Why Trump’s Social Media Executive Order Is Both Illegal And Unwise

Today Donald Trump signed an Executive Order punishing social media companies for the way they moderate online content. The order was specifically aimed at Twitter, which has embarrassed the president this week by add fact-checks to several Trump tweets.

The meat of the Executive Order attacks Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, saying, “When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.”

Here is what subparagraph (c)(2)(A) says:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

Communications Decency Act, subparagraph (c)(2)(A)

The law gives social media companies, “interactive computer services,” wide latitude to moderate a wide variety of objectionable content. The law specifically says that even constitutionally protected material can be restricted if the action is taken in good faith.

Another relevant portion of the law is subparagraph (c)(1) which is literally one sentence before the paragraph cited by the president’s Executive Order. That line says:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In other words, the law specifically says that social media companies cannot be treated as publishers of information that they do not produce. Despite the plain language of the law, the president’s Executive Order calls on social media companies to be treated like “any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.” Since laws passed by Congress have more weight than an Executive Order, President Trump’s decree is illegal on its face.

Beyond the illegality of the order, its premise is also wrong. In contrast to many Republicans who claim that Section 230 gives special protections to social media companies, the law actually offers protection based on activity rather than status. When Twitter moderates or removes tweets published by its users, it is protected from liability under the law but, when it produces its own content, it is legally a publisher.

“In plain English, this means that my comments on Twitter or Google or Yelp or the comments section of my favorite website are my comments, and my comments only,” David French explained in Time back in January, adding that Section 230 “allows websites to take down racial slurs – all without suddenly also becoming liable for all the rest of their users’ speech.”

This is exactly what Congress intended when it passed the law. In response to several court cases in the 1990s, Congress designed Section 230 to encourage internet providers to moderate and remove offensive content from their platforms rather than allowing the internet to continue to be a cesspool of insults, pornography, and fake news. Well, even more of one anyway.

As Jeff Kosseff, author of The 26 Words That Created The Internet, explained, “For Congress, the motivator for Section 230 was that it did not want platforms to be these neutral conduits, whatever that means. It wanted the platforms to moderate content.”

The rub is that if the government leaves it up to the internet providers to moderate content then there will be as many different versions of what is offensive as there are internet providers. However, the alternative is that the government become the arbiter of what is fair and what is offensive for all companies.

That is where President Trump wants to go. Trump’s Executive Order calls on the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the FCC to issue regulations determining when internet providers are not acting in good faith, act inconsistently with terms of service, and without a meaningful explanation or allowing users to be heard.

While censorship on social media platforms is not currently a First Amendment issue since the Bill of Rights restricts the government and not private companies, Trump’s plan could make it more difficult to moderate offensive content on the internet by inserting the government into the equation. Twitter has the right to remove content as a private company but if the government directs Twitter to remove or moderate content then it could constitute a First Amendment violation.

Allowing the government to make subjective decisions about the management of content on the internet is never a good idea, but the summer of 2020 is a particularly bad time for Republicans to make such a move. Aside from the strategic fact that Trump’s proposal is an expansion of government into policing free speech on the internet, there are tactical considerations as well.

As we head into the 2020 elections, it looks increasingly likely that Republicans will lose both the presidency and the Senate. If Trump and company act now to set up an infrastructure for micromanaging speech on the internet, it is very possible that a Joe Biden Administration will put that policy fully into place. That fact alone should have been enough to slam the brakes on the Executive Order.

Regardless of the outcome of this year’s election, whatever bureaucratic restrictions the Trump Administration puts on free speech will one day be administered by Democrats. When that happens, it is very likely that the Democrats will use those rules against conservatives. When Republicans give the government a new weapon to brandish, they should remember that sooner or later it will be turned against them.

Originally published on The Resurgent

De Blasio’s Church Threat Is Unconstitutional

There have been accusations of First Amendment violations in orders that prohibited church gatherings due to Coronavirus. Some have claimed that those orders violated religious freedoms because they included churches. Those people were wrong, but now New York Mayor Bill De Blasio has gone a step beyond what the law allows.

In a televised address, De Blasio told New Yorkers, “A small number of religious communities, specific churches and specific synagogues, are unfortunately not paying attention to this guidance even though it’s so widespread. I want to say to all those who are preparing for the potential of religious services this weekend: If you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and attempt to hold services after having been told so often not to, our enforcement agents will have no choice but to shut down those services.”

De Blasio then said that law enforcement had been instructed “if they see worship services going on they will go to the officials of that congregation and they will inform them that they need to stop the services and disperse. If that does not happen, they will take additional action up to the point of fines and potentially closing the building permanently.”

Matthew Schmitz

✔@matthewschmitz

De Blasio: churches and synagogues that hold worship services may be closed permanently

3,262

3:03 PM - Mar 29, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

8,177 people are talking about this

To be clear, quarantines and orders limiting public gatherings are both legal and constitutional. The understanding of the need for quarantines goes back beyond the understanding of germ theory. The CDC notes on its site that the word “quarantine” dates back to the Middle Ages and literally means “40 days,” which coincidentally, is about how long it’s going to take to slow the spread of COVID-19.

In early American history, quarantines were instituted by both the colonial governments and the fledgling government of the United States. Federal action today is justifiable under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Public Health Service Act. Though modern Americans have not had to deal with a situation like the Coronavirus pandemic, quarantines and other restrictions were common in our history as our forefathers fought diseases such as smallpox and yellow fever.

In the past, however, many quarantine actions were undertaken by state and local governments. In the current health crisis, we see a similar pattern as governors and city leaders take the lead on restricting movements to slow the infection. In fact, states have much broader quarantine powers than the federal government. Vox has a good explanation of quarantine law and a rundown on various state laws here.

New York Mayor Bill De Blasio is one of these local leaders. To be clear, De Blasio is within his authority and is doing the right thing to ban public gatherings. As David French and Sarah Isgur discussed on the Advisory Opinions podcast two weeks ago, if the government issues a blanket ban on public gatherings in an emergency that includes but does not single out religious gatherings, it is not a violation of the First Amendment or religious freedom.

A popular meme going around the internet says that quarantines only apply to sick people. This is also incorrect. Quarantines apply to people who might be infected. Sickness is not required.

Where De Blasio crosses the line is with his threat to permanently close churches and synagogues. Once the emergency is over, the city would have no authority to keep houses of worship open. If the City of New York tried to enforce such an unconstitutional order, it would lose.

Until the outbreak is stopped, however, De Blasio does have the authority to shut down religious services and fine those who flout the order. I hope that he does use these powers because the situation in New York is beyond the pale. Christians should have more consideration for their fellow man than to risk the deaths of thousands simply because they insist on meeting in person.

That does not mean that the faithful can’t continue to worship in small or virtual groups. Online services have become the norm around the country over the past few weeks as Chris Queen wrote two weeks ago.

When the plague has subsided, many Americans will rejoice and thank God in churches around the country. There will be more Americans alive to do so if churches and businesses don’t act stupidly in the meantime.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Order On College Censorship Is A Nothingburger (But That’s A Good Thing)

President Trump recently promised an Executive Order targeting the suppression of free speech on college campuses and yesterday he delivered. The president followed up on his pledge to conservatives at CPAC, but whether the new Executive Order will actually change the situation is doubtful.

Compared with the president’s strong promise that “If a college or university does not allow you to speak, we will not give them money. It's that simple,” the text of the Executive Order is much less strident. In fact, Inside Higher Education calls the actual content of the Order “modest.”

In preparing for this article, I read through the seven-page order, which was reportedly in the works before Mr. Trump’s CPAC speech, and found very little about restricting funds from colleges that abridge the speech of their students. It does say that “it is the policy of the federal government to… promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate,” but the Order then veers into counseling students about choosing a beneficial degree and avoiding default on federal student loans.

With respect to free speech, the president orders the Office of Management and Budget to “take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.” The Order then establishes new reporting requirements, but these deal more with student loan debt and whether students complete their degrees in a “timely and affordable” fashion.

In other words, the president is telling the OMB to enforce current law. In other words, the Executive Order is a nothingburger.

With President Trump, that’s a good thing. The likely alternative would be that the president would declare a national free speech emergency and use it to seize funds from colleges that are accused of restricting free speech. As an added bonus, the president might even try to divert those funds to the construction of the wall.

The reality is that when Congress appropriated grants to colleges, it placed certain restrictions on the use of those funds. The Executive Order does nothing to place new restrictions on the money that has already been designated by Congress. To do so would most likely be unconstitutional.

Free speech – or the lack of it – is definitely an issue on many college campuses, but the solution is not unilateral action by the president. Presidential action that violates existing law would be a particularly bad idea, but the general idea of getting the federal government involved as the arbiter of free speech is not a small government solution. Having the federal government play the referee is only a good idea as long as the head of the federal government is a free speech proponent. Few conservatives would be comfortable with the idea of Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris as the defender of their First Amendment rights and with good reason. However, that might be what they get if they seek a larger federal role in policing campus speech.

There is already a remedy for college students whose free speech rights are abridged. Students have successfully sued to force public colleges to uphold their First Amendment rights on a number of occasions. Last December, a student of the Los Angeles Community College District won the right to pass out copies of the US Constitution on campus. As part of the settlement, the school dismantled its designated “free speech zones.” The same month, UC Berkeley settled another lawsuit filed by   Berkeley College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation. The conservative groups alleged that Ann Coulter and David Horowitz were forced to cancel events because Berkeley restricted when and where they could speak. The plaintiffs also said that Berkeley placed different restrictions on conservative speakers and groups than it did for liberals. The settlement included $70,000 to pay attorney fees for the plaintiffs and prohibits the school from charging security fees based on concerns that the “viewpoints, opinions, or anticipated expression” of the speakers or their sponsors “might provoke disturbances.”

Viewpoint censorship on college campuses is a serious issue and President Trump’s heart seems to be in the right place, but proclaiming the new Executive Order is a solution to the problem is dishonest. There is very little new ground broken in the Order, but that isn’t a bad thing since the president lacks the authority to do much more. At best, the Executive Order shines a light on the problem.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrat Bill Would Outlaw Fake Election News

It seems that President Trump regularly makes the news for his rhetorical attacks on the freedom of press and journalists. Now some Democrats, apparently eager to prove that they are ambivalent about the First Amendment as well, want to criminalize certain types of speech about elections.

The Huffington Post reports that Democrat Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Doug Jones (Ala.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.). plan to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to knowingly spread false information about voter registration and qualifications or the time and place of elections. Democratic Reps. A. Donald McEachin (Va.) and Jerry Nadler (N.Y.) will introduce companion legislation in the House.

“Misinformation campaigns intended only to suppress the vote and disenfranchise Missourians are crimes that run counter to our democratic values, and the punishment for those actions should fit the crime,” Sen. McCaskill said in a statement.

The Post cites several examples of election hoaxes from recent elections. Flyers in Maine in 2016 falsely told college students that they had to “pay to change your driver’s license to Lewiston” and “pay to re-register” their vehicles if they wanted to vote locally. The Republican mayor of Mansfield, Ga. posted a message to his Facebook page that read, “Remember the voting days: Republicans vote on Tuesday, 11/8 and Democrats vote on Wednesday, 11/9.”

Of the two examples, the first seems to be a serious attempt at voter suppression while the second is an obvious joke. I’ve heard the same joke in more elections than I can remember and no one ever seemed to take it seriously. It seemed funny when I first heard it about 20 years ago, but now seems as tired as, “That was no lady, that was my wife.”

In either case, the First Amendment defender in me argues that the best reaction to false speech and fake news is not criminalizing speech that we don’t like it, but in countering it with more speech that is good and true. There are ample opportunities for political groups to educate voters on the real election and voter registration rules in their state.

There is also the question of how effective such a “fake speech” law would be. The speech police might snare jokesters like the mayor of Mansfield, but it is less likely that they would catch the anonymous culprits who printed the flyers in Maine. Flyers printed cheaply on a home copier or printer would be hard to trace unless police nabbed someone in the act of handing them out.

When it comes to fake news, the Democrats need to remember that the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech.” It does not include exceptions for fake speech, hate speech or things that people find offensive.

Republicans should remember that the same guarantees apply to the freedom of the press as well. The last thing that proponents of small government should want is for government bureaucrats to determine what is true and what is fake or unfair.

In the end, it is a voter’s responsibility to register and educate themselves on candidates and elections. When there are real and serious attempts to mislead potential voters, these reprehensible acts make it more difficult to exercise the right to vote, but no one ever said that democracy was easy. One of the most difficult aspects of maintaining democracy may be guarding against well-intentioned but poorly thought out laws that erode our basic constitutional rights.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Sasse Responds To Trump's Attacks On First Amendment

Ben Sasse’s last name has a silent “e,” but Twitter users can be forgiven for thinking the Nebraska Republican’s name is pronounced “sassy.” The adjective is an accurate description of the Sasse on the popular social media platform. Sasse most recently turned his sharp retorts toward President Trump after the president launched into what can only be described as a series of attacks on the First Amendment freedom of the press.

While attacking “fake news” has proven a popular shtick for the president, he reached a new level on Tuesday with a tweet that suggested that NBC News’ license should be “challenged” on the basis of their report that Trump had said that he wanted to increase the US nuclear weapons arsenal by a factor of 10 in a July meeting. The meeting prompted Secretary of State Tillerson to allegedly call the president a “f---ing moron.”

On a day when the sitting president of the United States directly attacked the First Amendment, the response from Republican officials was underwhelming. While Republicans lined up to denounce NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, it was extremely difficult to find anyone in the GOP who was willing to go on record criticizing Trump’s statements. A piece in The Hill describing the backlash fails to cite a single sitting Republican. In fact, there seemed to be only one Republican responding to the president’s shocking remarks, the sassy Sasse.

It has only been a few weeks since Sasse wowed the non-alternative-right with his Twitter takedown of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer. The viral series of tweets brought adulation from traditional conservatives who felt left behind by the new Republican Party and the lack of condemnation for race-baiters like Spencer, who was an organizer of the riotous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Given his history of using Twitter to communicate a strong conservative and pro-freedom message effectively, it should be no surprise that Sasse was the one to put the president’s remarks into constitutional perspective.

“Mr. President,” Sasse tweeted, “Are you recanting of the Oath you took on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect, and defend the 1st Amendment?”

[Mic drop.]

The tweet also contained a somewhat longer statement released by Senator Sasse. The full statement reads, “Mr. President: Words spoken by the President of the United States matter. Are you tonight recanting of the oath you took on January 20^th to preserve, protect and defend the First Amendment?”

Trump did not respond directly to Sasse, but later in the day, the president doubled down on his attack on the freedom of the press, saying in a White House press conference, “It's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it.”

Another tweet from the president on Tuesday night was even more specific. “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!” the man sworn to defend the Constitution said.

As a refresher, the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” The Bill of Rights makes no exception for “fake news,” biased reporting or even outright lies.

FCC rules do “prohibit holders of broadcast licenses from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if the licensee knows the information is false; and the licensee knows beforehand that broadcasting the information will cause substantial ‘public harm.’” Stories critical of President Trump would not fall under this category.

As the president becomes increasingly bold in his attacks on the First Amendment, the big question for conservatives is where the other defenders of the Constitution are. The silence from other Republicans is deafening. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is President Trump Pushing For Return To Fairness Doctrine?

Many of today’s conservatives probably don’t remember the Fairness Doctrine. Many in the political world today never lived under it since it was repealed 30 years ago in 1987. If it still existed, the world of political talk radio would never have come into being. So why would President Trump want to bring it back?

In a series of tweets on Saturday morning, President Trump once again attacked the media, which is not unusual, but in two tweets he raised the question of whether the Administration should get “equal time.” In the first tweet, Trump said, “Late Night host are dealing with the Democrats for their very ‘unfunny’ & repetitive material, always anti-Trump! Should we get Equal Time?”

A few minutes later, in a second tweet, he said, “More and more people are suggesting that Republicans (and me) should be given Equal Time on T.V. when you look at the one-sided coverage?”

Equal time is essentially what the Fairness Doctrine was about. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented by the FCC under the Radio Act of 1927. In 1949, the FCC interpreted the law to mean that radio and television stations must provide contrasting views on issues of public importance and that, if a public personality was attacked on the air, they had to be given an opportunity to answer.

The policy was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine did not violate the First Amendment and upheld the FCC rule that the subject of a personal on-air attack must be provided with a tape, transcript or summary as well as an opportunity to respond regardless of ability to pay for air time. In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine with a 4-0 vote.

When Barack Obama took office in 2009, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh feared that the new administration would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski killed the policy permanently in 2011.

Now President Trump’s tweets seem to indicate that the president would like a new version of the Fairness Doctrine. Although Republican politicians do not seem to be lining up to support the president’s call for “equal time,” many of the president’s supporters vocally support the idea on social media.

Although it survived an encounter with the Supreme Court, the Fairness Doctrine has traditionally been viewed as an assault on the First Amendment by conservatives. It is difficult to imagine how conservative talk radio would survive if stations had to provide equal time to the liberal targets of conservative talkers every day. Advertising revenue would be lost and listeners driven away as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others got their equal time every day. It is no coincidence that The Rush Limbaugh Show premiered in 1988, the year after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, kicking off the golden age of political talk radio.

The intention of the Fairness Doctrine was to protect free speech, but, as government regulations so often do, it had the opposite effect. Free speech blossomed with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine where before, the Big Three networks had an effective monopoly on news and political commentary.

There is no shortage of news outlets who present the conservative side of stories. Even among the mainstream media there are the Wall Street Journal, the most successful newspaper in the country, the Washington Times and Fox News, to name just a few. There are many more conservative voices in the alternative media and blogosphere.

The traditional conservative answer to a problem with a free speech problem has been to call for more speech. It is troubling that Mr. Trump’s instincts are to call for more government oversight of speech and limitations on the First Amendment.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Schools Ban Anthem Protests

As the NFL begins to pay the price in popularity and falling ticket sales for the spreading anthem protests, some high schools and colleges are taking action to prevent their athletes from following in the footsteps of the professional players. Some schools are emphasizing existing policies that prohibit players from taking a knee during the national anthem as well as instituting new bans on the protest.

The Daily Wire notes that at least three schools around the country have released statements that point out that school policy prohibits players from kneeling during the anthem. While the Daily Wire says that the schools are instituting bans on taking a knee, statements from some of the schools point out that the policies are not new.

Colorado Christian University released a statement that said, “The University athletic department has always required our student athletes and coaches to stand respectfully for any pre-game or post-game prayers, as well as for the National Anthem. Contrary to several reports, this is not a new position.”

The superintendent of Manatee County schools in Florida, Jason Montgomery, sent an email to schools in his district pointing out that both federal and state laws mandate that students stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. Montgomery wrote, “The Code of Student Conduct complies with all statutory requirements that include requiring a student to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem, unless excused in writing by a parent.”

Some schools are setting new policies in response to the controversy. In Louisiana, Parkway High School Principal Waylon Bates said in a letter to students and parents that “the Louisiana High School Athletic Association allows school principals to make decisions regarding student participation in the National Anthem.” Bates instructs his students and faculty to “stand in a respectful manner throughout the National Anthem” and warns that “failure to comply will result in loss of playing time and/or participation” and even “removal from the team.”

The First Amendment protects Americans from attacks on freedom of speech and expression by the government, not private employers. Private companies can take action against employees who exercise their First Amendment rights even though the government cannot.

The NFL is a private organization with its own rules. If the NFL quashed the anthem protests, it would not be a violation of the First Amendment. In spite of internet rumors, the NFL does not have a rule requiring players to stand for the National Anthem. If it did, the government would have no legal standing to require the organization to enforce such a rule.

The Constitution does protect the right to protest from government interference. The Supreme Court has even protected the act of burning the flag under the First Amendment. When President Trump urges the NFL to fire players who take a knee during the National Anthem, using the power of the “bully pulpit” to attempt to limit free speech, he comes close to a violation of the First Amendment.

Ironically, schools may have a more difficult time banning the anthem protests than the NFL. Public schools are government entities and school policies are limited by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that students do not give up their free speech rights when they enter a school, but that schools do have the right to limit actions that disrupt the educational process. A public school might well lose a lawsuit over a kneeling ban.

Americans seem to understand this balanced view of protest and respect for the flag. The Seton Hall Sports Poll found that 49 percent of respondents thought that NFL players had a right to protest, but also thought that they should stand for the National Anthem.

As the controversy continues, schools and professional sports organizations will be challenged to find a balance between these opposing viewpoints. While the initial reaction of schools may be to institute bans on taking a knee, such policies may not be a quick resolution to the issue.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Never Trump wins Virginia lawsuit

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

As Republican delegates prepare to make their way to Cleveland for next week’s Republican National Convention, a Virginia judge has given the Never Trump movement a breath of life. In a stunning ruling, a federal judge ruled that Virginia Republican delegates are not bound by the state law that requires them to vote on the first ballot at the convention for the winner of the state primary.

The decision stemmed from a suit brought by delegate Carroll “Beau” Correll against Virginia elections officials. Correll’s suit claimed that the law binding him to vote for Trump, the winner of the Virginia primary, was a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. Even though Donald Trump won the Virginia primary, many supporters of rival candidate, Ted Cruz, were appointed as delegates to the convention.

The case, “Correll v. Herring,” will apply only to Virginia delegates, but Judge Robert Payne did cite precedent in his ruling that could apply to other states that have similar laws. In “Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette” (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that state law could not override party rules for delegate selection. In that decision, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “A political party's choice among the various ways of determining the makeup of a State's delegation to the party's national convention is protected by the Constitution. And as is true of all expressions of First Amendment freedoms, the courts may not interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or irrational.”

In 1912, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled, “expression of a preference for President by those voting at primary election ... is only morally binding on delegates to national party conventions.” In other words, delegates are not legally bound by primary votes, but may have an ethical obligation to follow the will of the voters.

The judge, Robert Payne, has served on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia since 1992. He was nominated to the court by George Herbert Walker Bush and received the unanimous approval of the Senate.

The ruling will likely encourage other Republican opponents of Trump to make a stand against the presumptive nominee at the convention next week. There is a movement afoot to change Republican Party rules that bind delegates. Kendal Unruh, the leader of the “Dump Trump” movement, said earlier this week in the Daily Wire that there were enough votes on the rules committee to “free the delegates.”

David Rivkin, the attorney for Correll, said in a statement after the ruling, “Today's decision should give comfort to all delegates that they cannot be punished for voting their conscience at the Republican National Convention.”

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

The climate change conspiracy

Today we don our tinfoil hat to look at the issue of climate change. While climate change, previously referred as global warming, isn’t usually considered a conspiracy theory, it does share many conspiracy characteristics.

One obvious parallel between climate change and conspiracies is that proponents of climate change have made numerous predictions about the effects of climate change. Like predictions about martial law and FEMA camps, very few of these predictions have come true.

The numerous doomsday predictions of climate scientists are well-documented, although few media sources compare the actual climate events to the sensational headlines from between 10 and 30 years ago. Partial lists can be found in sources as varied as the Washington Times, Townhall.com, and Daily Tech. A more complete list can be found on WattsUpWithThat.com. These failed predictions include:

· In 1989, a senior UN climate scientist said that nations could be destroyed by climate change by the year 2000.

· In the late 1980s, Dr. James Hansen of NASA predicted that New York’s West Side Highway would be underwater in 20-30 years and that severe droughts would lead restaurants to serve water by request only.

· In 2000, Dr. David Viner said that snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” and that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Recent winters in both the UK and the US have set records for snowfall and low temperatures.

· In 2005, the UN warned that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

· In 2007, scientists feared that Arctic ice would be entirely gone by 2013. Yet less than a decade later, ice coverage in the Arctic has dramatically increased in both thickness and area.

· In 2006, Al Gore predicted in “An Inconvenient Truth” that sea levels would rise enough to threaten Pacific island nations. This was merely one of many fallacies in Gore’s movie.

· In 2006, Al Gore said that we had “10 years” to act on global warming.

Like proponents of other conspiracy theories, global warming alarmists are undaunted when their predictions fail. Like believers in martial law and FEMA concentration camps, global warming proponents simply revise their theory to explain the delay and change the dates on their predictions.

Perhaps because of the inaccuracy of these predictions, the term “global warming” has largely been replaced by the more ambiguous term “climate change.” Climate change can be blamed for a number of weather phenomena that global warming cannot. While denying that cold weather is proof against global warming, proponents simultaneously blame both hot and cold weather on climate change. The Daily Caller and the Daily Signal have both compiled lists of things that alarmists attribute to climate change. As other conspiracy theorists twist news stories to fit their theory, climate change proponents also frequently find a climatological angle to events of the day. Some of the things attributed to global warming include droughts, Ebola, rape, and the Syrian civil war.

The term “climate change” probably also entered the vernacular because global warming apparently stopped about 20 years ago in the late 1990s. Climate scientists who disagreed with the “consensus” wrote as early as 2006 that warming had plateaued. No computer models predicted this pause in warming and climate change theorists initially did not even admit that it was occurring. Today the response ranges from denial that there is a global warming hiatus to adjusting theories to fit the new facts. Revising theories is true to the scientific method, but climatic computer models should be taken with a grain of salt until they can accurately predict future climate changes, rather than simply explaining what has already happened.

Recent revelations that 2014 was the “hottest year in recorded history” often fail to note that recorded climate observations only go back to 1880, notes Robert Tracinski in The Federalist. Also missing from the stories is that the increase in 2014 was 0.02 degrees Celsius, which is far less than the margin of error of 0.10 degrees Celsius. Rising sea levels can be explained by the fact that sea levels have been rising since before the 20^th century. In fact, a NASA graph shows that sea levels have been rising since the last glacial maximum 25,000 years ago. Rising temperatures and rising seas are both far less than predicted by global warming alarmists.

Although warming proponents widely believe that humans are contributing to climate change, they do not claim that this is being done purposefully to destroy the world. Where is the conspiracy that turns the theory of climate change into a conspiracy theory?

Alarmists might argue that the conspiracy comes from a conspiracy of oil companies to undercut climate change activists, presumably selling out the world’s future for short-term oil profits. To the alarmists, this excuses ad hominem attacks against skeptics, commonly derided as “deniers.”

The reality is that there is a proven conspiracy to silence climate change skeptics. In 2009, a hacker stole 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and posted them online. Another 5,000 emails were hacked and released in 2011. As James Taylor wrote in Forbes, the emails show that many scientists who contribute to IPCC reports engaged in deception and tried to conceal how weak the data supporting manmade climate change really was. Additionally, the emails showed that researchers were at a loss to explain both the recent global warming hiatus and the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period from the 9^th to the 13^th centuries when the Earth was warmer than it is today.

Alarmists use several methods to stifle dissent. A popular claim is that there is a strong scientific consensus on global warming and that 97 percent of scientists are in agreement. Joseph Bast and Dr. Roy Spencer found the 97 percent claim baseless when they examined it in a 2014 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. In 2013, Forbes reported that a peer-reviewed study of earth scientists, engineers, and meteorologists found that only 36 percent considered global warming a crisis. The majority believed that global warming was a natural phenomenon and/or not a serious problem.

Many scientists may not want to publicly identify as skeptics. There are numerous reports of harassment of scientists and public figures who are skeptical of climate change alarmism. As far back as 2005, there were indications that skeptical papers were not being published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals. The bias against skeptical papers may well explain the small number of papers published by skeptical scientists. Earlier this year, NPR reported on harassment of skeptics by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). Some, such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., have called skepticism “treason” and called for skeptics to be jailed. In another recent case, Western Washington University students tried to have the college degree of self-proclaimed “climate agnostic” Doug Erickson, a state senator from Washington, revoked by the university.

The bottom line of the debate may be whether climate alarmists put their money where their mouths are. There seems to have been no exodus of wealthy, liberal, climate refugees from low-lying coastal cities such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco to higher ground in “flyover country.” In fact, in 2010 Al Gore purchased an ocean-view mansion in California. In Florida, people will learn about climate change – and irony - at the new Frost Museum of Science, a $300 million facility located in Miami at about eight feet above sea level.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Nationwide Rally for religious freedom tomorrow

Atlantans will rally for religious freedom at the Georgia state capitol building tomorrow.  The rally is one of more than 140 events around the country to protest the Obama Administration’s mandate on religious organizations.  The mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services will force religious organizations to purchase contraceptive and abortifacient coverage regardless of their religious beliefs.  The mandate is widely believed to be a violation of the First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The rally is being coordinated by the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society according the national website, StandUpforReligiousFreedom.com.  The Atlanta rally is being promoted by the Georgia Catholic Conference.

The rallies are nonpartisan and ecumenical.  A flyer for the Atlanta rally notes that children are welcome and that the rally will be peaceful and instructs attendees not to engage counter-demonstrators either physically or “loud verbal argumentation, name-calling or derogatory remarks.”  Attendees are also instructed not to bring literature or signage for either political party or any candidate.

The Stand Up for Religious Freedom movement is reminiscent of the Tea Party movement, which began just over three years ago to protest federal bailouts and stimulus spending.  Denounced as “Astroturf,” racist and violent by Democrats, the Tea Party nevertheless spearheaded opposition to the Obama Administration that led to a Republican landslide in 2010.

The Atlanta Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally will be held outside the State Capitol building on Friday, March 23 from noon to 1:00 p.m.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Atlantans to rally for religious freedom on Friday - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/atlantans-to-rally-for-religious-freedom-on-friday-3#ixzz1ptRatVcN

Church and state

The Bill of Rights

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. – First Amendment to the Constitution

The First Amendment is the workhorse amendment of the Constitution.  It recognizes the natural right of Americans to the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and to lobby the government.  Its forty-five words are arguably some of the most important and powerful words in our government and culture.  Yet, in spite of our First Amendment protections against prohibitions of the “free exercise” of religion, Americans today face unprecedented attacks on religion in the public square. 

Today it is taken for granted that the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means that there should be a “wall of separation between church and state.”  However, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear within the Constitution and seems to actually contradict the phrase “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The Establishment Clause today seems to take precedence over the Free Exercise Clause. 

If we look back to the early days of our republic, we see that religion and government often worked together.  One of the most popular marching songs of the Continental Army, “Chester” by William Billings, is unmistakably spiritual.  The Declaration of Independence, our founding document, also makes explicit, though nondenominational, references to our “Creator” and “Nature’s God.”  While the Revolution still raged, Congress authorized the printing of an American Bible in 1781.  The Robert Aitken Bible was printed in 1782 and was commended by George Washington. 

From the earliest days of our history as well, Congress, the states, and presidents have proclaimed national days of “Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer” according to Dr. John S. Uebersax.  The authors of these early proclamations are a veritable who’s who list of American founders including John Hancock, John Jay, Sam Adams, John Adams, and James Madison.  George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving proclamation, titled “General Thanksgiving,” in 1789 to acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness…" 

When Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, it stated, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”  Congress clearly wanted to promote religion as a means to promoting good citizenship.

After the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1788 and 1791 respectively, there was still no separation of church and state.  The U.S. Capitol building was begun in 1793, but was not occupied by Congress until 1800.  In the meantime, the building was used for public worship services beginning in 1795.  According to the Library of Congress, these nondenominational services were attended by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, and many other presidents and members of Congress.  The Marine band often provided music and congressional chaplains delivered sermons.  The services continued until after the War Between the States.

A relief on Federal Hall in New York depicts George Washington praying at Valley Forge.  (OptimumPx/Public Domain)

In 1794, the “Act to Provide Naval Armament” created the U.S. Navy and required that a chaplain be assigned to each of the six forty-four gun warships that were authorized.  As the Navy grew, chaplains were authorized on smaller ships as well and by 1799 Congress required by law that naval vessels have two divine services each day and a sermon on Sunday and that captains should “cause all, or as many of the ship’s company as can be spared from duty, to attend at every performance of the worship of Almighty God” according to the Navy’s “History of the Chaplain Corps.”

Further, the “Indian Civilization Fund Act” of 1818 specifically appropriated federal money to missionaries working with the Indians.  These Protestant missionaries used the money to expand schools that helped educate and assimilate Indians into the mainstream American society.  This followed earlier treaties with the Indians (specifically the Kaskaskia, Wynadotte, and Cherokee tribes) by President Thomas Jefferson that used federal funds to send missionaries to these tribes specifically for promotion of Christianity. 

There are numerous references to Christianity as the unofficial religion of the United States by America’s founders and leaders throughout our history.  These references are too numerous to list here, but are widely available on the internet.  Many are cited as well in a 2009 spiritual heritage resolution that was cosponsored by Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia.  From our founding, America has been a Judeo-Christian nation, not in only law, but in fact.

The question remains as to where the notion of the “wall of separation” comes from.  It is commonly attributed to Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists” from 1802.  An early reference to the letter was in “Reynolds v. United States (1878)” in which the Supreme Court ruled that “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”  In other words, Congress could legislate against polygamy, same-sex marriage, or human sacrifice for the good of society, but it could not legislate against ideas.

In the 1940s, the Supreme Court used Jefferson’s phrase when deciding a pair of cases involving religion and schools.  In the first case, “Everson v. Board of Education (1947),” the Court ruled that a New Jersey law reimbursing parents for the cost of transportation to and from schools, even private schools, was constitutional even though the vast majority of people to benefit under the law were the parents of children in Catholic schools.  Justice Hugo Black’s ruling reads in part:  “The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.”  The landmark case applied the First Amendment to state as well as federal law.

More troublesome was the ruling in “McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)” which struck down the practice of allowing voluntary religious classes in public schools.  The practice of using public buildings for religious purposes had, until then, been common throughout American history as we have seen. 

The use of Jefferson’s Danbury letter in legal matters was an error.  First, it was not legislative or legal in any sense.  The letter was the personal correspondence of a man who was not even in the country as the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being drafted and therefore could not have been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.  From 1784 to 1790, he was ambassador to France.  Instead, James Madison, the author of the “Federalist Papers,” is remembered as the “Father of the Constitution” as well as its lead framer.  In any case, Jefferson’s letter does not preclude the government promoting religion in general, only establishing a specific religion.  This is consistent with Jefferson’s own actions as president.

Much has also been made of the Treaty of Tripoli which states that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….”  The senators present at ratification unanimously confirmed the treaty.  The treaty, which was signed for the United States by Joel Barlow in 1797, is technically correct.  The government of the United States is itself secular, but it presides over a Christian nation. 

Frank Lambert, author of “the Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America,” explains the apparent contradiction this way: 

“By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced.  John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.”

Joseph Story, an early justice on the Supreme Court  who published commentaries on the Constitution, was likely correct when he wrote “The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

The Mt. Soledad Cross (Will Fresch/Wikimedia)

In Story’s view, the true purpose of the Establishment Clause was not to erect a “wall of separation between church and state,” but to prevent national recognition of any one Christian denomination or sect.  When viewed within the context of the time this makes sense.  Europe had just emerged from a period of religious wars between Catholics and Protestants.  Religious persecution to the point of executions had been commonplace in Europe and even in some American colonies.  For example, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony fined, whipped, tarred, banished and even killed religious dissenters, notably Quakers.  The framers of the Constitution did not want this to become a divisive national struggle between denominations.

It is also noteworthy that the Constitution did not mandate an end to the government supported religions of the states.  Georgia never had an official state religion but many other colonies did.  Maryland’s official Anglican religion may be recalled from high school U.S. history classes and was shared by five of the original thirteen colonies.  The status of the Congregational Church as New Hampshire’s official state religion lasted until 1877.  The concept of federalism meant that states made choices about most issues for themselves rather than being dictated to by the federal government.

The fact that the original intent of the First Amendment was not to separate church and state does not mean that practitioners of other religions would be forced to adopt Christianity.  It does mean that Christianity is the original and preferred religion of the United States.  While the government of the United States is nondenominational, the people of the United States have always been predominantly Christian and the government has always realized that it was in the best interest of the country as a whole to promote religious beliefs. 

For more examples of Christianity in early American life go to:

http://www.captainkudzu.com/2009/07/america-celebrating-god-and-country.html

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/church-and-state">