Here is the second installment in a series.  The first was this => PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: IDENTITY POLITICS

The subject here is freedom of religion.

Hillary Clinton

Some people have taken an extract of the video above to demonstrate that H. Clinton is an enemy of religious freedom. Here is an example.

The video clip raised the ire of, of course. So their post, Twist of Faith, rated clips of this sort as “False”, claiming they were taken out of context.  Is correct? No. provides a counterpoint here, Hillary Lets The Veil Slip: Religion Is A Problem To Be Disposed Of.

Think about H. Clinton means when she says this.

And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

Doesn’t H. Clinton mean she is going to use the force of government to shove her beliefs upon the rest of us? Where is there any indication in H. Clinton’s career that she would let the Constitution stand in her way?

  • Watch the top video carefully. What H. Clinton preaches to her fellow women is that government is their messiah. Instead of asking women to put their faith in God, she offers herself as the deliverer of government handouts. Of course, she makes it sounds like the ladies deserve all the goodies she offers, but they don’t. Nobody does. Besides being too costly, H. Clinton’s Utopia just won’t work. What has proven to work perfectly? Nothing in this life. However, where people honor a Christian code of ethics — revere their relationships with God, their spouses, their children, and their friends and neighbors — they live blessed communities. It is much more efficient for us to rely on each other than it is to rely on government handouts.
  • The first video includes a reference by H. Clinton to the Hobby Lobby case. H. Clinton stated she did not like the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The judges decided that Hobby Lobby did not have to provide a health insurance plan for its employees that included four potentially life-terminating drugs and devices. Since the law violated the religious convictions of the owners of Hobby Lobby, the judges decided the government had no right to force them to pay severe fines.
  • H. Clinton is a huge advocate for so-called homosexual rights. See her own web page => LGBT rights and equality. When there were none to be found, judges found homosexual rights in our Federal and in many state constitutions. Is there any doubt H. Clinton would appoint more such judges? Do we really want H. Clinton, a so-called women’s rights advocate, to force us to allow transgender men into the ladies room? What kind of government would even want to do that?
  • H. Clinton is The Teacher’s Candidate (Slate), that is, teachers unions. School choice is a religious issue, and the teachers unions hate it. Many parents see what is happening in the public schools, and they do not want to expose their children to the values being taught there.  Check out Hillary Clinton’s web site. She will enlarge the role of the Federal Government in education, from early childhood through K-12 and college. If you think the indoctrination is bad now…..
National Review is no fan of Donald Trump, but they choked at the thought of H. Clinton as a fan of religious freedom => The Hillary Clinton Is No Champion of Religious Freedom. Conservative Review considered her record as Secretary of State => Hillary Clinton is a great defender of religious freedom … for Islamic Supremacists.

Donald Trump

What pops up when we search the Internet on “Donald Trump” and “religious freedom”? One of the search engines will spew out a series of articles from National Review. That’s a Conservative publication that does not much like Trump. Therefore, we see articles like these.

Did this article, Senator Lee Introduces a Bill to Protect Religious Liberty, represent a change of heart National Review? Whose got time to figure that out?

On his website Trump does not feature religious freedom as a big issue. Instead, he has Constitution and Second Amendment web page. Here is how that begins.



Appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution. The replacement for Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views and principles who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

  • Defend the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. Nobody is above the law.
  • Uphold our freedoms, constitutional values and principles that our country was founded on.
  • Protect our Constitutional liberties.
  • Protect and defend the bill of rights, including the freedom of religion, speech, press and right to bear arms.

View Donald J. Trump’s list of Supreme Court Justice Picks, here

(continued here)

Trump rightly views his judicial picks as a freedom of religion issue, and that is most certainly true. He has given us a list of judges. He has offered us a bargain. We vote for him we get his judges. We vote for H. Clinton we get her judges, and we don’t have to be told what that means.

Here are a couple other interesting items from Trump’s website.

Trump has made no secret of the fact he wants the vote of Conservative Christians. He has asked for it, and has offered us a prized plum, Conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Trump will work to repeal the Johnson amendment, Donald Trump’s push to repeal Johnson Amendment buoys religious freedom advocates. That is, Trump will fight to revoke legislation that prevents churches from participating in the political process. seems relatively happy with Trump.

The basic trouble with Trump is that he is hardly what anyone would call a model Christian. However, as some have observed he seems to realize that.

Mr. Trump frequently touts his support from evangelicals but jokes that he might not be the ideal model of piety. In his RNC speech, he said he is not sure he totally deserves the support he has received from the community. (from here)

Who would have thought that running for president just might — might — teach Donald Trump a little humility?

With respect to freedom of religion, what is the biggest complaint about Donald Trump? Here is an example:  Trump’s Attack on Freedom of Religion. Trump is suspicious of radical Islamic terrorists. The obvious fact that they kill people bothers him. So he does not want to allow immigrants into our country from nations with lots of Islamic terrorists.

Look into our history. When we established freedom of religion in the United States, what were people worried about? They did not want the national government to establish an official church of the United States, like England had done. The framers of the Constitution were worried about rivalry between different Christian denominations. They had no notion whatsoever of inviting hundreds of thousands of Muslims into our country, and they gave Congress the power to absolutely control who is allowed to immigrate to this country. If Congress wants to prohibit the immigration of Muslims, the Constitution says they can.

The Democrats invented the crazy notion of open borders so they could get more cheap labor for their rich donors and register more reliably Democrat voters. What the Democrats are doing is an attack on religious freedom. What about the Americans already here? How does it benefit us to invites hordes of people into our country who don’t want to assimilate our culture? Why would we risk the chaos of bringing terrorists of any kind into our country, particularly terrorists who kill Christians? If we know that the majority of terrorists these days claim to be followers of Islam, that just makes it a little easier to identify them. Only dummies throw away clues like that.


What does it mean to “rig an election”? Well, when someone uses that expression, we usually think of contaminating the vote at the polls. Is that being done? Probably, but in America the vote is counted by local governments in 50 different states. So except in a close election it is difficult to win an election by rigging the vote.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump has said the election is rigged.  Here is how CNN plays the story.

Donald Trump and his surrogates amplified their argument over the weekend that the election is “rigged,” leaving the Republican nominee more isolated as top members of the GOP — including his own running mate — declared their faith in the political system.
Trump opened Sunday with a series of tweets sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the election.

“The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD”

But Trump’s own vice presidential nominee, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, disagreed during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying he will accept the Election Day results.

“We will absolutely accept the result of the election,” he said. “Look, the American people will speak in an election that will culminate on November the 8. But the American people are tired of the obvious bias in the national media. That’s where the sense of a rigged election goes here, Chuck.” (from here)

Are Trump and Mike Pence in disagreement? Listen to what Trump says about 8 minutes and 30 seconds into this video.

Also consider the latest investigation to come out of I heard about this when Mark Levin interviewed James O’Keefe on his show. That discussion starts at about 20 minutes into the recorded version of the 10/17/2016 episode. (Click here to download the show in a different format.). After the interview with Levin, crashed, of course, but they are back up.

Note also that Real Clear Politics is carrying the story here => New O’Keefe Video: Clinton Campaign, DNC Coordinated With Organizations To Incite Violence At Trump Events. has a report documenting efforts by H. Clinton’s campaign and other Democrat operatives to foment violence at Trump rallies.

A second video is supposed to come out tomorrow.

Finally, take the time to investigate some of the stuff coming out of WikiLeaks.



babyThe Issue

Several years back I wrote a series of post on abortion (Here is the first post => WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT ABORTION? — PART 1). I put a lot of work into it, but it did not get a lot of hits.  I guess, even though I am not a Bible scholar, it came across as too scholarly and ivory tower.

Regardless of what we say, when most of us surf the web, we want something bite-size and personally relevant. Life, however, does not necessarily give simple, easy problems. It only gives us what looks like easy choices, like that choice favored by the Pro-Choice crowd.

How Do We Choose?

You are a man. You get your girl-friend pregnant. You are that girl-friend. He doesn’t want the child. If you have the child, you could have a 20-year obligation. If you don’t have the child, it is just gone? Not exactly, and the longer you live the better and more painfully you will understand the consequences of making the wrong choice.

altruistico is doing a series on abortion. His series deals directly with that Pro-Life/Pro-Choice choice. Since ‘s series deals directly with the choice we have to make, I suspect his readers will find his series more personally relevant.

Here is what has thus far posted.

If you have any doubts that unfairly presents what the Bible has to say about abortion, then please consider my poor series on the subject as a place to start your investigation. I did my best to consider both sides of the issue. To my surprise, I discovered the Pro-Choice scholarship on this issue plainly unworthy of any respect.

The 2016 Presidential Election

Please note that abortion will be an issue in the 2016 Presidential Election. We have a candidate that is so rabidly Pro-Choice she has announced her intention to select judges who put their personal “life experience” ahead of what the Constitution actually says.

Here is what Hillary Clinton said in the Second Presidential Debate about her selection criteria for judges.

This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real life experience. Who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but maybe they tried more cases. Actually understand what people are up against. Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn’t agree with that. I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are a big problem in many parts of the country. That we don’t do always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality. Now, Donald put forth of the names of people he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and take us backwards. I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because you are wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn’t mean you have more rights or should have any more rights than anything else. (from here)

Given Hillary Clinton speaks out of both sides of her mouth, we can disregard her comments about corporate interests. However, Planned Parenthood has supported her campaign, and that support does interest H. Clinton.

Here is Donald Trump’s statement on abortion.

If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed – like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions. (from here)

Trump has already given us a list from which he would make his judicial picks. See for yourself. See what Trump has to say about the Constitution and Second Amendment.


Hillary Clinton's new home? (from here)
Hillary Clinton’s new home? (from here)

In A WORD TO REPLACE “POLITICALLY CORRECT”?, I suggested that we replace the phrase “politically correct” with “obsequious”. Here I will show how we might want to use the word “obsequious”.

At this post, WHY IS VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON MADNESS?, I got a comment from an unhappy Hillary Clinton supporter. Here it is.


When you get a second, poke your head up and outside of your dark little maze of echo chambers here Tom and into the light of the real world.

The Republican Party is in a full scale implosion. Instead of seeking unity, Trump and his rabidly outraged supporters are engaging in a circular firing squad with the establishment of their own party. The math has become almost inexorably on course to make this an Electoral College landslide for Clinton, and the popular vote does not look much better. Trump has no ground game. Republican chances of retaining their Senate majority and strong House majority are being dragged down along with the national tickets.

To move undecideds, Independents, and moderates from both political parties, and to even have a chance to win at this late date, Trump and Trump supporters would need to pivot away from talking about sex and sexism, a topic that has proved absolutely damning for Trump with decent people of any political persuasion, and yet all he and you want to do is talk about sex, sex, sex.

Please keep up the good work Tom. ☺️ (from here)

What follows is my response. Keep in mind that wherever you see some form the word “obsequious” I could just as easily have used some form of the phrase “politically correct”.

Tom’s Response

Well, I suppose I could just obsequiously defer to the infinite wisdom of the news media and give up. After all, news media has rigged the election — I mean “called” the election — so there is no possible way anyone but the most intelligent woman, the most experienced woman, the finest female foreign policy expert of the age can win.

Yeah, this is the year of the woman. There is nothing sexist about Hillary’s campaign. She has never pointed to her genitals and asked women to vote for her just because she is a woman. No, nothing so undignified. Such hypocrisy has nothing to do with Hillary’s campaign. So I suppose I should be politely obsequious and just submit to the pressure of news media tirades.

Still, I have a problem. When Democrats are so absurdly obsessed with the subjects (Here is a local example on the gender neutral bathroom issue => THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT),  I cannot figure out why Democrats keep insisting that Conservatives must obsequiously shut up. Conservatives have to stop talking about sex and sexism so Democrats can do all the talking?

Are Conservatives trying to alter the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions using the courts? No, but Democrats are, and what Democrats doing is voting for people who have no problem breaking their oaths of office.

Our officials are supposed to support and defend both the U.S Constitutions and their state constitutions, not amend them. Therefore, to obsequiously defer to Democrat demands for “sexual equality” (really just sexual fantasies), Conservatives have to go along with oath-breaking. I don’t think my conscience will support that, thank God.

Moreover, Democrats make this same demand for obsequious submission with respect every “social” issue. It is absurd. Isn’t everything Democrats want to spend gobs of money on a social program? Don’t Democrats break both Federal and state government budgets on health, education, and welfare programs, that is, social programs? Nevertheless, Democrats castigate Social Conservatives and laud Fiscal Conservatives, as if there was any such thing as someone who can be fiscally conservative without certain moral standards.

So no, I am not going to obsequiously give up. I will do my part to support Donald Trump and put Hillary in prison instead of  the White House.

PS – I already know Trump is not Conservative, but he is also not Hillary.