metal fan. Often times Evans likes to post YouTube videos of songs or various song lyrics on his Facebook wall, something that I do myself and countless numbers of other people on Facebook do all the time.

Most people don’t get arrested for doing so, James Evans did.

On August 24th, Evans posted the lyrics to “Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)” a song off of Exhibit B: The Human Condition, the 2010 album from legendary thrash metal band Exodus. Law enforcement officials were notified of the posting and two-days later James Evans was arrested.

Via WFIE/14 News:

Mike Drake, the Muhlenberg County school resource officer, says multiple agencies received calls concerned about the post.

So Evans was arrested for terroristic threatening.

The warrant says Evans was arrested because, “he threatened to kill students and or staff at school.” Read more…

Below is the posting, the snippet of song lyrics that got Evans in trouble with the law.

Now I will fully admit, those are some pretty violent lyrics, but I fail to see where a “threat” was made. Nowhere in that post did Evans say that he was going to a school to shoot teachers and staff.

When he was released on September 3rd, Evans had the following statement:

“It’s nonsense. I feel like my civil rights have been violated. You know first amendment freedom of speech out the window. Even all the guys I was in the cell with they thought it was nonsense themselves. I had several officials tell me it was nonsense that there was no reason why I should have even been here.”

His civil rights absolutely have been violated. To add insult to injury, Evans states that his case will be pushed back 6 months and he will have to undergo a mental evaluation.

Gary Holt, founder/guitarist/songwriter of Exodus issued the following statement in regards to this ridiculous arrest:

“The idea that an individual in this great country of ours could be arrested for simply posting lyrics to a song is something I never believed could happen in a free society,” states EXODUS guitarist Gary Holt. “James Evans was simply posting lyrics to a band he likes on Facebook, and he was locked up for it. The song ‘Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)’ was written as a view through the eyes of a madman and in no way endorses that kind of fucked up behavior. It was the Virginia Tech massacre perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho that was the subject and inspiration to write the song, one in which we put the brakes on playing it live after the Sandy Hook shooting, as we did not want to seem insensitive.”

Gary continues, “As some of us in EXODUS are parents, of course these things hit close to home, it’s every parent’s worst fear. These moments are the stuff of nightmares, and life, as well as music, isn’t always pretty. But when we start to overreact to things like lyrics by any band, including EXODUS, and start arresting people, we are caving in to paranoia and are well on our way to becoming an Orwellian society.”

Exodus, who recently reunited with vocalist Steve “Zetro” Souza are set to release their 10th studio album, Blood In, Blood Out, on Oct. 14. The band will also begin a string of U.S. tour dates with Slayer and Suicidal Tendencies on Nov. 11.

That is of course unless they get jailed by the thought police.

Least offensive sign in the world, taken down due to political correctness.

Bowing to political correctness, and citing “safety concerns” the owner of Sneakers Bistro in Winooski, VT removed an advertisement that read “YIELD FOR BACON,” because a local Muslim resident found the sign offensive.

Via WPTZ:

It got there as part of “Operation Bloom.”

A city program put it in place to keep its flower beds beautiful. If businesses do some gardening they can post an advertisement where they do it, but the word “bacon” on the Sneakers Bistro sign started a discussion about diversity on the Winooski Front Porch Forum.

It started with a post from one woman who wrote that the sign was insensitive to those who do not consume pork. She said as a Muslim she is personally offended by it.

The owners of Sneakers spoke to WPTZ. They say they’ve reached out to the individual who made the post and proactively took the sign down. They also say they regret any harm caused by the sign, and that their goal was never to cause stress or bad feelings. Read More…

On their now deleted Facebook page Sneakers Bistro had this response:

“We are here to serve people BREAKFAST, not politics. We removed the sign that was located on public property as a gesture of respect for our diverse community. There were also concerns raised about safety. Removing it was not a difficult decision. We still love bacon. We still love eggs. Please have the political conversation elsewhere.”

I’m interested to know what these “concerns raised about safety,” were? Did they think that the sign was going to cause potential traffic accidents over cars stopping in the street over the thoughts of wonderful tasty bacon goodness? Or were they concerned about violence over their harmless and amusing ad?

It is a free country, or at least it is supposed to be. Much like I wrote in my post about atheists attacking an Arkansas restaurant for their church bulletin promotion, I believe that in a free society small-business owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit. So they have every right to pull their sign down due to political correctness, I just think that its sad and pathetic.

I’m more & more convinced each day that the vast-majority of vocal atheists aren’t even really devout in their lack of faith — they’re just a bunch of malcontents and assholes who enjoy stirring up trouble. Sort of like the scumbag ass-hat’s who are harassing a small-business owner in Arkansas.

On July 19th, Steven Rose, the owner of Bailey’s Pizza in Searcy, Arkansas, posted a pictuire of the sign outside his business on the restaurant’s Facebook page on. It was a promotion depicting a 10% discount for anyone coming in with a church bulletin. A few days later the post received a comment from “Bong Hits for Jesus” that read, “Good luck on your discrimination lawsuit.”

A few days after that Rose received a letter from the douchebags at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, postdated July 30th, the same date of the “Bong Hits for Jesus” post. The atheist nut-jobs called the promotion a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Via KTHV:

Rose does not agree. “It has nothing to do with excluding anybody,” said Rose. “It’s not specific to any church. It’s another way to bring people in and make them feel welcome.”

Rose opened his pizza buffet style pizza joint back in July. His restaurant has a wall allowing customers to write bible verses and scriptures.

In the center of the wall, it reads,

“God is the center of our lives, so our scripture wall is the center of Bailey’s Pizza.”

Rose received a letter from the national organization the first week of August. “It says that because I give a ten percent discount to people who go to church on Sundays, I’m discriminating against those who don’t go to church.” Read More…

What’s next? How about we sue car insurance companies that give a good grades discount to student drivers, that’s discriminating against those with learning disabilities. While we’re at it we should also sue anyone giving discounts to people with College I.D.’s, that’s discriminating againt people who can’t afford higher education. We should also sue anyone that makes people clip a coupon, that’s discriminating against those who don’t get the Sunday paper delivered.

Hey atheists, there is a simple solution if you don’t support this small-business owners right to run his business the way he see’s fit — don’t spend your money there jackasses!

In a free society people (small-business owners included) should be allowed to live their lives as they choose and run their businesses as they see fit.

This is Carey Wedler, the girl who’s YouTube video where she burns her Obama campaign Tee Shirt is currently making the rounds on Conservative blogs and Facebook Pages. She made a lot of great points in that video, however in the end her thoughts veered dangerously close to anarchism, which I am most definitely not an advocate of.

Some of her thoughts in this video also step dangerously close to anarchism, but she makes some very excellent points as well.

It’s great to see the awakening that is slowly growing in this country of ours.

I generally am not a fan of “reality TV,” I think the vast majority (99.9%) of the stuff is just pure & utter garbage. That being said Duck Dynasty is one of the few shows that I enjoy from time to time. I don’t go out of my way to seek it out, but if my ass is nestled firmly on my couch as I’m surfing through the channels and its there, its generally something that I stop on.

As far as the issue with the recent comments attributed to Phil Robertson, founder of Duck Commander and patriarch of the Robertson family clan, I’m not really outraged by A&E’s decision to “indefinitely suspend” him from the show as many of my brethren on the conservative side of the political spectrum are. While I did update my twitter avatar to a self portrait in Duck Dynasty beard photo with #STANDWITHPHIL written across it, I am more amused by the situation then outraged.

I mean come on, A&E signs up a folksy, outspoken and deeply Christian family to appear on a show on their network and then feign outrage when one of them gets all outspoken and Christian? I’m more upset that issues like the Fast & Furious scandal, Benghazi, the NSA spying and the Obama Administration using the IRS to attack political enemies have gotten nowhere near the outrage that Phil Robertson’s dismissal from A&E has gotten.

However, I understand why this story has drawn a larger amount of outcry then the other stories. There is a much smaller amount of people that pay active attention to the political events that go on in our world then there is that are tuned into issues of pop culture. So if the outrage from the suspension of Phil Robertson can be used to capture and engage those conservative-minded individuals who hold traditional American conservative values, but have not been vocal and active in expressing them — I say thank you A&E.

The reason that so many Americans love Duck Dynasty, the reason that the “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back On Duck Dynasty” & the “Stand With Phil Robertson” Facebook pages each got over 1 million likes in less then 24 hours, is because the Robertson family represents what is usually ignored, taken for granted and/or mocked by progressive elites — the traditional American family.

That being said, some people’s definition of “free speech” and what it really means are not exactly close in certain occasions of this debate.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment says that 1) the government cannot establish an official state religion, 2) the government can’t pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, 3) the government cannot pass laws abridging the speech of its citizens or calling its government out when they are being stupid. Not in any part of that does it state or even remotely imply that a private business is not allowed to disassociate from an individual or an entity that they do business with because of comments that said individual made.

Just as Phil Robertson has the God-given and US Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, A+E Networks and other private companies are also well within their rights to control what message gets associated with their business. So try as they might to huff and puff and complain, those voices out there who are saying that Phil Robertson’s First Amendment “rights” were violated by A&E, are just plain wrong.

That being said, despite the fact that A&E are well within their rights to terminate their association with Phil Robertson’s and his comments, the fans of Duck Dynasty are also well within their rights to be upset and even outraged at the treatment of the Duck Commander founder.

The free market is where these battles get fought. Don’t like what A&E did? Boycott them, boycott their sponsors, huff & puff and complain that they are a bunch of America-hating liberal idiots. Just don’t say that they violated Phil Robertson’s First Amendment Rights — because they didn’t.

So in conclusion while I #STANDWITHPHILL I also support A&E’s right to make business decisions — even if those business decisions, like getting rid of the duck that lays their golden eggs, is a fucking stupid one.

Franklin Center Political Cartoon by Mike Shelton

Via Eric Boehm at The Liberty Crier

The most recent congressional threat to the free press in the United States comes from California Democrat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

In a proposed amendment to a media shield law being considered by Congress, Feinstein writes that only paid journalists should be given protections from prosecution for what they say or write. The language in her proposal is raising concerns from First Amendment advocates because it seems to leave out bloggers and other nontraditional forms of journalism that have proliferated in recent years thanks to the Internet.

Read more here.

via USA Today:

NEWPORT, Tenn. — A Tennessee mother is appealing a court’s decision after a judge ordered her son’s name be changed from “Messiah.”

Jaleesa Martin and the father of Messiah could not agree on a last name, which is how they ended up at a child support hearing in Cocke County Chancery Court on Thursday.

That is when the first name came into question.

Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew serves the 4th Judicial District of Tenn. including the following counties: Cocke, Grainger, Jefferson, and Sevier.

The name change was part of Judge Ballew’s case; however, the parents did not think the first name would be changed.

Judge Ballew ordered the 7-month-old’s name be “Martin DeShawn McCullough.” It includes both parent’s last names but leaves out Messiah.

“The word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ,” Judge Ballew said.

I usually loathe the practice of giving weird and unusual names to children, I cringe whenever I hear what the latest ridiculous celebrity baby name is. Now because this is a free country, or so they keep telling us that it is, I have a right to think that a certain name for a baby is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, I think Messiah is a ridiculous name for a child, and one that will not give the child the best possible path to walk on in life.

However having the right to think that somebody is giving their kid a stupid name is one thing, what nobody has – most certainly not the government — is the right to forcefully deny someone the right to give their kid a stupid name.

I’m not a big fan of the ACLU, in they way they pick & choose what to & what not to defend, but if there ever was a case for the ACLU to step in this is it.

This so-call judge way over-stepped her bounds and should be removed from her position.