"Legion" has some thoughts on the Internet.
"Legion" has some thoughts on the Internet.
By Matt Barber
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
He was right.
In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.
If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.
To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.
I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”
And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.
No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.
It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.
While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.
Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, “gay” or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.
As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent – will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph “gay weddings,” then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.
And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.
See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re “pro-choice,” right?
Starting to get it?
Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically-based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.
No debate. No question. No compromise.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.
Poo paper for puppy.
So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.
I rarely agree with “gay” activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:
I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.
And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”
"Rook" has some thoughts on income equality.
Obama has stated recently that he and his progressive democrats want to fix "income inequality" whatever that means...Give us a break!
Obama and his progressive democrats have held up the Keystone Pipeline XL for five years and counting, which also holds up 500,000 jobs, not to mention the energy potential.
Obama and his progressive democrats enact Obamacare - without a single Republican vote - and impose on American workers a transformation of the workforce from a predominately full time 40 hour work week with benefits to a predominately part time work week without benefits as the new norm, thus destroying a union legacy that was over 100 years in the making.
Obama and his progressive democrats have imposed additional taxes and penalties on the middle class in the form of higher FICA withholding, Obamacare mandate fees and the depreciation of the dollar through "quantitative easing" (QE) and higher budget deficits.
Obama and his progressive democrats use the Federal Reserve to buy billions of dollars in stocks and bonds to spike the stock market to the highest levels in history, thus enriching the 1% while at the same time picking the pockets of the middle class.
Now Obama and his progressive democrats propose to "fix" the mess they have made? No! Their "income inequality" issue is nothing more than a blatant attempt to create another "shiny object" to divert attention from the Grand Illusionist's self-made mess that is becoming more apparent each day. The Grand Illusionist has pulled the same trick too many times. Even the "low information" voters are starting to see the truth of Obama's treacherous deceit and undeniable hypocrisy.
Go ahead Mister Obama and play that "income inequality" card; it won't trump your lost credibility and hypocrisy cards. You want to play that raggedy, dog-eared old Race card again? It won't help you this time...
"Rook" has some thoughts on Obama's failures.
Al-Qaida is on the offensive in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Somali. Obama, in denial, tells us Al Qaida is "on the run..."
Obama abandoned Iraq and wasted years of American blood and treasure. Now he is in the process of doing the same in Afghanistan.
Obama was outfoxed in Syria by Putin, a professional leader with actual experience in the real world of international politics and military strategy.
Obama was outfoxed by Putin in Iran, Poland and Georgia.
American lives have been lost on Obama's watch and he has lied rather than take responsibility. No one in his administration has been held accountable for any of the numerous foreign policy and national security fiascos that have occurred around the world.
Now we have a major transformation occurring in the Ukraine with an outcry for democracy and ties to the West, while Obama hides in his closet wondering what Putin will do if he speaks up.
It really doesn't matter what Obama says or does because nobody on the world stage takes him seriously anyway. He has no experience, he has no credibility, he has no cojones and everybody knows it...
Obama is America's biggest threat to national security and world peace... Alfred Bernhard Nobel must be turning over in his grave!
Posted at 10:40 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
"Peter" has some thoughts on why the investigation into IRS has stalled.
When the IRS began targeting TEA Party organizations in 2010 it was obvious to anyone that it was politically motivated. But complaints fell on deaf ears in the Obama Administration. When the IRS harassment of TEA Party organizations picked up steam before the 2012 elections some members of Congress took up the cause. Darrell Issa convened hearings, but the leading suspect from the IRS took the Fifth and things started to stall. Even Obama publicly condemned the political targeting, but privately did everything he could to stonewall and derail the investigation. The DOJ started their own investigation, which gave everyone in the Administration an excuse not to cooperate with Congress, "Because it might interfere with the FBI investigation of possible crimes."
The Congressional hearings have petered out...the FBI investigation never got started and the GOP has failed to push the matter to a conclusion. Why has the GOP all but ignored this most serious corruption scandal involving the highest levels of the Obama Administration?
The GOP "establishment" doesn't like the TEA Party or it's Congressional caucus. Obama has characterized the TEA Party members as "extreme" and "a road block to legislative action." But the most vitriolic words denigrating the TEA Party have come from GOP "establishment" types like Senators John McCain and Peter King, among others.
The GOP "establishment" has decided that the fund raising efforts of the various TEA Party organizations should be frustrated, figuring that if Republican donors can't contribute to the TEA Party they will divert their money to GOP "establishment" organizations and candidates...anything to fight Obama. So it would not be in their interest to push the investigation or help the TEA Party in any way. In fact, it is in the interests of the GOP "establishment" to help the Obama Administration frustrate the TEA Party "extremists" by cooperating, or at least acquiescing to the stonewalling and mischaracterization of the TEA Party.
The GOP "establishment" are focused on their own political survival rather than the survival of the nation in the form and structure as specified by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have misplaced their ethics and their honor. When they insist they are conservatives it is a bald faced lie. They are RINOs, "Me too, but slower..." is their guiding principle and getting re-elected is their most important priority. They should be ashamed to call themselves conservatives, or Republicans.
By Matt Barber
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism. What a difference a few years makes.
Remember when “progressive” media types chided President George W. Bush till they were blue in the face for “going it alone” on Iraq? Well, apparently “going it alone” is totally cool if you have a “D” after your name.
David Corn, Washington bureau chief over at the uber-liberal Mother Jones is disappointed that an increasingly imperialist Barack Obama wasn’t imperialist enough during his recent State of the Union Address. He’s furious that our already chestless Commander-in-Hearing-Himself-Talk showed off his bona fides in weakness and “let the Republicans off easy.”
“Obama didn’t use this opportunity to focus on the reason he has to go it alone: Republicans hell-bent on disrupting the government and thwarting all the initiatives he deems necessary for the good of the nation. Even when he quasi-denounced the government shutdown, he did not name-check House Speaker John Boehner and his tea-party-driven comrades.”
What? “All the initiatives” Obama “deems necessary”? “Go it alone”? Yeah, Josef Stalin – affectionately nicknamed “Uncle Joe” by Obama’s hero, FDR – had a lot of initiatives he “deemed necessary,” too. And like Obama, he also preferred the “go it alone” approach.
Seriously, has Mr. Corn never heard of the separation of powers? The president doesn’t get to just unilaterally “deem” laws into effect. He’s the chief executive, not the chief lawmaker. Neither should he be the chief lawbreaker.
Yet here we are and so he is.
More than any other president in American history (yes, Nixon included), Obama has done both – make the “law” and break the law. Just consider, for instance, his unprecedented, arbitrary, capricious and completely illegal “do-whatever-I-want-to-do” shredding of his signature dark comedy: Obamacare.
Get used to it. During last Tuesday’s SOTU Obama announced his intention to keep at it. In fact, he plans to ramp-up the lawlessness.
And why shouldn’t he? A gutless GOP establishment has let him get away with it at every turn. Corn was partly right. He was justified in taking a jab at the speaker of the House. On this we agree: John Boehner needs to be “checked,” just not for the reasons Corn supposes.
Even some liberals are waking up to the fact that, for the first time, America is living under – as Sen. Ted Cruz calls it – “the imperial presidency.” In a posting originally titled “Obama: Efforts to rein him in not serious,” the off-the-rails-liberal CNN.com took Obama to task for his autocratic misbehavior (CNN later changed the article title to “President Obama says he’s not recalibrating ambitions.” Amazing what an angry phone call from this White House can do to the Obama-natical state-run media).
“Once, Barack Obama spoke of what he wanted for his presidency in terms of healing a nation divided. ‘This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal,’ he said.
“Today, Obama is talking about executive orders and executive actions – with a pen or phone – if a divided Congress won’t or can’t act on an agenda he laid out this week in his State of the Union Address. …
“Sen. Ted Cruz described the actions as ‘the imperial presidency,’” continued CNN, “and House Republicans have threatened to rein in the president’s use of executive actions.
“‘I don’t think that’s very serious,’ Obama said. …”
Right. Most despots don’t take “very serious” efforts to rein them in, particularly when their political opposition has shown neither the courage nor the inclination to do so.
David Corn disagrees. He thinks more despotism is just what the “progressive” doctor ordered. He ended his Mother Jones rant – all but calling the president a weenie:
“Obama barely called out Republicans in this speech; he did not exploit this high-profile moment to confront the obstructionist opposition,” he complained.
Au contraire, my corny little friend. Barack Hussein Obama has stored up no short supply of exploitations. Most especially, he has exploited the very people he is sworn to serve.
“We the people.”
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Books, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
"Peter" has some thoughts on Chris Christie.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, the popular front-runner in the GOP race for nominee to run for POTUS, is being embroiled in scandal by the liberal media. They view him as a threat to Hillary's chances to get elected POTUS. TEA Party conservatives aren't helping because they view him as a blue state RINO, especially after the way Christie embraced Obama during a shameless quest to increase New Jersey's share of the federal FEMA aid after super-storm Sandy. Should we be concerned? No! Here's why:
1 - We want our POTUS to be a STATESMAN and DIPLOMAT so that our relations with other countries don't suffer and deteriorate as they have been under Obama. Our foreign affairs are now in a shambles, with allies falling by the wayside all over the globe.
2 - We want our POTUS to be a LEADER who makes himself and his staff RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE for their policies and actions and who will not avoid or shift blame, or obstruct investigations into wrongdoing by the government; traits that have been lacking in the White House.
3 - We want our POTUS to be a DECISION MAKER who makes CORRECT and TIMELY decisions, not procrastinating until opportunities have passed by, such as the Keystone Pipeline for example.
4 - We want our POTUS to uphold the Constitution and follow the laws as enacted by Congress; attributes sorely missing in today's White House.
Gov. Christie would be the first to say that he is NOT a STATESMAN and DIPLOMAT. He is proud of his "in your face" New Jersey demeanor; his "no holds barred" attitude when challenged; his quick temper and violent words.
Gov. Christie would be the first to say that he is a LEADER, but he would be WRONG. A leader leads by example. Whether he knew about the bridge closing or not is irrelevant; his staff, even if acting on their own initiative, obviously thought they were doing what their boss would want them to do. His demeanor often sends just such a message any who challenge him or obstruct him in any way.
Gov. Christie made the DECISION to embrace Obama in the run-up to the 2012 elections, lending support to the democrats in image and voice, all for the professed sake of sucking more money out of the federal government. His intentions (he said he wanted to help his constituents) are questionable. New Jersey didn't even get their fair share of FEMA aid. What HE received was support from democrats in his re-election to the Governorship.
Gov. Christie is a former U.S. Attorney and as such was responsible for upholding the laws and the Constitution and he is credited with doing an admirable job - a job where his tough New Jersey demeanor was an asset. Have we heard him state a legal case against Obama for violating federal laws and the Constitution? Have we heard a verbal indictment of Obama from the lips of Christie? Of course not, he's "too busy being governor" to get involved. Yeah, right!
Christie may have been a superior U.S. Attorney and he may be a good governor, but he would be a terrible choice for POTUS.
Posted at 09:01 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Music, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
"Legion" has some thoughts about Obama's State of the Union speech.
Posted at 07:12 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Taxes, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
"Peter" has some thoughts on Obama.
Obama's rhetoric is eloquent, articulate on progressive base talking points, denigrating of the rich and never-ending...
Obama wants to protect and lift up the middle class, especially union members...
Obama wants to help, protect and subsidize the poor with free health care, food, cell phones, etc.
Obama wants "income equality" because the rich get too big a share of the pie...
Obama wants to bring peace to the middle east...
Over the past five years under the Obama Administration, the middle class - especially union members - have lost millions of jobs. Those still employed are seeing their benefits, especially health care, degraded or cancelled altogether. A large percentage of middle class jobs have been reduced from full time to part time by employers reacting to the mandates of Obamacare. Part time is the new normal for entry-level jobs. The percentage of the population participating in the job market has dwindled to the lowest point in history. Even in the Great Depression a higher percentage of people were actively looking for work. Today, people are dropping out of the labor pool because of frustration or because they adjusted their lifestyle to a standard that can be maintained on government subsidies or handouts.
During that same period of time the percentage of the "pie" profiting the rich has grown from 35% to a historic record of 65%. Reducing employees benefits increases profits for the employers. Reducing the percentage of full time employees in favor of part time also increases profits for the employers. Obamacare has become a convenient was to "bust" union contracts by government mandate. Today union membership is at a historic low of 6.5% and falling. That can only benefit the rich at the expense of the working class.
The proof of all this is easy to demonstrate: While jobs have dwindled and the ranks of the unemployed, under-employed and labor pool dropouts have swelled, the stock market has steadily climbed to historic highs month after month over the past five years. Obama has shown himself to be the best friend of the Wall Street financiers, hedge fund managers, stock brokers, bankers and global corporations - all by throwing the rest of us under the bus while, at the same time, TELLING US that he's acting in OUR best interests.
His actions/inactions in foreign affairs - Benghazi, Syria, abandoning Iraq on a bogus pretext, giving our withdrawal date to the Taliban in a public speech, cancelling the Polish missile defense system - have many saying he secretly hates America because of being educated in a Muslim Madras in Indonesia and being courted by traitors and communists like David Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
I disagree. Obama doesn't hate America, he just LOVES the lifestyle of the rich and famous, with the golfing, multimillion dollar vacations and partying with the celebrities and super-wealthy (who he is making wealthier by the day, so they love him back and give him millions more).
No matter how many people are devastated by Obama's economic policies and his moronically conceived Obamacare, HIS financial and social well-being are secured for the future. And all he had to do is throw 300,000,000 people under the bus...
Posted at 05:07 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
"Legion" has some thoughts on the dictatorship of Obama.
Posted at 10:27 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)