BY  Robert B Young, MD
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Opinion by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership’s Robert B Young, MD

Gun Control Safety Cap MedicineAmerican Medical Association versus America

USA –  -(  The American Medical Association or AMA just announced that it will make an “unprecedented” push for more gun control laws through resolutions presented at its House of Delegates at its next annual meeting June 9-13 2018.
This is not really unprecedented, as the AMA has been advocating anti-gun measures for three decades now, along with many co-conspirator specialty associations. But it is a way for it to jump on the current popular bandwagon for restricting guns since some of the teenagers from the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Valentine’s Day shootings have become media celebrities.

Jumping aboard progressive bandwagons is the main tactic left to the AMA to wield influence, since it now includes no more than 25% of America’s physicians as members, even though it claims to represent us all.

Its leadership has left most physicians behind by focusing on politics more than medicine and undercutting physician autonomy by supporting Obamacare. In this case, they continue denigrating the vast number of Second Amendment respecting health care providers by continuing to back gun control—as if anything short of full civilian disarmament would substantially reduce “gun violence”, let alone affect violent crime. (Regarding eliminating scary “assault rifles” see the latest school shooting at Santa Fe using a pump-action shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver; regarding the consequences of handgun prohibition, see the United Kingdom—or anywhere.)
The AMA has a very long history of attacking guns and gun ownership as too dangerous for commoners. Rarely, members with other views get a hearing (which is then ignored); more typically, even that doesn’t happen, as its governance seeks to justify positions, not develop them.
It quotes manipulated data, like all anti-gun rights groups, basing this outcry on an inflated list of 2018 school shootings making the rounds, even though only a fraction of those events qualifies as attempts at mass shootings on students during school. (PolitiFact occasionally gets it right.)
From the Forbes article:
“This year, here are just some of the measures doctors want the AMA to back:
  • Ban the sale of bump stocks. AMA delegates will consider supporting “a ban on the sale of any device, including bump stocks, that converts a firearm into a weapon that mimics a fully automatic weapon.”
  • Strengthen the background check system for firearms. AMA delegates will consider supporting legislation that requires “all gun sales and transfers” to “fall under strengthened regulation.”
  • Ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. AMA delegates will consider supporting “a ban on the sale, transfer, manufacturer and importation of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines to the public.”
  • Increasing the legal age of purchasing ammunition and firearms from 18 to 21. AMA delegates will consider supporting “increasing the legal age to purchase firearms and ammunition.” ”

Some corrections are in order here.

First of all, “here are just some of the measures the AMA wants doctors to back.”
Then, regarding the claim by AMA President David A. Barbe, MD, that “Gun violence in America today is a public health crisis”, DRGO has repeatedly debunked that untruth (e.g., here). Continuing it is “one that requires a comprehensive and far-reaching solution” such as:
  • Ban the sale of bump stocks. This may be a device implicated in the fewest shootings of all, only in Las Vegas last October, which wasn’t even necessary to inflict all the casualties the gunman caused.
  • Strengthen the background check system for firearms. They mean, of course, universal registration of all firearm transfers, as of the effective date of universal background checks. That is not consistent with individual freedom in our country.
  • Ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. This suggests the next step would be to ban all semi-automatic weapons, since there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the function of the Ruger Mini-14, the Browning [semi-]Automatic Rifle and any AR-model semi-automatic weapon. All pistols, gas-operated shotguns and even most .22 caliber plinkers would be gone. But this is “a good start”, to quote any anti-gun activist, including outlawing what have always been standard magazine capacities up of to 30 rounds.
  • Increasing the legal age of purchasing ammunition and firearms from 18 to 21. This is self-evidently discriminatory, as we rely on 18 to 20-year-olds’ judgment in most states about drinking and consider them able to decide to join the military and die in war zones without question. Wonder how most would vote on this question of their older betters intent to deprive them of a constitutional right?
Legislating morality has always been impossible in a diverse polity like the United States. They’ll have no more luck with this than the abortion, capital punishment or immigration battles have had in uniting American opinion about them.
To quote William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review mission statement, DRGO “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” There’s progress (like ensuring a well-educated, ethical populace enjoying all the rights of individual liberty) and then there are progressives (the opposite). DRGO stands for progress.
Let’s not let them get away with it!

Robert B. Young, MDRobert B. Young, MD

About Robert B Young, MD
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Second Amendment Foundation.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Barr’s tweet aimed at Jarrett, an African-American woman who served as a senior adviser for Obama from 2009 to 2017, seemed to refer to conspiracy theories falsely painting her as a closeted Muslim. ”
Not necessarily. Maybe Roseanne was referring to the close ties between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood. The former U.S. prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy in 2013 listed a great many strange collaborations between the State Department of Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, including:
  • The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
  • Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
  • The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to Sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
  • The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey— which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups, but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel—in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer 1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories, notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
  • The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
Conspiracy theory? No.
Anyway, Roseanne’s remarks are not “Islamophobic” (she didn’t actually say anything about Islam), although they certainly can be taken as racist (it’s unclear, however, that Roseanne knew that Jarrett is black), but Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad makes a telling remark here: “Ms. Barr has a First Amendment right to express her views, however Islamophobic or racist, but she does not have a constitutional right to a program on a national television network.”
This echoes statements that Hamas-linked CAIR leaders have made many times. They have a formula they trot out every time: X has a First Amendment right to express his/her views, but he/she does not have a constitutional right to speak at a major university/address law enforcement officials/have a program on a national TV network, etc.
What Hamas-linked CAIR is trying to do is destroy the First Amendment under the guise of upholding it, and create an atmosphere in which everyone it accuses of “Islamophobia” and “racism” — which would include not just those who post intemperate tweets, but those who discuss how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. CAIR is a quintessentially authoritarian organization, determined to silence all foes of jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims and others, by tarring them as “Islamophobic” and “racist” and destroying their reputations. And of course the Leftist media eagerly aids and abets them in this.
“ABC cancels Roseanne after star’s racist tweet,” by Lynette Rice, Entertainment, May 29, 2018:
ABC has canceled Roseanne.
The network’s abrupt decision to yank the reboot comes only hours after star Roseanne Barr made a racist tweet Tuesday morning attacking former President Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Barr used Jarrett’s initials and wrote, “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby.”…
Barr’s tweet aimed at Jarrett, an African-American woman who served as a senior adviser for Obama from 2009 to 2017, seemed to refer to conspiracy theories falsely painting her as a closeted Muslim. The Council on American-Islamic Relations — the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization — applauded ABC’s decision to yank the show.
“We welcome the swift and appropriate action taken by ABC and hope it sends a message that the promotion of hatred and bigotry will not be accepted by our nation’s entertainment industry,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad in a statement. “Ms. Barr has a First Amendment right to express her views, however Islamophobic or racist, but she does not have a constitutional right to a program on a national television network.”
Though CAIR had previously expressed appreciation for the challenging Islamophobia, “Ms. Barr’s tweet unfortunately does not express the inclusiveness and rejection of bigotry we saw in the episode on Islamophobia,” Awad added.

Roseanne, Islamic anti-Semitism, and the West’s double standard

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The reactions were fast and furious after Roseanne Barr’s Valerie Jarrett tweet hit the Twitter world early Tuesday morning. Jarrett, former President Obama’s senior adviser, was born in Iran to African-American parents. Barr’s insulting comment about Jarrett read, “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”
Within a few hours, ABC announced they were cancelling the very successful “Roseanne” sitcom reboot, declaring that her tweet was “…abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values.” Barr, for her part, had already issued an apology, recognizing that she had crossed the line of decency in a poor attempt at partisan humor. But the damage was done, and thousands erupted with indignation using words such as “offensive, disgraceful, racist, distasteful, inexcusable, and hateful.”
Rightly so. Such pejoratives should never be thought much less directed at another human being. Yet unbridled human nature is capable of much worse. Spend a day on a middle school or high school campus and you’ll hear a lot more hair-raising verbal abuse than Rosanne’s tweet. But we excuse that in adolescents. With 65 years olds, it’s another story. Roseanne is reaping what she has sown, and the public is heaping shame and scorn on her.
Frankly, I’ve been a bit surprised by the speed and ferocity of condemnations issued, especially by the self-described “tolerant Left.” In spite of her swift apology, very few have been willing to cut her any slack. I can understand this. But in the name of consistency, we need to apply this same standard elsewhere.
Barr’s “Planet of the Apes” allusion immediately reminded me of another instance where certain human beings are regularly regarded as sub-human by millions of other human beings, yet this reality hardly ever makes the news. On any given Friday in thousands of venues around the world, this hate speech spews from orators and is applauded by listeners. It happens in mosques and prayer halls, in classrooms and at rallies. Muslim leaders routinely speak of “the Jews” variously as the “descendants of apes and pigs,” “brothers of apes and pigs,” or simply as “apes and pigs” by nature. Mohammad Morsi, former president of Egypt and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, argued that the Arab peoples should never negotiate with Israel, “the descendants of apes and pigs.” Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has echoed the same language. So have imams and popular religious leaders around the Muslim world. Have any of them apologized for such hate speech? No. Have Western mainstream media or leading politicians called them out for such odious remarks? No.  If you think I’m exaggerating, take a look at the video below, recorded about 12 years ago, of the then Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment, Dr. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Sattar, who in light of his official position should know a little something about Islam:
If you didn’t already know, Dr. Sattar makes it clear that the reason Muslims commonly denigrate and dehumanize “the Jews” as a people is because the Qur’an teaches them to. In three places, the Muslim “holy book” teaches that because of Jewish disobedience, Allah transformed a group of Jews into apes or pigs:
And question them concerning the township which was bordering the sea, when they transgressed the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath, swimming shorewards, but on the day they kept not Sabbath, they came not unto them. Even so We were trying them for their ungodliness. And when a certain nation of them said, ‘Why do you admonish a people God is about to destroy or to chastise with a terrible chastisement?’ They said, ‘As an excuse to your Lord; and haply they will be godfearing.’ So, when they forgot that they were reminded of; We delivered those who were forbidding wickedness, and We seized the evildoers with evil chastisement for their ungodliness. And when they turned in disdain from that forbidding We said to them, ‘Be you apes, miserably slinking!’ (Sura 7:163-66; Arberry translation).
And [recall] when We took your covenant, [O Children of Israel, to abide by the Torah] and We raised over you the mount, [saying], “Take what We have given you with determination and remember what is in it that perhaps you may become righteous”…. And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, “Be apes, despised.” (Sura 2:63, 65; Sahih International translation).
Say: “Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell­fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world)” (Sura 5:60; Mohsin Khan translation).
If Roseanne Barr is rightly pilloried for the atrocious abuse she directed publicly toward Valerie Jarrett in one tweet, for which she immediately apologized, what should conscientious, ethically-minded Westerners who don’t want to be charged with hypocrisy say concerning a religion which tars and feathers a whole race of people, linking them with animals who are despised by that religion?
Read the rest here.



Audrey Truschke
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
When they conquered India, Muslims were benevolent and tolerant, right? That’s what Rutgers Newark professor Audrey Truschke would have you believe.
Ramadan Day 14 thought for the day from my new book The History of Jihad:
“When Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony,” by Aijaz Zaka Syed, Saudi Gazette, August 19, 2017:
AT a time when the Muslims are being hunted like animals on the benign watch of the BJP, two brave new books revisit a time when they ruled the country. The Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony under Muslim rulers, including under the powerful Moguls, argues Audrey Truschke of Stanford University, an authority on South Asian culture and history.
In her fascinating book, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court, Truschke suggests that the heyday of Muslim rule, from the 16th to 18th centuries, had been one of “tremendous cross-cultural respect and fertilization and not religious or cultural conflict.”…
The ‘Culture of Encounters’ was followed by another groundbreaking tome on perhaps the most controversial figure in Indian history. Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth is another brave attempt to understand the life and times of the last great Mogul emperor who ruled for nearly half a century and whose reign covered the length and breadth of India including Afghanistan and parts of Mynamar.
“The Aurangzeb of popular memory bears only a faint resemblance to the historical emperor,” notes Truschke as she seeks to clear the cobwebs that have always clouded his image. She sifts fact from fiction and the man from the many myths that have grown around him over the centuries, thanks to biased telling of history as part of the British colonial project.
She dismisses the myth that Aurangzeb had been driven by religious zeal and his rule was defined by the oppression of Hindus….
In my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, I introduce you to the real Aurangzeb, beyond these ridiculous academic myths, in his own words and the words of eyewitnesses to his deeds. Aurangzeb in 1670 issued this decree: “Every idol-house built during the last 10 or 12 years, whether with brick or clay, should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples.”
A Muslim historian, Saqa Mustad Khan, writing just after Aurangzeb died in 1707, reported that in January 1680, Aurangzeb “went to view lake Udaisagar, constructed by the Rana, and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be demolished.” The following day, “Hasan Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rana’s palace and reported that one hundred and seventy-two other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been destroyed.” Later that year, “Abu Turab, who had been sent to demolish the temples of Amber, returned to Court…and reported that he had pulled down sixty-six temples.”
Bakhtawar Khan, a nobleman during Aurangzeb’s reign, was also pleased, noting that “Hindu writers have been entirely excluded from holding public offices, and all the worshipping places of the infidels and great temples of these infamous people have been thrown down and destroyed in a manner which excites astonishment at the successful completion of so difficult a task.”
You won’t learn all this at Rutgers, or most any other American university. They’re too busy teaching academic fictions such as those retailed here by Audrey Truschke, and warning their students about “Islamophobia.” But you can get the truth in The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS: click here to preorder. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS is the only comprehensive one-volume history of jihad in the English language, including not just the jihad in Europe but in India, Africa and elsewhere, drawing primarily on accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers. Arm yourself with the truth against the prevailing disinformation. Preorder here now.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
On Friday, Irish voters cast votes to legalize abortion in a historic referendum vote that repealed Ireland's Eighth Amendment, which protected the right to life of unborn children. And though Northern Ireland has stated it will not bow to pressure to follow suit, British Prime Minister Theresa May is reportedly being asked to consider executive action to legalize abortion in the region.
Northern Ireland is governed differently from the rest of Ireland, and a power struggle has left the government without an executive since January 2017, the Daily Caller writes, which compelled British officials to assume the authority to make major decisions. Sensing a weakness in a strongly pro-life government, abortion advocates are now pushing Theresa May to use the opportunity to legalize abortion.
Northern Ireland already has the option to align with Britain's abortion laws, which allow women to seek abortions up to 24 weeks, but its assembly voted against this option in February 2016, before its government collapsed, leaving it without an executive.
The repeal of the Eighth Amendment means that Northern Ireland is the only remaining place in the U.K. and Ireland where abortions remain outlawed, according to The Guardian. Abortions are permissible in Northern Ireland only if the life or mental health of the mother is at risk.
And when 66 percent of voters in Ireland overturned the country's abortion ban on Friday, one lawmaker, Democratic Unionist MP Ian Paisley, vowed that Northern Ireland would not be "bullied into accepting abortion on demand."
Paisley pointed out that Northern Ireland is not constrained by constitutional legalities on the issue of abortion, but instead by laws that are supported by its people that protect the life of the unborn. “Northern Ireland did not have a constitutional imperative on abortion; it is governed by laws that can be changed," he observed. "The settled will of the people has been to afford protections to the unborn life and protect the life of the mother."
For now, May has refused to take action in Northern Ireland, according to her spokesperson. "It is important to recognize that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to their own process which is run by elected politicians," the spokesperson said. "Our focus is restoring a democratically accountable devolved government in Northern Ireland so that locally accountable politicians can make decisions on behalf of the public they represent."
May's decision is upsetting to pro-abortion advocates in Parliament, who see nothing wrong with imposing their will on the people of Northern Ireland whether they like it or not. “This is an injustice. No woman in the U.K. should be denied access to a safe, legal abortion,” Britain’s Labour Party shadow minister for women and equalities, Dawn Butler, said in response to May's statement, Reuters reported. 
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable also asserts that May should act in the absence of an executive in Northern Ireland despite being in direct opposition to what the people of Northern Ireland want.
"Since there is, effectively, direct rule from Westminster, the Government has responsibility and it can and should take the opportunity to deal with this issue properly," he argued.
The Irish Times reports that approximately 140 members of Parliament would support an amendment to legalize abortion in Northern Ireland.
But the U.K.'s Independent notes that May's parliamentary authority rests heavily on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party, which is vehemently pro-life.
DUP leader Arlene Foster has already warned the prime minister against intervening on the issue, saying: “Friday's referendum has no impact upon the law in Northern Ireland, but we obviously take note of issues impacting upon our nearest neighbor.... Some of those who wish to circumvent the assembly's role may be doing so simply to avoid its decision."
Friday's vote in Ireland has strengthened the resolve of pro-life groups in Northern Ireland to oppose any efforts to ease restrictions on abortion. Bernadette Smyth, leader of Precious Life, called Ireland's repeal vote "the most tragic day in Irish history" in a statement released following the referendum.
She added, "Every unborn child still has the right to life. Northern Ireland is now the beacon of hope to the pro-life movement around the world."
Meanwhile, the U.K. is considering an amendment to the Domestic Violence Bill that would standardize abortion law across all of the United Kingdom, effectively legalizing abortions in Northern Ireland. For now, the amendment has been tabled, though it has the support of more than 150 parliamentarians, the Belfast Telegraph writes.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Very soon, the Supreme Court of the United States will issue a “ruling” that at once will draw legal boundaries around the acceptable exercise of religion in this country and will set rules for the acceptable use one may make of his own property and labor.
In June — the last month of its term — a majority of the nine justices will unite to decide the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the well-known case where a homosexual couple claim that they were denied the equal protection of the laws when Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to bake them a rainbow cake for use in their gay “wedding” ceremony.
Make no mistake. Phillips has served homosexuals in the past and would, had the current suit not financially ruined him, continued to serve them in the future. For Phillips, the issue was not the serving of homosexuals that he refused to do, it was the celebrating of a ceremony that his Christian faith teaches is immoral.
In other words, one might believe it is biblically forbidden by God for a man and woman to engage in premarital sexual relations. Suppose that person is a carpenter. Suppose a couple who is known to be cohabiting and engaging in premarital sexual relations comes to the carpenter and asks him to build them a coffee table. The carpenter would likely feel no religious restriction to such a job. 
Now, imagine that instead of a coffee table, the couple comes to him and asks him to make them a plaque saying “We Don’t Need a Piece of Paper to Prove Our Love.” One could imagine that the carpenter would demur, citing his Christian faith’s doctrine that sexual relations are to be kept within the bounds of lawful marriage.
This is pretty much the case of the baker in Colorado whose adherence to his religious beliefs may soon prompt the country’s highest court to place such fidelity to faith beyond the protection of the law, including the First Amendment that was specifically designed to prevent the federal government from interfering in the spiritual realm.
On that very salient point, Justice William Kennedy may have already tipped his hand. This is important because many observers consider Kennedy the swing vote who could throw the victory to either party.
In the Obergefell opinion, wherein the Supreme Court forced all Americans to recognize the “marriage” of same-sex couples, Justice Kennedy wrote the following regarding the privileged position of religious expression:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
It will be worth reading the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision if for no other reason than to see if Justice Kennedy has had an anti-religious conversion.
Equally as disturbing as the fact the federal courts might soon usurp power to put limits on religious expression is the fact that the same case will grant the government power to punish Americans who use their property and labor in ways not approved by the black-robed oligarchs.
Property, one of the most fundamental of the natural rights, may soon be placed at the disposal of government for the unchallengeable use of those classes of people under its powerful protection. 
Ryan Macken, writing for the Mises Institute, put a pretty fine point on the potential de facto confiscation of all property and labor by the kritarchs.
Anyone who claims there’s too much democracy in the United States needs to keep in mind that American law and policy is ultimately decided by five millionaires at the Supreme Court. 
This week, we’re being reminded that the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments in the case of a small-time baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. 
This, apparently, is a matter of such importance that it requires the intervention of the federal government and its court system to decide for whom a tiny small business shall be forced to bake desserts. In other words, the court’s majority of five people will decide for 320 million people what is mandatory for anyone who wants to open a small business in the United States. 
There is not a single syllable of the Constitution granting (notice: the Constitution “grants” power, it does not “give” it) to the federal courts the authority to issue edicts enforcing limits on the labor of Americans and the property Americans create with that labor.
In fact, Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution sets forth that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
The key to that crucial clause is the definition of a “republican form of government.”
In Federalist, No. 10, James Madison provides a now famous formula for recognizing republican government: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.”
Not a single one of the justices who sit on the bench of the Supreme Court was elected by the people, and the justices are not accountable to the people and they do not in any meaningful way represent the people.
If the Supreme Court takes upon itself to legislate from its marble palace, then Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution is violated and the states and people are justified in following the course suggested by Alexander Hamilton should such a despotism be attempted by any branch or officer of the federal government.
In Federalist, No. 33 Hamilton writes, “It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society [the federal government] which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such.”
As the date of the decision approaches, it only remains to be seen whether any unconstitutional act of the Supreme Court will be treated as a usurpation or will be treated as the ultimate and final rule on religion and property in the United States.


Witness the disturbing trend of rape gangs ruling the streets of Germany. This is Germany’s experience with immigrants who refuse to assimilate, and it’s spreading throughout Europe, thanks to the policies of leftists who are more concerned about their image than the safety of their citizens. And Europe’s problems are coming to America.