June 16, 2020
By Mike Huckabee
PRAY FOR OUR POLICE
In what is being described as an act of domestic terrorism, three NYPD officers were intentionally poisoned by a worker or workers at the Shake Shake at 200 Broadway in Manhattan. They were treated after ingesting a substance that was believed to be bleach put into their milkshakes in their food order. Fortunately, they weren’t seriously harmed, but they easily could have been.
The Detectives’ Endowment Association (DEA), a labor union that represents New York City Detectives, tweeted, “Police in New York City and across the country are under attack by vicious criminals who dislike us simply because of the uniform we wear. Emboldened by pandering elected officials, these cowards will go to great lengths to harm any member of law enforcement...We MUST be more vigilant than ever. We urge you to not buy food from locations unknown to you. Keep your eyes open and be alert at all times. Make sure you always stay with your partner — and back one another up. Inspect your vehicle — personal and department — before you drive…Now, more than ever, we have to be united. Together, is how we will stay safe. Protect yourself and your fellow cops at all costs — and the DEA will always protect you.”
I hope you’ll join me in praying for the safety of our police officers who are doing heroic work to maintain public safety under impossible conditions, and for a return to sanity in our Democrat-run cities. I would also pray that the cowards who poisoned these officers are quickly identified, arrested and prosecuted. But considering we know where they work and they have the entire NYPD detectives’ union after them, I assume that won’t take long.
THE SAME STANDARD OF JUSTICE FOR BOTH SIDES, PLEASE
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a protester is in critical but stable condition after shots were fired to prevent the toppling of a statue of a conquistador outside a museum. The protesters were trying to pull down the statue and swinging a pickaxe at it when an armed vigilante group called the New Mexico Civil Guard intervened to stop them.
At this writing, it’s not clear exactly what happened or who fired, but officials are denouncing the Civil Guard as a hate group and vowing to prosecute them to the full extent of the law if they instigate violence. I am all for that, and certainly don’t want to see armed vigilantes and civil war in our streets.
But let’s also apply the same standard to the other side. The statue smashers and property burners have been instigating violence in the streets for several years, and have now ramped it up nationwide, with sometimes lethal attacks on police officers and people trying to defend their businesses. If authorities are serious about not tolerating violence and lawlessness, then a great way to stop it before it flares out of control would be to start arresting people who are trying to vandalize other people’s property and give them some quiet time in a nice, safe jail to think about the consequences of their actions.
LANDMARK CASE OPENS THE DOOR TO A BIG LEGAL MESS
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that the Title VII ban on sex discrimination in hiring from the 1964 Civil Rights Act also applies to LGBTQ people, expanding gender employment protections to include gender identity.
Justice Gorsuch wrote, “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas dissented, with Alito arguing that "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” and that’s up to Congress, not the courts. Alito wrote, “The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”
I think that most people would agree that it isn’t fair to fire someone from a job just because of their sexual orientation. However, the SCOTUS, as has become its habit in cases that push the envelope of LGBTQ rights, has once again thrown a monkey wrench into the system without making provisions to settle the inevitable chaos that will ensue.
For instance, when they “discovered” a hitherto unknown right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, they added some vague words about how this shouldn’t be construed to trample First Amendment religious protections. But the ink was barely dry on the ruling before radical gay activists, who had argued that religious people had no reason to oppose it because it would never affect them, were gleefully filing federal lawsuits to force religious florists and bakers to cater same-sex weddings or else face bankrupting fines and even jail.
And now, the SCOTUS has done it again. Most people might side with the specific plaintiffs in this case, who were fired from jobs such as skydiving instructor and funeral director for being gay.
But what about churches that don’t want to hire, say, a cross-dressing gay or trans youth minister because that violates their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs? The Court has once again kicked open the door for countless drawn-out, expensive lawsuits, eating up church funds that could have been spent on things like helping the poor, and which will now have to go to lawyers. And all because the Justices can’t resist upending the long-established social order without a thought to providing clarity to head off the negative consequences. They’re like someone who throws a lit match into a fireworks factory, then walks away saying, “I’ll let the rest of you sort this out.”
DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY...
When Sam Cooke sang, “Don’t know much about history…” he didn’t mean for people to take it as a life choice. For instance, the liberal leader of an “independent police advisory group” in London who, when asked about protesters vandalizing statues of Winston Churchill with accusations of racism, replied, “I haven’t personally met him.” Churchill died 55 years ago, but is probably still not as brain-dead as this person.
Some of the “erase American history” protesters seem to know nothing at all about what they’re out to destroy, they just hate anything associated with American history. But that’s no excuse for universities to knuckle under to them and show the same disregard for historical facts. For instance, the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce Law School is thinking of changing its name because the 14th President, who never owned slaves and was opposed to slavery, didn’t end slavery because he feared it would tear the nation apart.
This prompted law Professor Glenn Reynolds of the Instapundit blog to ask if this means that all law schools will now have to be renamed after Abraham Lincoln, since he was the only President who did end slavery? Good question, except last week, they vandalized the Lincoln Memorial, too. There’s also a push to remove a statue of Lincoln in Boston because it depicts him with a kneeling slave, which is being denounced as depicting an act of “submission,” even though it actually is meant to represent Lincoln freeing the slaves from having to kneel in submission.
Okay, so what if we rename all the law schools only after prominent abolitionists? Sorry, the statues of even the earliest, most outspoken opponents of slavery are also being vandalized by people who seem to think they were slave owners…
All this raises another question: would you send your kid to a law school that kowtows to people who not only don’t know much about history, but who also express their contempt for it by breaking the law?
Personally, I would be fine with renaming all the law schools after Sam Cooke, if it weren’t for the fact that I respect him too much to want him to be associated with lawyers.
HILLARY CLINTON LOSES AGAIN
Overlooked amid all the news of protests and rioting was that Hillary Clinton lost her appeal with the DC Court of Appeals and has been ordered to testify in the case against her by Judicial Watch. The Court apparently didn’t buy her attorneys’ claim that as a former high-level government official, she had an “indisputable right” not to have to testify in court. That didn’t work for her husband when he was still President, so I’m surprised she thought it would work here. As Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch put it, it was like arguing that she’s “too important to have to testify to us.” I have a feeling that’s exactly how Hillary thinks of it, and her attorneys had to find a way to couch that sentiment in legalese.
I’ll have much more about this later. In the meantime, you can read more details at the link, as Secretary Clinton begins intensive rehearsals of claiming she doesn’t recall what an “email server” is.
BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)
"Commit thy works unto the Lord,
and thy thoughts shall be established."
Proverbs 16:3 (KJV)