On July 29, 2020, Governor Ivey issued her 15th Supplemental State of Emergency: Coronavirus Proclamation.  In that order, Ivey invoked the Alabama Emergency Management Act to promulgate the amended “Order of the State Health Officer Suspending Certain Public Health Gatherings Due to Risk of Infection by COVID-19” as “an order, rule, or regulation under the applicable provisions of the Emergency Management Act.  Ivey further ordered that the Health Officer’s order be enforced by the law-enforcing authorities of the state, that those who violate the order should be fined $500 or imprisoned, and that any provision of state law which conflicted with the order be suspended for the duration of the state of emergency.
 
It is my contention that this and all 14 previous proclamations promulgating orders from the Governor under the Alabama Emergency Management Act in response to the coronavirus are violations of Sections 21 and 43 of the Constitution of Alabama, 1901.  Those sections declare:

Do you remember being told that we could defeat the virus if we could just put up with some government intrusion for two weeks?  "Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread" was the plan that Trump introduced back in March.  After we complied with that plan, a new plan was presented.  "Thirty (more) Days to Slow the Spread" they said, and we dutifully complied again.  That compliance has now extended to more than 120 days, and I say that enough is enough.  I am sick and tired of the government overstepping its authority and mandating that I take the steps that they think are the best for my health.  I'm done with this.  From now on, I'm fighting back, and I know that many of you are too.

I've created a three-pronged attack to fight back against these unlawful orders.  I hope that you will join me, and if you have other suggestions, please leave a comment to let others know about it.  Here are three ways that you can fight back against the mask:

On Friday, June 26, 2020, Dr. Mark Wilson, the health officer of Jefferson County, Alabama, issued an order requiring all residents in the county to wear face masks when in most public settings.  There are a lot of good and well-meaning people in favor of this order and a lot of good and well-meaning people who oppose it.  Most of the debate between the two groups has focused on whether or not the order is necessary or helpful, but there is a much more important question that should be asked.  Before we compare the costs verses the benefits of such an order, we need to ask ourselves if the county health officer has the legal authority to issue this order in the first place. 

Much of the debate on the relationship between church and state has centered around the phrases “freedom of religion” and “separation of church and state.”  While these phrases have a very important history and should be studied, their applicability to American government must be understood within the confines of the First Amendment.  Unfortunately, the debate on this Amendment has largely focused on whether or not its prohibitions are limited to the US Congress.  The real key to understanding the First Amendment lies in unlocking the mystery of the phrase “an establishment of religion.”

Conservatism is the philosophy that the wisdom of the past is still just as applicable today as it was then.  Conservatism is an ancient wisdom in itself, for every age has its conservatives and liberals, and it is always the conservatives who succeed and pass their wisdom down to the next age where some new brand of liberals will rise up to challenge that wisdom once again. 

It has become rather common in our day to hear descriptions of our founding fathers as bold rebels daring to defy the authority of the British government, but is that really what happened?  Was the American Revolution an act of rebellion against England?  That has certainly become a popular theme in modern, American education, but the records of the founding era tell a different story.
 

A friend of mine told me that she was doing a show on her podcast discussing what Christians can learn about God from divorce.  That’s certainly a great topic for Christians to think about, and there is a TON of information in the Bible about divorce. There's even an entire book of the Bible devoted to that topic. But I think that the most important thing any Christian can learn about divorce is how to avoid it, and that is found in I Cor 7.

Nearly 3,500 years ago, the nation of Israel faced a pandemic so deadly that it killed 23,000 men in a single day.  That was 4% of the total population of Israel.  All of those who contracted this disease did so by committing a capital crime, and the initial defeat of the disease was accomplished by sentencing all of the survivors to death.  But that's not the end of the story. 

One of the most fascinating things about the Old Testament is the fact that God established a republican government in ancient Israel.  Most people today think that Israel had a standard monarchical form of government, but that was not the case.  Israel (and Judah) never had a true monarchy.  Throughout their history, they were always a republican nation characterized by popular elections of their rulers.  (For more on this topic see my free eBook The Bible and the Constitution.)
 
When God established Israel’s government, He also taught the Jews how to choose the right kind of leaders.  Those instructions can be found in Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:13, and Deuteronomy 17:15-20.  The qualifications listed in these and other passages are not difficult. There were thousands of men in Israel who met them. God intentionally set the standard low so that the various offices could be filled. He gave the Jews a list of the barest minimum standards that would allow their government to function with good men in positions of leadership.

I did not watch this year's State of the Union address.  In fact, I have never watched a State of the Union address.  I always wait to read the transcript afterwards instead.  I have found that reading a transcript of a speech allows me to focus on the actual content of the speech without the distraction of the speaker's theatrics.  And when I read this year's State of the Union address from Donald Trump, I found that this practice of separating content from theatrics gave me a fairly unique perspective of a speech that many of my friends were describing as the greatest State of the Union address they've ever heard.