The con game cloaked in Christianity.

Can someone please explain to me what exactly is a "religious liberty task force"? I ask because apparently Jeff Sessions and the trump administration just formed one.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) - Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday announced the Department of Justice's creation of a "religious liberty task force" to "help the department fully implement our religious guidance."

In a speech at the Department of Justice's Religious Liberty Summit in Washington, Sessions said the goal of the task force will be protecting religious groups from persecution.

"The task force will help the department fully implement our religious liberty guidance by ensuring that all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt and how we conduct our operations," Sessions said. "That includes making sure that our employees know their duties to accommodate people of faith."

Sessions cited "a dangerous movement" aimed toward stripping away the First Amendment right to freedom of religion as a basis for forming the new task force." [Source]

This is interesting, since it would seem to be that it is trump and his attorney general who are "stripping away" the First Amendment" by trampling all over the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Some Americans love Thomas Jefferson but not necessarily his words: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Clearly Mr. trump and his overzealous AG have no intention of keeping the wall between church and state intact. A true president who cares about the Constitution would spend his time and energy protecting this wall, and not trying to build one to keep out immigrants coming in from our Southern border.

Make no mistake, folks, this latest stunt from the AG and the president is a lame attempt to push their version of religion down our throats.  "A dangerous movement, undetected by many, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom," ...There can be no doubt. This is no little matter. It must be confronted and defeated." 

What movement? The movement of the people who might not believe in your god, and who might want to worship Allah, Buddah, or Haile Selassie I? Or, who might want to worship at the church of  Emayatzy Corinealdi for Christ sake?! (For the record, that happens to be my church.) What if you happen to be an atheist or agnostic? Will this so-called task force protect you then?

I wish I could say that this too will pass, but it won't. Because, as I write this post, trump is stacking the courts up and down with dimwitted conservative zealots. These are people who share some of his dangerous totalitarian views when it comes to religion and other social issues.

The irony is, of course, that there is not a religious bone in trump's body. This is all a scam to shore up his base and keep his 35% loyal to him. If these people were really as religious as they claim, and if they had some real connection to their god or whatever higher being they worship, they would be able to spot the con from a mile away.  Of course we all know that they won't, because the brilliance of the con is that it understands that deep down inside their love of power and control is more powerful than any religion that they claim to follow.

Fortunately, it doesn't take a task force to figure that out. 

To stand or not to stand.

Over sixty percent of Americans want to give San Francisco QB, Colin Kaepernick, a piece of their minds, because, to them, he has disrespected America by refusing to stand for the national anthem.

Of those sixty percent, I m sure that more than half of them are supporting the republican nominee for president. He is a man who took multiple deferments instead of actually serving in the military like so many other young men did at the time. (He actually had FIVE draft deferments during the Vietnam war. FIVE!) But back to #7.

It would be so easy to rip him as just another pampered millionaire athlete who doesn't realize how good he has it here in America. "The guy makes millions to play a game for crying loud! Why can't he just cash his checks and shut his mouth? He should just take his black ass to Africa and see how good he will have it there"  But I say good for him for making a  stand (or in this case a seat) about something that he believes in. The fact that he happens to be a famous athlete makes his stance even more powerful, and it will no doubt shine a brighter light on what he thinks is the issue of inequality and institutionalized racism in this country.

Also, the fact that he was able to articulate his position in such a thoughtful manner was also refreshing. Obviously it is something that he has thought about, and he did not come to his decision overnight. Watching his impromptu press conference at his locker made that all too clear.

It's also nice to see that he is getting support from some of his fellow NFL players, it can be awful lonely out there on principle island; especially when you are a professional athlete who is expected to be a role- model while toe the party line.  

This country has a lot of problems, but one of the beautiful things about this country is that we have a Constitution that allows us to speak up about those problems without having to worry about losing our freedom. And we are also free to  disagree with each other as many have chosen to do with #7.

I love all the people having jersey burning ceremonies because the guy just made them so mad. ("This is America, damn it!! If you don't like it n****r you can leave.") It's sentiments like that one of course, which make Kaepernick's act of defiance even more irradiating. I doubt seriously if the folks making those types of vitriolic attacks see the irony in all of it.

I have loved ones who fought and died defending the First Amendment right of people like Kaepernick to refuse to stand for the anthem, as well as the rights of those who choose to call  him out as a piece of shit or idiot for refusing to do so.
Personally, I stand for the national anthem, as, quite frankly, I would for the anthem of any country. That's the Jamaican in me. But if someone chooses not to for whatever reason, I am honestly not bothered by it, and if that person happens to be a high profile athlete making a social or political statement; I say go for it.

“To me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder".

OK, so it isn't Tommie Smith and John Carlos, but this isn't 1968, either. Although we seem to be getting back there really fast.

*Pic from latimes.com.

The convenient Constituion.

I tweeted about this last night, and it bothered me so much that I am moved to blog about it again.

It's about this Edward Snowden fellow and the leaks that he put out there that allegedly endangered our national security.

Honestly, I have no idea if the information Edward Snowden put out there will actually make it easier for terrorist to attack us or not, but there is an aspect of this story that's troubling.

It's these hipsters, Libertarians, and white liberals  getting into a hissy fit about their privacy rights because of the NSA snooping on their phone conversations and Internet searches. They are crying a river about the Constitutional protections that are being stripped away by "Big Brother", not to mention the police state infringing into their personal lives, and they want answers from their government.

Fair enough. But where was the outrage when government decided that it was cool to "stop and frisk" young minority men in America's largest city? Doesn't that policy violate the 4th Amendment of our wonderful Constitution? I guess, in their eyes, it's cool to racially profile as long as it's under the guise of fighting crime.

Honestly, I am a little confused. So it's cool to violate the Constitution when we are trying to keep down street crime in New York, but not when we are trying to stop a terrorist attack that could kill thousands of people?

"But Field, this is apples and oranges; the NSA eavesdropping intrudes on a potentially large amount of people, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution. 'Stop and frisk' only affects a small segment of the population of New York City. If they don't walk around looking like thugs the police won't be suspicious of them."

Got it now.

The Constitution is only for some of the people.

Good luck to you Mr. Snowden, Hong Kong is a beautiful place. It's a shame that you probably won't get a chance to enjoy it.

Finally, speaking of the Constitution being for some of the people; if you think that DWB is a joke check out the following story:

"Drunk driving is a serious problem in the United States, impacting many thousands of Americans every year, and so is racism. The two issues converged recently during a routine traffic stop of 64-year-old retired firefighter Jessie Thornton by police officers in Surprise, Arizona.

The motorist was handcuffed and taken into custody. Thornton submitted to a Breathalyzer sobriety test and blew a 0.000 blood alcohol content (BAC).

Thornton was eventually free to go, but not before his car had been impounded and the Arizona MVD had been notified of the DUI charge.

Despite the seeming exoneration of the test, the suspect was charged with a DUI, an assessment that led Thornton’s attorney to quip that the real crime was, “D-W-B. Driving While Black.”

Thornton told the local ABC News affiliate that he has been pulled over 10 times and issued four tickets since moving from Ohio to the retirement community of Surprise. This latest stop was the first time he’d been taken to the Surprise lockup.

The arresting officer cited the retiree’s red eyes as grounds for the arrest. Thornton credits chemicals in the neighborhood L.A. Fitness’s lap pool for the redness, a theory in line with Surprise law enforcement’s resident DRE—drug recognition expert.

---

According to Thornton: “After he did all the tests, he says, ‘I would never have arrested you; you show no signs of impairment.’ ”

A blood test that revealed no trace of alcohol or drugs validated this perception.

Thornton was eventually free to go, but not before his car had been impounded and the Arizona MVD had been notified of the DUI charge, which resulted in a notification that his driver’s license was being suspended and he would be required to attend “some sort of drinking class or something.”

Rather than attend the drinking class, former firefighter filed a claim against the city of Surprise seeking $500,000.

The National Education Association, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Civil Liberties Union, OneAmerica and the Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center of Northeastern University are among the many credible and able organizations working to heighten the awareness of and eradicate racial profiling from U.S. law-enforcement policy and practice.

---

Though harassed, inconvenienced and caused physical distress, Jessie Thornton can count himself among the luckier victims of racial profiling. He has the maturity and resources to fight back. His lawsuit is not about the money, he told ABC News: “I just don’t want any of this to happen to somebody else.” [Source]

Wow! A DUI charge -and arrest- for blowing 0.000 in blood alcohol content?

Those of you who drive everyday and happen to be black are not surprised.

There is something else that's not surprising: The only people who will be outraged are us.