SnakeRiverLib

 I have spoken and written about the Reynolds case,  Reynolds v United States 98 US 145 (1878). While the case turned on polygamy, there is a far greater issue involved. Today we see Twitter and Facebook banning the President of the United States from Tweeting. They have decided, now that the Electoral College issue has been decided, and, to quote Rahm Emmanuel in "not letting a good crisis go to waste" , has used the rioting of a minuscule number of what is likely over a million people protesting the obvious theft of the election, to clamp down on the President, and many other conservatives. Remember, they don't hate Trump, so much as they hate his supporters. If you were in DC to support the President, to them, you were every bit as responsible for the breach of the Capital as those who did it. Period. Reynolds is an interesting case. The case was specifically whether George Reynolds, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (referred to henceforth

 As a follow up to the last post. I am going to take my own advice. I can't take the attitudes anymore. The lines are drawn, the trenches are dug. The Cold Civil War has begun.  Even though they won't read this, a warning to those reluctant to take sides: You can't sit it out. I mean you can, but you will become fodder for one side or the other. If you live in an area that is solidly blue or red, you may be able to escape most of the border skirmishes. Not actual armed skirmishes, yet.  It is because so many sit out elections that we are in this predicament. We likely only had about half or so of those eligible to vote in the November election choose to do so. Think about that, no matter which side won, only about a quarter of the population supported that candidate. Every time I think of that, because it is not a new experience, having gone on for decades, I think about those in Iraq, voting for the first time in a truly free election, holding a purple finger in the air, r