WATCH This Young Black Conservative Woman’s Epic Takedown Of ‘Leftist Racists’

Wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “Calvin College” — which is a Christian liberal arts institution in Grand Rapids, Michigan — this outspoken woman who calls herself “Young, Black and Conservative” just dropped a truth bomb of megaton proportion on George Takei and racists on the left. “You know what?” said the beautifully spoken young lady on her cellphone video, “It takes a certain kind of racist to decide that black people can’t have their own opinion.”

As Western Journalism has reported, Takei — the gay Japanese-American actor best known for his role as Lieutenant Sulu in the Star Trek television series and movies — fired off a shocking insult at Clarence Thomas after the Supreme Court Justice dissented in the court’s recent same-sex marriage ruling. “He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court,” Takei said. “He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there.”

Takei’s demeaning description of the only African American on the Supreme Court inspired this young black conservative to make a video that packs a powerful punch. Posted to her Facebook page that she says is “Dedicated to promoting Conservative Christian values among the black community,” the popular video has been viewed more than 225,000 times as of this writing.

On the video, she goes after Democrats for “manipulating” black Americans who still, as she observes, vote Democrat in “vast numbers” despite being used and taken for granted by the party.

Though she doesn’t identify herself on the video or on her Facebook page, the young woman who says she’s from Detroit has shared her political views in the past under the name “Patty.” You can watch her confident and compelling takedown of Takei and other liberal racists by clicking on the video above.

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: It Only Takes 2 Minutes For This 12-Yr-Old To Completely Demolish George Takei

12-year-old conservative C.J. Pearson criticized actor and activist George Takei on his YouTube channel after the Star Trek star made comments critical of United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for his dissent in last week’s ‘gay marriage’ ruling.

Takei told KSAZ in an interview Tuesday that he was “angry” at Thomas for dissenting from the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized ‘gay marriage’ in all 50 states. “He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court,” Takei said. “He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there.”

Pearson, taking exception to Takei’s remarks, took to his widely popular YouTube channel shortly thereafter. “Some people that demand the most tolerance can be the most intolerant who you will ever meet in your life,” Pearson said. “And these racist bigoted comments coming from this man is just one more indication of that.”

“I am sick and tired of the left calling us racist, calling us bigots, and calling us people who don’t care about black people,” the boy continued. “But yet, when they say that ‘someone’s got a blackface.’ And well, it’s a okay. It’s not okay! It’s never been okay and it never will be okay. Understood, George?” Pearson took the rest of the video to address Takei directly:

Because guess what, George? I’m sorry, but if a man stands for what he believes, and for Clarence Thomas it was that marriage is between a man and a woman and the Constitution doesn’t grant that purview that’s between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. That’s his belief.

And for you to call someone a blackface is one of the most racist comments that anyone really could. And you are a disgusting tool. You don’t deserve a voice in the public arena. You don’t deserve a voice in the public arena, you don’t deserve to speak up, really. You’re disgusting. And you need to shut up, sit down, and think about what you said. This is outrageous.

Pearson announced Friday on his Facebook page he would be taking a “break from politics and political commentary” after noting a woman threatened to sue him for expressing his opinions. He did say he will have a team that will continue to monitor all of his social media platforms in the interim.

Do you support C.J. Pearson? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Here’s What Can Be Done To Protect Religious Liberty After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Last week’s Supreme Court’s decision creating the right for same-sex couples to marry will likely have broad religious liberty implications on individuals, businesses, and non-profits if action is not taken at the federal and state levels.

Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion in the case recognized this fact, but offered this reassurance. “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.”

Justices writing in the dissent in the case did not share this optimistic appraisal and found alarm in Kennedy’s word choice. Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the majority appears unmoved by the “inevitability” of religious liberty and this ruling coming into conflict. “It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.

“Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths,” Thomas wrote. “Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.”

The justice is on firm ground in his assessment that the free exercise of religion is more than teaching and belief. The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, wrote in his famous essay on religious liberty called Memorial and Remonstrance:

Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…This right is in its nature an unalienable right… It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.

Chief Justice John Roberts shared Justice Thomas’ concern about the limited view of religious liberty offered by Kennedy’s opinion. “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Justice Samuel Alito spelled out what religious liberty regarding the expression of religious beliefs about same-sex marriage under the new secular regime might look like. “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.” And we have the court to blame: “By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

As reported by Western Journalism, Justice Alito, in an interchange with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during oral arguments, admitted that religious non-profits would face the possibility of losing their non-profit status if the court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Alito asked Verrilli if a religious school that believed marriage is between a man and woman would lose its non-profit status. He responded: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is (sic) going to be an issue.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal notes that “Faith-based adoption and foster care agencies have been forced to close their doors, rather than abandon their commitment to placing children in homes with a married mother and father. Numerous photographers, floristscake makers, farmers, and many others have been hauled into court or fined for simply declining to help plan or participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson makes clear that in order to secure religious liberty for all Americans, action will be required at the federal and state level.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, introduced legislation earlier this month to address the problem at the federal level. The First Amendment Defense Act “would prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” The bill already has 18 co-sponsors in the Senate and 47 co-sponsors in the House.

As reported by Western Journalism, Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an executive order last month directing all state agencies in Louisiana not to deny anyone licenses or other state benefits based on his or her “religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Boom: The Supreme Court Just Issued A Decision In Favor Of A Church Battling Government

The United States Supreme Court overturned a law Thursday which prohibited an Arizona church and other religious institutions from displaying advertisements for events.

In Reed v. Gilbert, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Pastor Clyde Reed and the Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Ariz., which challenged a town ordinance placing restrictions on “directional signs” advertising events for religious organizations. The restrictions mandated that signs be limited to six square feet in size and could only be put up within 14 hours of an event. Political signs and others, however, could be displayed for several months. Western Journalism’s B. Christopher Agee gave background on the case last year:

Two lower courts found that the town is within its rights to impose differing rules on sign placement based on the parties involved, provided the regulations are not based on the sign’s content.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas offered the court’s opinion. “The Town has offered no reason to believe that directional signs pose a greater threat to safety than do ideological or political signs,” wrote Thomas. “If anything, a sharply worded ideological sign seems more likely to distract a driver than a sign directing the public to a nearby church meeting.”

A sign ordinance narrowly tailored to the challenges of protecting the safety of pedestrians, drivers, and passengers—such as warning signs marking hazards on private property, signs directing traffic, or street numbers associated with private houses — well might survive strict scrutiny.

The signs at issue in this case, including political and ideological signs and signs for events, are far removed from those purposes. As discussed above, they are facially content based and are neither justified by traditional safety concerns nor narrowly tailored.

Concurring opinions were filed by Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan.

h/t: The Washington Examiner

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

How To Fight The Bureaucratic State

Is there anything more clear in the Constitution than the fact that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”? Nevertheless, there are currently about 23,000 pages of federal laws passed by Congress and almost 80,000 pages of regulations by executive bureaucracies.

Until recently, no one seemed to care. But in 2010, House Republicans appealed to the rising Tea Party movement by pledging to “require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more.” In 2011, Rep. Geoff Davis introduced just such a bill; the “Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny” (REINS) Act passed the House with the support of all 237 Republicans, and four Democrats. But President Barack Obama pledged to veto it, and a similar bill sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul died in the Democratic Senate.

Congress, of course, has always been able to override bureaucratic rules even without REINS. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s James Gattuso has noted, the process is cumbersome. To try and address this, Congress adopted “expedited resolutions of disapproval” in 1996, to encourage up-or-down votes to reverse counterproductive bureaucratic regulations. Since that time, however, Congressional reluctance to override the president and the politicians’ fears of taking responsibility for controversial regulatory acts has resulted in only one such disapproval passing Congress, allowing all other rules to go into effect. REINS is aimed at forcing legislative responsibility by requiring every rule with a large economic impact to obtain specific approval from each house, without which the regulation would never go into effect.

With newfound Republican control of the Senate following the 2014 elections, there has been a renewed interest in passing such a bill. Of course, President Obama would still veto it; and Democrats will make it very difficult to corral the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. With this solution stymied, top regulatory expert Wayne Crews proposes creating a bipartisan commission to identify regulations that must be voted upon by Congress to remain in effect. Even that has met substantial opposition, including from some frightened Republicans.

Substantive objections to requiring Congressional approval are few and weak. The best that the progressive Center for Effective Government could do was to warn that this would allow Congress to “second-guess agency expertise and science on food safety, worker safety, air pollution, water contamination, and a host of other issues.” But even disregarding the fact that bureaucratic expertise in these areas is often more in the promise than in performance, is not voting on such issues precisely what the Founders expected Congress to do?

As Crews notes, the number of federal regulations has been exploding. “While an utterly imperfect gauge, the number of pages in the Federal Register is probably the most frequently cited measure of regulation’s scope, which unintentionally highlights the abysmal condition of regulatory oversight and measurement. At the end of 2014, the page count stood at 78,978, the fifth highest level in the Register’s history.” He estimates the real cost (mostly hidden in “guidance’ and sotto-voice threats) could be higher than the formal debt of $18 trillion.

In an important Frazer Institute essay published in What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity, Crews notes the baleful results:

An astounding 92 million Americans are not working, positioning labor-force participation at a 36 year low, with nearly 12 million having dropped out during the Obama administration. Data point to high debt per capita, and to the highest part-time and temporary-job creation rates in contrast to full-time career positions. A popular blog laments the “slow death of American entrepreneurship.” Headlines tell painful tales, like that of January 2015 in Investor’s Business Daily reporting on businesses dying faster than they’re being created, a circumstance the Washington Post had noted in 2014. Likewise, a Brookings study on small business formation noted declining rates, as did a Wall Street Journal report on reduced business ownership rates among the young. One recruiter described to the Wall Street Journal how regulations undermine employment, while others point to an inverse correlation between regulation and innovation.

The World Economic Forum’s “burden of government regulation” places the U.S. the 87th most onerous of 144 nations globally on complying with administrative regulations on business.

Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recently questioned the entire logic and wisdom of regulatory delegation. First, in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers, he asked whether the Court’s precedent in Seminole Rock, requiring judicial deference to executive interpretation of regulations, improperly “represents a transfer of judicial power to the Executive Branch.” He says that decision “precludes judges from independently determining” the meaning of laws and unfairly favors the executive against the legislative branch in interpreting the law.

In Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, Thomas even demanded judicial review of the Court’s whole existing standard, which delegates rulemaking to the executive as long as there is an “intelligible principle” in the law to guide the executive. Thomas argues, to the contrary, that that principle has become “boundless” today, undermining the original constitutional understanding of legislative power.

Pretty much everyone knows the regulatory system is broken and probably unconstitutionally so; but nothing ever changes. The executive loves to boss folks around, Congress is afraid to act, and the courts are so isolated they actually think the regulators know what they are doing.

Just in time to prevent despair, however, the nation’s most inventive social scientist, Charles Murray, has written another ground-breaking book, mischievously titled By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. Murray concludes that the government is incapable of changing its ingrained irresponsibility, so he suggests that reform should be initiated by the people themselves.

Murray starts with the fact that there are so many federal regulations on so many daily behaviors that it is impossible for the regulators to enforce them. The traffic police can issue tickets on rural roads, but they cannot enforce reasonably-over-the-speed-limit driving on crowded highways. It is the same with regulators. They can only effectively police when few disregard the rules. They can then come down good and hard on them. Most settle without a trial, knowing that bureaucratic courts are rigged against them.

Murray would create a Madison Fund named for the father of the Constitution to provide legal assistance to the public, which is encouraged to simply ignore the screwiest regulations. If Americans refused to obey irrational regulations and were backed by an insurance-like fund that would provide legal support to, and publicity for, those unreasonably harassed, regulators themselves would soon learn not to enforce indefensible rules.

Murray believes it would only take a few wealthy contributors to get the Fund established, and that trade associations might get into the business too. Congress might even find enough courage to act constitutionally, if enough people get involved. There are many devils in the details, but sign me up anyway.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth