I have to laugh at these two unhinged Wisconsin buffoons who spend their miserable lives (trust me, they are miserable) worrying that someone in some government or public entity somewhere in the United States might invoke the divine in some manner or capacity. Perhaps their self-worth is at stake, considering they're having to worry about what an out of state governor believes might help in his state's largest city.

Annie & Dannie boy are bothered by Gov. Bevin's "inflammatory" comments & cite Charlottesville as an instance of how his comments will cause physical violence. I guess they want him to be silent, AKA, restrict him from exercising his 1st Amendment rights. Funny but I don't see an exemption for public officials in terms of one's right to speak, the same way I still can't find that pesky "separation of church & state" clause. Try a little harder, Annie & Dannie.

At least one good thing I can say about the ACLU (contrasted to the haters at FFRF): they defend inflammatory speech & they actively did so in Charlottesville. Their credo for incendiary language is for more incendiary (or non, as the cast may be) language. The FFRF essentially wants to shut the Kentucky governor's mouth. They could learn a thing or two from the ACLU. Perhaps they should. Granted, the ACLU might have an issue with any actions that occur as a result of Gov. Bevins' talking points. But unlike the FFRF, the ACLU won't seek to shut his voice.